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 ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
The Cabinet Office played a crucial role in co-ordinating the cross-Government response to the pandemic, and we continue to learn lessons from it. Last year, the Cabinet Office published the resilience framework, an ambitious, wide-reaching and long-term plan that is already working to strengthen our national resilience.
Mr Dhesi
Those of us who lost loved ones during the pandemic have been left shocked and angered by the revelations being unearthed in the covid inquiry. They include quotes from the diary of the then Government chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, that the current Prime Minister thought
“just let people die and that’s OK”.
If that was not cruel enough, he was also overheard saying that Ministers should focus on
“handling the scientists and not the virus”.
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that this shows a shameful disregard for people’s lives and callous decision making at the heart of Government?
Oliver Dowden
I should say from the outset that I simply do not recognise that characterisation, but that is the whole point of the inquiry. This Government set up the inquiry, for the sake of the victims and the nation, to get to the bottom of what was an unprecedented crisis not just here, but around the world. We have been totally open and transparent with that inquiry. We have given it over 56,000 pieces of evidence. I would gently urge the hon. Gentleman to allow the inquiry to complete its investigations, to hear from all the witnesses and to produce its recommendations. As I have committed to that inquiry, the Government will respond fully to every single recommendation from Lady Justice Hallett.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
During the pandemic, I could only see the true professionalism of civil servants in a variety of Departments, including the Cabinet Office, and I am very conscious of some of the pain being felt about the victims of that time. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the civil service really stood up to the challenge of dealing with imperfect data and a rapidly changing situation? By the way, I include the civil servants of the Department for Work and Pensions in that regard. However, may I also encourage him to consider how we can strengthen analytical skills and capabilities right across the civil service? That is important, and I think it will be one of the key lessons that should come out of the inquiry.
Oliver Dowden
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and I pay tribute to her for her many years of service in the Cabinet. I agree with her characterisation of the civil service. Indeed, in my time working in various ministerial roles, I have seen true professionalism and dedication. However, I think she is absolutely right that we need to improve both our data analytics and the data flow into Government. One of the things we learned during the covid pandemic was, for example, that setting up the data centre in the Cabinet Office massively improved the amount of data we received. That enables us to deal with these very fast-moving situations and, indeed, we have used it in subsequent crises.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister has just said that he does not recognise the alleged remark of the Prime Minister, who is supposed to have said
“just let people die and that’s OK”,
as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister would agree that the way to deal with this is through transparency with the ongoing inquiry. I wrote to him last month to ask him about the Prime Minister handing over all his WhatsApp messages, particularly given that the Prime Minister’s account that he no longer has access to all of them seems implausible. With the Prime Minister appearing before the covid inquiry before the end of the year, can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that all the Prime Minister’s WhatsApp messages for this period will be made available to the inquiry?
Oliver Dowden
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will furnish the inquiry with every single piece of information it requires. Indeed, I would note that the Prime Minister and all those who are requested to provide information to the inquiry are legally obliged to do so. That is precisely what we have done. My Department alone has provided over 56,000 different pieces of evidence. I would gently say to him that the Labour party repeatedly called for this inquiry to be set up. We have set up this inquiry, and I think hon. Members should allow it to do its job, not jump to conclusions. When it produces its recommendations, I can assure the House that the Government will respond in full.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
Value for money is central to the Government’s long-standing procurement policy, as set out in everybody’s favourite Treasury document, “Managing Public Money”. Current procurement regulations require contracting authorities to select the most economically advantageous tender. The Procurement Act 2023—I am pleased to say that it has recently received Royal Assent—will streamline procurement processes and ensure that value for money remains one of the central tenets of the UK’s procurement regime.
Liz Twist
If the Minister thinks that every pound of taxpayers’ money matters, what are the Government’s plans to recover the loss of billions of pounds in flawed covid contracts?
Alex Burghart
I am pleased to be able to remind the House that the Government have already taken extraordinary steps to recover fraud money during the covid period. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs remains committed to the recovery of covid-19 support scheme fraud. The Government are also committed to bearing down on fraud in the covid loan schemes. Some £13.2 million has been allocated to the National Investigation Service over three years to double its investigative capacity on bounce back loans and to fund other activities. This is just a small sample of the work being done to combat fraud across our Government.
James Murray
Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), billions of pounds of public money was wasted during the covid pandemic through dodgy contracts that we know were signed off by the Government. Labour has said that we will appoint a covid corruption commissioner to pursue every pound of public money that has been inappropriately lost from pandemic-related contracts, fraud and waste. Will the Minister borrow our plans?
Alex Burghart
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have noted—I imagine he pays attention to such things—that we already set out in the spring statement last year the public sector fraud authority, which is based in the Cabinet Office and very ably handled by my colleague Baroness Neville-Rolfe. We have debated fraud during covid many times in the House. All the contracts handed out during covid were signed off by extremely able and capable civil servants who were working in very difficult circumstances and the idea that there was ministerial sign off of these things is wrong and must be contradicted whenever it is raised.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It is clear from the Chancellor’s autumn statement yesterday that we will need to make savings in public sector budgets for some years to come to overcome the impact of inflation, so can the Minister say how artificial intelligence will play a role in that in the public sector and what efforts he is making to procure the necessary systems?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are still coming to terms with the potential of artificial intelligence to speed up Government processes, improve productivity and deliver value for money for the taxpayer. While we have procurement frameworks at present that help Departments across Government identify good AI systems they might wish to secure, we are also interested in developing our own AI within Government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced earlier this week that we would hire more people with the highest levels of innovative skill to come into Government to build those systems for us and deliver value for money.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
I strongly commend the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her work for those who have been impacted by the infected blood scandal, and I look forward to working across the House on this important issue. The Government have accepted the moral case for compensation but it is only reasonable that the response is fully informed by Sir Brian Langstaff’s final report, which is anticipated in March next year.
Dame Diana Johnson
Eight months ago, recommendation 12 of the final report on compensation called for interim payments of £100,000 to be
“paid to recognise the deaths of people to date unrecognised and alleviate immediate suffering.”
The “Cambridge Dictionary” describes the word “interim” as something
“temporary and intended to be used or accepted until something permanent exists”.
I know the Minister is a good man and will want to do his best, so can he tell the House when those interim payments will start to be paid?
John Glen
I cannot tell the right hon. Lady that today, but in the seven days that I have been in this post I have recognised this to be my highest priority in the role. There are a number of complex issues that I need to come to terms with, but I am familiar with the whole issue from my previous role as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. This might be a matter of gamekeeper turned poacher, but I understand the mindset of the Treasury and how we can get a solution that deals with the range of recommendations. I cannot say anything more of substance today, but I will be having further meetings across Whitehall, with more this morning, and I am determined that this Government will respond as comprehensively as we can as soon as we can.
Barbara Keeley
I have raised in written and oral questions with the former Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), the case of a constituent of mine whose father died following infected factor VIII treatment. The family could not even grieve properly, because of the stigma around HIV and AIDS at the time. Compensation will not bring their father back, but it would give the family closure. My constituent contacted me after a statement in which the former Paymaster General said that the Government accepted that there is a moral case for compensation for those affected by the scandal, as the Minister has just done, but also said that those infected and affected have suffered enough. Given the acceptance by Ministers that the children of those infected have suffered enough, when will the Government make interim compensation payments to the estates of those who have died as a result of infected blood products and, separately, to those affected whose parents have died?
John Glen
The best answer I can give the hon. Lady is that it will be
“as quickly as reasonable thoroughness permits”,
as the inquiry chair said in his response. I am totally aware and sincere in my appreciation of the frustration that exists on this issue. As I say, seven days in, I am doing everything I can to move things forward and to gain assurances from across Whitehall so that I can update the House as quickly as possible. I sense the palpable frustration, and I realise that this issue needs action as soon as possible.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his new role. He will know that time is of the essence, with a victim of this scandal dying every four days. He also knows that there is nothing to stop the Government setting up a compensation scheme now. The failure to do so is weighing heavily on the minds of those affected. The cynical would think that the Government are just kicking the issue into the long grass. Can the Minister tell us when he hopes to report on preparations for compensation and appoint a chair for an appropriate body to run the scheme?
John Glen
What I can say to the hon. Lady is that I am familiar with the range of activities that need to take place. I am getting into the detail of every single one of them, but I have to gain collective agreement before I can announce anything to this House. This House will be the first place I make any announcements, when I have secured that. I acknowledge her frustrations, and I am doing everything I can. I will update the House as quickly as I can.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Procurement Act 2023 will deliver simpler, more effective public sector procurement and help small and medium-sized enterprises secure a greater share of approximately £300 billion of expenditure per year. The Act places a requirement on contracting authorities to assess the particular barriers facing SMEs throughout the entire procurement life cycle and to consider what can be done to overcome them.
Martin Vickers
The renewable energy sector offers great opportunities for SMEs to become involved in the supply chain. Many of them are unaware of the public sector tenders that are out there. What are the Government doing to ensure that SMEs are made more aware of the opportunities available?
Alex Burghart
I very much encourage my hon. Friend to take this matter up with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but for my part I understand that anyone bidding for contracts for difference, our main renewable support scheme, must submit supply chain plans, including how many applicants will support SMEs. The Department is also consulting on reforms that will give greater revenue support to applicants using more sustainable supply chains, including those that make greater use of SMEs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response and the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) for raising this matter. Northern Ireland, and particularly my constituency of Strangford, have a great many small and medium-sized businesses that depend greatly on opportunities for Government contracts. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland on a united approach, similar to that referred to by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes? I would love to see that in Northern Ireland.
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear, and will remember from discussions we had as the Procurement Act 2023 was making its way through Parliament, that Northern Ireland will benefit from the new post-EU regime that we have brought in. Unlike our friends in Scotland, who chose to opt out, England, Wales and Northern Ireland have been able to shrug off the overly bureaucratic regime that we inherited from the EU and create, alongside small and medium-sized businesses, a brand-new way of doing things. I know that small and medium-sized enterprises in his constituency will ultimately benefit from that.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
There is an established regime in place for the declaration and management of private interests held by Ministers, as is set out in the ministerial code. Preliminary discussions have been held with the Foreign Secretary, in consultation with the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, to ensure that all interests are managed appropriately.
Siobhain McDonagh
Since the Foreign Secretary was last in office, he has been working for a Chinese state enterprise that was sanctioned by the US Government and blacklisted for bribery by the World Bank. The Foreign Secretary was paid by the Chinese company to promote the building of a port in Sri Lanka, a country which has itself been accused of war crimes and where, since the end of the civil war in 2009, tens of thousands of disappeared people have still not been found. Does the Minister agree that the British people have the right to know when their Foreign Secretary has been employed by the Chinese Government?
John Glen
I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the Foreign Secretary’s employment history. What I would say is that there is a thorough process in place through the ministerial code whereby the independent adviser publishes statements on Ministers’ relevant interests. Yesterday, I met the independent adviser for the first time to speak in general terms about his role, and work is under way on the next list to include the relevant interests of newly appointed Ministers—I think there are about 18 of them. The Government’s position on China remains unchanged. We believe in engaging directly and robustly in the UK national interest.
Nick Smith
When Lord Cameron, the public face of Greensill, was in the room where it happened—when key decisions were made, and attending board meetings regularly—there is a perception that he was part of Greensill’s inner circle. Has the independent adviser assessed whether Lord Cameron was considered a shadow director during his time at Greensill?
John Glen
The Foreign Secretary has accounted for his conduct in relation to Greensill Capital, and independent reviews by the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments confirm that no rules were broken. His ennoblement was also approved by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. I have referred to the process that is under way with the independent adviser for all new Ministers and the updates that will be forthcoming in due course from him. That is all I can say on the matter.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I welcome my old friend and sparring partner, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), to his post. Questions have been raised about whether all benefits in kind received by the Foreign Secretary while he acted as a lobbyist for Greensill Capital have been properly declared. Will the Minister confirm whether his tax affairs were examined and considered by the House of Lords Appointments Commission before approving his appointment? If not, will the Government now investigate to see if all such matters, including any use of offshore trusts, were properly declared and taken into account before the appointment was made?
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words—it is indeed good to follow him to the Cabinet Office brief. I will not comment on media speculation, but I acknowledge and thank him for his letter of yesterday. Lord Cameron’s appointment followed all the established processes for both peerages and ministerial appointments. The ennoblement was approved by the House of Lords Appointments Commission in the usual way, and that included a check with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Details of the way in which HOLAC works with HMRC are published on gov.uk.
Mr McFadden
I want to ask about an angle of the matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). The Foreign Secretary received fulsome praise from the China Harbour Engineering Company for his role in promoting the Port City Colombo project in Sri Lanka. Can the Minister tell the House who the ultimate client was when the Foreign Secretary received payment from KPMG Sri Lanka for his role in promoting that project? Was it the Sri Lankan Government or the China Harbour Engineering Company, which is owned by the Chinese state?
John Glen
That is a matter not for me but for the processes that I have set out, which have been complied with. I believe that Lord Cameron has made some comments with respect to those matters.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Esther McVey)
Ministers without Portfolio contribute to the policy and decision-making process of a Government. It is routine for the chair of the governing party to be made a Minister without Portfolio. As such, they serve as a member of the Cabinet. My role as a Cabinet Office Minister is to provide scrutiny and oversight across all Departments to ensure that we deliver best value for the public.
Alison McGovern
I welcome the right hon. Lady back to the Front Bench. If a Prime Minister needs to install a Minister for common sense, is that an admission that they do not really have any?
Esther McVey
I have seen the reports in the paper describing me as the Minister of common sense. I appreciate that the concept is difficult for Opposition Members to grasp. I am committed to delivering common-sense decisions, such as delaying the ban on petrol and diesel cars, delaying the ban on oil and gas boilers, scrapping High Speed 2 from Birmingham to Manchester and reducing the overseas budget—all common-sense policies that those on the Opposition Benches have voted against. Those on the Government Benches are full of common sense. I am building on all those policies.
Andrew Gwynne
I welcome the Minister to her post. If her Front Bench is full of common sense, which will she tackle first: a Home Secretary who thinks that Stockton North is a proverbial toilet; a Foreign Secretary who, during a critical time in geopolitics, is not even accountable to this House; or a Transport Secretary whose Network North plan thinks that Manchester is in Preston?
Esther McVey
First of all, I did not hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say the comments that the hon. Member repeated; as far as I am aware, he has denied saying them. As I said, I am building on the success of this Government. Let me give another: the biggest permanent tax cuts in modern British history announced yesterday—cutting taxes, not like the Opposition, who want more borrowing and spending.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new role. Will it include the possibility of re-examining the vaccine damage payment scheme, which has been described at the public inquiry as not fit for purpose? The £120,000 maximum payment has not been increased since 2007, and the 60% disability threshold is causing a massive injustice. Will she address those issues, please?
Esther McVey
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter, which he has worked extremely hard on, to the attention of the House. I am grateful for that suggestion; I will take it away and come back with further information.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate the new Minister without Portfolio on her position, and I wish her well. Having seen the Prime Minister’s struggles using a contactless card at a petrol station, and his impression that a private helicopter is the best way to get to Southampton, I think he probably was in need of some common sense, so it is no surprise that the right hon. Lady has been referred to in that way. Given she is in the market for some common-sense ideas, I suggest that the Government adopt a policy that people who live here pay taxes on all their income, and abolish the non-dom tax status. Perhaps she could cast her mind to abolishing the tax breaks for private schools, and spend that money on the 93% who go to state schools. Is it just the case that this Government are totally out of common sense and ideas?
Esther McVey
It does not surprise me that those on the Labour Benches attack private schools, which lots of parents want to send their children to. For them, that is common sense. For them, that is freedom of choice, which I stand by. Of course, should they close private schools down, the public sector would have to find billions more to fund it: again, not value for money—something that I am here to deliver—from Labour.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
The Prime Minister made it clear upon his appointment that he will lead a Government of integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level, and he is delivering on that promise.
Michael Shanks
The Minister, a few moments ago in answer to specific questions, said that this was not a matter for him. Of course, the problem with the ministerial code is that the public do not have confidence that it is actually being delivered. There is very little transparency around investigations and around referrals to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. With particular reference to Lord Cameron’s appointment, will the Minister commit to publishing all the correspondence with the ministerial adviser on the code, and any correspondence around the list he had to give to the permanent secretary on his interests prior to appointment?
John Glen
With the greatest respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands that the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests has wide-ranging powers. Within two weeks of appointment, a Minister will have to fill in a form which was recently changed—two months ago—and has over 30 pages covering a wide range of aspects of their interests. There is then a process where the permanent secretary of the relevant Department comments on that and the independent adviser will then publish an update of relevant interests. This is a thorough process. I met the independent adviser yesterday. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he writes to the independent adviser to seek the correspondence he wishes.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
When will the list of ministerial relevant interests next be published and will the interests of all the new Ministers be included in it?
John Glen
I am not certain, but work is under way. There are, I think, 18 new Ministers. I think it will be a matter of weeks, but I will keep an eye on that. The independent adviser did not give me a date yesterday, but I will continue to work closely with him where I can.
Kirsty Blackman
We would appreciate it if that list could be published before Christmas at the latest, because it is incredibly important. Section 7.25 of the ministerial code prohibits Ministers from lobbying Government for a two-year period after they leave office. It does not, unfortunately, say anything about interests before they are put into office. Does the Minister understand that with trust in politicians at an all-time low, the perception of Lord Cameron being put into the role, having clearly been lobbying on behalf of hostile foreign interests, does nothing for the perception of politicians as trustworthy?
John Glen
I just do not accept the hon. Lady’s view. I have set out in previous answers this morning that there is an established, thorough process that is constantly being updated. There are regular updates by the independent adviser. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), assures me that that update will be out before the end of this calendar year. That work will continue and I expect, and the independent adviser and the Prime Minister expect, the highest standards to apply. Where there are changes to an individual’s circumstances or interests, there is an urgent imperative to update the independent adviser.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Government are delivering an ongoing programme of engagement with stakeholders across all sectors in all parts of the country and with key European Union trading partners to ensure goods continue to move across the border. We have not identified any specific risk to the cross-border flow of goods.
Daniel Zeichner
It has been a very long wait to get border checks in place on the UK side. What evidence does the Minister have that EU businesses have the appropriate systems in place, including enough vets, to make them work smoothly? What estimate has he made of the impact on UK food security?
Alex Burghart
The whole purpose of the exercise is to ensure that we have UK food security. The border target operating model will implement its next three major milestones on 31 January 2024, 30 April 2024 and 31 October 2024, which means that the regime will be introduced by increments. This will be good for British food and good for British animals.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
There is an established regime under which Ministers’ interests are declared and managed. Ministers seek the advice of their permanent secretaries and the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, who reports twice yearly. This is but one element of a network of ethics systems, including the ministerial code and the business appointment rules, which uphold the highest standards in Government.
David Linden
The Minister says that there is “a network of ethics systems” for the appointment of Ministers, so let me ask a simple question: when was the last time Lord Cameron was not domiciled in the UK?
Oliver Dowden
That is a question for Lord Cameron, but I would be amazed if he had not been domiciled in this country for his entire life.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
In July 2022 we launched a policy setting the expected assignment durations for the senior civil service—the SCS1 and SCS2 roles—at a default minimum of three years, to support the transfer of knowledge management and subject expertise. The initial impact of the policy will be reviewed by July next year, and there will be a fuller review in July 2025, following the completion of the first three-year cycle.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment—and a very welcome one it is too. Does he acknowledge that although the problem of churn and generalism in the civil service has been around for 50 or 60 years, since the Fulton inquiry in the 1960s under Harold Wilson, it has become worse and worse? I thank him for the evidence that the Government have submitted to the Liaison Committee’s inquiry on strategic thinking in Government and how Select Committees can better scrutinise it, but if the Government do not have in place the experts and the people with domain knowledge, domain expertise and subject experience, there is not likely to be much good strategic thinking going on, given that Ministers often seem to know more about the subjects than the officials they are dealing with. May I invite my right hon. Friend to give us a supplementary note for the inquiry, so that we can understand their thinking on this matter more deeply?
John Glen
My hon. Friend obviously knows a great deal about this as a result of his distinguished 31 years of experience in the House, but pivotal role allowances have been in place for 10 years to help us to retain certain key individuals. A number of initiatives were introduced by my distinguished predecessor Lord Maude, the former right hon. Member for Horsham, and I intend to build on those, but I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend, because this is a serious issue.
In 2022, the last year for which we have figures, there was a 12.4% turnover from the senior civil service, and resignations were at 5%. We need to look carefully at what that means across different roles, and at how we can retain the specialisms for longer periods so that key Government programmes benefit from the sort of leadership that has enduring expertise at the table.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Government outlined wide-ranging improvements to transparency in lobbying in their policy statement “Strengthening Ethics and Integrity in Central Government”, which was published in July. They include revising guidance to widen the range of lobbying engagements declared by Departments, and linked reforms of the consultant lobbying framework.
Jon Trickett
If you are one of the tens of thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises bidding for contracts from the public sector, you will be met with a wall of bureaucratic paperwork designed to prevent relationships between the contractor and the service provider. If you are an ex-Prime Minister, you can make dozens of phone calls on behalf of an interest in which you seem to have been involved, including nine texts to the current Prime Minister. Is it not clear that that was reprehensible behaviour, and that the lobbying rules allowed it to happen? When will the Minister tighten the lobbying rules properly to prevent people from being able to benefit from the old system of “It is not what you know, but who you know”?
Alex Burghart
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer; we have published a document called “Strengthening Ethics and Integrity in Central Government”.
On small and medium-sized enterprises, I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Procurement Act 2023, which recently received Royal Assent, will make life much easier for SMEs that want to do business with the Government and get a share of the £300 billion of public procurement this Government have to offer.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
The accession of His Majesty the King marked a new chapter in our nation’s history. This month, the Cabinet Office launched a scheme to make new portraits of His Majesty available to all public institutions. After the splendour of the coronation, this is a fitting addition to the fabric of our public life.
The Cabinet Office has also led efforts on artificial intelligence, including setting up a new AI incubator made up of a team of technical experts. We will use our convening power to drive AI adoption across Government.
Kate Osamor
I asked my constituent, who is sadly personally affected by the infected blood scandal, what he wants to hear from the Government. All he wants is to see justice and receive assurances that nothing similar is ever allowed to happen again. Following on from Question 3, asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and for victims’ peace of mind, can the Minister ensure transparency in implementing the inquiry’s final recommendations so that, ultimately, this House can hold him accountable?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Lady will have heard the answers given by my right hon. Friend, the Paymaster General. He has given a clear commitment, which I am very happy to endorse from the Dispatch Box, on both transparency and speed of response. That is the approach that he and I are pursuing.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Procurement Act is a landmark piece of legislation that is going to make life considerably easier for SMEs, and it will do that in a number of ways. A new online procurement platform will make it easier for people to enter information once and use it many times, and make it easier to see the pipeline of upcoming contracts. Crucially, contracting authorities will also now have to have regard to the needs of SMEs in order to break down barriers and give them a bigger share of the pie.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Paymaster General to his place. In his new role, he will have responsibility for the efficient delivery of Government services and entitlements on which our constituents rely. One such entitlement, of course, is the winter fuel payment. Earlier this week, he was reported as saying that some pensioners do not need the winter fuel payment, so can he tell us which group of pensioners he had in mind when talking about who should lose the winter fuel payment?
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
I was talking to a group of students and explaining the complexities of making choices in my then role at the Treasury. As the Chancellor set out yesterday, although the Government are fully committed to the full uplift, using the triple lock, and maintaining all those benefits, all Governments have to make choices. I was making known my views on some of those choices and the challenges in delivering them. I was not deviating at all from Government policy, and I am very happy to put the record straight on the Floor of the House.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you may remember that, earlier this year, I referenced a 102-year-old constituent who had completed the Great North Run, having done a 1,000-mile bike ride the year before and a 100-mile walk the year before that. We were compiling a submission so that the gentleman could get an honour but, unfortunately, he passed away in the last couple of weeks. Given the extraordinary service that this veteran gave to the country, are there any routes we can still follow to get some recognition for him in this unfortunate situation?
Oliver Dowden
May I begin by paying tribute to the extraordinary endeavours of my hon. Friend’s constituent, which I would never be able to achieve at any stage in life? I am afraid that it is a general principle that honours are not given posthumously, but we are in consultation with the palace to look at posthumous honours for people who have lost their lives in public service. We continue to keep this under review, but it is a complex area.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Oliver Dowden
I refer the hon. Gentleman to a written ministerial statement I made to the House a couple of months ago, in which I explained how, at length, we have implemented many recommendations, for example from the Boardman review and others. That included strengthening the civil service contractual requirements in relation to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and introducing a deed of covenant for Ministers to uphold the findings of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. I continue to engage with Lord Pickles, who chairs ACOBA, about further such reforms that can be undertaken.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister played a prominent role at the artificial intelligence summit in Bletchley Park earlier this month. One big question is whether open source should be encouraged and perhaps even required, in order to encourage openness and innovation, or whether it should be restricted, to keep the models in the hands of known actors. What is the direction of his thinking on that?
Oliver Dowden
As ever, my right hon. Friend raises an erudite question. My disposition, and that of the Government, is that open source AI is an important basis upon which we can build many world-leading applications. We can see companies in this country growing at a fast pace by developing innovative AI off the back of open source. Of course, there are risks associated with it, but there is a high bar to be met before the Government would start imposing additional regulatory burdens on open source AI, given the associated benefits for economic growth.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Alex Burghart
Obviously, any contract of any size that the Government deal with—the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS in this case—goes through an extremely detailed and careful process in order to ensure that we get the best value for money for the British public, that we help our public services solve the problems they face and that national security is maintained. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem with a particular element of that contract, he should bring it before the House. Otherwise, I believe he is just scare- mongering.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend help with a situation where Thales, the French defence contractor, and its UK subsidiary are insisting that materials should be procured not from the UK, but from India. How is that consistent with the Government’s procurement policy?
John Glen
I cannot comment on a specific case on the Floor of the House, but I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend on the matter he raises. Frameworks are in place, but without knowing more detail it is impossible for me to comment here.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
John Glen
I understand that and, through the hon. Gentleman, I say to Mr Bates that I am doing everything I can to update the House as quickly as possible. There are a range of activities that I am familiar with from the small ministerial group of which I was previously a part. There is a lot of complexity in securing the envelope of money and then working out how to allocate it, but I am doing everything I can to bring that forward as quickly as possible.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The lives of all our constituents are greatly affected by public bodies that make decisions across a whole range of issues. Would it be better for many of those public bodies to delegate their powers to Ministers, so that Members of this House can question and scrutinise those decisions?
John Glen
I will conclude my initial meetings this afternoon with a briefing on arm’s length bodies and the range of different entities that exist beyond Whitehall. I will think very carefully about what my hon. Friend has said and look at what more we can do to ensure that there is real accountability, maximum productivity and efficiency, drawing on my experience up the road at the Treasury.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Oliver Dowden
I know that the Procedure Committee has been examining this subject, and we continue to discuss it with you, Mr Speaker. There is a well-established convention whereby the office of Foreign Secretary has been held by a Member of the other place. That has worked well in the past, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is committed to further increasing his accountability to this place.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
What steps are the Government taking to reduce the number of civil servants in order to achieve value for money for the taxpayer?
John Glen
I am looking carefully at where we are with the plans for this year—obviously, there is a half-way point in that cycle—and at what policies we can put in place. At the beginning of October, the Chancellor announced a freeze on recruitment. I will be looking at what we need to do now to ensure that, as we move into future financial years, we use the benefits of efficiencies that exist and different ways of delivering services, which we can learn from across the globe and the private sector, so that we get value for money for all those who are employed and do a good job in the civil service.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister think it is acceptable that Baroness Michelle Mone has more ability to scrutinise the Foreign Secretary than Members of this House?
Oliver Dowden
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer about the well-established principle that Ministers can serve from the other place, which I believe last happened when Lord Mandelson was in the Labour Cabinet. However, the Government and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recognise this House’s desire to scrutinise him and he has committed to further measures to ensure that happens.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Government for publishing the report on governance and accountability in the civil service, which my noble Friend Lord Maude was commissioned to produce. May I point out that one of his recommendations in that very well drafted report is about learning from the experience of other civil services, such as those in New Zealand, Australia and Canada, where indeed they retain civil servants in post much longer by paying them better—
Mr Speaker
Order. Many Members wish to speak, but they will not get in if we are not careful.
John Glen
Yes, I acknowledge that the Maude report had some very useful contributions. I am reflecting on that and will give a more substantial response and comment in due course.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I listened very carefully to the Paymaster General’s replies to my colleagues about the contaminated blood scandal. Can he guarantee that we will have a statement to the House before the Christmas recess?
John Glen
No, I cannot guarantee that, because I do not yet have collective agreement, but I am working towards that ambition and that is what I want to achieve.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Why have Scotland and Wales been able to set up psychological support services for the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, but England has not?
John Glen
It is because I have not yet secured collective agreement to do so. The funds are available, and it is absolutely right that we bring that forward as soon as possible. Again, that is one of the activities that I will be engaged in resolving later this morning.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the questions from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), what assessment has the Minister made of the number of people who have sadly passed away this year due to infected blood before their compensation has been available for claiming?
John Glen
I do not have that number for the hon. Gentleman, but the point he makes illustrates the urgency of the work in which I am engaged and the need to ensure that over the next 10 to 12 working weeks—by the expected date for the report’s publication—the Government can bring forward a comprehensive response.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we move to business questions and resume the debate on the autumn statement, I remind hon. Members that after they have spoken in a debate or in questions they must, at the very minimum, remain in the Chamber for at least the next two speeches or the next two questions. They must also return to hear the winding-up speeches from both the Opposition spokesperson and the Minister at the end of the debate. It has got worse, and it will not be tolerated.
If for any reason a Member is unable to return to the Chamber for the wind-ups, they are welcome to approach the Chair and withdraw their request to speak in the debate. Records are kept when Members speak and fail to return, and this is taken into account when deciding whether to call Members in subsequent debates. Both the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson responding to the debate are expected to remain in the Chamber for the majority of the debate so that they can respond effectively to the points raised by other hon. Members.
Business of the House
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 27 November will include:
Monday 27 November—Conclusion of debate on the autumn statement.
Tuesday 28 November—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill.
Wednesday 29 November—Remaining stages of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill.
Thursday 30 November—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill.
Friday 1 December—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 4 December will include:
Monday 4 December—Remaining stages of the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
Lucy Powell
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business.
The agreement of a cessation in hostilities in Gaza and Israel, to release hostages and tackle the urgent and unacceptable humanitarian catastrophe, is welcome. Let us also hope that it could lead to a longer-lasting resolution. Will the Government keep the House updated as the situation develops? There really should have been a statement this week, and we really should be hearing from the Foreign Secretary, as we discussed last week. Members give careful consideration to these matters, and want to raise their constituents’ concerns.
In a few cases, however, we have seen the legitimate lobbying of Members by their constituents cross a line into intimidating protests and vandalism. I thank the Leader of the House, you, Mr Speaker, House staff, and the police for everything that they are already doing to support Members and their staff. Does the Leader of the House agree that the spreading of misinformation and the whipping up of hate is a threat to our democracy? Much of it takes hold on social media platforms. Given that the Government watered down the Online Safety Act 2023, does she believe that they have the tools to deal with online hate, misogyny, antisemitism and Islamophobia, no longer covered by the Act?
Turning to yesterday’s autumn statement, does the Leader of the House want to take this opportunity to correct the record, because the Chancellor did not seem to get his numbers right? The real figures were published by the Office for Budget Responsibility alongside his statement, and they do not match. He said that it was
“an autumn statement for growth”.—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 334.]
The OBR said that growth has been downgraded in each of the next three years. He said that he was cutting taxes. The OBR confirmed that this will be the biggest tax-raising Parliament on record, with 7 million workers now caught by stealth tax rises. Even with his cut to national insurance, the Government are handing back only £1 for every £8 they have taken in this Parliament.
The Chancellor said he was helping with the cost of living crisis, yet the Office for Budget Responsibility says this is the largest reduction in real living standards since records began, and energy prices rise again today, adding more pain. He said he had got inflation under control, but the OBR inflation forecasts have now gone up in every year of the forecast period, with prices rising higher for longer. He said that debt had fallen, yet the OBR said it would be 28% higher next year than when the Tories came to power. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he had reduced debt, yet the Institute for Fiscal Studies is clear that public sector debt is rising in cash terms, in real terms and as a percentage of the national income. Perhaps those discrepancies are why the IFS’s director said of the autumn statement that
“a lot of these numbers… are sort of made up.”
No matter what the Government do at this late stage, the facts for families will not change. Prices are up, tax is up, debt is up, mortgages are up, rent is up; that is their record, and nothing they said this week can change it. When people ask themselves whether they are better off after 13 years of a Conservative Government, the answer will be no.
The latest immigration figures are now out—up again. So much for the Foreign Secretary’s plan to get numbers down to tens of thousands. That is further evidence that this Government cannot stick to their promises, and in next week’s business there is still no sign of the emergency legislation on Rwanda. Where is it? What is the hold-up? Is it with the Leader of the House’s parliamentary business and legislation committee, or is with it the Home Office? Has she even seen it? She knows it will not work; it will absorb loads of time and it will not solve the problem. Maybe the delay is because the Home Secretary reportedly thinks that the Rwanda policy is “batshit”. Yesterday, he also said that Stockton was a “shithole”. Does the Leader of the House agree that besmirching another hon. Member’s constituency goes against all the courtesies of this place and is utterly disrespectful to their constituents? Will she ensure that the Home Secretary comes to this House and apologises? That sort of foul language may be accurate when describing Government policy, but not the great town of Stockton.
Penny Mordaunt
I place on record my thanks for hosting the UK Disability History Month event that took place in your rooms last night, Mr Speaker. We had great speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House about their disabilities and of course the performance of the Music Man Project. I promise you that the video of you dancing Gangnam-style to one of their hits will go with me to my grave.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) for, and join with, the sentiments she expressed about Israel and Gaza. We all hope that some of the hostages are able to be released in the coming days, and our thoughts are with everyone affected by that. It is incredibly important that this House is kept up to date. She will know that the Procedure Committee is looking at that and will shortly make some announcements on how it thinks the Foreign Secretary can best come to answer questions from hon. Members.
This week I met the director of national security and the director of consular and crisis services in the Foreign Office, as well as Home Office officials, on behalf of Members of this House to look at what they can do to support the families of hostages—not just the British nationals, but those who have a connection to the UK—and I know that they are in touch with those hon. Members directly concerned. A lot of that cannot be put in the public domain, for obvious reasons, but they are in touch with hon. Members on Privy Counsellor terms with things that cannot necessarily be put in the public domain.
May I also thank the hon. Lady for what she said about security? It is incredibly important. I refer Members to what I said last week on that point: we should be free in this place to use our judgment and vote accordingly, and we should not face intimidation for doing our duty to this House. Although it is a growing and moving challenge, I am confident that we have the tools to tackle misinformation online. She will know that we have stood up new services in the House of Commons Library, strengthening its ties with Government Departments—particularly the Department for Culture, Media and Sport —as well as with our security agencies.
The hon. Lady mentions the facts relating to the autumn statement and the OBR, and I am happy to remind the House of those facts. Inflation is now at 4.6% and will fall to 2.8%, and at the end of next year, towards 2025, we will be back to 2%. Headline debt is now 94% by end of forecast, down from a predicted 100%. Underlying debt next year is expected to fall to 91.6%, and we are due to meet our fiscal rule of having underlying debt fall as a percentage of GDP by the end of the next financial forecast. We have the second lowest debt in the G7.
The hon. Lady talks about the cost of living. On average, a person on benefits will be £470 better off, pensioners £900 better off, and those on housing allowance £800 better off. The national living wage has gone up. Our total commitment on cost of living measures is now over £104 billion, which includes £3,700 on average toward a person’s energy bills. She will know that the energy price guarantee remains in place until March next year.
On our ambitions to grow the economy, the hon. Lady will also know that we have a strong and resilient economy. That fact is evidenced by our continuing to attract inward investment. I very much welcome Nissan’s announcement of its commitment to continue making the Qashqai and Juke models in Sunderland. Yesterday, we made expensing permanent, as well as other measures to help businesses large and small, particularly on our high streets and in the hospitality sector. We have new investment zones, one of which is in her beloved Greater Manchester.
The hon. Lady mentions Stockton North, which will benefit from £20 million of levelling-up funding for Billingham town centre. With regard to the charge that she makes against the Home Secretary, he denies it and I believe him.
The economy is predicted to grow. We would like it to grow faster, and that is why we are focused on productivity. We have been able to cut tax through the tough decisions that have enabled us to create that headroom. We were able to do what we did during the pandemic, on furlough and other support, only because we paid down Labour’s deficit by 80%. Labour has opposed every measure that we have brought in to balance the books. Labour has blocked every measure to reform welfare in favour of denying people with disabilities the dignity of a pay packet.
Labour has blocked every measure to protect access to public service and cut waiting lists, in favour of militant unions. Labour has blocked every measure to make us more energy secure, in favour of Just Stop Oil. Labour has blocked every measure to raise education standards, and now wishes to tax education and halve apprenticeships. While we have been reducing fuel duty and holding down council tax, Labour put both up by 42% and 104% respectively. Where Labour is now in power, it taxes the lowest paid out of work. The ultra low emission zone has wreaked havoc in London and cost livelihoods. Sadly, I understand that those measures will shortly be coming to Wales.
Labour Members say that they have changed, but their actions past, present and planned for the future say otherwise. Further business will be announced in the usual way.
Sir Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I am delighted to inform the House that, after 50 years, the crown jewels of Darwen—our freeman’s casket and our mace—will be returned from Blackburn to the Darwen Heritage Centre. After 14 years of campaigning myself, I congratulate the heritage centre and all its volunteers on their work to secure them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time for a debate about local government reorganisation? As well as getting its crown jewels returned, Darwen wants to break free from Blackburn, which would truly be the crowning glory of our £120 million town deal.
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a successful, if lengthy, campaign, and I congratulate him and everyone who has worked on it on their diligence and on never giving up. I do not know about a debate—it sounds like we ought to be having a party to celebrate this. In all seriousness, I know that it means a tremendous amount to the local community. They are known as the crown jewels locally. I understand that some of them are very heavy—if they need a hand carrying them around, I know someone who can help.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Things became a bit clearer for us all this week. For a time, we have been wondering what the Leader of the House meant when she delivered her infamous “stand up and fight” battle cry. She told us 12 times in 90 seconds that she wanted to have a fight with somebody, but we were not quite sure who the enemy in her head was. We know in Scotland that she likes having a fight with us; she is always telling us off for disobedience or treachery. In Tory Britain, we Scots really should know our place. But the Chancellor helpfully revealed who else her Government want to fight with.
If you are unable to work because of ill health, get ready for battle with the Tories. If you are among the 4 million families destitute in the UK, forget it—there will be no real help for you in your daily struggle to survive. As is clear from the covid inquiry, if you are a scientist or—God forbid—an actual expert, gird your loins. In England, Tories fight NHS workers. They fight teachers. They fight local councils. They fight the low-paid. If you are on pensions or benefits, sure, they threw you a few crumbs yesterday from their table, but the Office for National Statistics says that food prices are 30% higher than they were two years ago, so they will fight you at the checkout tills. There was not a word about fighting billionaires’ tax evasion, fighting dirty money being laundered through London, or fighting the corruption and fraud drenching this Government in sleaze.
When the Chancellor sat down yesterday, the independent OBR assessed that his measures would bring the largest reduction in living standards since records began. But never mind; I see the other place was debating the Pedicabs (London) Bill last night, so we can all calm down, knowing that this Government are focused on the things that really matter. And people ask us why we want to see Scotland independent and away from this bedlam of a place!
I realise that I will wait in vain for any actual answers to these questions—questions like, how is it exactly that the right hon. Lady’s Government can find fiscal headroom in their Budget when some of my constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith cannot afford to feed themselves? Is it not time her profligate Government stopped fighting everybody and held an inquiry into themselves and the many billions they have squandered over the last four years?
Penny Mordaunt
I am not in any doubt who I am standing up and fighting for—the people of this country—and who I am standing up and fighting against, and the SNP are on the latter list. First, what the hon. Lady says is not the case. She spoke about the welfare measures that were announced yesterday. She knows that the closing claims measure does not apply in Scotland and does not apply to anyone with disabilities or a child. If she was not aware of that, I ask her to please read the documents that were put out yesterday and the Chancellor’s statement, and if she does know that that is the case, it would be helpful for her not to say otherwise.
The hon. Lady lists a number of things and makes various accusations. I would ask her to be a little more self-reflective. It is her party that has been subject to 22—and counting, I think—police investigations. The Serious Fraud Office is investigating GFG Alliance, the company to which the Scottish National party gave hundreds of millions of pounds to guarantee jobs that never materialised, and that just happened to be sponsoring its party conference at the same time.
The hon. Lady likes to lecture my party about values. Which party is it whose leader smirked while people booed the national anthem? Which party is it whose activists called BBC reporters traitors? Which party is it that bullied Conservative party members attending a conference in Scotland to the extent that it made national news? Which party is it whose behaviour was so horrific towards its own elected representatives that they said they suffered panic attacks, and some have crossed the Floor? Who is responsible for the bile-fuelled rants that are so evident in Hansard?
Once the hon. Lady has clocked that the answer to all those questions is her party, she might reflect on why that is the case and on the appalling legacy that such a warped, irresponsible displacement activity has seeded to a generation of Scottish children—a wrecked education system, a widening attainment gap, fewer teachers, maths scores declining in every PISA survey, science at a record low and plummeting literacy rates. But they will, of course, have somewhere safe and warm in which to take heroin. I am not going to take any lectures from the hon. Lady about values, responsibility or performance in office. This is why I will get up every week and stand up and fight against the slopey-shouldered separatism evidenced by the SNP.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Part of my constituency is fortunate still to be served by a daily newspaper, the Grimsby Telegraph. The funeral of one of its most distinguished journalists, Peter Chapman, took place earlier this week, which caused me to reflect on the sadly declining role that local newspapers play in serving their community. May we have a debate about the role of local newspapers and how they can help build the foundations of their local community?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue—he is a huge champion for his local paper. As he knows, the pro-competition regime set out in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill will help rebalance the relationship between the most powerful tech firms and those who rely on them, including press publishers, which will make an important contribution to the sustainability of the press. The next Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions are not until the new year, so I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard about his interest, and if he wishes to apply for a debate, I am sure it would be very well attended.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
In North Norfolk in East Anglia, we have some of the most important areas for sugar beet in the entire country. Does the Leader of the House think it is right for British Sugar to bypass the National Farmers Union, the beet growers’ sole representative in negotiations with the monopoly processor, while negotiations are ongoing to get farmers to sign up to a contract that the majority of them do not believe is in their best interests or reflects an adequate return for the sugar market?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he is doing to support his farmers—I know it is a lot. He is a consistent champion for their interests, and he is right to encourage them to stand firm. I am pleased that NFU Sugar and British Sugar are resuming negotiations on next year’s sugar beet price, and I hope they can work together to agree a mutually acceptable deal as soon as possible for the benefit of both growers and processors. My hon. Friend may wish to raise this matter on 7 December with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am always very grateful, Mr Speaker—thank you very much.
Ian Mearns
Well, you know. I see from the Order Paper that the Committee of Selection has done its business, and hopefully the House will agree the membership of the Backbench Business Committee on Monday night, which will mean that it will be able to meet on Tuesday afternoon. I gather that the Committee Clerks already have a dozen applications to be heard on Tuesday afternoon, so we look forward to getting back to work. We are also looking to the Leader of the House to award us a constant flow of time in which to air those debates, both here in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall.
Yesterday, we heard that benefits will be uprated from April and national insurance will be reduced from January, but overnight we also got news from Ofgem that it intends to raise the energy price cap by 5% from January. An inordinate number of my constituents are already spending more on daily standing charges than they can afford to spend on heating their homes and feeding their families. I understand that the Government intend to look at this issue, or are looking at it, but given what has happened in the last couple of days, could I ask for that work to be speeded up and done in anticipation of the price cap being raised in January?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the advert about the timetable for his Committee being re-established, which is very good news. We will certainly, as always, make sure there is time for the debates that hon. Members wish to have.
The hon. Gentleman will know from the answer I gave to the shadow Leader of the House that we have the energy price guarantee in place until the end of March next year, but I know that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will want to update the House on the ongoing work to which he alludes. I shall make sure that she has heard what he has said, and of course he knows how to raise it with her directly.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Over the last seven weeks, we have seen over 15,000 innocent men, women and children killed; hospitals, churches, mosques, refugee camps and homes attacked; numerous instances of war crimes; and food, water, power and medicine cut off in an act of collective punishment that is in violation of international law. Yet, even as over 2 million people remain trapped in the never-ending humanitarian nightmare in Gaza, we still have not had a substantial debate in this Chamber on the conflict. This is one of the most important issues to my constituents and to constituents of many hon. Members, so will the Leader of House finally allocate Government time for a substantial debate on this critical issue?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this. I know that the situation in Gaza, particularly what we hope might happen over the coming days, is very much at the forefront of people’s minds. He will know—and I have given many examples—the complexity of the situation there and what the Israel Defence Forces are trying to do in very difficult circumstances, but of course we all want to see a pause in hostilities to enable humanitarian assistance to get to where it needs to be and we hope for hostages to be returned home. There have been a number of opportunities to discuss this on the Floor of the House, not least with the usual Prime Minister’s questions and other questions to Departments. I shall make sure that the Foreign Secretary has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and he will know that the doors of consular services, but also of Departments that are closely monitoring what is happening on the ground, are always open to Members who have particular concerns.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
May we have a debate on antisemitism at the Football Association? The FA board, which for years lit up Wembley for numerous causes and campaigns, has now said that it will not light up Wembley ever again for any non-entertainment reason. This is because it has been shamed by its antisemitic decision not to light up the stadium when 1,400 Jews were murdered in the pogrom of 7 October. Should the national lottery even fund organisations that seem to regret every death and injustice apart from the death of Jews?
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. and learned Friend the Culture Secretary discussed the lighting of the arch with the Football Association at the time and expressed her disappointment about how it approached that situation. As was announced in the autumn statement, we are making further funds available to combat the rise in antisemitism. We are also repeating the £3 million uplift to the Community Security Trust to fund its critical work, to ensure that that work is able to continue and to meet the unfortunate demand. However, my right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. Whatever businesses or organisations we are involved in, we can all make a difference by calling things out, while also, critically, showing support to particular communities. I think his point was well made.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
May we have a debate on improving road safety? I recently met a community speedwatch group in Bath, a bunch of highly dedicated and motivated people who stand for hours in all weathers, facing abuse. They have caught 80,000 speeding vehicles, yet they see very little result for their hard work. Speeding kills: a third of road fatalities are down to speeding. Would Road Safety Week not be a perfect opportunity for such a debate to show that the Government really take the issue of road safety seriously?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this—very sadly—timely question given the events of this week. As she knows, speeding is a critical issue and one of the biggest killers globally, affecting many countries. As well as measures we take at home, she knows that we make a big contribution to reducing the number of deaths on the road elsewhere. It is an excellent topic for a debate. I will download her interest to the Secretary of State, and I am sure that if she applied for a debate, it would be well attended.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has already mentioned the financial impact on poorer families of the Labour Mayor of London’s hated expansion of the ULEZ—ultra low emission zone—scheme, but she is probably not aware that the Advertising Standards Authority has found him guilty of using incorrect statistics in the scientific evidence, which led to its expansion. Given that authorities across the country are now considering introducing similar schemes, would it not be a good idea to have a debate in Government time on ULEZ, so that we can expose these lies for what they are?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. That is a very good idea and topic for a debate, and he will know how to apply for one. There are schemes elsewhere in the country that address air quality issues which have chosen a different path to clobbering those who can least afford it, with terrible unintended consequences —people losing their businesses or livelihoods, charitable organisations being prevented from going about their work and the knock-on economic impact to surrounding areas. It is not just those in London or potentially in certain parts of Wales who are to be affected by these schemes; it is anyone who is going there to do business or for some other purpose. It would be very good to have a debate on these matters. There is good practice out there, and there is also appalling practice, based on shoddy evidence, and the Mayor of London is the top candidate for that accolade.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Chancellor said yesterday that he had taken steps to support people through the cost of living crisis created in Downing Street, so why have 2 million citizens had to rely on food banks in the past 12 months?
Penny Mordaunt
As I stated earlier, the cost of living measures we have brought in now amount to £104 billion. We have been there through the immense crisis that was the pandemic and through furlough, helping people so that they could be at home and be supported and also, critically, keeping jobs and businesses going, which is why we were one of the fastest recovery nations. We have been there to pay energy bills. I shall not repeat the statistics I gave earlier, but the hon. Lady will know that we have protected those on benefits and also pensioners through the triple lock, and we are ensuring that those who are on benefits and trying to get into work have additional support to do so. The result of our record is 1.7 million more people lifted out of absolute poverty, 200,000 of whom are pensioners and nearly 500,000 are children.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has already found the Department for Work and Pensions guilty of maladministration on two counts in relation to the WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—once in 2005 and the other in 2006. I forget who was in charge at the time; it must be my age. Many women have suffered as a result in a variety of ways. Will the Leader of the House agree to having a statement so that the Government can show they are doing what they can to help speed up the processes at the ombudsman, which appears to be taking an inordinate amount of time in finalising its investigation and recommendations?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and the work he has been doing campaigning on behalf of pensioners more broadly and his work on the triple lock, as well as with respect to particular cohorts of individuals, both his constituents and more widely. The ombudsman’s investigation is ongoing, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that, but I understand that it issued a statement on the timeline and the reasons for the delay. I will certainly make sure that it has heard what my hon. Friend has said today.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I note that the Leader of the House failed to respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) about the Government’s Rwanda policy. The right hon. Lady will be aware of reports that if, as seems likely, the Government are unable to find a legal way to take that policy forward, they are considering using the Falkland Islands as an alternative. Will she take this opportunity to either confirm or deny that the Falkland Islands is a possible alternative to Rwanda?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very happy to knock that one on the head. It is not an alternative to Rwanda, and nor are various other places that have been mentioned, including the Orkney Islands. That would be definitely out, given the reliability of Scottish National party ferry services.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
Last Sunday was International Men’s Day, which is a brilliant opportunity to highlight the positive contribution that men make to society, as well as some of the challenges we face. Foremost among those is men’s mental health and, in particular, the high rates of male suicide. I recently visited Conscious Recovery, an inspiring Blackpool charity that supports those dealing with mental health issues and raises awareness of those issues in our community. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking and praising those brilliant volunteers and charities who do enormous work in this area and who make so much difference? Will she support a debate on improving mental health and preventing suicide?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for championing Conscious Recovery in his constituency. I am sure the whole House would want to thank all the volunteers who work for that organisation, as well as those who work for many organisations across the country and in our own constituencies, too. I am pleased that he has been able to raise the profile of this important issue, and I thank him for his campaign work on it. It is critical, particularly for young men who are very vulnerable to not opening up about their mental health issues, often with terrible consequences. We should applaud all efforts to ensure that they get the help and interventions they need.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Further to earlier exchanges, many of us have constituents stuck inside the hell that is Gaza, and in trying to get them out, we are struggling to get information out of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I have always found the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) to be an honourable and honest man, and he is doing his best to help to get people out, but it is still difficult getting that information. Could we have a statement, or at least a written statement, setting out the channels that might be open to us so that we can get people home?
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly make sure that the Foreign Office has circulated an updated contact list to all Members of this House. We will make sure that is done. The consular services are the best point of contact in most cases for hon. Members, but in the meeting I spoke about earlier in this session, I also emphasised the importance of the Foreign Office and in some cases the Home Office making sure that they are in regular touch with Members who have a particular interest in this issue. I would be happy after this session to ensure that the Foreign Office gets in touch with the hon. Gentleman to talk about any issues he needs support with.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House update us on the legislation to create an independent regulator for men’s football? My constituents who support Everton are frustrated about the process their club has gone through and worry about unfairness. Fans of many clubs believe that the structure of men’s football requires much better governance, and there is support from parties across the House to crack on and legislate for a better system. Will she tell us when the Bill will be published and when Second Reading will be?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that matter, on which there was audible agreement from around the House. I know that this issue is supported by many people, and I am one of them, as a Portsmouth football club fan and having done the largest and fastest ever community buyout of a football club in the UK. We have spent a great deal of effort on this. As she knows, we will be bringing legislation forward, and she will not have long to wait for that. She will not be surprised to hear that further business will be announced in the usual way.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
It is hard to know which is worse: the continued robbery of Scotland’s vast energy wealth while one in three house- holds in Scotland exist in fuel poverty, or the Scottish Government’s supine response to the closure of Grangemouth oil refinery. According to Petroineos, the precise timeline for implementing any change has yet to be determined. I agree with Derek Thompson of Unite the union, who said:
“Every option must be on the table in order to secure the hundreds of highly skilled jobs based at the Grangemouth complex for the long term.”
Will the Leader of the House bring forward a debate in Government time to consider the economic impact of UK energy policy on the people of Scotland?
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the oil refinery, but I invite him to examine his party’s policies on oil and gas and the support it gives to that sector.
Kevin Brennan
Quite rightly—[Interruption.] If the Scots can stop their spat for a moment. This country quite rightly maintains a list of the crown jewels of sport and of our sporting heritage and culture with a listed events regime, but the six nations rugby tournament is not on that list. Most people would think that it would be, but every few years the danger of it falling off free-to-air television broadcast comes along, and that is with us again following this week’s session of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Is it not about time that the Government added the six nations, which is a festival of friendship across these islands and Europe, to the listed events regime?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion got a lot of support from across the House. It is the most fantastic tournament, with friendship as well as friendly rivalries. I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has heard his suggestion, as the Department’s next oral questions are not until 11 January.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Government’s “Creating a smokefree generation and tackling youth vaping” consultation closes in two weeks, and it is crucial that they do not rush through legislation without considering all the responses carefully. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a sufficient window between the consultation’s closure and the introduction to the House of the tobacco and vapes Bill? Will she allow Members of the House an opportunity to debate the consultation’s proposals before a draft Bill is published?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for that advert for the consultation. It is very important that people are aware of it and able to contribute to it. Although I cannot give her a precise time that the Bill will come before the House, there will be good time between the consultation closing, the publication of its results and any debates in this place.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
My constituent Alistair Inglis of Duthie & Son motors in Montrose is suffering a prolonged issue with HMRC about its 2022 VAT return, which centres on misallocation of payments to the digital tax system using the dealership management system for the years 1993, 2001 and 2002. This has been going on since August 2022, and it is still not resolved—not, I must say, for want of effort on the part of officers within HMRC, who are trying their best with a system that will not resolve the situation. Can we have a debate on the dealership management system to see whether this is a localised issue to my constituent in Angus or it affects franchised car dealerships across the United Kingdom? Is there any other way in which the Leader of the House can seek to advance this apparently intractable situation for my constituent?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has had difficulty getting the right person in HMRC to resolve that. I will ask my officials to contact HMRC on his behalf, and ask them to get in touch with the hon. Gentleman’s office to have an individual sit down and work through what might be a complex case. There will be a solution at the end of it, and I am happy to do that on his behalf.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Could we please have a statement to explain why the overhyped Hull and East Yorkshire devolution deal announced in yesterday’s autumn statement and described by a local, well-respected journalist in Hull as “cobblers” is worth only £13.3 million a year extra in funding over 30 years, and goes nowhere near the £111 million lost each year to Hull alone since 2010?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that she can put that to the Secretary of State himself on 4 December. That devolution deal would not have proceeded if local stakeholders were not in favour of it, but if she has suggestions about other things, she can raise that with the Secretary of State.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Leader of the House is a stickler for detail, yet there was scant mention in her replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), or indeed by the Chancellor yesterday, of freezing personal tax thresholds until 2028. That will cost basic rate taxpayers an average of £720 more each year. Does Leader of the House think that people will not notice the effects in their pay packets?
Penny Mordaunt
I think that people will notice that this Administration has doubled the personal tax thresholds and lifted many people on the lowest incomes out of paying tax altogether.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Oak Square housing complex in Stockwell was built in 2010. Sadly, since then there has been a host of issues with the building, from leaks and defective cladding to faulty infrastructure. That has meant that my constituents have had to live in a nightmare for almost 10 years. I visited it earlier this summer to see the issues at first hand. The tenants continue to pay their rent and service charges to their landlord, Notting Hill Genesis. Can the Leader of the House please urge the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to accept my invitation to come down and see at first hand the nightmare that residents have to live in?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear the situation that the hon. Lady is in. I will make sure that the Housing Minister has heard of the ongoing situation, and I will ask that she be given any advice that is available from officials about further avenues she can pursue to get redress for her constituents.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
A few days ago, the Care Quality Commission found that more than two thirds of hospitals in London and more than half of hospitals in England offer substandard levels of care. Will the Leader of the House make a statement expressing her alarm and concern about that shocking revelation? Can she share with the House what she thinks has gone wrong?
Penny Mordaunt
That is a question that she might like to ask the Health Secretary at the next available questions. I would ask her to look a little closer to home at life expectancy figures and at what is happening in her own constituency.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Broadmarsh in my constituency is one of the most significant city centre development sites in the UK, with the potential to bring up to 1,000 new homes and more than 6,000 extra jobs. Nottingham City Council has already invested in a new bus station and big improvements to the public realm, and on Tuesday it will open the new central library. However, for the third successive time, the Government have failed to provide any levelling-up money to support its regeneration. Can we have a debate on this Government’s continued failure to back local authorities, which are facing high inflation, high interest rates and unprecedented levels of demand for social care, leaving so many teetering on the brink?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that we have provided additional funding for social care. We have also been supporting both the care sector and the NHS to work more efficiently and effectively together. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard her concerns today, and she will know how to raise them with her directly.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
My constituent Jess McNichols, who is receiving treatment for cancer at the Christie Hospital in Manchester, missed an important medical appointment due to the general disruption of Royal Mail services. Her letter arrived late. Could the Leader of the House counsel me on how best to raise this case further in this place?
Penny Mordaunt
This is becoming a consistent theme for hon. Members on both sides of the House. Services are not meeting Royal Mail’s performance targets and he has just illustrated that that can often have a pretty devastating impact, with missed appointments and knock-on effects for inefficiencies in other public services. I have ensured that the relevant Department is aware of hon. Members’ concerns. I urge all hon. Members to do their bit, particularly on the issue of industrial action, to ensure that there is no further disruption to mail services.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Today is Carers Rights Day, when we recognise that unpaid carers have rights too and need those rights strengthened. Carers UK today published new research that shows thousands of people are having to give up work due to the stress of juggling paid work and unpaid care. At this point, I would like to thank all carers across the Blaydon constituency who do so much, and Gateshead Carers Association and Carers Trust Tyne & Wear, who support them in that work. May we have a debate in Government time on how we can better support our unpaid carers who do so much?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I think all hon. Members across the House would echo what she has said: the huge debt we owe these individuals who step up and take responsibility, both for their immediate families and others. We have, through the carers’ strategy, introduced a range of measures to support them. I think the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) also assisted us in delivering a manifesto commitment on access to leave for carers. There is always more we can do and if the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) were to apply for a debate it would be very well attended.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
In the past two years, Plymouth has suffered two incredibly bad tragedies: the mass shooting in Keyham, where we lost five people; and the murder of Bobbi-Anne McLeod, an 18-year-old who was taken from a bus stop and murdered. Members on all sides of the House have committed to tackle male violence against women and girls, so will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Cabinet colleague to come to the House to give a statement on what progress is being made, especially as we approach the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, to tackle not only domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, but the growing scourge of incel culture online?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. All the work done to strengthen local communities, particularly after those two tragic incidents, is a credit to his constituents. He will know that a number of Departments, but particularly the Home Office, have done a huge amount in recent years on combating violence against women and girls. Measures need to range from education at an early age, right through to ensuring that victims and potential victims have all the tools they need to enable them to avoid harm. This is an issue that is keenly followed by all Members. If he were to apply for a debate it would be well attended, but I will make sure that the Home Secretary has heard what he has said today. We all send our best wishes to his constituents.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Last year Bradford faced the highest increase in car insurance prices in the whole of Yorkshire, with the average premium standing at a staggering £879. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the car insurance rip-off which means that law-abiding citizens such as her constituents and mine are left paying for the reckless criminality of others?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that if the hon. Lady were to apply for a debate it would be well attended, because there is a huge amount of interest in these issues. As she will know, our legislation to ensure that competition is working well and the consumer really is king will also ensure that people are able to get the best price from, in particular, online companies, if need be going through a broker in the case of insurance. However, I shall make sure that the Department has heard about the hon. Lady’s concerns in the context of her own constituency.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My constituent Margaret Beveridge, a pensioner, took out a £20,000 loan for a ground source heat pump on the understanding that there would be a seven-year payback grant from Ofgem, which it has now withdrawn following an audit. Margaret’s installer is adamant that what Ofgem has said and done is wrong, but getting the information to Ofgem took her past the 28-day appeal deadline, and she is now left high and dry with energy and bank loan outgoings of £700 a month. How many more vulnerable customers will have to suffer before Ofgem’s rules and attitudes are reformed, and how can I get Margaret the help that she desperately needs?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear that. I shall certainly put pen to paper this afternoon and write to the relevant parties on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, but I hope that Ofgem will have heard what he has said today and will be in touch with his office directly if there is anything it can do within the parameters in which it is required to operate. If he wants to give me further details about the specifics of the case, I shall also explore with the Department whether there are any other avenues of redress for his constituent.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The rise in the number of neurodivergent children is a cause of serious concern. In 2018 there were 42 diagnoses in York, but last year there were 118, and the number will exceed that this year. Moreover, the number of education, health and care plans has more than doubled. May we have a debate on the support that is there for families, the staffing that is there to expedite diagnosis, and the ongoing support of children in schools?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this matter. If we want to ensure that every child and young person can reach their full potential, we must also ensure that people have not only diagnoses but the support that they and their families need in order to thrive. The hon. Lady knows how to apply for an Adjournment debate, and the Backbench Business Committee has just been set up and will provide her with another avenue. However, I shall make sure that all the relevant Secretaries of State have heard her question today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I again ask the Leader of the House a couple of questions about the position of minority religious groups? The first concerns the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which has rightly been described as a state without parallel. Crimes against humanity go unpunished, while those who have escaped can face major human rights violations, which are particularly harsh in the case of religious people.
Secondly, many newspapers reported yesterday that what was happening in Darfur could now be considered genocide. People are being killed on the basis of their ethnicity and faith, while places of sanctuary, including mosques and churches, are being destroyed. I believe that departmental action is needed to stop this escalation of violence. As our representative—for I know that she asks questions on our behalf—will the Leader of the House bring the situation in Sudan to the attention of Ministers, and will she also ensure that they are aware of the crimes against humanity in the DPRK, that their escalation is addressed, and that we can do something here in the House to help these people?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman has again done something to help. He has sent a very clear message that all of us in this place are focused on the appalling human rights abuses and atrocities happening in Sudan, North Korea and elsewhere. I thank him for doing that, as he does every single week. I will make sure the Foreign Office has heard what he said, and I know we will do all we can to ensure that the chances of such horrors happening are lessened. He will know that, through the programmes run by the FCDO, we do all we can to help community cohesion in many parts of the world.
Bill Presented
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Laura Trott, Nigel Huddleston, Bim Afolami and Gareth Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with reducing the main rates of primary Class 1 national insurance contributions and Class 4 national insurance contributions, and removing the requirement to pay Class 2 national insurance contributions.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 12) with explanatory notes (Bill 12-EN).
Ways and Means
Autumn Statement Resolutions
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I think it is worth reminding right hon. and hon. Members of the statement that Mr Speaker made earlier about the importance not only of Members being here, obviously, for the opening of the debate, but of remaining in the Chamber for the majority of the debate—and certainly for at least the next two speeches—and, crucially, the importance of returning for the wind-ups from both the Opposition and the Government. 1 Cigarettes An amount equal to the higher of— 16.5% of the retail price plus £316.70 per thousand cigarettes, or £422.80 per thousand cigarettes. 2 Cigars £395.03 per kilogram 3 Hand-rolling tobacco £412.32 per kilogram 4 Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco £173.68 per kilogram 5 Tobacco for heating £325.53 per kilogram”.
If anybody who is hoping to speak in this debate feels they may not be able to return for the wind-ups, they should please let me know now so that I can take their name off the list, rather than saying near the end of the debate, “I am terribly sorry, but I have to do something else that is more important than listening to the wind-ups,” because nothing could be more important than listening to the wind-ups.
It is also important that both the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson responding to the debate are here for the majority of the debate, so that they can respond to the points made by hon. and right hon. Members.
Rates of tobacco products duty
Debate resumed (Order, 22 November).
Question again proposed,
That—
(1) In Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 (table of rates of tobacco products duty), for the Table substitute—
“TABLE
(2) In consequence of the provision made by paragraph (1), in Schedule 2 to the Travellers’ Allowances Order 1994 (which provides in certain circumstances for a simplified calculation of excise duty on goods brought into Great Britain)—
(a) in the entry relating to cigarettes, for “£393.45” substitute “£422.80”,
(b) in the entry relating to hand rolling tobacco, for “£351.03” substitute “£412.32”,
(c) in the entry relating to other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco, for “£161.62” substitute “£173.68”,
(d) in the entry relating to cigars, for “£367.61” substitute “£395.03”,
(e) in the entry relating to cigarillos, for “£367.61” substitute “£395.03”, and
(f) in the entry relating to tobacco for heating, for “£90.88” substitute “£97.66”.
(3) The amendments made by this Resolution come into force at 6pm on 22 November 2023.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
As someone who was in business myself, starting and scaling up businesses for 30 years prior to entering Parliament, it is a privilege to open this debate on behalf of the Government.
For any ambitious entrepreneur, “growth” is the most exciting word in the lexicon. The Chancellor’s autumn statement contains 110 separate measures to help businesses achieve exactly that. It will help to close the UK’s productivity gap by boosting investment by £20 billion a year in a decade. That is why I am wholly unsurprised by the positive response it has received from some of our most prominent business organisations.
The Federation of Small Businesses described the autumn statement as “game-changing”, adding:
“The Chancellor and his Treasury team deserve credit for driving pro-small business change and…acting to help build future prosperity.”
UK Finance said the autumn statement
“demonstrates a continued commitment to growth”.
And the manufacturing trade body Make UK said:
“This was a bold statement by the Chancellor who has”—
delivered—
“a transformational strategy designed to turbo charge investment.”
As the Chancellor rightly said, this is indeed an autumn statement for growth, but it is also clearly an autumn statement for business. I am very proud that my Department has been at the heart of developing these measures, which will have such a profoundly positive impact on this country. Our autumn statement will enable businesses to confidently invest in their futures. It will cut their costs through lower taxes and strip away burdensome red tape. Any of these measures in isolation would be a reason to be cheerful, but taken together, and alongside measures from the spring, they are expected to permanently increase the size of our economy, raise investment, reduce inflation, increase GDP and get more people into work.
On this side of the House, we know that the best way to grow the UK’s finances is not to embrace big government and high spending, but to boost businesses and boost competition—this is the so-called “supply side” of the economy. We will provide our innovators and risk takers with the right infrastructure, regulations and support, so that they can lead this country to greater prosperity.
As the Chancellor said yesterday, every big business was once a small business. For me, those words could not ring more true. This House will know about my passion for promoting the entrepreneurs, start-ups and independent shop owners that are the life and soul of our communities and economies alike. These businesses need investment so that they can flourish. They need freedom from overly burdensome taxes and regulations so that they can grow.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I am delighted with the feedback that the Chancellor has received from businesses, but analysis by the Resolution Foundation finds that households will be £1,900 poorer at the end of this Parliament than they were at the start of it. That means people in our communities have less to spend in these businesses. So is it not the case that families are worse off under this Government?
Kevin Hollinrake
There is no doubt that we have had to take some difficult measures because of the hundreds of billions of pounds—about £500 billion—we put into the economy to protect people from the effects of covid and the cost of living. Conservative Members know that money does not grow on trees; that money has to be paid back. We have had to take those difficult decisions but we are improving the lives of the people the hon. Lady mentions—for example, through the national living wage. It has had a record increase this year to a record level of £11.44. That will put about £1,800 annually on the table for some of the people she mentions. That minimum wage is now double what it was in 2010. We are doing many, many things, including raising the personal tax threshold. Along with her colleagues, including the Front Benchers, she has to reflect on what the Labour Front-Bench team are going to do about the tax thresholds—this is the impact she is talking about. Are they going to increase those thresholds? Please say—[Interruption.] It is no good just standing on the sidelines and criticising. You’ve got to say what you’re actually going to do. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says he is going to do that, which is great. The cost of doing what we are talking about here is £25 billion a year by 2025, so you are going to do that? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am slightly worried that we are getting into a “you”, “you” exchange across the Chamber. As the Members know, they should speak through the Chair and when they say “you”, that means me. I think the Minister is trying to say “the shadow Secretary of State” and so on.
Kevin Hollinrake
I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I am speaking through you—but I apologise. I was getting carried away, because this is such an important point. It is important that if people have different ideas about how we run the economy, they should explain exactly what they are going to do and how they are going to pay for it. The cost of the measures that are being proposed is £25 billion a year, and that comes on top of other spending commitments that the Opposition have made, including £28 billion a year in green investment. Labour Members should be clear about what their plans would be, rather than just objecting.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to being clear—so will he be clear and confirm that over this Parliament living standards are going to fall by 3%? That is the biggest hit to living standards on record. Will he be clear and confirm that that is the case?
Kevin Hollinrake
As I said, there is no doubt that we have been through difficult times, but the hon. Lady should look forward optimistically to the rise in the national living wage and the probability that inflation will be halved again by this time next year, having already been halved. She needs to take a more optimistic view about will happen in the economy next year. I am very optimistic that people will see better times ahead, which is what we all want to see, but the Government are realistic. We have spent £500 billion providing support, saving jobs and businesses, and helping people during covid and the cost of living crisis, but that money has to be paid back. The Opposition need to explain how they are going to do that, if they were ever given charge of the economy.
Small businesses also need protection from late payers, so that they can safeguard their precious time and resources. The measures in the autumn statement seek to achieve all that and more, transforming the fortunes of businesses up and down the country. The statement contains a multitude of measures that will give businesses easier access to investments.
The UK has been something of a start-up miracle—we are second out of the 39 countries in the OECD for start-ups and seventh for scale-ups, which is still a good performance in relative terms but one that we need to improve. Capital holds the key. This Government could not be clearer about that fact and have introduced measures in that regard.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his positive attitude in response to the measures that have been put forward, but I have a request on behalf of my constituents who work in the hospitality sector. Rates and alcohol duties have been frozen for another year, including those on spirits, meaning it will not cost people any more to go out to pubs and other venues in the hospitality sector, but Colin Neill from Hospitality Ulster has expressed concerns about energy prices. Do the Government intend to do anything about them?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I chair the Hospitality Sector Council and meet large and small hospitality businesses regularly, so I understand the pressure they are under. The hon. Gentleman has some such businesses in his constituency and I do too, so we know that is a problem. We have put a huge amount into supporting businesses with their energy costs, halving the cost of energy for most businesses. Energy is much more affordable than it was this time last year, which was an incredibly difficult time, but some businesses are locked into expensive energy contracts from the backend of last year, when prices were very high. If the hon. Gentleman has any examples of such businesses, he should bring them to me, as we have commitments from the energy suppliers, so we can challenge them and try to smooth the contracts over a longer period to ease the pain. I am happy to help him with any individual cases in his constituency.
On capital investment, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will host 200 of the world’s leading investors at the Global Investment Summit this weekend and on Monday, which I hope to attend. It will showcase the UK as one of the world’s best places to do business, and drive billions of pounds of new and strategic investment into every corner of the economy.
The autumn statement has a host of innovative measures that will unlock investment and fuel growth. For example, our pension reforms will help unlock an extra £75 billion of financing for high-growth companies, while providing an even better deal for savers. Plans include a new growth fund within the British Business Bank to crowd in pension fund capital to the UK’s most promising businesses.
Another example is our plan for further funding for two British Business Bank programmes, including the long-term investment for technology and science competition. That will make £250 million available to successful bidders to increase investment in key science and technology sectors, with the private sector contributing at least as much again. Not only that—we have made £50 million available to extend the future fund breakthrough scheme, which backs businesses focusing heavily on research and development.
Although the Chancellor did not mention it yesterday, we have also introduced important measures for equity investments, including a 10-year extension to the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme, giving investors and businesses the confidence, certainty and stability to invest, which underpins the system.
Secondly, this autumn statement contains a series of measures that will provide smaller businesses with practical help. As we prepare to mark Small Business Saturday next weekend—I am sure that Members across the House will visit their small businesses on 2 December—it could not be a more timely moment to announce our business rates support package. It will help high streets and protect smaller firms, which are the life blood of our local communities, saving the average independent pub more than £12,000 a year, and the average independent shop over £20,000.
In addition, the autumn statement will include measures to toughen our regulations to tackle late payments. I have seen at first hand how this scourge can crush even the most determined of business owners’ dreams, so it is right that we act.
The Procurement Act 2023 means that the 30-day payment terms, which are already set for public sector contracts, will automatically apply through the subcontract supply chain. From April next year, any company bidding for large Government contracts will have to be able to demonstrate that they pay their own invoices within an average of 55 days and that will reduce progressively to 30 days.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for the steps that he has announced today, but of course the proof of the pudding lies in the enforcement. Sex discrimination at work has been illegal for almost 50 years, but it still happens. The Minister will be aware that, as well as calling for action on late payment generally, I have often raised an issue that we get in the construction and civil engineering sectors, where the main contractor is paid on time but keeps the money for an inordinate length of time. If the main contractor then does a Carillion and goes down, all the money becomes part of its administration and very often the subcontractors get nothing. Can we have legislation, a code of practice or something to protect small business subcontractors from being dragged down when the main contractor goes under?
Kevin Hollinrake
I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this for some time and I have great regard for the work he does. It is worth him reading the “Payment and Cash Flow Review”, which was published yesterday alongside the autumn statement. It includes some references to retentions, to which he refers. There are other measures from the small business commissioner as well as more transparency on late payments. I am happy to engage with him further on this issue.
Although taxes pay for vital public services, this Government are clear that they must not stifle business owners’ ambitions. Quite simply, our economy relies on those ready to take risks and to innovate. Time and again, these entrepreneurs tell me that a simpler tax system would make life easier for them. This autumn statement will not just reduce tax but reform it, while putting more money into employees’ pockets.
The abolition of class 2 national insurance will save the average self-employed person £192 a year. Alongside the 1% reduction in the rate of class 4 national insurance, some 2 million self-employed people will be saving an average of £350 a year from next April.
In addition, from next year we will merge the existing research and development expenditure credit and the small and medium-sized enterprise R&D scheme. This will allow companies to claim back a proportion of their spending in this area through their tax bill, further simplifying the system and boosting innovation.
Finally, and very significantly, we have unveiled game-changing plans to make full expensing permanent. As the Chancellor set out yesterday, expensing aims to stimulate investment by giving larger companies £250,000 off their tax bill for every £1 million they invest. It was introduced, as hon. Members know, by the Chancellor in the spring and was set to last for three years, but it has been such a success, and the calls for it to continue have been so loud and clear that yesterday the Chancellor made it a permanent policy. This is the largest single tax cut in modern British history. It means that we now have not just the lowest headline corporation tax rate in the G7, but the most generous capital allowances too. That is hugely appealing to any business looking for a home in a global market.
The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that this move alone will increase annual investment by around £3 billion a year, and by £14 billion over the forecast period. We are able to do this only because we have met our borrowing rules early, have more than halved inflation, and are seeing our debt go down every year.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Going back to the tax regime in general, one of the measures in the autumn statement—line 50 of table 5.1—was entitled “HMRC: Investment in Debt Management Capability”. According to the statement, investment of £160 million into the debt management facility of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will somehow unlock £1 billion a year in debt recovery. What is that investment, why was it not undertaken previously and how will it realise an extra £1 billion of income for HMRC?
Kevin Hollinrake
HMRC has a responsibility to be understanding and compassionate when it comes to business difficulties, but if debts are owed to the taxpayer it is only right that we seek to return them. Many more businesses may have that difficulty because of difficulties in recent years, but if the hon. Member is implying that we should not chase debts owed to the taxpayer—
Kevin Hollinrake
Perhaps we should have a conversation offline about that. I think it makes perfect sense to invest in reclaiming debt owed to the taxpayer.
I wish to turn now to another of my Department’s spending measures: the advanced manufacturing plan. The UK is a global advanced manufacturing hub. Recently—this is not a statistic that is often quoted in the media—we overtook France to become the world’s eighth-largest manufacturing nation. What is not to like about that? While we have a strong story to tell, there is fierce global competition. Already my Department has been instrumental in attracting significant global investment to our key future-leaning industries, including Tata’s £4 billion gigafactory and a £600 million investment to build the next generation of electric Minis.
Our £4.5 billion advanced manufacturing plan will help to safeguard the sector’s future and seal our reputation as the best place to start and grow a manufacturing business and to invest in this industry. It includes over £2 billion for the automotive industry—the single biggest Government investment ever in the UK sector—alongside £975 million for aerospace and £960 million for a green industries growth accelerator to support clean energy manufacturing. In short, the plan will ensure that our manufacturing success story can begin its most exciting chapter yet.
This is a Government who know business. We are for business because we are from business. This is a Government who believe in business. This is a Government who back business. Our autumn statement could not be a clearer illustration of those facts. Have no doubt that it will provide our most promising companies with the capital, certainty and support that they need to thrive long into the future. That is why I commend its measures to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will not mind me saying, as someone born and raised in the north-east of England, not too far from Stockton, that it is unequivocally a beautiful part of this country. Anyone on the Government Benches who is not aware of that should visit it for themselves.
Yesterday’s autumn statement felt a bit like the season finale of this Conservative Government. While we might have been hoping for an uplifting twist in the tale, sadly what we were left with was a pitiful ending to an underwhelming story. It was an autumn statement made of pure fantasy: the Government Benches cheering a tax cut, when in fact taxes are higher than they have ever been; a Chancellor claiming to have delivered for working people, when in reality living standards face an unprecedented fall; the Conservatives desperately trying to address business investment, when in fact their chaos was what caused business investment to collapse to begin with.
I understand that it is tempting for Conservatives to buy into the Chancellor’s fiction, but in the real world people can see the cost of the Conservatives in their bank balance, mortgage bill, high street and public services. This country desperately needs hope for the future and a change of course. For all the spin from the Chancellor, people know that they are worse off after 13 years of the Conservatives. The statement confirmed that nothing that the Government will now do will change that. The Conservatives promised that it would be a statement for growth, but the reality is that growth will be down next year, the year after that, and the year after that. The Chancellor said that we have turned a corner, but all we got was confirmation that Britain has hit a brick wall.
Let us get one thing clear at the beginning of this debate: when inflation went up after the invasion of Ukraine, the Government said, “It’s nothing to do with us; it’s all global pressures.” Now, when some of those pressures have reduced and the Bank of England has operated monetary policy in the way we would expect, the Prime Minister wants personal credit for inflation falling. Do the Government really think they can get away with that?
On inflation, the Government oppose the single most important thing they could do, which is to reduce our exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices so that we are never again so vulnerable and exposed. Labour has a plan for energy independence and security so that Britain is never again so badly exposed to those volatile fossil fuel prices. That is the lesson we need to learn.
Let us also not forget that, while we all welcome lower inflation, it is still high, particularly food inflation. When I do the big shop in my local supermarket in Stalybridge, I wince when I see the price of some food items. Families are working harder than ever before, only to have to put the little things that they treat themselves with back on the shelf, or to cut back on what they would once have considered essentials. This is no time for Conservative Ministers to go around asking for a pat on the back.
On the Chancellor’s central claim that lower inflation means he can now spend money, he is simply not being straight with people. The public finances have not meaningfully improved. It is high inflation, not a stronger economy, that has led to higher tax receipts. It is the fiscal illusion of higher tax receipts caused by high inflation, but rather than using that to meet higher costs in the public sector caused by that inflation, he has chosen to spend it. The Minister mentioned his own business career and, as he knows, I personally admire him very much for that career, but if he had run his businesses in the same way that this Chancellor is running the national finances, I think he knows he would have gone out of business very quickly indeed.
There has to be a reckoning for what that will mean for schools, the NHS, the police and the criminal justice system. While the Prime Minister and the Chancellor may live in a different world, our constituents can see the public realm literally crumbling around them. That is the reality of Conservative Britain, and some fiscal trickery will not be enough to convince people that everything is fine. It is also important to say that the Chancellor’s fiscal headroom is now entirely dependent on things such as a large rise in fuel duty next year—and I imagine that very few Conservative MPs have come to the debate today to say that they support that.
Another major focus of the Chancellor’s speech was business investment, and I welcomed that. I enjoyed that bit of the statement because, as I have made clear, I believe that is a fundamental weakness that we must address. The UK, as the Minister knows, has the lowest business investment in the G7. When British innovation is so abundant, that is an appalling effort from this Government. Full expensing is not perfect, because there are issues with the scope of what is covered by the policy as it stands, but not making it permanent would have been untenable and our relative position in the ranking of attractiveness as a place to invest would have fallen off a cliff.
However, if the Government think that is enough to restore the business confidence that they have frittered away over the last 13 years, they are mistaken. The No. 1 thing that business leaders tell me they need is stability. I have been our shadow Business Secretary for two years, and in that time I have shadowed five different Business Secretaries, we have had four Chancellors and I think we have had three Prime Ministers. In the last 13 years, by my count, we have had 11 different growth strategies, and now it appears we are on to the 12th. We see that lack of consistency across every bit of Government.
Take HS2, which is a national embarrassment: billions of pounds wasted, businesses let down, regeneration plans lost, and a flagship Government policy that goes overnight when Parliament is not even sitting and is unable to ask the most basic of questions by way of scrutiny. Or take the phasing out of new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030. There was a major announcement on the headline date, one not made at the request of business, that hugely undermines investment certainty, but without a corresponding change to the rest of the policy environment—the zero-emission vehicle mandate—that leads up to 2030. Therefore they lose the certainty and credibility of keeping the target, but do not gain any flexibility from moving it either. Businesses say to me time and again that they cannot rely on a word any Conservative Minister says, and they are right. What businesses need is a real industrial strategy that gives them certainty and co-ordination. They need real commitments on planning, to get Britain building again. They need politicians who are willing to say, “We need new homes and infrastructure, and we are willing to commit our political capital to deliver it.” They need reform of the apprenticeship levy, so that they have more flexibility over skills and training. They need a better trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union than the one we have at present.
On the energy transition, the Chancellor and the Minister spent some time attacking what Labour call our “green prosperity plan”—our policy commitment to ensure not only that the transition happens, but that the UK gets maximum economic benefits from it. We on the Labour Benches love wind turbines, but we are sick of seeing them built overseas. We love cars and vans, but we know that unless we build batteries for electric vehicles in the UK, we will not have an automotive sector in the long term. We want green steel, but we are not prepared to close down our blast furnaces and import virgin steel from the far east, as the Conservatives plan to do.
The key point is that the Government do not entirely disagree with us. In the last year, £0.5 billion in subsidy has been allocated to Tata Steel in Somerset. Similar sums have been promised for other steel. But what we want to know is what the Government will get for it. How do they get value for money if those are just ad hoc bilateral negotiations? How is public money protected? The difference between us is not the principle that the state will need to co-invest to deliver some of that private investment; it is a huge difference of ambition, transparency and effectiveness.
Labour will not respond to the challenges that we face through such panicked ad hoc announcements. We will face the future with confidence and with a full plan that delivers for British industry. That is what our national wealth fund will do: manage the investments that we will make and ensure that the British people see their money being well looked after. Fundamentally, we want to get the transition right rather than repeat the mistakes of the 1980s and 1990s, which still haunt many parts of the UK today.
Alan Brown
I agree with the principle of a sovereign wealth or investment fund. Look at Norway, which has a £1.1 trillion sovereign wealth fund—the largest in the world. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Westminster has missed a trick for successive decades by not creating an oil and gas fund, and is that not a damning legacy?
Jonathan Reynolds
Unsurprisingly, I agree with part of what the hon. Member said. We could have a lengthy and robust debate on the weaknesses of Conservative Governments in the 1980s and the consequences of their short-term decisions. I would—
Jonathan Reynolds
I would simply say to SNP colleagues that their own independence White Paper made the fair case for a UK-wide energy market. That is because, as in many areas of policy, a UK-wide energy market is the best way to deliver for my constituents in England and for the constituents of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) in Scotland. That is a reality that I think SNP colleagues do not accept.
I think the Minister would like a second bite, so let us bring him in to see what he has to say.
Kevin Hollinrake
On the point about industrial strategy, can the hon. Gentleman answer a simple question with a yes or no? Will he reinstate the plans for HS2?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I have not sold anything.
Jonathan Reynolds
Absolutely. I apologise in full, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Government not only made that decision in their own short-term interests, which compares very poorly even with previous Conservative Governments, but by selling the land, they did so in such a way as to prevent a future Government from trying to correct it. That is the controversy that the Minister makes. Of course, we are still very much committed to Northern Powerhouse Rail—the Crossrail project for the north of England—which would be important for my constituency, but of course, that plan itself relies partly on what was going to be HS2 infrastructure.
As the Minister knows, his Government are making a series of quite bizarre short-term decisions, and trying to use those decisions to present themselves as the party of change at the next election. We all face the consequences, which is regrettable. If the Minister were being totally candid in private, I think he would acknowledge that the north of England has really suffered from those short-term decisions, which we should all very much regret.
The Chancellor spoke at length about long-term sickness yesterday, and again, he was right to do so. We are the only country in the G7 where the participation rate is still below pre-pandemic levels, with long-term sickness at an all-time high of 2.6 million. Unfortunately, all we got was the same old rhetoric and the same old policies. What we needed to hear are two things. First, we need to have some efforts to get people off NHS waiting lists. That is what we would do, by providing 2 million more NHS appointments from the revenue we would get from abolishing the non-dom rule.
Secondly, we need to focus on mental health. That is why we would guarantee people a mental health appointment within a month and make mental health support available in schools, paid for by ending the tax breaks for private education. That would be real support. They are better choices than those the Government have chosen to make, because we in the Opposition know that a strong economy, good public services and social justice are not competing demands; they are all integral to one another.
Peter Grant
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for further investment in the NHS, which we on the SNP Benches would certainly support, but can he confirm the words of the shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting)? Is it the intention of the Labour party to fight the next election on a manifesto that says it will
“hold the door wide open”
to the private sector in our NHS?
Jonathan Reynolds
No, and I think the hon. Member is being a little bit mischievous there, and he is aware of that. What my hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary has reaffirmed is Labour’s historic and enduring commitment to a national health service that is free at the point of use and is managed and run as a national public service. He has also said that there clearly needs to be reform of the NHS to take advantage of new treatments and new ways of doing things; some incredibly exciting developments in life sciences and genomics have to be part of that. I think we would all recognise from our own constituency experiences that the NHS could do better in terms of how it interacts with people and how it gets people the treatment they need in a timely fashion.
What is relevant to this debate in particular is that, as well as being important issues about people needing healthcare and how they get it, these are economic issues. We want to get waiting lists down because we want people to have the medical treatment they need, but we also recognise that with so many people out of work and wanting to get back to work when they are waiting for treatment, it is imperative to get those waiting lists down. Under the last Labour Government, we saw tremendous progress in using the capacity available out there as part of a nationally run and nationally managed national health service to deliver that. Having successfully done that before in government, we believe we can successfully do it again, and that is what we intend to do.
Yesterday really lifted the lid on 13 years of Conservative economic failure. It laid bare the full scale of the damage that this Conservative party has done to our economy, and nothing that has been announced will remotely compensate for those 13 years. Only the Conservatives could preside over the greatest fall in living standards and call it a victory. Only the Conservatives could burden the country with the highest tax bill since the war and then pat themselves on the back for a cursory 2p national insurance cut. Only the Conservatives could crash the economy and send mortgages, food bills and energy costs rocketing and have the audacity to ask the country to trust them on the economy ever again.
As the credits roll on 13 years of Conservative failure, the reviews are in too: business has lost confidence in them, the public have lost patience with them, and even those on their own Benches know that this will not be enough to save them. While the Tories try to kid themselves, I do not believe the British public will be taken for fools. They know that after 13 years, we are all worse off under the Conservatives, and the only way we can truly turn the corner on this litany of failure is with a new and Labour Government—a Government who would put working people first, get energy bills down and get wages up; a Government who would give business the confidence to choose Britain again; a Government rebuilding our crumbling public services and getting waiting lists down; a Labour Government with the ambition, the ideas and the energy to get Britain’s economy really moving and deliver the real change our country is crying out for.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I tend to participate in these debates, because I think they are very important, and when we look at the Government’s record and certainly this Chancellor’s record, it is sometimes best to look back at the last three financial statements and Budgets. Twelve months ago, the Chancellor produced an autumn statement where the predictions were that Britain would have a major reduction in GDP and a recession. The Bank of England also produced similar forecasts, and I can remember the debate about the £50 to £60 billion black hole that the Treasury would have to deal with, which seems to have disappeared. The truth of the matter is that when we are dealing with very large figures and forward projections, we have to take them all with a pinch of salt. In all the time I have been in this House, we have been hearing that we are either about to go bust, or about to boom. The reality is that when it comes to economic forecasting, things are usually not as bad as people think, or not as good as they think.
The Chancellor is turning out to be a very good Chancellor: he is steady, he is solid, and the decisions he has taken have resulted in a better economic out-turn than people projected. What happened over the past year—did we have a recession? No, we have had growth. Even if we look at the OBR report, the balance of payments is showing signs of narrowing; post Brexit, that looks very hopeful, and we are doing a lot of very good trade deals. If we look at the overall situation in terms of business investment, although I was a little sceptical about the rise in corporation tax—I would prefer us not to do it—full expensing has led to more people investing more money, and extending that for longer and making it permanent is a rather good thing. However, I would still like to see the top rate of corporation tax reduced, because I do think there is a point at which we benefit from having a lower rate, as the Government in Éire do.
We have seen a fall in inflation. It has been a bit stickier than people expected, but that is partly because the economy has been a little bit more robust than people have expected, and in reality, things have not been too bad over the past 12 months. People talk about falling living standards, but the Budget projected a higher rate of falling living standards than we have at the moment, and from the previous iteration of the autumn statement a year ago, people expected it to be even worse. The gap is closing; it may well be that by the time we get to a general election, there has been no fall in living standards over the last period of Government. Inflation could well be lower—many of my friends who are monetary economists think that will fall rather faster than people expect—and we all know that pay settlements may be a little higher. Combined with the reductions in national insurance that the Government have implemented, we may well be in a situation where people are not that much worse off.
The reasons for the problems include covid—the Government protected people as best they could, which had an impact on the economy—and the energy price spiral as a result of war in Europe. Again, we protected people: let us not forget that we extended the energy price support by a further three months. That is the reason why living standards are not at a higher level. We can talk about the 1950s, but most Governments since the 1950s have not faced pandemics or major increases in energy costs, and Governments have to deal with the world as it is, not as they would like it to be. The important point is that living standards will rise for most of the next 12 months.
I think the OBR is too pessimistic about growth in the short term. I have a slight fear about what is over the horizon: I think that the Bank of England, by pushing interest rates up as much as it has and doing quantitative tightening at the rate it is doing it, is reducing monetary growth. M2 has reduced substantially and M3X has also reduced, so there is the possibility of credit getting quite tight in about 12 months’ time. If we have a better inflation outlook, we need to see interest rates coming down. I know that the Bank always pretends it is going to be stronger for longer, but it would not surprise me if in reality, we got back on track with interest rates at around 4% rather than 5%, which is what the OBR said in its previous report.
If we look at the result of the past 12 months, we can congratulate the Government on the fact that we made progress, but more progress has to be made. The reduction in national insurance is good: clearly, tax rates are going up because of the freeze on allowances, but I hope that this is the start of a process in which the Government are able to give more money back to working people, who have had to struggle over recent years. However, when we look at this in the context of the £104 billion that we put in to help people with the cost of living, still being able to reduce tax is quite a good result.
I support the triple lock. We made a pledge; we gave our word, and I do not believe in breaking our word. I have constituents who retire for 30 years. In the first 10 years, they have savings and pensions, and as life goes by, they may still have an expensive flat, but their ability to earn more money and their reliance on the state pension becomes much more important. As such, I am glad that the Government have kept their word on the triple lock.
I am also pleased that the Government are being realistic about energy policy, in terms of both nuclear and taking advantage of oil and gas. Today, 75% of our energy comes from oil and gas. It will remain a major factor—we will still need it after 2030—and it seems sensible that we produce it at home, rather than import it. At business questions, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) raised the possibility of the closure of refining capacity in Scotland. He made a very good point: if we are to continue producing oil and gas, we need to improve our refining capacity as well. In the recent energy crisis, we saw the shortage of refining capacity in the west and our reliance on some Russian refining capacity, which caused a problem with diesel.
The Government’s approach has been to help businesses by making full expensing longer term; to help smaller businesses by providing help with the uniform business rate; and to help working people through a reduction in their national insurance contributions. Generally speaking, those are all good things, and we have also done our best to protect the most vulnerable in society by uprating benefits and giving them special payments. I do not think the Government have anything to apologise for; if I have any criticism of the Government, it is that sometimes they do not make the best case for what the Treasury is doing, which is actually a pretty good job.
It is going to be an interesting year. I suspect most of the speeches in this House are going to sound like party political broadcasts about who is doing what and who can do things better, but we all know that to some extent, “It’s the economy, stupid.” At the end of the day—in October or November of next year, I suspect—the question will be whether or not the Government continue to make progress, as they are doing, and whether the people accept that and decide to hold on to nurse for fear of something worse, or believe the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and others that they can do better. We have a very good political system—we have robust debate, and Britain benefits from that—but I still think that when it comes to deciding the future of our country, the British people will take a very sensible course.
I will end my speech with a couple of points. First, the flash purchasing managers’ indexes for the British economy have today been revised up to over 50, which means that we may well have higher growth. Secondly, the eurozone looks like it is getting into deeper trouble, so the relative position of the British economy in three months, six months or 12 months may look rather better than that of other economies around the world. Let us face it: there are problems, but they are problems that the French, the Italians and the Germans also have. We also have opportunities, and in many areas such as fintech and technology, we are doing pretty well as a nation. If we can do more of what we do best and less of what we do badly, I think we will meet with great success.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
As with any major political announcement, the Government clearly had a whole series of long-term and short-term objectives for the autumn statement. I am pleased to confirm that the statement has already achieved what was probably the Government’s single biggest objective: it got good headlines right across the front pages of the right-wing press. They were not true headlines—they were completely untrue —but when did that worry the present Conservative Government? On the one hand, we have The Sun, The Times, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express—all bastions of responsible journalism—celebrating a tax-cutting Budget, and on the other hand, we have the BBC, Channel 4 news, Sky News, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation all saying that it is a tax-increasing Budget and we are heading for the highest tax burden any of us can remember. Who do we believe? That is a difficult question: who do we believe?
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
On that point, is it not a godsend that we do actually have something from the OBR this time, when 12 months ago we had nothing? That was a determined effort by the then Prime Minister and Chancellor not to have anything, so as to deceive the public.
Peter Grant
I do not know if I am allowed to repeat the verb that the hon. Member used—perhaps we should make it “persuade” the public, rather than “deceive” them, which I do not think we are allowed to say in this place—but I think the covid inquiry has blown that wide open. We have a Prime Minister who, as Chancellor, deliberately avoided asking for advice from the experts when he knew he was not going to like the advice he would get. It is barely a year since the Government Benches were full of people denouncing the idea of having an OBR because, in their words, “Economic forecasts are always wrong,” but as soon as economic forecasts begin to suggest that things may be improving, they suddenly want us all to believe them.
It is clear that by the end of this period of Tory rule, people will be paying more in tax in real terms than they were before. I am not against asking people to pay tax if they can see some benefit to the general welfare as a result, but that is not what is happening. We are looking at the largest reduction in real living standards since the 1950s. I did a quick check, and that is before either I or the Minister was even born. Perhaps there are one or two Members here who were alive at that time—I will not look at anyone in particular—but there are not very many. This is what has been described to us in Scotland as the “broad shoulders of the Union”. However, the broad shoulders of the Union have delivered the biggest reduction in real living standards in Scotland since before most of us were born.
While there are some aspects of this statement that we certainly welcome, the good bits do not go nearly far enough and the bad bits go far too far. I welcome the cut in national insurance, but let us not forget that that puts back into the pockets of workers only a quarter of the amount they are losing because tax thresholds have been frozen during a time of high inflation. When people have been getting 5% or 10% pay rises recently, it has not been a pay rise; it has just been trying to keep up with rising costs. Leaving the tax thresholds where they are means that somebody who in real terms is getting less top-line pay than they were two years ago is still having to pay more tax as a result.
The Chancellor boasted about the national insurance cut giving back, in his words, “nearly £450 per year” to average earners. Somehow he did not have time to mention that that drops to just £36 a year by the time we take account of the increases in real levels of income tax. Of course, as of this morning, it has been wiped out completely by the increase in fuel bills that we are all going to face next year. So this is not a giveaway budget; it is a pickpocket budget. It uses the classic pickpocket technique of using a nice thing to distract us—a tuppence cut in national insurance—while someone slips around the back and swipes the higher fuel bills, the higher income tax and higher everything else out of our back pocket at the same time.
We could have seen real action to address what is still the single biggest crisis affecting tens of millions of people on these islands, which is the very real panic people are in every week over the cost of living. We could have seen a continuation of the £400 energy bill rebate for households. We could have seen the Government funding a council tax freeze in the way the Scottish Government have done, meaning that Scotland now has the lowest—yes, the lowest—average council tax in the United Kingdom. They could have followed the SNP’s example and brought in a UK child payment similar to the game-changing Scottish child payment, lifting thousands of children out of poverty.
I welcome confirmation that benefits and pensions will not be cut in real terms. They are not increasing; they are being pegged in real terms, and that is all. However, the fact that that was under serious consideration until about 24 hours before the Chancellor’s statement tells us everything we need to know about where this Government’s values lie, and they do not lie in the same place as the values of Scotland. Alternatively, maybe there was never any danger of that cut being implemented, and they were just threatening it so they could make themselves look good when they announced no change. In the words of the Child Poverty Action Group:
“Struggling families have been worrying themselves sick for months about whether an unmanageable…cut was coming in order to provide the government with a rabbit-out-of-the-hat moment.”
Just as over the last few years we have seen the Tories wanting to punish homeless people for daring to be homeless and wanting to punish asylum seekers for daring to flee certain death, they are now planning to punish people who are ill and people with disabilities for daring to want to have a living at the same time as being ill or having a disability. We know what we should expect and what is coming next. The press were all trained to respond today, so we can expect an avalanche of rhetoric in the right-wing press denouncing anybody on disability benefits, in the same way that they have denounced migrants and asylum seekers for years and years. They denounced them as scroungers and fraudsters, all to give cover to a brutal and inhumane attack by a brutal and inhumane Government.
The party that last year demanded that all civil servants returned to full-time office working immediately, because working from home is not properly working, is now saying that people on disability-related benefits will face the choice between taking up a—non-existent—working from home vacancy or literally facing starvation. Yesterday, the Prime Minister either would not or could not tell us how many vacancies currently being advertised in DWP jobcentres would be suitable for home working, or maybe he just did not care enough to bother finding out. The answer, incidentally, is that about one in 20 of those vacancies might be suitable for home working, which is not nearly enough to get the number off benefits that the Chancellor claims to think is realistic.
More than 100 disability organisations have warned that the Government’s inhumane policy could lead to unnecessary deaths, and that is not a blank threat. Last year, a study by the Glasgow Centre for Population Health and Glasgow University found that over 300,000 deaths in Britain could be attributed to Government austerity policies. Austerity is not an economic necessity. Austerity is unnecessary, and those 300,000 deaths were unnecessary as well.
I welcome some of the measures announced to support small businesses. As I mentioned in an intervention, we still need to see real action to protect small subcontractors involved in big infrastructure projects, so that they do not go down if the main contractor goes down. A lot of small businesses have now stopped bidding for that kind of work because they are worried that it may put them out of business, rather than keep them in business.
It is disappointing that, yet again, there is no movement on the determined calls from the hospitality industry to reduce or abolish VAT on that sector, even temporarily. A few weeks ago, I lost yet another award-winning small business café in my constituency, because such people just cannot continue working eight hours a day and earning less than the legal minimum wage. It is a bit ironic that the Government who caused rampant inflation now expect us to cheer when they start to bring it down. It is a wee bit like an arsonist expecting a medal for helping to put out half the fire.
We welcome additional support for green industries, but look what is happening among our competitors. In the UK, the figure is £960 million in total by 2030—yes, very nice—but the equivalent figure in Germany is €4.1 billion and in France it is €500 million every year, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research.
What has happened to the hydrogen town announcements we were promised in March 2023? I have world-leading work going on in my constituency as part of the H100 project, which is a much smaller-scale project to assist in conversion from natural gas to hydrogen. That is a chance for Scotland, for Fife and for Methil to be at the centre of one of the world’s leading industries. Whether a bid from Fife or a bid from somewhere else is going to be successful we do not know, and we do not even know who has bid yet. That announcement was due in March, and it is now too late for that work to be done according to the original timetable. Can the Minister give us an update, or are the Government planning to just walk away from green hydrogen in the same way that they walked away from wave and tidal power in the 1980s and 1990s?
By comparison, despite the fact that the Scottish Government do not have anything like the borrowing power or indeed the legislative power of this place, and despite the fact that more and more of Scotland’s funding is having to go into the funding holes left by the policy failures of the UK Government, we now have 1.2 million people under the protection of a Scottish benefits system that explicitly on its home page puts “dignity, fairness and respect” at its heart. Those are not words that many people who use DWP services would use.
As I have said, the Scottish Government have frozen council tax, and are lifting children out of poverty with the Scottish child payment. They are providing support to mitigate the additional heating costs that households with very severely disabled children and young people face through the winter heating payment, and free school meals to all children in primary 1 to 5 and eligible children throughout school. Scotland has a much more widespread and more widely available bus concession scheme than the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Child Poverty Action Group has calculated that these policies mean that the cost of raising a child in SNP-governed Scotland is £27,000 less in total than for an equivalent family living under Tory rule in England. Is it any wonder that the Tories have no chance of being elected any time soon, or any time ever in Scotland? The Chancellor could have extended those benefits to hard-pressed families in England but he chose not to do it. It is not that he could not do it; it just was not important enough to him.
People in Scotland cannot afford to wait for a change in Government policy in Westminster to make things better. One of the features of this autumn statement is that things look bad enough just now, but they will get a million times worse immediately after the next election, so regardless of what the Opposition think they are going to be able to do if they win it, their hands will be tied. The warning to people in Scotland is, “You might think you’re voting for a change, but if you vote Labour, you’ll be voting for more of the same.”
We are calling on the UK Government to transfer to the Scottish Parliament permanently the powers to act on energy, employment, welfare and the economy, so that Scotland gets the policies it votes for and that it needs. We must reinstate the £400 energy bill rebate, and follow the example of other countries such as France in taking proper action to bring food prices down. Increasing food prices are not making life any easier for farmers; they are losing out. They are not making bigger profits; the supermarkets might be but the farmers certainly are not. The Government could boost people’s incomes by introducing a proper living wage that is actually enough to live on. They could also increase benefits in line with inflation and maybe a bit more, and match the Scottish child payment UK-wide.
Those policies represent our values; they represent the values of the Scottish National party, because they are the values of Scotland’s people. It is becoming increasingly clear that no Westminster Government will ever deliver to Scotland the policies it votes for. The only way to have a set of Government policies that embeds the values of Scotland’s people is to put those policies firmly into the hands of an independent Scottish Government.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
In these unprecedented times, we stand at the crossroads of recovery and resilience, and the autumn statement gives us a clear road map for the challenging economic terrain we still find ourselves in. I have a lot of time for the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), but I gently remind him that when we came to power in 2010, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) had left a note saying there was no money left. We have made a lot of progress since then and taken long-term decisions, and it was only thanks to that that we were able to pay for the substantial financial support we rightly gave to families and businesses during the covid pandemic. But we are still paying for that support and that is part of the challenge we face. Targeted support schemes such as the furlough scheme demonstrated a deep understanding of the challenges faced by businesses and employees, and I remind the House that no such scheme was put in place after the financial crash overseen by the previous Labour Government.
We still have an aftershock from covid at home in terms of economic productivity, but we are much boosted by the new trade deals that have been secured and I look forward to our taking advantage of that. The key issue, however, is the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin and the impact on energy costs. Again, we have given unprecedented financial support in the past few years to households and businesses. I was, frankly, somewhat shocked by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant); I never thought of him as a Putin apologist. To try to suggest that this Government stimulated the inflation is far from the truth, and he knows it is that energy challenge that has really made the difference. That is why it is right that the Government are investing in the energy of the future while also making sure that we can keep the lights on.
I welcome the measures in the Chancellor’s statement yesterday. They reflect a profound understanding of the evolving needs of our society and economy, highlighting the imperative to adapt and evolve.
Dr Coffey
No, I will not.
The autumn statement unveiled a comprehensive plan that addresses immediate needs while also putting in place the foundations for long-term growth. The measures outlined in it serve as pillars of stability, fostering hope and laying the true foundations for a resilient and prosperous future. There are 110 measures, and I must admit that I have not read the entire Green Book, but some parts stood out to me, particularly those on backing business and making work pay. This autumn statement clearly sets the way for growth.
Given the challenges facing business, the full deduction is welcome and this is a good moment to make it permanent, especially as the UK will be hosting the global investment summit this coming Monday. I used to work for Mars, Incorporated and I know its investment in capital was pivotal to its manufacturing industry productivity and financial success, so I welcome this improvement and the long-term confidence in investment in manufacturing capital and other areas.
Businesses in my constituency, particularly those in hospitality and tourism, will welcome the business rates measure. It will help with cash flow, but I have heard today from Andrew Dalby, managing director of Brafe Engineering in my constituency, a very successful business largely driven by exports, and he has made a point to me that I want to share with the House. He says:
“The R&D tax credits…must run in parallel to see the development through to profitability to then permit the investment in the selected capital equipment needed to boost production efficiency.”
There are other substantial elements, but Brafe Engineering needs to make its components part of the system in providing skills and equipment to energy companies. It needs to enhance how it manufactures those complex components, but there is no grant system to support that and to help its customers succeed. For that business, I encourage my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider further work on the benefits of adjusting the R&D tax credit claims. I am aware that when they were introduced about 15 years ago, there was abuse of them, particularly by financial firms, so I think the Treasury will continue to be cautious, but we need to make sure that in R&D we focus not just on research but on development too, because that is where the value will come from.
I am thrilled that we are finally getting on with the reforms to solvency II. I remember a meeting in Downing Street just after COP26. I had been encouraging a lot of financial institutions there to raise this issue, and I am very pleased that—after some resistance, I think, from some of the institutions in Government because of the uncertainty it would bring, and indeed some concerns on pension fiduciary duties—we have found a way through, as we must unlock that investment for the long term. This has always seemed odd to me: we want things such as the local government pension scheme, so why do they not invest in the infrastructure they want if they believe it represents good value for taxpayers’ money? I am not just referring to local government. There are plenty of other insurers and others who can try to get a better return from long-term investment and long-term pension increases.
One of the big highlights of the autumn statement were the big tax cuts, for employees in particular. That is very welcome. I will be surprised if any Member votes against the legislation announced for next Thursday, because it is very important that we help people in these challenging times with more money in their pockets.
I welcome the announcements about stability in benefits and pensions. We have twice voted in this Parliament to set aside the earnings lock, recognising what happened with the dip in earnings where if we had not changed the law we would have frozen pensions. That would not have been the right thing to do, so we put in place our triple lock and lifted pensions then by 2.5%. That was followed by a year when there was a surge or spike—almost a covid-related distortion—when again the House agreed to set aside the normal earnings link. I was in the Government then and I did say that that would be it and we would apply the triple lock policy for the remainder of the Parliament. I am conscious that this is one of the biggest earnings uplifts that people will enjoy and it is right that pensioners share in that success. I am delighted we have kept to our commitments, therefore.
The Government have wisely recognised the need for a change to the local housing allowance. We made a shift during covid but then froze that change. Increasing interest rates have led to challenges in terms of rents, so I am pleased we have reinstated that. It represents a large sum of money. When we did this a few years ago, it cost an extra £1 billion just for the following year. There will be an extra £1.3 billion of spending, so I expect the amount of money taxpayers now pay in housing support will probably rise to about £32 billion or £33 billion a year. That is a substantial sum to help others, but I am conscious that there have been particular challenges with regard to local housing allowance and finding appropriate accommodation in various parts of the country.
The broader aspects of the back to work plan that have been announced and the reforms to welfare are welcome. Some of the catcalls directed at the Chancellor yesterday were completely undeserved. There is no greater dignity than being in work. Many people want to work, but feel that they cannot. They struggle to do so, and it is absolutely right that we help people into work. During my three years in the Department for Work and Pensions —we were in the covid pandemic for part of that—it was critical to try to help people’s mental health and wellbeing to support them to get back into work.
I am conscious of the issues that people have raised about access to mental health appointments and so on, but such things as the expansion of individual placement and support and other aspects of universal support go straight to the heart of trying to tackle some of the barriers that people face. Instead of focusing on some of the changes that will happen to fit notes, the whole focus has been—I worked on this for some time, and I am delighted that policies came through last year and we are seeing the funding to support them—on what people can do, not what they cannot.
I am conscious that GPs do not like to be the barrier to the gateway to benefits, but it must be good for their patients if, instead of just signing them off with even more time out of work, they were helping them to find a way through. If we wanted to be radical, perhaps the NHS budget should pay for disability benefits of people of working age. That would bring it together. I appreciate that may be a step too far at this moment, but it is about working together so that people have a fulfilling life. That is not only about being in work and away from social isolation, but the extra financial rewards that come from it.
Peter Grant
We are all in favour of helping people back to work, but is it not the case that by focusing on the punishment aspect, as the Chancellor and Prime Minister have done, we are talking not about helping people back to work, but about starving them back to work, whether or not they are fit to go back to work?
Dr Coffey
I am not sure why I gave way. I should have expected a low-quality comment like that.
In terms of the thinking about when we were coming out of covid, I worked with the now Prime Minister on the Way to Work, and we got 500,000 people back into jobs. A lot of that comes with support, but there were other aspects, such as bringing interviews into the jobcentres so that people actually turned up. I commend in particular our frontline work coaches. Candidly, if any Member of Parliament has not been to the jobcentre in their constituency or nearby, I strongly urge them to do so. They are a beacon of hope for people who are often desperate, but those who work there are frustrated by the fraud they experience, and they would like to do more about it. This sort of approach—not a stick, but a carrot—helps people. It gives a lot of time and support.
I note the expansion of the restart programme, which is to be improved, and that is good, but it has been successful in getting people back into work. There are a few ghosts, I suppose, within the benefits system, and it can be challenging to identify them. I am conscious that the Department for Work and Pensions considers the vulnerability of its claimants. It is a sensible approach and a step forward, and I know it will be undertaken with great care.
One of the other aspects I will talk a bit more about is planning and energy. I commend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Government more broadly on one aspect: finally, we will have a much more co-ordinated approach on the national grid. I have been trying to get that sorted for my constituents for six or seven years, and the proposed reforms have come too late for them. We still have a disconnected element and we still have projects that should have come in as direct current, where the infrastructure was built to support that and the developer then changed their mind. New infrastructure then had to be built for the same developer. There are no jobs that come with that. It is not about being a nimby, but about trying to make sure that we have a co-ordinated grid for the future, recognising the dynamic change that has happened, instead of the traditional coal and gas plants that we had. We have moved to a situation where a lot more of our energy will be coming in directly from the coast.
I encourage the Government to look again at considering existing brownfield sites where there are already energy connections, whether that is the Isle of Grain or Bradwell in Essex, rather than ploughing up acres and hectares of land that is otherwise used for agricultural production. Indeed, I recognise my constituents’ concerns about the change in status of a lot of this network to almost default approval; that goes against the normal way of doing planning. I understand why the Government are considering this, but it will be unwelcome in my constituency. We will be debating the national policy statements on energy at another time, so I will not dwell on that now. I understand that we have to move as quickly as possible, but I think that a more holistic approach, even for projects that are in the pipeline now, should be undertaken. My understanding is that that will not delay the connections in the future.
The port of Felixstowe is part of a freeport, and I welcome the extensions there, given the benefits. I ask the Minister to work with other Departments, particularly the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to ensure that the freeports are effective and flowing, and to listen to the feedback from people in East Anglia about how we think some aspects could be improved. We will discuss the local government finance settlement on another occasion, but when it comes to spending I am conscious of the challenge that county councils in particular face on social care, special education needs and disabilities, and transport to school.
Historically, a constituency like mine would be seen as exceptionally prosperous; it always surprises people when I tell them that the median salary is far higher in Liverpool—apart from in Liverpool, Walton—than in my constituency. That is because a lot of people come to my part of the world to retire. There is quite long life expectancy in the area, but people in the health system know that as soon as someone goes past 80, the likelihood that they engage the NHS and social care is much higher. This long life that people enjoy—I continue to welcome people who come to see the special coast of Suffolk Coastal—needs to be taken account of, rather than some of the traditional assumptions. Indeed, the chief medical officer Sir Chris Whitty recently highlighted that in his annual report.
I encourage the Government to go even further on a few things, on top of their 110 measures. One is continuing to focus on supply-side reform. We have already seen what is being proposed for energy, and trying to get a connection timeline down from five years to six months is sensible because it can be very frustrating for people wanting to connect. But we should go further. Yesterday I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate on the apprenticeship levy. Let us also go a bit further on childcare; the Government have done some really good things, but let us go further and see whether we do need Ofsted to be the arbiter. Why can we not rely on our local councils, which already have a statutory duty for children and adults? We could consider that, as it would localise provision as well.
I could go further. I have a particular pet project for the Department for Transport, which the Transport Secretary well knows. People who passed their driving test before 1997 can drive a D1, which is basically a minibus not for hire, and a C1, which is a typical Tesco or Ocado delivery van; they are also used by many other firms, like Amazon, DPD and so on. A European regulation then required people to undertake the expensive tests needed for HGVs. I think that is unnecessary. At the time, I guess it must have been a Labour Government, or perhaps it was still a Conservative one; I cannot quite remember—[Interruption.] I apologise: it must have been a Conservative Government who thankfully negotiated to keep grandfather rights. I say that we should get on and repeal this unnecessary law, as that would allow many more people into the market to drive these sort of vans. This is a particular issue for rural communities, which do not have extensive public transport, because so much community transport relies on volunteers to drive minibuses so that people can get to a variety of activities, and those areas are currently having to pay quite a lot of money to train people to do that. This is a really easy win. I keep being told that primary legislation would be required, but let us do that, if that is what is needed to boost that aspect of productivity.
There is much in the autumn statement of which I am proud, and I commend the Chancellor and the Prime Minister on their extensive work on it. The autumn statement resonates with compassion and foresight. It acknowledges the hardships faced by individuals and businesses alike Our commitment to bolstering our economy while extending support to those most affected by recent upheavals is commendable and a clear demonstration of the principles of a Conservative Government. I commend the resolutions to the whole House.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)—
Matt Western
We use those terms, my friend.
I agree with the right hon. Lady on legislation about drivers of C1 vehicles. However, on Ofsted and whether local authorities could take on that responsibility, my authorities, Warwick District Council and Warwickshire County Council, have been stripped bare, and I fear that under yesterday’s announcement we will see a further decimation of our local services.
John McDonnell
Just to get it straight, the Local Government Association has said that there is a £4 billion gap in local council funding, so there is no room for manoeuvre on additional services to be provided directly by local councils.
Matt Western
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I, and I am sure all of us, know the immediate pressures that local authorities face, whether in addressing homelessness or in addressing social care, so it is not within their current capacity to absorb any more; in fact, they are shrinking by the month.
Matt Western
I thank the right hon. Lady for that clarification. She is right but, as we saw through the pandemic, it was local authorities who did so much to make up for the failings of the over-centralised Government, who—through the covid-19 inquiry—we now understand were incapable of getting to grips with the pandemic in our communities. That is why local governance is so important. I will move on to my speech.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
On the delivery of net zero projects, does the hon. Member agree that local authorities are well placed to deliver on the ground and that, rather than having centralised delivery, it is much better for them to do that work?
Matt Western
I absolutely agree. We should take pride in our local authorities. They understand the landscape and the needs of communities, but they must be properly funded to deliver these essential services. I am afraid that, as with the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete problem we see right now in our schools—two particular schools, Myton School and Aylesford School, in my constituency have RAAC—we see delays in rectifying problems because the Government have become so over-centralised.
If I may, I will move on to my speech—I am sure that everyone is waiting for it. I am afraid that, in the last 24 hours, we have seen holes beginning to appear in the Chancellor’s autumn statement. There are holes in the claims he made about lowering taxes, holes in its credibility and holes in the public finances, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) alluded to. For the public, the manifestation of that is probably most often seen and understood through the holes in our streets and on our roads. That is the reality of the decay we face across our country.
What surprises and disappoints me is the Government’s chutzpah and the claim that they are making long-term decisions when just five weeks ago the supposedly cautious Prime Minister and his Chancellor stated that it was “virtually impossible” to make tax cuts. It now seems that the Prime Minister realises not only that has he got an election coming up soon but that he does not have many options, so it is best just to spend some money and run. His five pledges, even, have wasted away—they have reappeared as five long-term decisions. What will we expect next month on his five promises to the country? It is yet another reset—I think we have had 11 already.
As I mentioned in an intervention, we are a year on from the kamikaze Budget, which cost the country an estimated £40 billion—[Interruption.] Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker; my voice is quite weak due to a chest infection. At the time, I asked the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), whether he had
“not just fired the starting gun on a run on the pound”.—[Official Report, 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 964.]
He was utterly dismissive of my assertion, but of course that is entirely what happened, and that is what we saw on the financial markets within minutes of him speaking. Of course, that translated into higher interest rates, which in turn meant higher interest rates for mortgages, so this year we see 1.5 million households moving off their fixed rates and facing higher mortgage costs averaging a further £250 a month. Next year, we will see a similar number of households moving to higher mortgage costs. That comes at a real cost to households up and down the country.
The Prime Minister talks about inflation being a tax, which is a bizarre way of considering it, but we have to remind the public of why we have such high inflation— he may suggest that he has managed to halve it; he is claiming the success from it, although he did not seem to claim responsibility when it went up—and why we faced higher inflation than the majority of the major G7 nations. The truth is, we still face an inflation premium relative to the United States, Germany, France and all the other major nations purely because of what happened a year ago. That is costing our households and businesses. It is costing us all; and, indeed, it has massively damaged our reputation.
That comes on top of 13 years of austerity and failure, with people really feeling the costs on their lives of the austerity that the Government imposed on us. They see services collapsing around them and feel the fabric of society being weakened by successive Conservative Governments.
As we look at the economy and what was announced yesterday, I am reminded of a photograph that I saw a couple of days ago of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister at a further education college. I do not know whether hon. Members noticed how both of them were trying to hold a screwdriver, but it was almost as if they had never held one before. There is a real need to reskill this country, and we could start with some of the people in power. We have a former Prime Minister who, we are now told, could not understand graphs or data, and therefore struggled to interpret how we should react to the pandemic.
We now face a stagnant economy, as we are told by the OBR and all the balanced economic observers: it was flatlining at just above zero for the last quarter, and we are looking at absolute zero in the current quarter. But somehow the Chancellor wants us to applaud growth rates of 0.7% next year and, possibly, 1.4% in 2025—a huge downgrade on what was forecast earlier this year. The public are being duped by the claims the Government made yesterday that things are rosy and will be positive next year. The public know that they have suffered 13 years of mismanagement, in which the Government have failed to solve the productivity puzzle. I used to work in France, where the average worker is 20% more productive than the UK worker. Why is that? Is it down to employment legislation or the lack of investment incentive in this country? The harsh reality is that we all have to work much harder in order more or less to stand still versus the French.
The Chancellor quoted an aggregated growth figure in his statement, but any credible observer should have looked at growth per head, which is far weaker in the UK than in the US, Japan and Spain, and is fractionally ahead of France. In the real economy, people are feeling the impact of the last 13 years, and particularly the last couple of years. They have less money in their pocket, and the money is not going as far. They are suffering a real-term loss of income. We are told that next year their real-terms income will fall a further 1%. Energy costs now account for a much larger proportion of income, having increased by 50% over the last two years: gas has increased 60% in the two years since 2021, and electric is up 41%. Energy bills have increased an average of 51% versus 2021-22. This was not all necessary. We can talk about global energy price increases and inflationary pressures, but the UK suffered because we did not have the energy storage or resilience, particularly in low-cost onshore wind.
We also have some of the least efficient housing stock in Europe. People have to spend more to keep their homes warm, because their houses are inefficient. The houses built since 2016—1.2 million homes—should have been zero-carbon homes but, because all that legislation was torn up, they are not. Instead, they need more gas and electric, which means higher demand. Without that, total aggregate demand would have been brought down to a lower level.
Let me talk about the predicaments facing students. They face a much higher rate of inflation than the typical UK adult, but maintenance loans have not kept up with inflation. According to the House of Commons Library, there has been an 11% real-terms cut in maintenance loans. That equates to them being £1,200 worse off a year as a result of this Government.
I listened to the Chancellor on this morning’s media round. It was only a matter of time before being economic with the truth would give way to the truth about the economy. He was asked whether there were tax cuts when taxes continue to rise, and about his selective approach to cuts being undermined by stealth and concealed taxes, resulting effectively in higher rates of tax brought on by what economists refer to as fiscal drag. He was asked about the freezing of tax thresholds that will see 7 million people overall paying higher levels of tax: 4 million who have never previously been liable having to pay income tax, and 3 million who have moved from the lower to the higher threshold. His promises on lower taxes are empty, and the public will know that.
Let us not forget that this Conservative Government have imposed the highest tax burden in the post-war period, and the most regressive. The Conservatives like to present themselves as the party of lower taxes, but let us remember that when they came into power in 2010 the first thing they did was increase VAT, from 15% to 20% ultimately—33% up on the most regressive tax of all. There has been a whole raft of other stealth taxes, including on insurance. The public need to know that they face five years of further tax rises.
Let us be clear: the Chancellor is funding these tax cuts by tightening non-protected public services. Given the country’s experience over the past 13 years, the Government’s plans should ring alarm bells, because they sound remarkably like “Austerity II: the sequel.” Given the deep damage they exacted on our communities and our social fabric, that will come with a real social cost.
It would be churlish not to acknowledge a few welcome moves—plagiarism is the most sincere form of flattery. The NHS workforce plan was something that Labour proposed. Planning reform is welcome, but the Government do not seem as ambitious as the Labour party. Elsewhere, I welcome the expensing changes to encourage business investment, but I do not know why it could not have happened earlier, because we have not seen the scale of investment in the UK that we should have seen. On support for innovation and certain developments, I would like to see more, particularly on the role of universities.
The support for the UK automotive sector is particularly welcome for companies such as Jaguar Land Rover, Aston Martin and the myriad supply companies in my constituency. The Government talk about an advanced manufacturing plan, but where has it been for the last few years? They have not had any form of industrial strategy. In fact, the former Chancellor could not even bring himself to use those words when he was in post. I add my support for the Winser report and the rolling out of the grid. It is way too late, but we need to get on with it. It is essential that we electrify the UK economy.
Increasingly, this appears to be a Government without a cause. If they have a purpose, it is as a self-preservation society, as perhaps was exposed yesterday. At their heart is a weak Prime Minister. His King’s speech betrayed a lack of vision and substance; out of ideas and out of road. I am afraid that the public will be underwhelmed by this statement, and by a Government so utterly out of touch. As they say in examinations: compare and contrast the clear direction and purpose of the five missions forged by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) with the soft, fluid aims of the current Prime Minister.
Overnight, analysis from independent think-tanks such as the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Resolution Foundation has underlined the inequality in the tax burden, where those on the lowest income and those least able are paying disproportionately more under the Conservatives. Overall, the average household faces a £4,500 increase in taxes in the period 2019 to 2028. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor may pat each other on the back, but in this Parliament alone they have presided over a £1,900 tax increase, according to the Resolution Foundation. After 13 years of failure, chaos and mayhem, when energy prices are rising astronomically and food prices dramatically, we now see changes to the tax threshold. The public are really hurting. I am afraid the Government just do not get it.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I welcome many of the announcements made yesterday in the autumn statement, in particular raising the minimum wage to £11.44, an increase of 9.8%, which will directly benefit those in my constituency. That means an increase of £1,800 in the annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage and it is predicted to benefit over 2.7 million low-paid workers.
Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister to increase support for apprenticeships and back an apprenticeship hub in Broxtowe. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was delighted when, not 30 minutes later—and presumably because of my question—the Chancellor announced £50 million to increase apprenticeship training in engineering and other growth sectors. The two-year apprenticeship pilot will help create new opportunities for those who do not think university is the right option for them. In Broxtowe we have businesses, such as WEBS Training and Hairven, that are doing amazing work with apprentices. Adding a new apprenticeship hub to Broxtowe will mean people of all ages can train and retrain to join the huge variety of businesses and industries that we have in Broxtowe.
I welcome the announcements made in relation to veterans. As a veteran myself, I am passionate about increased support and making our country the best place in the world to be a veteran. The Chancellor announced £10 million to support the Veterans’ Places, Pathways and People programme, as well as extending national insurance relief for employers of eligible veterans. Those announcements will ensure that our veterans have the support they need, whether that is for seeking employment, or for housing or mental health support.
I would like to see more industries creating further entry pathways specifically for veterans. In Nottinghamshire, I was proud to champion and open the first ever military service leavers pathway into policing, which gives veterans a direct pathway into the police force through the police constable degree apprenticeship. It ensures that skills gained in the military are transferred to a new career that can be entered following a shortened training scheme. I would really encourage other industries to look at similar pathways.
As a Member of Parliament from the east midlands, I was glad to see the announcement of a new east midlands investment zone. The Chancellor announced that the new investment zones will help catalyse more than £3.4 billion of private investment and 65,000 new jobs. I look forward to seeing further information published.
Before the autumn statement, I, along with a number of colleagues, called for an extension of the 75% discount on business rates, up to £110,000 for retail leisure and hospitality businesses. I am therefore thankful to hear that announcement made yesterday. It will have a hugely positive impact on my constituents in Broxtowe.
I am sure the majority of my colleagues across this Chamber experienced the unique difficulties that the pandemic held for those who were self-employed. The self-employed income support scheme was fantastic in supporting businesses, but I am aware that some missed out and so I was particularly pleased yesterday to see measures supporting the self-employed, such as abolishing class 2 national insurance altogether.
I welcome the Government honouring the triple lock in full by increasing the state pension by 8.5%, which will be worth up to up to £900 or more a year. That means the basic state pension will be £3,750 higher than in 2010. The pension fund reforms will be promising news for my constituents contributing to their pensions. As the Chancellor laid out, the majority of defined contribution savers will have their pension pots managed in schemes of over £30 billion by 2030, and by 2040 all local government pension funds will be invested in pools of £200 billion or more. I welcome the consultation on the potential of giving savers a legal right requiring a new employer to pay pension contributions into their existing pension pot if they choose. I have previously spoken in the Chamber about the complications that can arise from multiple pension pots, so I hope this will simplify the pension scheme, meaning that people can move to having one pension pot for life.
Overall, I welcome the autumn statement and look forward to seeing the positive impact that the new measures have in Broxtowe.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
The Government have presided over a crash in the economy of Titanic proportions. They saw the iceberg of stagnation, persistently high inflation and falling living standards, and they decided to head straight for it. Yet they refuse to do the one thing left that would be useful to the rest of the country: abandon ship.
The Chancellor talked a great deal about the need for growth and called this his “autumn statement for growth” yesterday, but what is the reality? The OBR has cut the growth forecast for next year to just 0.7%. In fact, it has cut the growth forecast for the next three years. If it is right—I remind the House that it was the Government’s decision to devolve forecasting to the OBR—we will not hit a 2% real GDP growth target in the foreseeable future. Worse still, this will go down in history as the only Parliament where living standards were lower at the end of it than at the beginning. How is that a policy for growth? I do, however, agree with the Chancellor on one thing, that strong public services depend on a strong economy, but on the official forecasts we will have neither. I do not think I could be any more damning of the Government’s record and the economic legacy they will leave than the OBR itself. It says that, faced with weak growth and the giveaways in this statement, the Chancellor’s spending plans rely on implausible levels of austerity in local government and public services.
Implausible levels of austerity mean enormous levels of cuts, when we know that local government spending has already been cut to the bone. That is why councils of every political stripe up and down the country are now facing bankruptcy. At the same time, our public services are in crisis. People are now more likely to be on an NHS waiting list than ever before and our schools are literally falling apart. I could go on. The Chancellor’s policy for the crisis of funding for public and local services is typically Conservative—even more cuts.
In passing, we should explode the myth that a pre-election bribe is anything but the most cynical type of politics. More importantly, the voters will see through it. The Foreign Secretary, also known as the former, former, former, former Prime Minister and his Chancellor Osborne had a one-off increase in Government spending and investment in 2014 and then reimposed austerity once they were re-elected in 2015. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor hope to emulate that con trick. The British public, however, will not be taken for mugs, not least because on the Labour Benches we will warn them of it. The reality is that this is part of another bout of austerity, just as the OBR warns. The shiny bauble of cutting national insurance is to get the Conservative party through to the election without tearing itself apart—then the axe will fall.
As for the carrots to business to invest, we know they will not work. One reason they will not work is that the Government are cutting public investment. Why does that matter? Because the state sector is the single biggest investor in the economy. The whole notion that it crowds out private investment is nonsense and one of the many idiocies of the Thatcher era. Government have been “getting out of the way of business investing” for well over 40 years now. As a result, we have an abysmal record on investment, one of the worst in the industrialised world.
It is hard to imagine that any of the measures in the autumn statement were properly assessed for their impact on equalities in accordance with any of our laws. Despite literally being lawmakers, the Government have a strained relationship with complying with any of them. To prove it, we do not have to look much further than the callous announcements regarding disability benefits. In a cost of living crisis of the Government’s own making, an estimated 370,000 people with disabilities and debilitating chronic health conditions will be forced to work from home in jobs that do not exist whether they are physically or mentally able to or not, or lose up to £5,000 in income a year. How are they expected to survive, and how much more inhumanity dressed up as policy can this Government drag through the House before the country has an opportunity to vote them out? In case we have forgotten, they obviously want to remind us that they are the nasty party—nastier than ever.
Any reasonable equality assessment in accordance with our laws would have the author of this Budget sent back to the drawing board. In any scenario in which real incomes and living standards are falling, those at the bottom—those who are already facing discrimination and hardship—will be even worse off. This is the Conservatives’ economic legacy, and it is a shameful one.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
After 13 long years of Conservative economic failure, Britain is stuck in a cycle of low growth and high taxes, with working people across the country paying the price. This autumn statement was a chance for an economic reset, but instead we got yet another political reset. The Chancellor is, I hope, good at maths, so perhaps he can count how many there have been so far.
It is the Conservatives’ election strategy that has shaped this statement, not the needs of the country, but my constituents will not be fooled by minor tax giveaways in an election year from the same party that has raised their taxes 25 times since 2019—and they are minor giveaways, given that they represent less than a quarter of the personal tax rises that the Conservatives imposed on working people last year, with fiscal drag hitting millions of households. We should be under no illusion: the Tories are still the party of high tax if they massively hike people’s taxes, but then give them a little bit back before an election. Of course, the reason they are a high-tax party is the fact that their record on growth is so poor. If the economy had continued to grow at the rate that it did under the last Labour Government it would now be £150 billion larger, but instead growth in the UK has stagnated in the last 13 years, and is projected to be the lowest in the G7 next year.
When the Conservatives cannot generate the growth to fund public services, they raid the pockets of working people instead, but those people will rightly wonder where their hard-earned money is going, given that the NHS, our schools, local government and the courts are all on their knees. The situation for public services appears set to become bleaker still, given that yesterday's tax cuts are to be funded by a projected £19 billion of cuts in departmental spending—spending cuts that look eerily similar to those made by the now Lord Cameron. The Conservatives are not just resurrecting former Prime Ministers to serve in this Government; they are resurrecting their failed and discredited policies too. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on how and where they envisage these cuts being made—or does he accept that, as the Resolution Foundation has said, the cuts are “implausible” and
“rest on the fiscal fiction”
that higher inflation will not increase public spending? Is not the truth that there is no long-term commitment to these measures, that they are simply a pre-election cover, and that the fiscal black hole they create is likely to be someone else’s problem?
As the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday, how can a labourer or a nurse contribute to economic growth if they are one of the 7.8 million people on an NHS waiting list in desperate need of an operation? A healthy society and a healthy economy are two sides of the same coin, but the NHS did not receive the support that it needs yesterday, and there are many other public services of which we could say the same. What of local government, for so long the poor relation, ruthlessly targeted by the Conservatives since 2010, with their Liberal Democrat friends complicit at the outset? I should state for the record that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Associations and a former chair of its resources board, as well as being a previous leader of my own local authority, Trafford Council.
For local government as a sector, the autumn statement was wholly depressing. There were no significant new funding announcements, there was nothing new on special educational needs and disability funding, and there was silence on the continuation of the household support fund. There was not a word about public sector pay. My local authority is assuming a 3% pay award, but higher inflation for longer has the potential to affect the 2024-25 pay negotiations. There was no mention of the impact of the living wage increase—welcome as it is—and what it will mean for social care contracts: a 9.8% uplift will blow a £2 million hole in my local authority’s assumptions.
Trafford’s position is not unique, but it is especially acute. Low levels of Government funding mean that we have the lowest spending power of all the 36 metropolitan districts. A recent study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that Trafford has one of the largest funding shortfalls in relation to need, equivalent to £35 million in comparison with national averages; and, unsurprisingly, it is one of the F20 group of lowest-funded local authorities, with the prospect of a £55 million budget deficit over the next three years. The delivery of meaningful services will become unsustainable in the short term if this position is not addressed for Trafford and councils like it, but it was thin gruel yesterday for local authorities up and down the land, to whom Trafford’s position sounds all too familiar.
It was thin gruel, too, for our broken housing market and our dysfunctional planning system. A desire to speed up business planning applications is welcome, but local authorities simply do not have the planners or the capacity to process the applications, a problem the Chancellor did not acknowledge or do anything to remedy yesterday. If the Government were serious about increasing housing supply, they would reverse their decision to scrap housing targets and build on parts of the green belt that offer nothing in environmental value, but plenty in economic potential. Perhaps we would then start to see the economic growth that we so desperately need.
There was some positive news on housing that I want to acknowledge: I do welcome the increase in local housing allowance rates. It is overdue, but it will be a vital tool in preventing homelessness. However, that is a silver lining among the very, very dark clouds of this autumn statement, because for all the bluster, there is no getting away from the most telling statistic to come out of yesterday. Between 2019 and 2025, families will experience the biggest drop in living standards since records began, and the tax burden as a percentage of GDP will be higher at the end of this Parliament than it was at the start.
Peter Grant
I commend the hon. Gentleman for picking up the point about the local housing allowance. Does he agree that if it is a good idea to unfreeze it for one year, it is not a good idea to refreeze it again in the following year?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman has made his own case, but as a keen campaigner on all aspects of our housing crisis, I very much agree with his sentiment.
Wera Hobhouse
We have heard from the Government Benches that the taxpayer’s bill for the local housing allowance is about £34 million. If the Government were finally willing to build a great many more social homes, the taxpayer would not have to face that enormous bill.
Andrew Western
The hon. Lady is right about social homes. A number of leading organisations working in the housing sector would say that we need 90,000 social homes per annum. However, let me gently point out that it is not just a question of the supply of social homes; the spike in rent that we have seen in recent years is also exacerbated by a broader shortage of housing supply of all types and all tenures. That is why my party has committed itself to a fundamental review of not just of our planning system but, importantly, the supply of land, and I hope that everyone in the Chamber who is serious about considering how we can build the homes that we need will commit themselves to a similar process.
I turn back to the thrust of my contribution. This autumn statement is a damning indictment of the Government, leaving people with a higher tax burden at the end of this Parliament than when they were re-elected in 2019. It is the latest economic failure at the end of 13 tears of national decline. It is time for change: a change away from high taxes, low growth and falling living standards; a change away from dodgy contracts, covid fast lanes and looking after their friends; a change away from the Conservatives.
The Labour party is offering that change, with a plan to cut household bills by £3,000 a year by investing in clean energy, building new homes and insulating the homes we already have; a plan to prevent another catastrophe like last year’s mini-Budget by putting a fiscal lock into law; and a fully funded plan for a healthy society and a healthy economy by investing an additional £1.1 billion a year to deliver 2 million more NHS appointments, scans and operations so that people are genuinely supported back to work. That is Labour’s offer and, if yesterday was the Conservatives firing the starting gun on the election, that day cannot come soon enough.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I have been here for a couple of decades, and I have never known a second-day debate on an autumn statement to involve only one Government Back Bencher. The emptiness of the Chamber reflects that we are at the fag end of this Government, and people realise that. The seriousness of the Government’s intentions in the coming months almost warrants despair among their own supporters, as well as in this House.
I sat through the Chancellor’s statement yesterday, and he set the scene of an economy that has turned the corner and is looking for technology-fuelled sunny uplands. I have been here a while and have listened to previous autumn statements, so I can recognise a pre-election speech when I see one, and that is what it was.
The Prime Minister basically set out the Conservatives’ election strategy the day before, and it is not a novel playbook—it is one they have used consistently. It is the same old Tory strategy. First, there are tax cuts as a pre-election bribe, then it goes on to the scapegoating of some vulnerable group, before making ludicrous claims about Labour’s plans to try to petrify people into not voting for change. Even with the media that we have, I do not think that strategy is going to work this time.
On economic growth, the Chancellor’s image of the economy turning a corner was absolutely shattered when the OBR report was published as soon as he sat down. It massively downgraded the growth forecast for every year of the forecast period. I listened to him talk on the radio this morning about how his investment in the economy will increase GDP by 0.5% over the coming four years. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, 0.5% produces about £7 billion of income tax returns to the Government, so there is no way this growth will somehow provide the resources we need to fund our public services.
I doubt any amount of tax cutting will restore confidence in a party that has doubled our debt, brought our public services to their knees and crashed our economy with the madcap escapades of the last two Prime Ministers. The cuts to national insurance were the headline proposal in yesterday’s autumn statement, but in the cold light of day, less than 24 hours later, the analysis shows that all the benefit has been swept away by the continuing freeze on tax thresholds. The IPPR analysis demonstrates that even the national insurance cuts will benefit the highest earners and the richest, and then the energy cap was lifted this morning. There is no way these tax cuts will restore a feelgood factor among the general public.
The most nauseating element of yesterday’s appalling announcement was the scapegoating of the sick, the disabled and those with mental health problems. It is gutter politics. The Conservatives first tried to scapegoat asylum seekers, but that has not worked because, actually, people recognise that asylum seekers are coming to this country from war zones across the world, and they empathise with them. So the Government have now turned on the disabled, the sick and people struggling with their mental health. Hidden in yesterday’s autumn statement is the reality that the Government are cutting £1.2 billion from benefits paid to people with disabilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, it heralds the return of the nasty party.
I met the Public and Commercial Services Union last week, and the chronic staffing crisis in the Department for Work and Pensions means that the implementation of last year’s sanctions policy is floundering because of the massive casework backlogs. Individual members of DWP staff have case loads of 2,000 cases, and obviously the system is collapsing. Loading more work on those workers will intensify the delays and will result—let us be honest—in more stress for the disabled, the sick and those with mental health problems.
Exactly as is predicted by a number of disability organisations, I fear this will push people over the edge. Those of us who were in the House remember what happened when the work capability assessment was first introduced. People were pushed so far over the edge that we saw a rise in the number of people taking their own life.
The Government have ludicrously claimed that Labour’s plan to borrow to invest in greening our economy will somehow push up interest rates and borrowing costs. That is a bit rich coming from the Conservative party, under which the country’s debt has risen. Let me be clear that Labour’s plan to borrow to invest will generate green growth in the economy. It is not like what the Tories have done in the past, which is to borrow for day-to-day expenditure—in other words, borrowing to cover the costs of failure.
The cost of borrowing £28 billion, even at the current high interest rates, is just above £1 billion, which is readily recouped—that is what investment is all about—as a result of the multiplier effect of this investment and the increased tax income it will generate. The comments of even senior Ministers have been inane in the extreme and lower the level of debate on the future of our economy.
I thought the real question yesterday was whether the Chancellor would do the right thing with the additional headroom that the OBR found as a result of inflation, interest rates and rising tax receipts, and where that additional money would go. Last week, I went to a concert by the brilliant Liverpool singer Jamie Webster. He sang a song called “Voice of the Voiceless”. Yesterday’s autumn statement made it clear to me that, as the Chancellor decided where to spend the new money that had been found, the voices of those most in need of those additional resources went unheard. I therefore think Members have a responsibility to be the voice of the voiceless in this debate.
I think we should be the voice of children. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, over 4 million children are currently living in poverty in the United Kingdom, the sixth richest country in the world. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that more than 1 million children are living in and experiencing destitution. Last week, I met people from Buttle UK, the charity supporting children in poverty, and they explained what destitution means. It means children going without the basic essentials needed to eat, stay warm and dry, and keep clean. That is why so many charities, religious groups, trade unions and others have called for a Government—any Government—to prioritise children in poverty for support. One straightforward suggestion is to lift the two-child limit, which would immediately lift 250,000 children out of poverty. This is why so many are campaigning for free school meals, to ensure that our children get at least one decent meal a day. It is also why many of us have called on the Chancellor to restore the £20 that the Government cut from universal credit after the pandemic.
We need to be the voice of disabled people, the sick and the mentally ill, who were under attack yesterday. The new onslaught against disabled people and the sick clearly provided evidence that their voices have been ignored again. If the Government were listening, they would have heard how those receiving benefits have already had to fight their way through a brutal benefits system to secure the help they have gained. The Government would have heard about many of the experiences with the work capability assessment, which has caused so much human suffering and harm—so much so that, as Members may recall, we discovered that the DWP was secretly monitoring coroners’ reports on the suicide of people on benefits. David Cameron has just been reappointed, so I hope he points this out in government now. I remember when a person whose benefits had been cut starved to death in his constituency. The coroner’s report related that to the withdrawal of benefits.
Disability groups are rightly predicting that, as sure as night follows day, this new round of dangerous threats to the benefits of the sick and the disabled, and especially those with mental health problems, will cause serious harm again.
Peter Grant
I am reluctant to intervene, as the right hon. Gentleman is, as always, giving a passionate and well-informed speech. Does he share my concern that one inevitable consequence of the propaganda onslaught is that people will be scared to claim the benefits they are entitled to, because they think they will be branded as cheats and fraudsters simply for claiming what is theirs by right?
John McDonnell
A wonderful piece of work was undertaken about the role the media and politicians played in stigmatising disabled people. This resulted, exactly as the hon. Gentleman said, in people not coming forward to claim their benefits. It also resulted in their ostracisation in their own community and the hardship that that caused, not only to them, but to their children when they went to school—this stuff is all coming back.
The irony has been pointed out by Members from across the House: wherever someone can work, we want to encourage them to do so and give them all the support they need, but people are being targeted with threats when we have 7.9 million people on the NHS waiting list—these are the very people who are waiting for the treatment to enable them to get back to work. This approach is particularly illogical and brutal. I urge hon. Members to look at the figures: 4 million people are already looking for additional hours of work in our economy, and unemployment has increased by a quarter of a million since the last autumn statement. These people will be struggling to compete for work that does not exist.
I want to be the voice of carers as well. I chair an unpaid carers group; we come together regularly and we have published our manifesto. There are 5 million unpaid carers in our community who are looking after their relatives and living off a miserly carer’s allowance of just under £80 a week. As a result, many of them live in poverty and hardship. The last estimate, in the Carers UK survey, was that they save the country some £160 billion a year. That survey also demonstrated just how many of them are struggling to make ends meet. We did not hear a single word yesterday about these heroes and heroines; there was not a single measure in the autumn statement that will move forward their simple demand for a level of financial support that will lift them out of poverty.
We should also be the voice of the homeless. We now have 105,000 families in our community living in temporary accommodation. Some 131,000 children are being brought up without a secure roof over their heads, often in overcrowded and run-down accommodation—all of us have seen these places, some of which are dangerous to live in. Putting the local housing allowance back to the 30th decile, after freezing it for years and after it having been at the 50th decile only a few years ago, goes nowhere near to giving those families any hope of securing a decent and secure home. What we really need now, as an emergency measure, are rent controls. We also want a massive council house building programme, but what was offered yesterday, in the detail, was funding for 2,400 council homes, at a time when we need hundreds of thousands.
As others have said, we also need to be the voice for public services. The fact that there is no additional funding for them and instead a projected £19 billion cut confirmed that the voices of the nurses, doctors, paramedics, social care workers, teachers, council workers and council leaders themselves went completely unheard. As we have said, there is to be a £4 billion funding cut, which means the erosion of some of the basic services people rely on in order to have some form of quality of life.
To conclude, there is a lot of speculation that the autumn statement presages an early election, and I think it probably does. I pray that it does, because my community cannot take this any more. I have never witnessed such a level of disillusionment with politics, such a lack of hope that things can get better. It is not just generating anger; what worries me more is that it is generating absolute apathy among our communities. There is a great responsibility on our shoulders now to restore that hope and to do so soon. I urge the Government: bring on the election, let the people have their voice, and let us have it as soon as possible.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow such a passionate speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
As I listened to the Chancellor yesterday, the same thought kept racing through my mind: too little, too late. This Government have seriously let down working people for the past 13 years and now hope that offering breadcrumbs will solve everything. Staggeringly, measures announced yesterday are equivalent to handing back £1 for every £8 of the rise in tax since 2019-20. Worse, the Government probably expect people to be grateful for the announcements made yesterday. The Government are forgetting that they are the reason we are in this mess in the first place, and, sadly, their latest plan will not get us out of it.
Some of the measures mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech will be welcome, but soundbite headline announcements simply do not measure up to the reality of the challenges facing my constituents and so many across the country. After 13 years of economic failure under the Conservatives, working people are simply worse off. According to the Resolution Foundation, real average earnings are not forecast to return to their 2008 peak until 2028. This is a totally unprecedented 20-year pay stagnation. Meanwhile, prices are still rising in the shops and energy bills are up. Electricity and gas prices are 40% and 60% higher respectively than they were two years ago. Mortgage payments are still sky-high, which is a serious worry for the 28% of the residents in Chester who have a mortgage and now must cut back or find extra cash to make their payments. Figures show that around 9,500 people in Chester face an annual mortgage increase of £2,700 this year. Let us not forget that this Government crashed the economy just over a year ago, resulting in these increases and plunging many hard-working people into further uncertainty about their lives and finances.
The mess does not stop there. Taxes are the highest they have been for 70 years, with households set to pay a staggering £4,300 more in tax each year. As colleagues have already pointed out, household incomes will still be 3.5% lower next year in real terms than they were before the pandemic, which is the biggest hit to living standards ever. The Resolution Foundation has stated that this is the first Parliament in which real household disposable incomes have fallen—let that sink in. It is no good hearing the Minister tell us to be “optimistic”—we are actually going backwards. Latest inflation data shows food prices are up 10% compared with last year, with a rise of 30% over the past two years.
With figures like these, it is no wonder that finances are so precarious for many families, as there is simply no way to make their budgets stack up. Chester’s local foodbank recently reported feeding 170 people in just one week. One was a single mum, who was working and really well organised, cooking everything in batches and freezing it so the kids would have a hot meal every day, but then the freezer broke and everything was ruined. She was not being paid for another week, so literally had no way of recouping the loss.
Regular, hard-working people are turning to foodbanks because they can no longer make ends meet and make it to the end of the month. People have never been in this situation before. Things are dire. KidsBank, a local charity in my constituency that provides vital support to many in our local community, has reported a striking increase in the number of families using their services for the first time. So far, 1,659 children have been referred to them for support this year—a 23% increase from last year—and there has been a staggering 77% increase in referrals for school uniforms.
Behind each of these statistics is a family struggling to make ends meet and provide for their children, with real stories of heightened anxiety and mental health issues brought on by continued financial difficulties. Imagine being a mum whose husband has left, meaning a reduction in finances. Housing conditions are poor and the family faces anxiety, depression and other mental health issues, and then along comes Christmas. There is no money for warm clothing or Christmas presents. Small charities, such as KidsBank and many others who do brilliant work across the country, are their only lifeline and their only hope. It should not be like this, but that is the reality of many.
As I have said before, it is everywhere you look: our councils, schools, hospitals, police, fire service and courts are all starved of resources. Public sector services hardly got a mention in the statement, but they are on their knees and this Government intend to kick them harder. Britain cannot go on like this. My constituents cannot go on like this.
With Labour, families and businesses would be better off. Over the next decade, Labour’s Better Off Plan would help families save £500 a year by insulating homes to make them more energy efficient; save £900 a year by building cheaper, greener, cleaner power across the country through the creation of Great British Energy, a new, publicly owned clean energy generation company; save £400 a year by cracking down on unfair car insurance practices, such as subscription traps and unfair postcode pricing; and save £1,200 a year on mortgage bills, by building 1.5 million homes over a Parliament to keep housing affordable.
The last 13 years have proved that the Conservatives cannot be trusted with the economy, and the autumn statement has shown yet again that they are out of touch. Scraps off the table will not keep hunger at bay. We need change. We need a general election and a Labour Government who will deliver for my constituents in Chester.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The United Nations has warned that we are on track for 3°C of global warming. That is unacceptable and would be a catastrophe. We urgently need to limit global temperature rises to 1.5°C. We cannot pretend that the UK is safe from climate change. Last year, the UK suffered the most intense heatwave it has ever faced. Hospitals struggled to cope, there were around 3,000 more deaths among people aged over 65 and 20 % of operations were cancelled. These impacts will only get worse.
Sadly, our Government are in denial. The Chancellor speaks about economic growth, yet fails to understand that reaching net zero is an opportunity as well as a necessity. The green transition can encourage billions of pounds’ worth of investment, yet this Government are ignoring that unprecedented opportunity. The US Inflation Reduction Act and the EU’s green industrial plan will see a combined $670 billion of green investment. Even Canada, an economy smaller than ours, announced a package that offers nearly £50 billion-worth of tax credits for clean technologies. This autumn statement was an opportunity to equal the ambition of our international partners, but the Chancellor is explicit that the UK will not match the ambitions of other countries
If the UK does not invest now, we will turn our backs on investment worth potentially £1 trillion by 2030. I am pleased that the Government plan to halve the time taken to build new grid infrastructure, but why has it taken 13 years to see the problem? I am also pleased the Government will provide tax relief for meeting energy efficiency targets. However, why are they waiting until 2025 to put these measures in place?
All the dither and delay gives the Government time to U-turn on their commitments. Their record speaks for itself, including on transport. After months and years of defending HS2 and spending millions of pounds preparing for it to go ahead, the Government are now in chaos and without a vision. Transport is the largest emitting sector in the UK. Rail produces 76% less carbon dioxide emissions than the equivalent road journey. We must encourage a move away from polluting transport modes, towards greener public transport, such as trains.
Dr Coffey
I hear what the hon. Lady is saying, but instead of building the extra bit of HS2, the money will be used in a variety of ways, mostly on roads and the electrification of train lines. That is an important way of decarbonising our existing rail industry. Between 2010 and 2015, both Secretaries of State, including the current leader of the Liberal Democrat party, were Secretaries of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, so they were there when that policy was being developed in a variety of ways, early on in the lifetime of the Government.
Wera Hobhouse
I am not sure what the right hon. Member’s question is, but I am not denying that we need to invest more in all these sectors. The worst thing about HS2 is the dither and delay, the back and forth about decisions. That is what wastes the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and is unacceptable.
The decision to scrap the northern leg of HS2 will mean 500,000 more lorry journeys up and down the country. Meanwhile, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has just said, the Chancellor plans to take £8.6 billion meant for the railway to support road use.
The Government also want to increase aviation. I was shocked to hear that Luton Airport has called for an expansion in passenger numbers to 32 million a year. Hertfordshire’s skies would become polluted with endless planes and noise. The plans directly contradict the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation of no net expansion in airport capacity. I urge the Government to do the right thing: listen to local people from Harpenden and Berkhamsted and block the Luton Airport expansion, which flies in the face of our climate commitments.
This Government have failed to invest in renewables, have failed to support greener public transport, and are now failing to keep our constituents warm. Last winter was devastating, with the average annual household bill increasing by nearly 178%. Many people had to make severe sacrifices in order to heat their homes. It is a scandal that some people had to restrict themselves to one shower per week. This was not a blip. The Government need to realise that, even under the energy price cap, annual bills this winter will be 69% above summer 2021 levels. People need help. Lowering energy bills must be a priority, yet there was nothing in this autumn statement to support my constituents from the increase in energy bills.
We Liberal Democrats propose that the Government implement a social tariff. This would bring in lower energy bills for vulnerable customers. The Government must also ensure that the warm home discount is made available to all customers in vulnerable circumstances. That would prevent a repeat of last year, when suppliers set limits on the number of people who could access this money.
The green transition is a huge opportunity. We need a Government with the political courage to treat climate change with the urgency it demands. The country needs a bold Government with a bold plan. This autumn statement is simply another missed opportunity.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Listening to the Chancellor yesterday, it was clear that his words were simply at odds with the lives of millions of people up and down the country. The Tories are acting as if the crisis is over, but the reality is that millions of people in this country are going through the deepest social emergency in decades. Beyond the myths and distortions put out by the Downing Street spin machine, the truth of the autumn statement is that growth has been downgraded—even after what has been called the worst period of economic growth in a century. Living standards have had their largest fall since records began 75 years ago. Wages are set to be no higher in 2028 than in 2008, which means two lost decades of wages for workers. Furthermore, even deeper public service cuts are planned for after the next general election, if the Tories win, deepening the austerity that has not only caused harm to key services on which people rely, but severely undermined growth in the economy.
When we have these big set-piece economic events in Parliament, the economy is talked about, but in such a way that is almost entirely divorced from the lives of people. We should remind ourselves that the economy is meant to serve people. How well it is performing should be judged by how well it is delivering for the vast majority of people. By that simple measure, the economy is failing.
We have a deepening social emergency. Some 14 million people are living in poverty, including 4 million children, in what is meant to be the sixth richest economy on Earth. One in seven people face hunger across the UK, according to the Trussell Trust, which is around 10 million people. We have more branches of food banks than we have branches of McDonald’s. Homelessness in our society is on the rise, as rents and mortgages soar, and of course that is just the tip of the iceberg, with many more families living in totally unsuitable, overcrowded and temporary accommodation.
Six million households are in fuel poverty, according to National Energy Action, and so are unable to afford to heat their homes to the temperature that is needed to keep warm and healthy. Sick people are unable to get the treatment they need because of the Government’s neglect of the NHS, creating record waiting lists.
This social emergency is not affecting us all. For some, the past few years have been boom time. Britain’s super-rich boosted their wealth by £31 billion over the past year alone, at a time when living standards have been under a near unprecedented attack for everyone else. This is no one-off; the wealth of British billionaires has increased by more than £430 billion over the past decade. Such vast fortunes are hard to imagine, so to put it another way, they have increased their wealth by £120 million every single day for the past 10 years. This soaring wealth of the billionaire class is the flipside of the weak wages that we see across society. As the share of the economy going to workers has gone down, so the share of the economy going to the super-rich has gone up.
Such soaring inequality is one reason why I have been campaigning for a wealth tax. Such a tax could create a huge social emergency fund to help people during this crisis. It could provide the much-needed funds to help rebuild the public services that have been hit so hard by a decade of austerity, and fund the investment that we need to build the infrastructure for a greener, fairer, high-wage economy. An annual wealth tax of just 1.5% on assets over £10 million would raise around £12 billion a year. It is worth pointing out here that this would apply only to wealth above £10 million. This is a measure that is backed by three out of four people, including more than two thirds of Tory voters.
Other reforms to tackle wealth inequality could also raise billions of pounds more. For example: equalising capital gains tax with income tax rates would raise up to £15 billion a year; tackling the non-dom tax break for the super-rich would raise up to £3 billion a year; and ending fossil fuel subsidies for oil and gas companies could raise £4 billion a year.
I wish to end my comments today on one sector that has been doing very well out of this crisis, and that is the banks. The banks, in my view, must now be made to pay their fair share. Just like the energy companies, the banks have used this crisis to line their pockets with windfall profits. They have done that by charging higher interest rates for loans but not passing the money on to savers—easy money indeed. Therefore, just like the energy companies, the banks should face a windfall tax on such unexpected and frankly unmerited gains. The pre-tax profits of the four big banks—Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC and NatWest—are up 79% so far this year, compared with the same period in 2022.
Spain’s progressive Government offer one example of what a windfall tax could look like. They introduced a 4.8% windfall levy on certain bank incomes above a threshold of €800 million. Replicating that here could raise almost £4 billion this year. But perhaps the simplest move would be to reverse the tax break for banks that the Prime Minister introduced. He slashed the surcharge on bank profits from 8% down to 3%, which has rightly been described by the TUC general secretary, Paul Nowak, as starving our public services of much-needed funds at the worst possible time. Reversing it could provide billions each year, for example, to introduce universal free school meals, to scrap the two-child cap, or to fund a proper pay rise for junior doctors. Let us not forget that the banks were bailed out when they were in trouble during the 2007 global financial crisis. It is now time for them to be taxed fairly, to help bail out our communities who are now in such difficulties.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
My constituents in Liverpool, Wavertree have suffered immensely over the past 13 years. I listened to the Chancellor talk about “compassionate” conservatism yesterday—a truly disgraceful claim. Where is the compassion in implementing mandatory work placements for those on long-term disability benefits, or they run the risk of having their benefits cut off? The Government must think that we have forgotten the nightmare that came into force on 31 October this year when they lifted the cap on bankers’ bonuses. Where is the compassion in that? It is the same old story, just a different day.
The story of the first five years of this Government were of the very poorest under attack, with savage cuts to local government and continual blows to the frontline services that those living at the sharp end relied on. However, house prices continued to rise, and the middle were squeezed but largely shielded from the effects of austerity. Household debt rose too, and now we have come full circle. One of the key architects of austerity is back as our new unelected Foreign Secretary, while his Chancellor, the former Member for Tatton, is thankfully sticking to podcasts and museums.
In so many of our communities over the past 13 years, the state has been peeled back, yet as a country we now spend more, working people are taxed through the nose and, worst of all, we receive significantly less in the way of essential services. School buildings are crumbling, statutory services such as social care are on their knees, and people cannot see their GP or get a hip replacement. Put a bit aside for a rainy day? Not a chance—that is now being spent on increased mortgage payments. Splash out on that much-needed family holiday abroad? Maybe next year.
The sums simply do not add up. People feel ripped off because they are getting ripped off by a Government who have abandoned their self-proclaimed base and retreated to their friends amongst the 1%—a Cabinet of millionaires who look after millionaires. No one in my economically diverse constituency in south Liverpool is now immune to the effects of the Government and their economic dogma—the rising tide that sinks all boats, apart from the yacht.
In Liverpool, those on moderate to higher incomes do not vote for the Conservative party, and where Liverpool leads, others of course follow. People are awakening to the con elsewhere. Using the Conservative party’s own terms, it does not pay to be a striver under this Government. It certainly does not pay for someone to own their own home or be on a moderate income. No longer can Government Members sit there and hoodwink the British public. No longer can they take with one hand and give back with another.
I hope that my constituents tuned in to watch yesterday’s autumn statement, to see at first hand the unedifying spectacle and back-slapping that we witnessed on the Government Front Bench. While the Chancellor was as pleased as Punch with his cut to national insurance, it was simply to lessen the blow that, come January, the energy price cap will rise by 5%, meaning that a typical household will pay between £30 and £45 more per month. That is the difference between heating and eating, as we so often hear. It was yet more of the smoke and mirrors that we have become accustomed to from the Government.
In the real world, my constituents are making real-life choices about how best to provide for themselves and their family, day in and day out, to make their rent and mortgage payments and have enough left over for a trip to the cinema later in the week, or to buy that item on their children’s Christmas list that would induce a sharp intake of breath from any parent. That is what economics is. It is how ordinary people live their lives—the lives that they are afforded to lead, and the choices that they can make. Are they able to flourish, provide for their loved ones and lead a life with human dignity at its core? For many millions of our people, life is so difficult now, and the Conservative party bears the responsibility.
Let me warn all major parties of Government. The private rented sector is out of control and has lost all sense of proportion. While I welcome yesterday’s announcement on local housing allowance, the uplift in LHA is merely the Tories trying to rectify their own disastrous policies. Three years of freezing local housing allowance has resulted in a catastrophic surge in homelessness, with more than 130,000 children forced into temporary accommodation, and a soaring rise in destitution across the country. Never again can a Government freeze LHA without knowing that they are deliberately pouring gasoline on to the housing and homelessness emergency. To do so is not just morally reprehensible but economically illiterate. It shifts the responsibility to cash-strapped local authorities that are buckling under the strain of runaway costs in temporary accommodation, with the bill for England now sitting at a staggering £1.7 billion.
Behind the temporary accommodation figures are individual stories—over 100,000 human stories of trauma and despair. Children penned up in bed and breakfasts. Babies without cots, increasing the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. Domestic abuse victims languishing in hostels. Ex-offenders contemplating reoffending to spare themselves the indignity of years in a hostel. Like social care, the housing crisis is another elephant in the room. Until we have built the homes that this country needs, and brought the private rented sector under control, never again can we freeze local housing allowance. The consequences are simply far too grave.
Following yesterday’s autumn statement, everyone in this House, in the media, and among the public is clear that Government Members are gearing up for a general election, probably in May. The simple thing would be for them to put us all out of our misery and call a general election now.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow some excellent speeches, largely from Opposition Members. I wish that I could say different. Whether people agree or disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I think that everybody would agree that he has considerable experience in the decades that he has been here. For him to say that this is the first time that he has seen the Government Benches so empty on the day after an autumn statement speaks volumes. It is a tragedy that we now have a Government who not only have delivered an autumn statement that will do nothing to address the real issues in our communities, but fail to turn up to defend it.
Like hon. Members across the House, on the weekends I try to be out and about in my constituency, talking to local residents about their concerns. Outside of an election period, I usually expect some friendly chat—not always, but usually—and for local issues around transport, education, policing or the environment to be discussed. Last weekend, however, conversations were largely about the autumn statement—people’s expectations, and their families’ struggles with the rising cost of living.
What was clear from those I spoke to was the sense of utter despondency and despair about their economic situation, and that of the country, even among those living in the parts of my constituency that are considered more well off, and those who identified themselves as previous Tory voters. They knew that, while their family grapple with the rising cost of living, the Government just tinkered around the edges or sat on their hands, making it clear that the autumn statement would not deliver for my constituents, make their lives easier or leave them better off than before, regardless of how hard they worked. If they watched the Chancellor deliver his autumn statement yesterday, they will have been bitterly disappointed, but they will not have been surprised. They will have been vindicated in their low expectations of the Chancellor and in their realisation that ultimately they will never be better off under a Tory Government.
After all, what was there in this autumn statement for those who have just about managed to get by over the past 13 years—those who have just about managed to make ends meet with rising energy bills, rising food costs and rising fuel prices, but who last year had their household finances pushed over the brink by the reckless budget of an ex-Prime Minister who still, bizarrely, thinks that the country wants to hear her economic ideas? The answer to that question is “Nothing”.
The four-point plan that the Chancellor announced yesterday to tackle the cost of living included uprating benefits, unfreezing local housing allowance and increasing the state pension. While those are all welcome measures, none of them are applicable to a typical family struggling with mortgage, fuel, food and energy costs, and if the Government think that the fourth measure, which means that a pint will not cost any more than it does now, is the priority for that family, that just shows how woefully out of touch they really are.
What that typical family needed to hear yesterday was a real plan to spread economic growth across the country: a proper windfall tax on oil and gas giants, who continue to make billions of pounds, a guarantee that the very richest will pay their fair share, as that family is doing, and a strategy not just to raise the wage floor with a rise in minimum wage, but to raise middle and average incomes, which have stagnated in real terms over the past 13 years. Instead, they heard more of the same steps, measures and announcements that they have heard over those years, the same ones that have led us to the economic mess of low growth, low ambition and low pay that we are in now.
Not only does the Chancellor’s autumn statement fail to support such families, but it fails to offer any meaningful support to those in Bradford living in poverty, in some of the worst deprivation in the country, who need the greatest help in overcoming the barriers placed in their way through no fault of their own. As I have had to say in this Chamber before, 50% of my constituents are now living in poverty, and I should not have to say this, but they did not choose to be in poverty.
The tragedy is that time and again from Conservative Members and from this Government we see a narrative that somehow people wake up one day and choose to be born into poverty or to live in poverty. We are the fifth-richest country in the world. It is disgraceful. It is disgusting. The poverty that we have in our streets today is sickening. The destitution we have today is disgraceful. It is disgraceful and sickening that children today are going without food, that people are being forced into homelessness and that mental ill health is now dramatically on the rise without any treatment whatever.
Let us be clear about what got us here. It is political choices, and 13 years of this Government, with their ideological austerity agenda and their attacks on the poorest, have contributed to that. What does this autumn statement do to address any of that? It does nothing. For the poorest and the most vulnerable, the Chancellor ultimately offered nothing—and in some cases, as other hon. Members have said, he even launched an outright assault on them.
The Chancellor may have increased benefits in line with the higher September rate of inflation, but not before dangling the possibility of a much lower rate, causing sleepless nights for 2 million households who have even had to turn their fridge or freezer off because of the cost of living crisis. He may have ended the local housing allowance freeze, but he has still not provided real investment to deliver social housing, which means that, while people will find it a little easier to pay their rent and put food on the table, many still will not have a table in their own home to put it on.
The Chancellor also failed to fix the vital welfare safety net, left broken by his predecessors, which is no longer able to guarantee the essentials for those facing hardship. He has also set in motion another wave of brutal austerity by front-loading his tax cuts and deferring the tough decisions, making it clear that not only is David Cameron, now Lord Cameron, back in Government, but so too is his brutal agenda of ideologically driven austerity cuts to services that the most vulnerable people rely on. The Chancellor has also deliberately ignored an opportunity to create a more compassionate system that is responsive to the needs of the less fortunate, and he has launched an outrageous attack on disabled people with his ill-thought-through plan to try to get them into work.
Last month, I spoke on a panel on how Governments can support disabled people in the workplace and into employment. The panel discussed improving flexible working arrangements, fixing a broken sick pay system and strengthening the rights of disabled people at work. It certainly did not discuss threats and coercion to force those who cannot work to take up employment. It is clear that once more the millions of disabled people across the country are being used as scapegoats by a Government that have lost their moral compass. All I have to say is, “Shame on the Chancellor and every Conservative Member who condoned this attack on some of the most vulnerable in our society.”
After the passage of 13 years, people across Bradford expected to be better off. They did not expect to be in a worse position than they were a decade ago. Yet, after this Government’s reckless mismanagement crashed our economy, that is sadly where we are. Instead of a real plan to fix the country and undo the mess that they have made while they have been in charge, all we got yesterday was a last-ditch effort from a Tory Chancellor to recover his own credibility and prop up the disastrous premiership of a Prime Minister whose fingerprints from his own time as Chancellor are all over the mess they have left us in.
I join the call, which I think the Opposition have made clear, for a general election now, so that the British people can have their say and remove this Government that have been in for too long, causing misery to people’s lives.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). I hope those on his Front Bench were listening to the contributions from him and some of his fellow Labour Members, because it is important that we talk about plans to remedy things and help the poorest in our society.
This is clearly a zombie Budget from a zombie Government —a Budget so good that, as others have said, the Back Benches on the Government side are practically empty. If it was meant to be a pre-election Budget, it is a pre-election Budget that is not generating any confidence among Conservative Back Benchers, because none of them wants to be here to debate it and try to talk it up.
It is a bold Chancellor who tells us that he is cutting taxes when we still have the highest tax burden in 70 years, with more tax rises on the way, and at the same time living standards continue to fall. Just today, Ofgem has announced that the energy cap will increase again in January—it will still be approximately double what energy costs were two years ago. It is little wonder that the OBR predicts that living standards this year will be 3.5% lower than before the pandemic.
The Chancellor was bold enough to talk about wage growth, but let us look at the detail. The Resolution Foundation confirmed that it will take until 2028 to get overall wages back to 2008 levels—two lost decades of wage growth. At the next general election, it will be the first time ever that household incomes have been lower at the end of a Parliament than they were at the start.
It is clear that the Budget does nothing for the approximately 6.3 million fuel-poor households. Ofgem has confirmed record cumulative energy debts of £2.6 billion, so we are still in the grip of a cost of energy crisis. The Tories tell us that we should be grateful for the energy support package, which cost in the order of £40 billion, but let us look at the example of Norway, which is drawing a further £30 billion from its sovereign wealth fund this year alone. That will not even make a dent in its £1.1 trillion sovereign wealth fund—yes, £1.1 trillion, which makes it the biggest such fund in the world. Energy-rich Scotland still exports six times more oil and gas than it consumes, and yet we are supposed to be grateful that the UK as a whole is planning to slightly reduce its £2.5 trillion debt. All those oil and gas revenues have been frittered away through short-term planning. Norway did not create its fund until the 1990s, so it is a disgrace that we do not have a North sea legacy to fall back on in these hard times.
We are also supposed to be grateful about the 2% cut to national insurance contributions, and that the Tories have—so they claim—reduced inflation from 11.4%, even though they were partly responsible for the high rate because of the disastrous mini-Budget and the impacts of Brexit. It is curious that the Government tell us that they are not responsible for high inflation as it is a global issue, and that high interest rates are set by the wholly independent Bank of England, but now that inflation is falling, we are to believe from the autumn statement that the Government’s actions have brought it down. The Government appear to be responsible for inflation rates only when it is good news and they are going down—that is quite a trick.
Let me return to household energy. It is a scandal that about a fifth of UK households are living in fuel poverty. It is a bigger scandal that energy-rich Scotland has fuel poverty at all, as well as the highest energy bills and some of the highest standing charges just to access the energy grid. Those standing charges mean people cannot afford to heat their homes properly. Indeed, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that 2 million people are switching off their fridges and freezers intermittently to save on energy costs. This autumn statement will do nothing to help those people—or, if it does, any money that goes into their pockets in January will quickly be removed in April as the tax threshold freeze means more people become liable for income tax. Households are paying on average £800 a year more on energy costs than two years ago, but the warm home discount scheme has increased from £140 to £150 a year. It is plain: the sums do not add up. However, the Government have also reneged on their pledge for a social tariff to help the most vulnerable with their energy costs.
Let us look at the national insurance cut in the round. Although hard-working people, especially those on the eligibility threshold, will of course welcome having to pay less, it is unfortunately no coincidence that the £19 billion package to support the cut will be offset by £19 billion of public spending cuts that are still to be determined. Who is most affected by public spending cuts? Of course, it is the lowest paid and the poorest in our society. Such spending cuts make a further mockery of the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda. The budget of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities was halved in the statement, which says everything about levelling-up targets. If the Government introduce a tax cut via emergency legislation, only to pay for it through future departmental cuts, they cannot possibly claim that that is part of responsible Government taking long-term decisions for the economy. It is quite clearly a gimmick to capture headlines.
In Scotland, of course, we are also meant to be grateful for the Barnett consequentials, which have already turned out to be lower than was announced. The Scottish block grant itself is being cut in real terms in the autumn statement. Next year, the grant increases from £35.8 billion to £36.9 billion, but if we compare that increase with headline inflation from September, it is clearly a real-terms budget cut of about 3.5%, or £1.3 billion, for Scotland.
Then there is the capital budget allocated to the Scottish Government, which is being cut outright from £6.2 billion to £5.6 billion in two years’ time. That is not even a real-terms budget cut, but a hugely damaging slashing of the budget, at a time when the Scottish Tories demand that the Scottish Government invest in all sorts of infrastructure projects. I am sure that the Scottish Tories will recognise this conundrum of a cut budget, demand that the capital budget is restored, and recognise the pressures on the Scottish Government, let alone the inflationary pressures on projects that are already under way. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) points out, no Scottish Tories are even here to talk about the statement.
On infrastructure, we are yet again being let down by the lack of progress on agreeing an electricity cap and floor mechanism for pumped storage hydro. That means further delays to SSE’s Coire Glas scheme and Drax’s Cruachan dam extension. We keep hearing that the Government want to unlock private investment. In pumped storage hydro, private investment in the order of £2 billion to £2.5 billion would be unlocked by agreeing an electricity export mechanism for those schemes. That would create jobs in the highlands of Scotland and, importantly, provide better balance for the grid, reducing bills overall. Why the continued intransigence from the Government on pumped storage hydro?
Despite talk of investment in green energy, the statement and the Green Book do not mention energy storage even once—that is a dereliction of duty. Tidal stream, in which Scotland leads the way, is not mentioned either. Looking at the statement in detail, the so-called £4.5 billion manufacturing investment and the £960 million green growth accelerator do not have corresponding budget lines, so those announcements are clearly recycled announcements, in the finest style of this Government.
As we have heard, the indicative blank cheque for nuclear was mentioned once again. We have the fantasy of small modular reactors, but they are not actually small. First, they exceed the industry definition in terms of generation capacity, and secondly, they are the size of two football pitches, which is not exactly a small footprint. The terminology is designed to make them sound small and cosy when they are anything but.
Let us look at the evidence on the development of these projects. The most advanced SMR project in the world, NuScale in Utah, has just been shelved because capital costs have increased to $9 billion—the equivalent of over £7 billion. That is evidence that SMRs are too expensive to progress, but the UK Government are pretending they can deliver them for about £2 billion per reactor. That makes no sense, especially when nuclear technology is generally more expensive in the UK anyway.
We now come to my hobby-horse: Sizewell C. Despite the cost of Hinkley Point C increasing from £18 billion to £33 billion, the rampant inflation we still have and Sizewell C being built on an area subject to coastal erosion and flood risk, we are told that it will magically provide value for money and be cheaper than Hinkley Point C. It is truly delusional. No pension funds want to invest in Sizewell C, and the Government have the begging bowl out. Despite introducing the regulated asset base model and transferring further risk to bill payers, they are still struggling to raise finance.
It is time that the Government ended this charade. It is bad enough that over £1 billion has already been spent just on design development for Sizewell C. That is £1 billion that could have been spent on energy efficiency measures, infrastructure or even further energy support schemes.
Peter Grant
Is my hon. Friend surprised or disappointed, or is it purely to be expected, that there is not a single word about insulation or energy efficiency measures anywhere in the autumn statement?
Alan Brown
All of the above. It is infuriating. If the Government were to listen, even the energy supply companies want them to invest more in energy efficiency and insulation. Right now, in the ECO4 scheme—energy company obligation 4—the companies cannot even find the requisite number of properties to upgrade. As that goes on, we are losing the supply chain instead of building it up.
If we really want green growth, green jobs and lower energy bills, it is perfectly obvious that more money should be spent on energy efficiency. Ironically, the Government never listen to that, but they should listen to the third sector and the energy companies who praise the Scottish Government for their direct investment in support of energy efficiency programmes. In contrast to the Government’s blank cheque for nuclear, Scottish renewable projects still have to pay the grid charging penalty, making it harder for them to compete in the contract for difference auctions.
This autumn statement means that we still have an incoherent energy policy. It does nothing for Scotland. Hard-working families are still going to suffer, living standards are still falling, and the disabled are now threatened with losing support unless they are forced into jobs not of their choosing. It is not difficult to choose a different path for Scotland—it is a path that other smaller countries in western Europe are already on, so why not Scotland? It is time we took that different route.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the winding-up speeches. I call the shadow Minister.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I want to paint a clear picture of the economic landscape facing families and working people across our nation—a landscape marked by challenges and hardships under the current Government. This reality is not just my opinion but has been highlighted most starkly by the Resolution Foundation. Households are expected to be £1,900 poorer because of the policies implemented by this Tory Government. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), eloquently explained, this is the first Parliament in which real household disposable incomes have fallen. This confirms what people feel in their pocket and see on their bank statements.
Today, as I close this debate on an issue of paramount importance for not only our economy but the lives and livelihoods of millions across our country, I am reminded of two words: thirteen years. The last 13 years have been not just unlucky for some but devastating for millions who are finding it harder to get by and for everyone using public services, which have literally been run into the ground. After 13 years of Conservative Government, this is where we find ourselves.
Globally, in the last 13 years we have seen technology leap from flip-phones to virtual reality, witnessed three World cups and three royal weddings, and seen humanity land a rover on Mars. Perhaps it is easier to explore other planets than it is for this Conservative Government to get our economy growing and improve the living standards of working people. Over the last 13 years, the Conservatives have weakened our national health service, made working people worse off, increased our rates of relative poverty, reduced opportunities and hampered economic growth.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) rightly said, this statement reveals the scale of Conservative economic failure. Household incomes are set to be 3.5% lower next year in real terms than they were pre-pandemic—the biggest hit to living standards on record, as elucidated by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). Real wages are set not to rise but instead to fall this year by 0.7% and are almost flat next year. Real average earnings, according to the Resolution Foundation, are not forecast to return to their 2008 peak until 2028, marking a totally unprecedented 20-year pay stagnation—a point hammered home by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon).
Worse still, the highly respected independent Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that the worst is yet to come for mortgage holders, with rates peaking at far higher than previously expected. The Government’s economic recklessness means a Tory mortgage penalty right across the country now and in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) lamented the dire predicament faced by her constituents. Likewise, in my Slough constituency, families with a mortgage are now expected to find £290 more per month. I ask the Minister quite simply, where are they meant to find that in their already stretched budgets?
This Government’s rhetoric is at odds with their tax-raising reality over this Parliament, as explained at length by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who spoke with great passion and experience. Sadly, people cannot pay the bills with the boasts and hot air from Conservative Ministers. Let us not forget that in this autumn statement, despite their pledge to cut taxes and reward hard work, the Conservatives have introduced 25 tax rises—yes, 25—hitting working people and business. Are this Government the proud parent of this 13-year-long project? Growth has stagnated and opportunities have dwindled. As the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), remarked, growth has been revised down for next year, the year after that and the year after that as well.
While Ministers try to explain away their failures, let us look at our international standing. The UK economy currently stands in sharp contrast to the dynamism and potential seen in other sectors globally. The UK is set to have the weakest growth among the G7 in 2024, according to the International Monetary Fund. It is as if those on the Government Benches have entered the race but are still stuck in first gear. This failure to get a grip of our economy has serious consequences, including poverty, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) described in painstaking detail.
Under the Conservatives, the tax burden has risen by a staggering £4,300 per household. Despite the rhetoric of tax cuts, the reality is that this autumn statement has failed miserably to alleviate the burden placed on people by this Government. Going into the autumn statement, the Conservatives had already put in place tax increases worth the equivalent of a 10p increase in national insurance. Yesterday’s much-hyped 2p cut clearly will not compensate for the Government’s tax increases; neither will it compensate for higher monthly mortgages or for worse public services, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) highlighted at length, have been decimated. The Conservatives are like a burglar who empties your entire home, but then expects you to be grateful when they give you back your toaster. The public will rightly see through what the Chancellor has presented in this autumn statement.
In an era where innovation should be flourishing, we are instead witnessing a climate of hesitancy and stagnation. Businesses—which are the backbone of the economy—feel this, and Labour rightly understands it. From my personal journey of building and growing a start-up construction business, I know full well the challenges that need to be faced in order to reach success. That experience in the growth economy contrasts starkly with the current economic climate under this Government. Yesterday, for example, the Institution of Civil Engineers highlighted the National Infrastructure Commission’s call to make faster progress on long-term goals for infrastructure. The ICE’s verdict on the Government was that
“for those looking for direction from the chancellor on how the UK will pick up the pace, today’s autumn statement was disappointing.”
It is right to be concerned.
The OBR projects that long-term business investment will continue to fall, with gross fixed capital formation by corporations now significantly lower than under the last Labour Government 13 years ago. That trend is only exacerbated by the autumn statement’s lack of a coherent industrial strategy—indeed, where is the Government’s industrial strategy? Their myopic policies fail to inspire confidence or stability in our business sector.
Some important and powerful contributions have been made in this debate, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who encapsulated exactly why the British people have had enough.
Alan Brown
On the topic of construction and the hon. Gentleman’s connected point about industrial strategy, does he agree that instead of spending £30 billion to £40 billion on Sizewell C nuclear power station, that money would be much better invested in renewable energy, accompanied by an industrial strategy to create a proper UK-based supply chain?
Mr Dhesi
The Labour party believes that we must see a focus on renewable energies as we transition the economy, which includes investment in the nuclear sector. The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted the construction industry; from my various conversations with leaders in that industry, I know they have been put in a very difficult position by this Government’s lack of direction, especially with regards to the building of housing. As many hon. Members have rightly highlighted, we have a housing crisis, so where is the Government’s investment to deal with that crisis and ensure that our construction industry grows, thereby providing more jobs for the hard-working British people?
Dr Coffey
Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the answer he just gave to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown)? Sizewell C is in my constituency, so I just want to get clarity: does the Labour party support what the Government have done so far in investing in Sizewell C, and does Labour support its ongoing construction?
Mr Dhesi
I am not here to speak at length about the particular details of each project, including the sizeable project in the right hon. Lady’s constituency, but as far as the Labour party is concerned, we believe in various forms of energy, but they must come with value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we will have an office for value for money under a Labour Government.
To conclude—as I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker—it is clear that we need a new direction. After 13 years of missed opportunities and fiscal mismanagement, Labour is ready to write a new chapter for Great Britain, and one in which hard-working people are rewarded, not penalised. We understand the challenges faced and have a clear actionable plan. We will lift the barriers to business investment through our long-term industrial strategy and our green prosperity plan, resolving to create jobs, grow our economy and cut energy bills, as well as being transparent on economic management and always ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. Our country has phenomenal potential. Britain deserves better than the Conservatives, who over their 13 years in power, have made most people in our country much worse off. It is time for a change. It is time for a Labour Government.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
I think this is my first opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) to his position, and I wish him well in it, but obviously not too well.
I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who opened this debate brilliantly. He is someone who knows business because he comes from business. I also want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members from across the House who have spoken for their very detailed and thoughtful contributions, and I will try to respond to as many points as I can.
Before I do that, I want to reflect on the measures that we are here to discuss and which were set out in the Chancellor’s autumn statement yesterday. I take the view that everyone in this House wants the best for their communities and the people of this country, and I think we broadly agree on several points in that regard. I think we agree that we want a thriving economy, with well-paid reliable work available in every corner of the country for years to come. We want households to be better off than they were in years gone by, and we want opportunities for everyone to progress in life and to provide for the people they care about. If we can agree on that, I would hope that we all agree that this is an autumn statement that delivers, and principally delivers growth.
This autumn statement announces a range of measures to grow the supply side of our economy by supporting increased business investment. Taken together, these measures will build over time to raise business investment by some £20 billion per year and reduce the business investment gap that has grown to what we have today. It is because we are backing business—British businesses—that our economy and our investment levels will rise. It is business that creates jobs, which raise household incomes. It is businesses that design and build the technologies of tomorrow, and level up our towns, our committee and our villages. It is businesses that contribute billions and billions in tax revenue, which pays for our public services. To back our businesses is to back our economy and our country’s prospects for the future.
Businesses are vital to our future technology and our future ambitions when it comes to net zero, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). The £4.5 billion we are making available to our strategic manufacturing sectors over five years will mean more zero-emission vehicles. It will mean more aerospace and life sciences technologies, and more green energy solutions built right here in this United Kingdom. We are providing £960 million for the green industries growth accelerator, pushing even further on our advantages in offshore wind, nuclear, CCUS and hydrogen. I just say to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who is a long-standing campaigner on energy, that we do need a balanced mix in our energy provision, and that is key to our national security as part of our energy security.
Businesses are vital for our high streets, so we have extended the 75% business rates discount for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses for another year, saving the average pub more than £12,800 next year. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) not just for the speech he made, but for the campaign he led on that measure. Businesses are vital for spreading opportunities, so my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has extended the investment zones programme and the freeport tax reliefs from five years to 10 years. He announced plans to set up a new £150 million investment opportunity fund to capitalise further investment in that programme. That goes alongside the 13 new investment zones—in west Yorkshire, the east midlands, the west midlands, Greater Manchester, Wrexham and Flintshire and several other places—which will generate billions of pounds in investment and create thousands of jobs throughout the country.
However, what is most eye-catching for all businesses is that we have listened to the asks of the CBI, Make UK, Siemens and more than 200 business leaders and industry bodies who said that the single most transformational thing we could do for business and investment growth was make full expensing permanent, so that is exactly what we did. It is something we can only do because of the strong economic position we have built in this country, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for her support for this measure. Every £1 million a company invests as a result of this measure means they will get £250,000 off their tax bill the very same year. This gives us the lowest headline corporation tax in the G7, as well as the most generous plant and machinery capital allowance anywhere. Again, the OBR says that this will make a huge contribution to our economy, increasing annual investment by £3 billion a year and a total of £14 billion in the forecast period.
While the United States, Canada and Australia are all dispensing with full expensing, we are making this a cornerstone of our economic approach, giving a clear welcome to international businesses that want to come here, set up and employ our people. Coupled with the headline recommendations of the Harrington review, this can make the UK a brilliant place for international investment—even more so than it already is today.
But our plans are not only for large businesses. By cutting class 4 national insurance by 1%—again, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe—and abolishing the class 2 national insurance entirely, we are saving some 2 million self-employed people an average of £350 a year from April. Together with our national insurance cut for 27 million workers, this is proof that, whether people work for themselves or for someone else, under this Government work will always be rewarded.
We on the Conservative side of the House believe in the dignity of work and the security of a regular pay cheque. That is why we did not just cut national insurance; we have increased the national living wage by a record amount. But we know that inflation has hit families hard. It has hit individuals and businesses throughout this country. Inflation makes everybody poorer. It was caused by a global pandemic and a global energy shock, and although we have seen it come down, we need to keep on going.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and others have all raised concerns about living standards, and I share them. It is why we have increased pensions by 8.5%, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), it is why we have uprated benefits by 6.7%, and it is why we have uprated the local housing allowance. That is on top of the £94 billion on energy support and the £900 cost of living payments that are going out throughout the country.
Peter Grant
Is it correct that the prediction that we are going to see the biggest fall in living standards that most of us have ever lived through is after all the things in the autumn statement the Minister has just referred to, so even taking into account all the good measures he has mentioned today and his colleague the Chancellor outlined yesterday, people are going to be poorer, with the biggest drop in living standards that any of us has ever seen?
Gareth Davies
As I have said, we know that families have suffered through a period of dramatic inflation. It peaked at 11%. We made a commitment at the start of this year to cut it in half and we met that commitment last week. The No. 1 thing we can do to make people feel better is bring down inflation. The provisions in the autumn statement will undoubtedly put money in the pockets of the people who need it most, but ultimately on this side of the House we believe in the dignity of work; we believe that the best route out of poverty is through a job, and the growth that we will boost through these measures will help achieve that.
We have made inflation our top priority and we have delivered on that commitment, as I just mentioned to the hon. Gentleman. I want to pick up, however, on one point raised throughout the debate, not least from the Opposition, who implied that the Government had done nothing to bring down inflation and that was nothing to do with this Government. I want to stress that the International Monetary Fund disagrees with them. The IMF has said that we have taken decisive action to bring down inflation, complementing the Bank of England. The Bank of England has the primary monetary policy tool of interest rates, but we in the Treasury and across Government have taken incredibly difficult decisions to ensure that we do not exacerbate inflation. We have also introduced measures such as the energy price guarantee, which essentially paid for half of people’s energy bills across the country. That, by the way, was referenced by the OBR as knocking 2% off headline inflation.
Matt Western
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. He was talking about the Government having a role in inflation and responsibility for it, but he must accept that the decisions made a year ago with that kamikaze Budget fuelled inflation. That is why we have an inflation premium compared with other nations.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raises that point, as I looked into it, and there is zero evidence for what he suggests. If he has evidence, he should provide it. We know that inflation was caused by two major factors, and I am happy to go through that in detail at another time. Global inflation was caused by global factors caused by the impact of a global pandemic. Supply chain shortages have caused prices to rise across the world, and then we had the war in mainland Europe, caused by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which caused energy prices to spike, and gas prices went up around the world. We in the UK are particularly dependent on gas, which is why inflation increased. It is also why we stepped in with the energy price guarantee to cut every constituent’s bills in half.
Gareth Davies
I do not know how they want to fight it out. I will take the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).
Peter Grant
On the question of dependency on gas, the Minister’s country might be dependent on imported gas, but can he explain to constituents in Scotland how a country that has more energy than it needs should be so badly affected when the price of that energy increases?
Gareth Davies
I simply point out that that did not stop the Scottish Government accepting our energy price guarantee for Scottish households, where we paid half of energy Bills. However, the hon. Member makes a broader point about energy supply. We on the Government Benches fully support the Scottish oil and gas industry. We believe that we will need oil and gas for years to come, and we will support the 200,000 jobs that the industry supports.
Gareth Davies
I will make a bit more progress, if that is all right.
I also want to address the comments of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on France. It is a great country, but I have to tell him that since 2010 the UK has grown faster than France. Indeed, the IMF has forecast that the UK will grow faster than Germany, France and Japan by 2028, so I do not recognise his comparisons. However, he is right that productivity is a problem in this country, which is why we are investing in our businesses to grow and improve productivity, but in order to boost growth sustainably we need to focus on business investment, and that is what this statement does.
This statement backs business to create jobs, to innovate and to ensure that as a country we can go from strength to strength. That is why I will be proud to vote for its many measures to support the entire country.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Joy Morrissey.)
Debate to be resumed on Monday 27 November.
Isle of Wight Local Government Finance
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair again, Mr Deputy Speaker. Islanders sometimes ask me what the purpose of these debates is, and the answer is simple: they are occasions for me, as the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight, to raise issues of importance for the Island and to do so on the public record—in Hansard—and then to get a considered response from a Minister of the Crown, who in this case is my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), and I welcome him to his new role. His predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), was good enough to visit the Island and engage in this issue consistently. I know that the Minister has some big decisions to make in a short amount of time, so I will help him make those decisions as much as I can by trying to make as strong a case as I can.
The critical point that I will argue is that the Isle of Wight is the largest island by population in England—an island being separated by sea from the mainland—and the only island authority in the UK that does not receive a permanent uplift to council funding to reflect the additional costs resulting from separation by sea from the mainland. I will make two arguments. The first is on why the Isle of Wight is treated differently from every other island with a sizeable population separated by sea from the mainland. Secondly, I will look at what that uplift in financial terms would be.
A couple of hours ago, I received a letter from the Minister in which he said:
“Island funding is an issue you have raised with the Department numerous times, and I am pleased we have progressed this issue to this stage.”
He is certainly right that I have raised it numerous times. I have raised it on dozens of occasions, with the most significant of those—debates in the House and letters to Prime Ministers—being: 9 May 2018; 25 September 2019; twice in October 2019; twice in October 2020; 15 June 2021; 10 August 2021; 30 November 2021; 28 November 2022; and 26 September 2023. As I said, there were multiple occasions in between.
We do not get an island factor and, as I said, we are the only island that does not. We were recognised to have that analysed in the fair funding formula, and it was the Prime Minister, when he was in my hon. Friend’s role as local government Minister, who committed in the fair funding review to look at the cost of providing services on an island and on the Isle of Wight. Sadly, thanks to covid, that fair funding review was never implemented. I consider that to be an historic injustice. We have in effect gone back to the era of modern government that started in the 1960s.
There is a generalised rule for islands that is not being applied to my constituency of the Isle of Wight. There is no logic or consistency to that position, and I suspect it is one that would be difficult to defend, either morally here or legally in a court of law, because one of the principles of modern governance is consistency and fairness, neither of which seem to apply in this case.
I turn to a series of studies. Since 1989 there have been six major studies into the impact of separation by sea on the funding of public services on the Isle of Wight. The most recent was published by the University of Portsmouth, to which I am grateful for its work—it shows the value of working with academic institutions and doing really good quality, peer-reviewed work. Portsmouth argued that the additional costs of providing government services on the island were up to 25% of net expenditure. It identified three factors that inflated our costs and made it difficult to provide Government services for the same amount of money.
The problem for my hon. Friend the Minister is the methodology. If the inputs are incorrect, the outputs will not be correct either, and if nobody is taking into account the additional costs of providing government services because the methodology does not allow that, we will not get outputs that are fair and consistent either with other authorities of the same size or with islands.
Portsmouth identified three factors: first, the lack of a spillover of public goods between the mainland and the Isle of Wight, which forces us to be self-sufficient, but at a cost; secondly, the Island premium of higher prices charged by suppliers on the Island because there is a smaller market, combined with the ferry costs— I will come to that—and thirdly, the additional costs to the Island that result from physical and perceived dislocation. Personally, I do not understand why anyone would not want to live on the Isle of Wight—considering that there are 8 billion people on the planet, it is probably quite good that most choose not to—but it is sometimes quite difficult for us to find experts, such as senior NHS doctors. Those are the three factors.
I want to make it clear that since I became the Member of Parliament in 2017, working with other people, the NHS and the council, we have got and delivered a better deal for the Island. We have got major investment in the NHS, the railway has undergone significant repair, Isle of Wight College is about to be demolished and rebuilt, and both our levelling-up bids have been accepted. We have also saved shipbuilding in East Cowes and got £20 million from the towns fund for Ryde. We have £175 million in total, which is buying good things like a better health service, better jobs and better life chances for our constituents. I am proud of that record, but that £175 million is a capital sum. The issue is the annual funding settlement to the council. It is an element of getting a better deal. We have a better deal in many areas, but I want a better funding settlement for my council.
Related to all that, the elephant in the room is the ferry crossing, which has one of the highest costs in the world. I will not dwell too long on this, because I want to hear the Minister’s eloquent response, but we have some of the most expensive ferries on earth. We have had lots of good ideas about what to do about them, but we have never had a shared manifesto that the MP and the council can agree on. The Island’s council has no powers over the ferries, despite being the transport authority, and as far as I can see it has never taken a policy position. We have the Transport Infrastructure Board, under the great leadership of Christopher Garnett, but the ferry firms’ participation is voluntary, and I think that is wrong.
I understand that soon the ferries will start to have discussions about grants and Government support to move to net zero. At that point, when public money is being spent, there should be a quid pro quo, such as a public service obligation of some kind. I am also moving towards the idea of a Solent ferry regulator, which would have the legal power to sign off on timetables, debt levels, changes to ownership and other issues related to the ferries. The council should also have a seat on both the Wightlink and Red Funnel boards.
I will leave the ferries element there because I will develop it in the new year, but it is part of the additional costs that the Island faces, adding cost to everything physical that we try to get over, and to people coming over as well. In fact, I think the fair funding formula said that a foot passenger adds about 35 miles, and a vehicle bringing stuff on to the Isle of Wight adds the equivalent of a drive from London to Peterborough—about 70 miles.
Going back to the reports on the Isle of Wight, the most recent one, commissioned last year by one of the Minister’s predecessors, was won by a company called LG Futures, which is a local government think-tank that does good work developing ideas for local government. The Government commissioned the report to review the evidence and work out the additional cost of providing public services on the Island. LG Futures peer-reviewed the evidence and concluded that every relevant study undertaken independently—that is the key word—confirmed the additional costs of providing parity of public services on the Island. The critical point is that the Island cannot simply access the services provided by neighbouring authorities, because we are separated by sea. We have the dislocation and the island factor—eloquently outlined in the University of Portsmouth’s report, and indeed reports going all the way back to the Edwards commission in the 1960s. Therefore, the Island provides fewer services compared with comparative councils, neighbours and unitary authorities. That is why we believe that the current system is unfair.
I will speak for another eight minutes or so, because I want to make sure that the Minister can get a word in edgeways. I persuaded the Government to reopen the examination of Island funding earlier this year, and I thank the Minister’s predecessor for doing so. We have engaged closely with his Department. The work we have done this year is probably the most detailed to date. Throughout the process, the Isle of Wight gathered all the data that we have been able to, and we made estimations where we were not able to get statistical data. One of the issues we have found is that perfect data is not readily available, therefore a level of ministerial judgment is needed. In our evidence, we believe that the total net expenditure and unit costs on the Island are about 14% above the statistical average of our neighbours. When Portsmouth says up to 25% and zero is no change, the estimates we have come up with this summer, working with the Minister’s Department, show an additional cost of 14%.
There has been a series of letters, and I know the Minister wants to have another look at the evidence. He is perhaps writing to us again. I am very grateful for that, because it is another chance for us to make our case. Once we provide that evidence again, I would like to speak to the Minister again, if he has time, just to make sure that he understands the arguments we are presenting. His own Department now says that
“there may be additional costs associated with Island status.”
I am grateful for that acceptance of our case. It is somewhat hedged because we are dealing with public servants and there is a degree of ministerial judgment here, but I disagree with the equivocation. There are clearly associated costs. For me, it is a question of how much. Unless the Minister seriously wants to argue today that we can provide the same level of public services for the same money on an island with a smaller market and hyper-expensive ferries as we can on the mainland, then with great respect to him—I am sure he will not be making that argument—that would simply not be a credible argument.
That brings me back to the core point and the issue of the principle here: why is the Isle of Wight treated differently from other islands that are effectively the same, separated by sea? Once we accept the principle, what is the monetary value put on it? For England’s only other island authority, the Isles of Scilly, the uplift or island factor is 50%. It is different from the Isle of Wight. It is smaller and there is an increased difficulty in providing services—I get that—but that is a 50% uplift. If we look at perhaps more comparative islands, the special islands needs allowance in Scotland provides a 10% uplift in general funding for Orkney, Shetland and the Outer Hebrides. For councils with significant populations, the allowance is allocated between 5%, 20% and 50%. In all cases, a simple fact is recognised: there is an island uplift because it costs more to provide Government services on an island.
I come back to my central point. I sent the Minister my speech early. I have edited and tweaked it a little bit, but he has had a copy of it for a day or so. I would like very much to ask him for the Government to accept in principle that the Isle of Wight should have an island uplift, as all other islands separated by sea from the mainland do, and then to work with me and the council’s experts to find a number. For me, the most important element is the acceptance that the Isle of Wight should be treated equally—I think that is legally and morally justified—as an island as others are. We negotiated last year what the Government described as a temporary uplift. It was about £1 million. I would like to see that uplift at the heart of an island settlement that is then, frankly, increased. I am very grateful for the £1 million, but it is not a great deal of money.
To sum up, I am very grateful to the Minister for listening so closely and I really appreciate the work he is doing on this issue. It is a complex area and he is trying to balance lots of things. I would say that a significant uplift for the Isle of Wight is effectively an accounting error for most large councils. Relatively modest sums would make a great deal of difference. For example, they would enable us to keep our regeneration team. We need that team. We had two levelling-up bids accepted, which shows we need the money, and that we had the professionalism to put good cases and go out and get it. If we have no non-discretionary spending at all, it makes it very difficult for us to build a future that we want for our islanders.
The Isle of Wight is an exception to the current rule. I think that is wrong and that we are seeing an historic injustice. The study suggests that our island status, the fact of being the Isle of Wight, makes it between 4% and 25% more expensive—between £10 million and £60 million—to provide similar sets of services. I urge the Government and the Minister to continue to talk with me and, on the first point, to recognise that the island should be treated the same as other islands separated by sea, and secondly, to work to provide a realistic figure that will make a difference to my constituents and my council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) not only on securing this important debate, but on advancing the argument in the way that he did. Let me also add my thanks to Wendy Perera, the chief executive of my hon. Friend’s council, to Councillor Phil Jordan, its leader, and, of course, to Chris Ward, the section 151 officer. They all work very closely with my Department, advocating for the Isle of Wight as my hon. Friend does, and my Department and I are very grateful to them for their engagement over this period.
Let me start by saying that the Government are, of course, committed to serving the needs of diverse communities across our country. This debate has provided an excellent opportunity to discuss the Island communities for whom my hon. Friend has long been an effective campaigner. As he mentioned, my predecessor visited the Island recently, and found it immensely helpful to hear from local voices about the issues faced by Island authorities.
I now have a confession to make. I have never visited the Isle of Wight. If my hon. Friend would like me to undertake a state visit with full pomp and ceremony, with flags and with town bands playing, I should of course be delighted to accept. I must warn him that I do get a little seasick, so we had better choose a slightly calm sailing day.
I have heard what my hon. Friend has had to say, as has my predecessor and as have officials in the Department. I say this in no way to rile him, and he should not take it personally—in fact, I know he does not—but having been in this job for nine days and in this place for eight and a half years, I have yet to see any right hon. or hon. Member doing cartwheels up and down the Library Corridor or across Central Lobby while declaring how perfectly satisfied they are with their local government settlement. There is always room for improvement.
My hon. Friend, and the House, will know that the local government finance settlement is in progress, and I want to give as much correct information in as timely a fashion as I can throughout that process to local councils across the country. Against that backdrop—very much early doors, as it were—I know my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot and will not pre-empt the formal process of determination and decision making, but I hear very clearly what he has said both in this debate and in representations. He kindly acknowledged that he was in receipt of my letter of today’s date—which shows that the systems are working—and it may be helpful if I read some of it into the record. It includes these words:
“we have concluded the evidence-gathering part of this process and I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank you”—
—my hon. Friend—
“and the Isle of Wight Council for your co-operation throughout this process. Island funding is an issue that you have raised with the Department numerous times, and I am pleased we have progressed this issue to this stage.
My officials are currently assessing the evidence submitted by your council and intend to share a draft of the report for comment to…Council officers in due course.”
Let me assure my hon. Friend that this will happen during the process of making final determinations on the funding settlement, not afterwards. It will be done in a timely and sequential way.
My letter explained that the council officers
“will then have the opportunity to comment on the report and my officials are happy to respond to any further questions and comments”
that may arise from that process—as, of course, am I.
A go-to phrase of Ministers at the Dispatch Box is to refer to a right hon. or hon. Friend as a “doughty champion”. That phrase sits well in the parliamentary vocabulary, but if it were to be worn as a crown—I say this in all sincerity to my hon. Friend, and I hope it gives confidence to his constituents and to those other deliverers of public services across the Isle of Wight— then, based on the list of correspondence and strong representations he makes not only to my Department but to Departments across Government, that crown would fit his head as if bespokely tailored. I congratulate him for all he does on behalf of his constituents, who should be very proud that they have such a doughty champion.
Let me turn to the hard figures. As a statement of principle and fact, we recognise the key role that local government plays in and across our communities. The word that we share is, of course, “government”—central and local. So long as the Prime Minister keeps me in post, I want to advance cordial relations and co-operative and collaborative working. Whether in town hall or Whitehall, we are all focused on serving people’s needs, and very often those people are among our most needy and vulnerable constituents. The work done by local government in helping to meet those needs is profound and widely recognised.
This year’s local government finance settlement for the Isle of Wight was £162.9 million—a more than 10% increase in core spending compared with the previous year. As the local authority has responsibilities for social care, the demographics of the Isle of Wight will throw up particular challenges, as do the demographics in many rural areas across the country. I know the council benefited from the additional social care funding announced last year, receiving an increase of over £4 million in its social care grant allocation. That was in addition to funding from the improved better care fund and the market sustainability and improvement fund. The increase was above the 9.4% average for local authorities across England. Overall, the Government made available up to £59.7 billion for local government—an increase in core spending power of up to £5.1 billion compared with 2022-23.
My hon. Friend is correct to say that the challenges and opportunities faced by island communities differ greatly from those facing other authorities in England. The separation from the mainland by water can lead to increased costs in some areas. I pause for a moment to say that, as a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency, I have long argued in speeches and representations to Ministers from the Back Benches that the additional costs of delivering public services in a rural area should be taken into account. Of course, we do that through the rural services delivery grant.
Bob Seely
I completely accept the argument about isolation in a rural area, be it Dorset or Cumbria—a large part of the Isle of Wight qualifies as a rural area, too—but there is a specific additional cost that comes from ferry use, in terms of time, funds and the greater difficulty in sharing services. Does the Minister accept that point?
Simon Hoare
The fact that the best way to get to the Isle of Wight is by ferry is not something that any Minister of the Crown would wish to dispute with anybody who lives on the Isle of Wight. That is, of course, true, and I will turn to that in a moment. I hope my hon. Friend recognises that the Government have taken it into account, and I intend to continue taking it into account in my deliberations.
It is, of course, for that reason that the Government have consistently stood alongside the islands of our country to provide additional support in recognition of the unique circumstances they face, as my hon. Friend has set out for the House this afternoon. As he will be aware, the Isles of Scilly, for example, receives bespoke funding at the local government finance settlement for that. Our response to my hon. Friend’s previous calls for the Government and my Department to recognise that has been that in recent years, as he has noted, we have provided an additional £1 million in grant funding to the Isle of Wight, in the light of the exceptional circumstances faced by the authority.
I am certain that he would have liked that money to be more, but, again, I say to him that the Government and I have to take decisions in the round, against the backdrop of a series of interdepartmental calls for public money and very strong calls for public money within the Department for different elements of the delivery of local government. That is why I said earlier, not as some flippant point, but as a serious one, that he should not take this personally. I receive and am receiving representations from Members from across the House and from across the geographies of our kingdom about how the Government will support local government this coming year.
Let me say a word or two about the evidence base and evidence gathering. My hon. Friend has mentioned that my Department has worked productively with the Isle of Wight Council this year on evidence gathering, to help us better understand the additional costs faced by the Island. As he highlights, it is challenging to quantify an island effect, but I hope he will agree that the joint work on the evidence gathering exercise has been a valuable process, both for the Isle of Wight and for the Government. Let me assure him and, through him, his constituents that my Department and I will make the very best use of this information, provided by the Isle of Wight Council, in order to come to a decision.
Too often, I fear, these things are commissioned and looked at, and then someone realises that a window with a slightly dodgy sash needs a bit of a prop if they are to have ventilation and these reports are used for that purpose, or for propping open a door while people are coming in and out. The documentation submitted will be on my desk and it will be at the forefront of my mind when I look at the figures on the settlement for the coming financial year. As always, we will be announcing our proposals, which are subject to consultation, in the upcoming local government finance settlement. We will do that in the usual way later this year.
The autumn statement, which many have welcomed, was comparatively late this year, which means that my officials and Department will have to work at pace to get the figures out to local authorities for them to think about their draft budgets and for us to undertake our consultation. I have set two challenges for my officials. Let me pause to say, albeit having been only nine days in the job, that I have unchallengeable support and admiration for them. They are the most phenomenal team of public servants, who are fully seized of and alert to the challenges of delivering public service in the local government arena. They have risen to the challenges I have set them and accepted them with alacrity. The challenges are that the data that we provide to local authorities must be delivered in as timely a fashion as possible; and, more importantly, that any figure work that we provide to them must be correct and beyond peradventure.
Bob Seely
My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that the invitation to visit the Isle of Wight is in his private office as we speak. Tennyson used to invite people in poetry, but I am afraid that, just because of the time, I have done it in prose. For many of the figures that he is talking about, we will be able to get Chris, Wendy and others, including the NHS, to come to talk about the additional costs. We hope that he will be able to see proper, physical, practical examples to back up the numbers that we have provided.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his uber efficiency in organising such a trip. My Speedos will be dusted off—don’t get excited, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I hope to share a 99 with him at some bracing seaside venue. In sincerity, I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I look forward to that hugely.
To draw my remarks to some form of conclusion, I hear the representations that my hon. Friend has made. In turn, I hope he has heard my total commitment from the Treasury Bench to studying with great care, as my predecessor did and as my officials do, all and any submissions made by him and his council. We hope to arrive at a circumstance and solution that works for the people of the Isle of Wight.
Government support to the Isle of Wight, as my hon. Friend was kind enough to reference in his remarks, is manifest outwith the local government finance settlement. We are investing in key capital projects across the Island, as part of our aim to level up all parts of the country. The fantastic and magnificent work of the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) is testimony to that. In recent funding announcements, the Island has benefited from £20 million for the town partnerships endowment, which will support the town of Ryde in the development of a new long-term plan; £5.8 million in round 1 levelling-up funding to the East Cowes marine hub; and, only this week, £13.6 million from the levelling-up fund to deliver the Island green link, providing cycle and walking infrastructure extending from Ryde in the east to Yarmouth in the west of the Island.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. While I am not able to give him the figures in pounds, shillings and pence, I hope I have been able to persuade him of the seriousness with which I take his case and with which I will approach this issue over the coming weeks and months. I am committed, as are the Government, to doing as much as we possibly can to ensure our fantastic councils, not just in the Isle of Wight but across the United Kingdom, can work alongside us and deliver for all of our constituents.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have been to the Isle of Wight and it is beyond glorious, so the Minister and his Speedos are in for a real treat.
Question put and agreed to.
Renters (Reform) Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 23rd November 2023
(1 year 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 23 November 2023 - (23 Nov 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary announcements. Most Members will be familiar with them, but I will run through them anyway. Members should send their speaking notes by email to Hansard. Please switch electronic devices to silent—I had better do that myself. Officials in the Gallery should communicate with Ministers electronically.
Today we continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for this sitting, which shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped, is available in the room. Grouped amendments are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill are taken when we come to the relevant clause.
The Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first, which sometimes surprises people. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak to all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I will call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a Division. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance. If Members find it too hot and want to take their jacket off, they may do so.
Schedule 1
Changes to grounds for possession
Amendment proposed (21 November): 180, in schedule 1, page 74, line 20, leave out “After Ground 8” and insert “Before Ground 9”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
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).
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing 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 (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. As you said, we adjourned on Tuesday with the Minister having responded to amendments 180, 153, 154, 155 and 156. That response, which you did not have the pleasure of hearing, was deeply unsatisfactory. It amounted to little more, I have to say, than an unsubstantiated assertion of the Government’s position that new mandatory ground 8A is required to support landlords in all instances of a tenant falling into serious arrears, and to prevent tenants from repeatedly paying down a small amount of arrears to frustrate existing ground 8 possession proceedings.
In moving amendment 180 and speaking to the other amendments in the group, I advanced three arguments as to why the Government’s position is flawed. First, there are already robust mechanisms in place, namely discretionary grounds 10 and 11, to deal with the very small minority of problem tenants who attempt to game ground 8, and courts use them. Secondly, new ground 8A can be gamed in much the same way as the Government believe existing ground 8 is being gamed, and ground 8A will have the added flaw of actively discouraging tenants from paying off a third set of arrears because they know that they will inevitably lose their home. Thirdly, all the evidence suggests that the number of people seeking to game ground 8 is vanishingly small, if not non-existent.
The Minister did not provide a rebuttal to any of those arguments. There was no response from him to our argument that new ground 8A can be gamed in much the same way as ground 8, and that it will have an impact on landlords as a result of incentivising tenants to avoid paying their third set of arrears. There was no response to the point that all the evidence suggests that the number of tenants gaming ground 8 is vanishingly small. After we heard extensive expert testimony last week supporting our arguments, the Government essentially said on Tuesday, “We dismiss the evidence. We think we know better.” To say that their position is unconvincing would be a gross understatement. I say to the Minister that he is going to have to do better on some of these very controversial clauses on Report.
We are extremely concerned about the implications of leaving new ground 8A in the Bill. We believe that it will lead to a great many vulnerable tenants being evicted unfairly. These are tenants who, I remind the Committee, will be struggling financially. Many will be in crisis and will desperately require debt advice and support, but we know they will have been trying to do the right thing because they will have made previous attempts to pay off their arrears in full. As I argued in our last sitting, the idea that we are talking about a bunch of people familiar enough with ground 8 in schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 to sit down and work out how they can game it is frankly insulting.
This is a punitive and draconian measure that will cause great hardship without providing the additional certainty that the Minister claimed it would. It is not necessary to tackle the genuine instances of persistent arrears or the rare instance of a problem tenant seeking to deliberately avoid ground 8 action. On that basis, we intend to press to a vote both amendment 153, which seeks to remove new ground 8A from the Bill entirely, and, if that fails, amendment 180, which seeks to make the ground discretionary. We will certainly be returning to the issue at a later stage.
The Chair
Just to clarify, I will put the Question on amendment 180 first.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 130, in schedule 1, page 75, line 4, leave out paragraph 23.
This amendment would maintain the existing definition of anti-social behaviour as being conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance, rather than being defined as behaviour “capable of causing” nuisance or annoyance.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 131, in schedule 1, page 75, line 5, at end insert—
“23A In Ground 14, after ‘residing in’ insert ‘regularly’”.
This amendment would clarify that visitors to a property displaying anti-social behaviour must be regular visitors, so that Ground 14 cannot be used to penalise tenants for the behaviour of a one-off visitor.
Amendment 158, in schedule 1, page 75, line 5, at end insert—
“23A In Ground 14, at start of line 1 insert—‘Where the landlord seeking possession has had regard to any relevant guidance made by the Secretary of State and’”.
This amendment would require landlords seeking possession on Ground 14 to have regard to any guidance produced by the government on what constitutes anti-social behaviour.
Government new clause 1—Factors for court considering granting possession order for anti-social behaviour.
New clause 55—Duty to publish guidance on what constitutes anti-social behaviour—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 180 days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish guidance defining anti-social behaviour for the purposes of Ground 14 in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988.
(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must define how anti-social behaviour differs from nuisance and annoyance caused by incidents of domestic violence, mental health crises, and behaviour resulting from adults or children with autism spectrum disorders or learning difficulties.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Government to produce guidance on what constitutes anti-social behaviour for the purpose of assisting landlords to determine when Ground 14 conditions have been fulfilled.
Helen Morgan
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I tabled these amendments to reflect my general concerns about the potential for abuse of ground 14, the discretionary ground for eviction on the basis of antisocial behaviour. We heard, both on Second Reading and in last week’s evidence sessions, about concerns that ground 14 could be used to evict a tenant who is a victim of domestic abuse or is suffering with mental ill health or a physical condition that could cause annoyance to surrounding neighbours.
We also heard last week from Liz Davies KC, in our fourth sitting, that the threshold is being lowered by a very small margin. She said that it was difficult to see circumstances in which behaviour would not meet the threshold of “likely to cause”, but would meet the threshold of “capable of causing”. She outlined that, in her experience, courts use the existing discretionary ground wisely, to rightly allow possession where there is a flagrant problem with antisocial behaviour. We have no reason to believe that courts will not continue to do so. I am therefore a bit perplexed as to why the Government have tried to slightly lower the bar for eviction. Further to our recent discussions of other amendments, I am concerned that it is to allow landlords to exploit the clause as a route to an easier eviction.
Amendment 130 would maintain the existing definition, which, as we heard last week, should be sufficient for landlords to evict where antisocial behaviour is a genuine problem. Unless the Minister can provide some reassurance that the changed terms will not lead to an increased number of evictions, I intend to press amendment 130 to a vote.
Amendment 131 reinforces that point. Literally interpreted, the legislation does not specify whether or not a visitor exhibiting antisocial behaviour is regularly attending the property. Clearly tenants should be protected from eviction where there has been a single or very intermittent problem. Indeed, a regular antisocial visitor may not be welcome at the property; they may be regularly attending to intimidate or cause distress to the tenant.
I have a piece of casework in which the tenants of a property, through no fault of their own, have been subjected to intimidation and verbal abuse by a member of the community who lives elsewhere. I do not doubt that that causes nuisance and annoyance for other residents, but it would be grossly unfair to evict those tenants. In all likelihood, it would not resolve the problem in the long term either; it would just shift it to a different place in the same town.
I will not press amendment 131 to a vote, because ground 14 is discretionary and we should trust the judgment of the court as to whether an eviction is appropriate in each individual case. However, as we have heard of instances where unreasonable evictions have taken place, I would welcome an assurance from the Government that there will be safeguards and guidance in place to prevent the innocent from being evicted by an unscrupulous landlord under ground 14.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak to amendment 158 and new clause 55, which stand in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Shropshire. Both her amendments to schedule 1, in relation to the proposed revision of existing ground 14, are welcome. Indeed, we tabled an identical amendment to her amendment 130, but it was not selected, on the basis that it was an exact duplicate—that is a lesson for the whole Committee on the importance of tabling amendments in a timely fashion. If the hon. Lady presses her amendment 130 to a vote, we will certainly support it.
As the hon. Lady set out, paragraph 23 of schedule 1 to the Bill will widen ground 14 of schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 to include behaviours
“capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”,
as opposed to the existing language, which merely refers to
“likely to cause nuisance or annoyance”.
We are pleased that the Government are not proposing to make existing ground 14 mandatory, as some had feared prior to the publication of the Bill earlier this year. The court will therefore still have discretion to judge whether it is reasonable and proportionate to evict a tenant for the behaviour in question.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
With respect to the hon. Member, we have heard previously in Committee how the existing grounds do not work. There was an ask in the evidence for us to amend the grounds in the way we are doing.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister must have been listening to a different balance of the totality of the evidence from what I heard. I heard significant criticism of this proposed change by the Government. He still has not given me an example of the types of behaviour that would not fall under the existing definition, but that would be covered by the expanded one. I think that is because the change is driven more by the politics of what is required to get the Bill through than by any empirical evidence that such a change is required to deal with instances in which landlords cannot recover their properties from tenants who cause antisocial behaviour.
Helen Morgan
We heard extensively from the representative of Grainger plc about antisocial behaviour. I felt that her evidence demonstrated clearly that the existing grounds were adequate for tenants to be evicted under such circumstances. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Matthew Pennycook
I think that is a worthwhile intervention. I heard the evidence from Grainger and others highlighting concerns about this ground, so the Government are just wrong if their position is that expert opinion out in the country is that there is no problem whatever with the proposed change to ground 14.
We agree with the hon. Member for North Shropshire that the Government should remove paragraph 23 of schedule 1 and leave ground 14 with the current “likely to cause” wording. However, if they resist doing so, we urge the Minister to at least consider clarifying, as I have asked him to, what kind of behaviour is and is not capable of causing nuisance or annoyance so that county courts can better exercise their discretion about whether eviction is reasonable and proportionate in any given circumstance once the Bill has come into force. Let us be clear: the Government’s eleventh-hour new clause 1 does not do that. Indeed, it is not clear what on earth they are trying to achieve with it. As with so much of what the Government have tabled fairly late, we suspect it is more a product of rushed thinking than anything else.
New clause 1 would make it a requirement for the court to consider, in particular, the effects of antisocial behaviour on other tenants of the same house in multiple occupation, but that is already the case. Judges already have to consider the impact of behaviours that could be categorised as antisocial on others, so why do the Government feel the need to specify that they are required to do so via this amendment, purely in relation to HMOs? I would be grateful if the Minister could provide us with a reason. Will he also explain why the Government do not believe this provision needs to cover, say, a house under part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 or a rented property that is not covered by parts 2 or 3 of that Act?
The new clause also provides for the court to take into account as a factor in its determination
“whether the person against whom the order is sought has co-operated with any attempt by the landlord to encourage the conduct to cease.”
Again, when considering antisocial behaviour, the courts can already consider, and frequently do, what efforts the tenant has made to co-operate—for example, what the tenant’s response has been when a landlord has tried to contact them to press them to bring the offending behaviour to an end.
Of course, that presumes that the landlord has tried to contact the tenant, but that highlights a more fundamental problem with the new clause. At present, there is no duty on landlords to prevent or take steps to stop antisocial behaviour on the part of their tenants. I am thinking of the extensive case law reviewed in the recent Poole Borough Council v. GN judgment. Is the new clause an attempt to impose such a requirement surreptitiously? If it is, I wonder what the National Residential Landlords Association and other landlord organisations will have to say about it. The problem is that it is not clear at all, and we fear that fact exposes the Government to the possibility of litigation.
If the new clause is not an attempt to impose a requirement for landlords to take steps to stop antisocial behaviour on the part of their tenants, should we instead take it to imply that landlords now have to at least reasonably co-operate with a tenant to limit antisocial behaviour? If it does not imply that, what is the point of it? If landlords do not have to do anything to encourage antisocial behaviour to cease or do anything about it, whether a tenant can “co-operate” is reliant on the whim of the landlord in question and whether they decide to ask the tenant to stop.
Put simply, we question whether the new clause will have any practical effect, and we would appreciate it if the Minister could explain the thinking behind it, particularly because, like the many other last-minute Government amendments to the Bill, there is no detail about it in the explanatory notes. Even if the Minister just reads his box notes into the record, I would welcome the clarification. That would at least give us a sense of the Government’s thinking.
Leaving aside the deficiencies of new clause 1, we remain of the view that if the Government are intent on widening ground 14 to cover behaviour likely to cause nuisance or annoyance, they must at least clarify what kind of behaviours they believe will be included in that definition. New clause 55 would place a duty on the Government to produce detailed guidance on precisely what constitutes antisocial behaviour for the purpose of assisting landlords and the courts to determine when ground 14 conditions have been fulfilled under the revised terms that the Government are proposing. Specifically, it requires the said guidance to define how antisocial behaviour differs from nuisance and annoyance caused by incidents of domestic violence, mental health crisis and behaviour resulting from adults or children with autism spectrum disorders or learning difficulties. Amendment 158 would, in turn, require landlords seeking possession on the basis of amended ground 14 to have regard to the guidance that the Government would be obliged to produce.
Taken together, we believe that new clause 55 and amendment 158 would at least provide the extremely vulnerable tenants we fear might fall foul of amended ground 14 with a further degree of protection beyond the discretion that the courts will still be able to apply. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I want to press the Minister on his thinking and on the motivations for widening ground 14 in respect of antisocial behaviour. I support the hon. Member for North Shropshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich.
There is a continuing theme of the Government looking at this world as they want it to be, rather than at the rather messier reality. In respect of private tenancies, it is a world that they have quite deliberately created. No one likes being exposed to any form of antisocial behaviour or inconvenience. Some antisocial behaviour can literally ruin lives. Many of us will have dealt with casework relating to harassment; stalking; deliberate making of noise at antisocial hours; people running small businesses in flats, which can create noise; behaviour arising from the often illegal use of accommodation for short lets; people stealing post; and abuse, including homophobic and racist abuse. All those things can occur, and they can be extremely damaging to people’s lives.
One of the problems, which my hon. Friend addressed, is that these things are often not dealt with not because the threshold is too high for such cases, but because, in many instances, it is extremely difficult to gather the evidence. People are often extremely reluctant to act as witnesses and support evidence, and a lot of evidence is one-on-one and, to some extent, highly subjective.
Managing antisocial behaviour requires landlords to be part of the solution, and it is completely right that we are encouraging the consideration of that. Social landlords spend considerable time and resource trying to do that, with varying degrees of effectiveness, but in the private rented sector—with honourable exceptions—that often simply does not happen. The reduction in the threshold that the Government are proposing will make it even easier for landlords to choose to go down an eviction route or to hold the threat of eviction over the heads of households, in such a way that they themselves do not have to take a great deal of responsibility.
The Government must anticipate consequences from their change to the definition, or one would like to think that they would not have done it, but we need the Minister to spell those consequences out. Obviously, we must expect that more people will risk eviction for behaviour that is below the current threshold; that is a consequence almost by definition. In how many instances do the Government think that is likely to apply? Who might be affected by it, and under what circumstances not currently covered by legislation? What will happen to people who are at risk of eviction with a lower threshold?
Jacob Young
Does the hon. Lady accept that we cannot possibly know those figures? At the moment, landlords have the ability to use section 21 to remove tenants who are causing repeated antisocial behaviour. We are removing section 21, so we cannot possibly know what the impact will be.
Ms Buck
If the Minister is going to propose a change to the law, it is incumbent on him to have some indication of what the implications might be; otherwise, I am not sure why the Government would make the change. I do not understand that argument at all. It might be difficult to provide quantified figures, but the Minister has a duty to present to the Committee a sense of the type of instances that the change will apply to so that we can have some idea why it is necessary.
Jacob Young
Let me put to the hon. Lady—this goes to a point that the hon. Member for North Shropshire made earlier—what Grainger has said in evidence to the Committee:
“We welcome the strengthening of anti-social behaviour grounds for possession, which has been of particular concern to us previously.”
Does the hon. Lady not accept that that, in and of itself, is reason enough to proceed on this ground?
Ms Buck
I have a very large Grainger development in my constituency, and it is not an issue that has come to me at any scale. Obviously—the Minister is right—landlords are likely to want these powers. Of course, if a landlord is able to circumvent the abolition of section 21 by using powers of eviction in other ways, at a lower threshold or with a lower evidential base, then they are going to want to do that.
We are saying that a balance has to be struck between the genuine need to deal with serious antisocial behaviour and the consequences of that. It will mean additional pressures on households, on local authorities, which inevitably end up having to deal with the consequences of it, and indeed on the courts, which will be expected to make judgments with a much looser and more nebulous definition of antisocial behaviour. I am not sure that the Minister’s argument works there at all.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which we have made in connection with other grounds for possession, and I think it is worth putting on the record again. Lots of these notices that will be given will not go to court. We cannot rely on the courts’ discretion in all these instances. The tenant that my hon. Friend mentioned could be served with a notice, might not know the recourse that she has and might feel she has to go. The threat of the expanded ground will be enough in most instances.
Ms Buck
I absolutely agree. The sword of Damocles is hanging over the heads of lots of people just living a fairly ordinary life. Families with special needs children are a particularly high-risk category. A woman and her representative came to me recently to say that her current property is unsuitable. She lives with her non-verbal autistic 19-year-old son, and they have occupied the property for over 20 years. As her son has grown older, he has displayed more challenging behaviours, in line with those often associated with autism. The family has been subject to several complaints from neighbours in relation to the noise being made, but the mum states that it is near-impossible to have full control over her son, due to his increasing support needs.
There is one other category the Minister needs to address, which is what we do about families who have already been evicted from social housing. Clearly, families cannot be on the street. Getting landlords to provide accommodation to households in those cases is essential, but already extremely difficult.
Jacob Young
Is the hon. Lady suggesting that landlords should be forced to house tenants that were committing antisocial behaviour, simply because they have been removed from social housing?
Ms Buck
Of course I am not suggesting that landlords should be forced. I am saying that a balance needs to be struck. As I have said several times, the Minister is completely failing to recognise that the Government have chosen to use the private rented sector for housing, at scale, households who previously would often have been provided with social housing and supported. The Government have to recognise the consequences of that. There has to be proper provision in law. The abolition of section 21 is part of that, but as we keep arguing, by taking away other safeguards in the legislation, the Government are undermining something that we regard as very positive.
The proposed change will lead to more evictions at a lower threshold; it will lead to families leaving their property before going to court, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich says; it may lead to landlords actively avoiding tenants who may pose a risk; and it will lead to more applications to local authorities, which will then have to source more temporary accommodation, inevitably in the private rented sector, to house them.
The Minister has to ensure that there is a proper backstop. If the Government want to house people—particularly those with vulnerabilities and families—in the private rented sector at scale, as they do, getting the balance right is essential. The weakening of legislation in this respect is one way in which they are failing to do that.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I repeat the declarations that I have made previously in Committee about the support I get for running the all-party parliamentary group for renters and rental reform, the rent I receive from tenants in my personal house, my work on the advisory group of a housing co-operative federation legal group, and my work as a trustee of the University of Bradford Union of Students, which has interest in Unipol housing, which offers housing for students. The list gets a little longer every time we talk about different things.
I rise to support what my colleagues have said. It is striking that the Government say in the impact assessment that the change will have no monetised or non-monetised impact on tenants, although—the changes to grounds are all clumped together—they list a number of positives and negatives for landlords. That seems rather odd. If the Government are saying that they need to lower the threshold to get rid of antisocial behaviour, there will be a cost to tenants and local authorities.
Now, perhaps that cost is worth it in order to stop antisocial behaviour; perhaps it is better that the local authority, opposed to the private sector, comes in and houses a family that might be causing a particular problem, because the family needs more wraparound support. I am more than willing to go along with that line of argument, but the Government do not make that argument in the impact assessment. They argue that there will be no impact.
I wonder whether the Minister really believes what the impact assessment says. Have he and the Department done the due diligence on the change? If they are genuinely saying that there will be no impact, what is the point of the change, other than to enable landlords to threaten tenants more? That is what it will be. If they are saying that, when a case gets to court, there will be no material change, what they are actually saying is, “Yes, in the court there will be no change, but we’ll be able to put the kibosh on tenants a bit more.” We need some clarity on that from the Minister.
Clearly, “likely to cause” is an extremely low threshold, but it still requires evidence. What I heard from Grainger and others was that it was difficult for them to gather evidence, because people did not want to come forward, and that in the end people wanted to move out of the situation rather than confront it. Even if we lower the threshold—it is a discretionary ground that we all agree on—there will still need to be evidence. I therefore do not see how changing the threshold—as opposed to, for example, changing court evidence guidelines—helps. The court guidelines could be quite easily changed to say that more regard can be given to diaries, recordings and other forms of evidence. I think we would all agree that we should ensure that landlords and courts can use and have more regard to all the evidence and technology that we have nowadays, such as Ring doorbells and so on. When such behaviour can be evidenced, people need to move out.
There is another problem. As the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople have said, there is a grey line between nuisance and antisocial behaviour. Let us be honest that that is a very grey area. Clearly, the most egregious forms of antisocial behaviour are horrible and nasty, and everyone can see them from a million miles away. Those are not the cases that are struggling in the courts at the moment; it is the grey-area cases where we are unsure. I am not sure that that helps the debate.
It would be much better if the Secretary of State accepted Labour’s new clause 55, which empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidelines from time to time on the levels, thresholds and evidential thresholds for antisocial behaviour. That would be much better, because it would also allow us to understand the changing nature of antisocial behaviour. It would help with problems of cuckooing and drug dealing. We know these kinds of behaviour change with legislation. It is a cat and mouse game with drugs and gangs. The danger with changing the threshold to “likely” is that we will not actually target those people correctly, but will end up bogging down the courts and people with things that are just nuisances, and we will not be able to pinpoint and get people on areas where we all agree real problems need to be targeted.
The Minister should either accept our new clause or say that he will go back and think about guidelines to frame the matter, so that it is clear. We have heard evidence from domestic abuse charities that they are deeply worried. I remember living opposite a lovely woman whose husband had been sent to prison for domestic abuse. On his release, every other night he was outside her house banging the door and shouting abusive expletives. Yes, the police were called and that was dealt with, but it happened repeatedly month after month. It was hugely antisocial for the rest of the residents, but clearly she should not have been evicted.
The problem is only changing the “likely” thresholds, rather than saying, “We will produce a comprehensive set of guidelines that will ensure and give security to those people.” In changing the threshold to “likely” in a vacuum, the Minister has created a lot of fear and panic in some of the sector, whereas that could have been closed down and the Minister could have been given more discretion. I do not say this very often, but on these matters, I am always in favour of giving Ministers more discretion.
I support amendment 131 on repeat visitors. We have all had situations where constituents or neighbours, particularly—dare I say it—younger people with parties that might have gotten out of hand, where they have had to eject visitors from their flat and in the process of doing so, it has created a great deal of antisocial behaviour. We do not want it to suddenly trigger a threshold when the tenant has done the right thing by trying to stop the problem but that has caused a disturbance. It needs to be when someone has repeatedly and voluntarily invited a person back into their flat to cause a disturbance. It also links to things like cuckooing, where the tenant does not have the capacity to resist that individual. Clearly other interventions, particularly by the police and social security, are needed.
I think the Minister is trying to do the right thing, and we all agree that we need tougher abilities to tackle antisocial behaviour. First, he should accept the amendment. Secondly, it always sticks in my throat that we create a whole different set of regimes for people in the private rented sector compared with people who own houses. We assume that people who live in the private rented sector are more prone to antisocial behaviour, but I must admit that I know lots of people who own their own homes who are darn antisocial as well.
I do not disagree that there should be cause to evict, sometimes and when needed, but it needs to be on a fair and equitable basis, and it should be based on guidelines that can change as the need changes, rather than just lowering a threshold of one word, which the Minister says in his own impact assessment will have no impact whatsoever.
The Chair
Just before I call the next speaker, I want to let the Whips know that there will be a Chairperson in place this afternoon at 2 pm.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I will be brief. The proposed definition is, of course, far too broad and our concern on the Opposition Benches is that it could potentially give the green light to that minority of unscrupulous landlords, giving them an opportunity to evict tenants with very little evidence indeed, and within quite a draconian timeframe; I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, who is on the Labour Front Bench, referred to two weeks, which is quite remarkable.
Of course, there is no clear definition, so I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. Surely there will be a definition and surely the Secretary of State will outline guidance on what constitutes nuisance and “capable of causing” nuisance or “anti-social behaviour”. Probably every one of us in this room—I speak respectfully, Chair—is “capable”, from time to time, of causing a nuisance. I mean, is it a nuisance if a toddler is running up and down in an upstairs flat or playing with their toys?
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North referred to children with autism. I am quite confident that we all know people and families with autism who we have tried to help and we know the complexities of that disability for the child and their family. That could constitute a nuisance and be considered by some people as “anti-social behaviour”, according to the definition in the Bill. Perhaps when a former Prime Minister has a row with their partners—it is quite well-documented that it did upset the neighbours—then, according to the definition, that could constitute a nuisance or “anti-social behaviour”.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on antisocial behaviour. I am incredibly keen— as I know quite a number of us are, on a cross-party basis—on strengthening the law and making sure that people live peaceful and fulfilling lives. But it has got to be good law and this is not good law.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, which I hope will outline quite clearly today—of course, when we change the law, it must be evidence-based—what constitutes something “capable of causing” a nuisance and “anti-social behaviour”, according to the definition.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Amesbury. As 50% of a pair of terrible twins, I recognise the analogy.
Jacob Young
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I thank hon. Members for tabling amendments 130, 131 and 158, and new clause 55. As we have heard, antisocial behaviour causes misery and it is an issue that the Government have considered extremely carefully when developing the reforms.
We know that antisocial behaviour can be hard to prove, as the hon. Member for Westminster North said, so this measure gives landlords more confidence that they will be able to evict a tenant when necessary. Members will be aware that antisocial behaviour encompasses a wide range of conduct. Lowering the threshold for this ground will help landlords to recover their properties when tenants engage in antisocial behaviour, even if it cannot be proved that it has caused or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance in any given case.
Repetition and regularity is obviously likely to be a key part of most people’s experience of antisocial behaviour. A one-off incident involving a visiting relative, for example, is already unlikely to be classed as antisocial behaviour. There is also precedent elsewhere in the statute book for defining antisocial behaviour as conduct that is “capable of causing” nuisance or annoyance to a person in occupation of residential premises or in relation to housing management functions.
It is important to remember that the ground remains discretionary. Judges will determine whether it is met and whether giving the landlord possession is reasonable. The Government are committed to publishing guidance on tackling antisocial behaviour before the new rules come into effect. My officials have already set up a working group with key stakeholders, including landlord and tenant groups, charities, antisocial behaviour specialists and legal professionals. The group will ensure that the reforms are implemented effectively and that the guidance is clear and thorough.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
It is very good that the Minister is talking about the guidance. Will he expect courts to consider that guidance in their deliberations?
Jacob Young
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, we have expanded the factors a judge needs to consider when using discretion so they have particular regard to people who are sharing properties or not engaging with their landlord’s efforts to tackle ASB.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am trying to ensure that courts will be empowered, required or encouraged—whatever form of words the Minister wants—to consider the guidance that he has outlined in making their deliberations.
Jacob Young
As we have already heard a number of times in this debate, it is important that the courts have that flexibility to make that discretionary judgment on this issue, and I think that they would consider all manner of things when deciding on that.
The working group will help to ensure that the reforms are implemented effectively and that guidance is clear and thorough. We intend to use the guidance to highlight the important links to domestic abuse, mental health and other vulnerabilities. That is the aim of new clause 55, and I hope that addresses some Members’ concerns.
Mike Amesbury
But if the guidance is not mandatory for the courts, what is the point?
Jacob Young
With respect to the hon. Gentleman’s question, he mentioned whether a victim of domestic abuse would fall short of these grounds. I would say to him that that is exactly what a judge is there to determine—whether it is reasonable to grant possession to the landlord in those circumstances. I think that I have addressed that in my remarks. I hope that this provides some reassurance and that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.
To further bolster landlords’ confidence in being able to regain their properties in cases of antisocial behaviour, Government new clause 1 expands the matters a judge must consider, as I outlined previously, when making a discretionary antisocial behaviour eviction. It ensures that the court must also consider specific issues that have been of concern to the sector. First, the new clause asks judges to give regard to whether the perpetrator has engaged with measures to resolve their antisocial behaviour, making it easier for landlords to evict non-compliant tenants.
Matthew Pennycook
I asked the Minister a very specific question about this new clause, to which I would be really grateful for an answer. Does new clause 1 in any way imply or direct landlords, by a new requirement, to proactively engage with their tenants to resolve the behaviour, rather than just putting the onus on tenants to do so, and therefore, in instances where the landlord will not engage, leave that tenant in an impossible situation, one might say?
Jacob Young
I do not believe that it does, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify. Turning back to what I was saying, it asks judges to give particular regard to the effect of antisocial behaviour on other tenants within houses of multiple occupation, which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned.
Jacob Young
I will write to the hon. Lady and other hon. Members to confirm the status of that issue—I appreciate that question was raised in the last sitting as well. As I was saying, with houses of multiple occupation, it will make it—
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Further to that, will a judgment of a 5A be in the public domain and therefore available or declarable to potential new landlords? I am asking because a section 21 is not, but a county court judgment on financial grounds is.
Jacob Young
We are not discussing 5A right now, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that point.
As I was saying on houses in multiple occupation, this measure will make it easier to evict perpetrators who are having a severe impact on those living in close proximity with them day to day. I therefore commend Government new clause 1 to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I will say two things to the Minister, because I think that was a helpful answer, although his officials are going to be doing a lot of writing over the coming days and weeks. It was helpful in two ways: it is welcome to hear an assurance that we expect guidance before these measures come into force, and that the working group has been set up to that end.
This is where the private rented sector is very different from the social rented sector, where registered providers operate. Registered providers often have trained antisocial behaviour teams who are equipped and trained with the tools—injunction powers and others—to remedy antisocial behaviour before eviction action has to take place. They are trained to distinguish between antisocial behaviour and things such as the domestic violence instances that we are worried about, and to take safeguarding action to protect tenants from either eviction or criminalisation. The private rented sector has none of that. I do very much think we need guidance in this area, so I welcome the Minister’s clarification in that regard. On that basis, I am happy to not to push new clause 55 to a vote.
However, what I am still concerned about, and why we will support the hon. Member for North Shropshire if she pushes her amendment to a vote, is that in some ways it does not matter what the guidance says if the definition of what constitutes antisocial behaviour is very broad and the change from “likely” to “capable” is made. That still concerns us a great deal. The Minister has not given me an example—I only want one—of a kind of behaviour that would be “capable of causing” antisocial behaviour without falling under the existing “likely to”. I do not think he has any such behaviour in mind; I do not think the officials have any idea, either.
I think the Minister gave the game away, intentionally or otherwise, that this power is to be used to make it easier for landlords to threaten tenants in the first instance, and most will not go to court, and then to be able to evict tenants. As he said, the behaviour in question does not have to have caused or be likely to have caused antisocial behaviour in any given instance. It will enable an argument on the basis that there is a pattern of behaviour that now meets the reduced threshold.
None of the evidence I listened to last week suggested that that was necessary. I remember—one good example—that Timothy Douglas from Propertymark could not understand the difference between “likely” to cause and “capable” of causing, and the need for the change in this instance. He did call for guidance—absolutely. However, none of the evidence I heard supported the change, apart from evidence from some landlords, who, of course, are going to say that they welcome a widened power. They do not have to deal with the consequences. It is local authorities and society that will have to do that.
I know this is not the Minister’s brief, but he really should know whether tenants, if evicted under these grounds, will be made intentionally homeless. I suggest that it is almost certain that they will be. We are talking about an easier way to make people homeless, and we will all pick up the costs in various ways. This will impact some incredibly vulnerable tenants. We therefore think that this measure needs to be removed from the Bill. Again, we will certainly return to the issue at a later stage.
Helen Morgan
I welcome the support from Opposition Members, who, I think, have summed up the issue very well. There is an increased threat of eviction even if these cases are not taken to court, because the threat of having notice served in the first place is very frightening for people who do not necessarily have the legal ability to follow that through and oppose it.
Jacob Young
I take the hon. Lady’s point fully on board. I inadvertently forgot to mention during my speech that tenants will be given full information on their rights when notice is served. I hope that addresses her concerns about the threat being enough to push someone out. People will know their rights and whether or not they can challenge this in a court.
Helen Morgan
I welcome the Minister’s intervention. It is sometimes hard for us to put ourselves in the position of the tenant who may not have the professional skills of some of us in this room. The threat of being taken to court is a very serious one, even if someone has been advised of their rights. It is an intimidating place, and an intimidating process to go through.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The timetable referred to is two weeks. We all know about the crisis in people being able to get a lawyer, seek advice or even get an appointment at a citizens advice bureau: it can often take longer than two weeks. By the time a person has got advice or legal support, they will be out, will they not? Is that not a key problem with the provision?
Helen Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his well-made point. In Shropshire, citizens advice bureaux sometimes refer people to their MP’s office because they do not have the capacity to deal with the number of issues that are brought to them. The point about the threat is an extremely important one that we need to bear in mind: it will have a strong adverse effect on tenants who are put in that position. The hon. Member for Westminster North made the excellent point that we are dealing with people who would otherwise be in social housing, but they are not in social housing because we do not have an adequate social housing stock. With the best will in the world, a lot of landlords in the private sector—particularly when it is not their main business or primary job, but they happen to rent out a property—do not have the skills or capacity to deal with these things.
I welcome the Minister’s explanation that a working group will come up with detailed guidance. That is a positive step forward and is the reason why I will not press amendment 131 to a vote. However, I am concerned about his comment that the point of the expansion of the definition is to reduce the evidential level at which a landlord is allowed to serve notice. For that reason, I will press amendment 130 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 177, in clause 4, page 3, line 34, at the beginning insert—
“(1) In section 8 of the 1988 Act, after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) A notice under this section must include reference to the unique identifiers allocated to each person and dwelling-house with an entry on the database in accordance with section 41 of the Renters (Reform) Act 2023 (Allocation of unique identifiers).’”
This amendment would require landlords to be registered on the database to serve grounds for possession notices.
We will debate at some length the provisions in the Bill that will establish a private rented sector database when we consider chapter 3 of part 2 in detail, so I do not intend to dwell on our view of the Bill’s database provisions more generally, or how they might be improved. We will have sufficient time to do so in due course. Suffice it to say that we take it as given that the Government wish to see, as we do, as many existing and prospective residential landlords registering themselves and their properties on the property portal that the database will support.
We acknowledge that the Bill already contains provisions designed to ensure that registration rates are high. These include the financial penalties that local authorities can impose, assuming that they have the capacity and capability to do so, on people who, for example, do not meet the requirements in relation to marketing, advertising and letting set out in clause 39. However, we believe that the Government should seek to make it virtually impossible for a residential landlord to operate without registering themselves and their property on the database by ensuring that every single process that the Bill covers bites on them in that regard.
Amendment 177 seeks to contribute to that objective by inserting into section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 a new subsection that would compel landlords to be registered on the database in order to serve grounds for possession notices by requiring them to add to any possession notice served the unique identifier that they will be allocated on registering. Requiring landlords to append a unique identifier to a possession notice, and thus denying landlords not registered with the database the opportunity for a court to make an award of possession, would be an important means of ensuring maximum compliance with the proposed portal and properly regulating the new system to the benefit of both landlords and tenants. For those reasons, I hope the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving amendment 177, which would require landlords to have registered on the property portal before serving a tenant with a valid notice for possession under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. The property portal will play a crucial role in helping landlords to understand their legal obligations and will give tenants the information they need to make informed choices before starting a tenancy. Our view is that the enforcement mechanisms in the Bill, including the mandatory duty on landlords to be on the portal and the ability of local authorities to find those, will prevent abuse. However, I note the hon. Member’s concerns, and if there are further measures we can take to ensure that all landlords are on the portal, we will explore them further.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the Minister’s response and his commitment to look further at this matter. Although the mandatory duty is welcome, we have real concerns about the ability of local authorities to properly investigate and enforce. We will come back to those concerns, because they relate to a number of areas in the Bill. I therefore hope that the Minister goes away and thinks about every—
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
There is form in this area: a landlord cannot evict their tenants if the property does not have an energy performance certificate. It seems like an interesting proposal.
Matthew Pennycook
I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I have covered all bases in our set of amendments. We will come to the preconditions and requirements that have developed around section 21 that fall away under the Bill; they are a concern. The hon. Gentleman is right: to serve a section 21 notice, a number of regulatory obligations must be met.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Another advantage of doing it through the property portal is that it helps to speed up the digitalisation process that the Government are so keen on with the courts. The portal would retain the information that the courts need.
Matthew Pennycook
Absolutely, and it is one of several ways that we think that, with some reasonable, common-sense amendments, we can strengthen the Bill so that every part of it works together. I hope that the Government will go away and think about the other ways in which we can ensure maximum landlord compliance with the portal. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Statutory procedure for increases of rent
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I beg to move amendment 200, in clause 5, page 5, line 17, at end insert—
“(4F) It shall be an implied term of every assured tenancy to which this section applies that percentage increase between the existing rent and any new rent specified in a notice given under subsection (2) shall not exceed whichever is the lesser of—
(a) the percentage increase in the rate of inflation (calculated by reference to the Consumer Prices Index) since the date on which the existing rent took effect; or
(b) the percentage increase in median wages in the local authority area in which the dwelling-house is situated, calculated over a three-year period ending on the date on which the notice was served.”
This amendment specifies that the annual increase in rent requested by a landlord may not exceed the lesser of either the Consumer Prices Index or wage growth in the relevant local authority area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 159, in clause 5, page 6, line 23, at end insert—
“13B Recovery of rent
(1) Any increased rent which is paid otherwise than in accordance with section 13 or section 13A is recoverable from the landlord by the tenant as a debt claim in the courts.
(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for such claims to be recoverable by proceedings in the First-Tier Tribunal, rather than the courts.”
This amendment would ensure that in instances where a private landlord increases the rent without issuing a section 13 or section 13A notice the tenant can seek to recover costs through a debt claim in the court. It also provides the government with the power by regulation for such claims to be recoverable by tribunal.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 201, in clause 6, page 7, line 3, leave out paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) and insert—
“(b) leave out from ‘shall determine the rent’ to end of sub-section and insert ‘in accordance with subsection 13(4F)’.”
This amendment would require a tribunal to determine an appropriate rent in accordance with proposed subsection 13(4F).
Amendment 197, in clause 6, page 7, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) After subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) In making a determination under this section, the appropriate tribunal must have regard to the original rent agreed with the tenant and subsequent changes in—
(a) Local Housing Allowance;
(b) the average rent within the broad rental market area as assessed by the Valuation Office Agency or as listed in the Property Portal;
(c) the consumer price index; and
(d) median income growth.’”
This amendment would allow the tribunal to take into account not only new rents in the market but current rents in existing tenancies, changes in wages, inflation, and local housing allowance when making a determination.
Amendment 198, in clause 6, page 7, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) After subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) Where a notice under section 13(2) has been referred to the appropriate tribunal, then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be the same or below the original rent and the increase in consumer price index or medium income growth, whichever is lower over the period since the tenancy started.’”
This amendment would limit tribunals to an upper cap of CPI or medium income growth, whichever is lower, for rent increases.
Amendment 199, in clause 6, page 7, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) After subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) Where a notice under section 13(2) has been referred to the appropriate tribunal, then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be set using the statutory guidance on in-tenancy rent increases laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.’”
Amendment 199 and NC66 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to tribunals on the determination of in-tenancy rent increases, and require tribunals to take such guidance into account when making determinations.
Amendment 160, in clause 6, page 7, line 27, at end insert—
“(7A) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(8A) Where a notice under section 13(2) has been referred to the appropriate tribunal then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) above applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be the same or below the rent specified in the section 13 notice and the rent as determined by the tribunal shall only become payable once the decision of the tribunal has become final.
(8B) A decision becomes final only on the latest of—
(a) the determination of any appeal;
(b) if earlier, on the expiry of the time for bringing a subsequent appeal (if any); or
(c) by its being abandoned or otherwise ceasing to have effect.’”
This amendment would ensure that where a rent assessment is carried out by a tribunal, the rent subsequently determined by that tribunal cannot be higher than that originally requested by a landlord in a section 13 notice.
Amendment 190, in clause 6, page 7, line 38, at end insert—
“(c) no more than the rent proposed by the landlord in the notice served on the tenant under section 13 of the 1988 Act.”
This amendment would mean that the rent payable after a tribunal determination can be no higher than the rent initially proposed by the landlord in the notice served on the tenant.
Amendment 161, in clause 6, page 8, line 20, at end insert
“which must be no earlier than two months following the date of determination”.
This amendment would ensure that in cases of undue hardship tenants would have a minimum of two months from the date of determination before a new rent became payable.
Amendment 162, in clause 6, page 8, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) A date specified under subsection (3)(b) must be no earlier than the date on which the determination becomes final, with a decision only becoming final on the latest of—
(a) the determination of any appeal;
(b) if earlier, on the expiry of the time for bringing a subsequent appeal (if any); or
(c) by its being abandoned or otherwise ceasing to have effect.”
This amendment would remove the requirement for a date determined by a court for rent to become payable in cases of undue hardship to not be later than the date of the determination.
Clause 6 stand part.
New clause 58—Requirement to state the amount of rent when advertising residential premises—
“(1) A landlord must not advertise or otherwise offer a tenancy of residential premises unless the amount of rent is stated in the advertisement or offer.
(2) A letting agent acting on behalf of a landlord must not advertise or otherwise offer a tenancy of residential premises unless the amount of rent is stated in the advertisement or offer.”
This new clause would require landlords or persons acting on their behalf to state the proposed rent payable in the advertisement for the premises.
New clause 59—Not inviting or encouraging bids for rent—
“(1) A landlord must not invite or encourage a prospective tenant or any other person to offer to pay an amount of rent for residential premises that exceeds the amount of rent stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises as required by section [requirement to state the amount of rent when advertising residential premises].
(2) A letting agent acting on behalf of a landlord must not invite or encourage a prospective tenant or any other person to offer to pay an amount of rent for residential premises that exceeds the amount of rent stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises as required by section [requirement to state the amount of rent when advertising residential premises].
(3) Subsection (1) does not prohibit a prospective tenant or other person from offering to pay an amount that exceeds the stated amount of rent.”
This new clause would prevent landlords or persons acting on their behalf from inviting or encouraging bids that exceed the amount stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises.
New clause 62—Limit on amount of rent that a residential landlord can request in advance—
“In Schedule 1 to the Tenant Fees Act 2019, after paragraph 1(8) insert—
‘(9) Where rent is payable in advance, the maximum that may be charged is equivalent to the amount specified in paragraph 2(3).’”
This new clause would ensure that the maximum amount of rent that could be lawfully requested by a residential landlord in advance of a tenancy commencing would be 5 weeks’ rent for tenancies of less than £50,000 per annum and to 6 weeks’ rent for tenancies over £50,000 per annum.
New clause 66—Rent increase regulations—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, from time to time, guidance for tribunals on the determination of in-tenancy rent increases under a section 13(2) notice, such guidance shall include reference to Local Housing Allowance, average rents as assessed by the Valuation Office Agency or published on the Property Portal, consumer price index and median income growth.”
Amendment 199 and NC66 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to tribunals on the determination of in-tenancy rent increases, and require tribunals to take such guidance into account when making determinations.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I will speak to amendments 197 to 201 and new clause 66. I also support the other amendments put forward by my Front-Bench colleagues: amendments 160, 161 and so on.
The reason for these amendments is generally to probe the Government. The intention of the Bill is to stop landlords evicting people with no reason. It might well be through no fault of the tenant, or it might be that the landlord has genuine reasons, but it is still through no fault of the tenant. The danger is that without proper safeguards on economic evictions, landlords will be able to evict through the back door by whipping up the rent. The explanatory note from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities acknowledges the need to prevent back-door evictions, and that is why there are clauses to strengthen some of the rent tribunals’ work. We all welcome that.
However, there are a few particular problems with the current definitions of the rent tribunal. The Secretary of State himself says that 20% and 30% rent increases are “unacceptable”. However, the reality is that those kinds of rent increases could, in certain markets, still be acceptable in the rent tribunal, primarily because the rent tribunal looks at current market rents. Off the top of my head, I believe that the wording around current market rent refers to the rent that the landlord would be able to get if they were to put a property on the market, or in that phraseology. The problem with that is fewfold.
First, current market rent is based on the market rent of newly let properties, not of properties that have a sitting tenant. Quite understandably, if there is a sitting tenant, a landlord may not require as high a rent. They have not just had to deep-clean the property. Most good landlords—we all accept that they are the majority—make repairs to a house between tenancies and make sure it is back up to speed after general wear and tear. For a sitting tenant, those changes due to wear and tear will probably not be made, or they will have to make some of those improvements themselves. Asking the tenant to pay the general market rent is not a fair allocation of what the rent would be.
Tenants might have moved in and started paying a rent that was accessible on local housing allowance. Changes might then have happened around the area, or the area might have been gentrified, but the landlord may not have made any changes themselves—they have not invested anything more in the property. Suddenly, the rents go up and make that house unaffordable on local housing allowance. That does not seem fair to me either. The landlord has not invested. Clearly if the landlord has invested, there could be increases in rent. Under certain circumstances, we all think that rent needs to go up; it could not be fixed at one number forever.
I have therefore tabled a number of amendments. Amendments 200 and 201 state that the landlord may increase rents only according to the consumer prices index or median wages in the local area. This is effectively the clause that Grainger puts on its new properties. Grainger said in evidence that it does this routinely. It is not something that will come as a horrible surprise to lots of landlords, because many of the good ones—many of the big institutions—do it already.
Jacob Young
With respect to the hon. Member’s point, the Committee has heard other evidence that Grainger does not do that. Grainger did it specifically in relation to their fixed-term rents. Since we are abolishing fixed terms, I do not think his point applies.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Grainger currently does it on its fixed-term rents, and almost all new rents are fixed-term rents for a period of time. The Minister is right: we do not know what Grainger will do in future. However, Grainger did not say that it would abolish them for sure in future either. I would expect Grainger to continue some sort of mechanism where there is that discussion. That is one suggestion I put to the Committee, and I would like to have the Minister’s thoughts on it.
Helen Morgan
I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I am broadly supportive of it. If we get this right, we should see a stable private rented sector where rents do not go up very much each year; they might fall in some local areas, depending on local circumstances. Does he envisage allowing rents to drop, or does he envisage them always going up by some kind of consumer price inflation-linked level?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
That is an interesting question. In amendments 200 and 201, they would be linked to CPI or median local rents. Where that has been introduced in Belgium, two-thirds of landlords declined to increase rent at the rate of inflation, so it has not particularly caused a constant push to always increase.
In amendment 197, I am talking about a negotiation between the tenant and the landlord. If they do not agree, the tribunal can consider not just what the current market rate would be if the property were to be put on the market brand-new, but a number of other indicators, and come to a conclusion. It might well be that if market rents have decreased in an area, the tribunal would be able to come to that consideration; I am not forcing the tribunal, but allowing it to come to that consideration. Some of these amendments allow more flexibility, and I always think that flexibility in these issues is probably right. Amendment 197 also allows the tribunal to consider CPI and median income growth.
However, amendment 198 says that the tribunal might consider all those things, but even then it can never increase rent above CPI or median wages. It might well be that the tribunal wants it to go down, and it might find a different place, but there is a ceiling. Amendment 197 allows the tribunal to consider; amendment 198 puts a cap on what the tribunal can impose. Amendment 199 and new clause 66 give the Secretary of State the power, from time to time, to lay before Parliament statutory guidance or a statement outlining the consideration that courts should take into account in their rent deliberations the maximum amount by which they can increase it. I think that is the most flexible. It allows the Secretary of State, from time to time, to look at the wider market and be able to say, “It needs to be locally driven,” or, “It needs to be national indicator-driven.”
As I have already discussed, the market is changing, and there is not just one market throughout the UK. We would not necessarily have to find a single indicator that would work for everyone. We have development areas, areas where house prices have slumped and areas that are going through gentrification. We have properties that are increasing in value because of infrastructure inputs. If High Speed 2 was ever to happen, property prices might increase in parts of the north. If Labour gets in, perhaps we will see some actual improvements in rail and other infrastructure in the north of England, and that will help the market. Of course, we have had many promises that have never been delivered so far.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I digress, but I do believe that all of Britain will have a better deal under Labour—although, of course, I would say that.
Amendment 199 would give the Secretary of State the flexibility to work out what the local markets are, and they could even devolve that to local or regional bodies. It would give them the ability to say, “I’m laying down a statement to say that there is no restriction of the total amount whatever,” or they could say, “Certain areas have restrictions, and certain areas have none.” The Secretary of State should consider introducing the ability to do that, given that certain areas are more problematic than others, and also the ability to look at indicators that might be relevant from time to time. At the moment, the courts cannot consider Secretary of State guidance on this matter because they are bound to consider only one thing. All I am saying is that they should consider market rents and the Secretary of State’s guidance.
Jacob Young
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Secretary of State could devolve that decision. The Mayor of London has asked for powers to introduce rent controls in London. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Mayor of London?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
We are talking about in-tenancy rent controls, and I think there are cases where they should be devolved and cases where they should be decided by the Government. Different Governments will take different approaches, depending on the need of the local area. Out-of-tenancy rent controls are a different matter and are not covered by the Bill. I will not be distracted, because I am sure you would pull me up for going into a different area, Mr Paisley.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I also support some of the other important amendments in the group. Amendment 160, from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, is about ensuring that rents cannot be above the initial section 13. What I mean by that—I am sure my hon. Friend will discuss it further—is that if the landlord says, “I want a rent of x,” and the tenant says, “That’s unreasonable,” and takes it to the tribunal, the tribunal cannot issue a higher rent than what the landlord was asking. We heard a lot of evidence about how that would have a chilling effect and prevent people from going to the rent tribunal.
The whole premise of the Bill—even the Government acknowledge this—is that what prevents economic evictions is the threat of going to the court or tribunal. Nobody wants to go to the rent tribunal, so landlords propose decent rents; there is self-control and self-restraint. If there is no upper cap on what the rent tribunal can decide, a landlord who is happy to accept a lower amount might end up dancing out of the court because they were suddenly offered more than they asked for. That does not seem fair to me; that does not seem fair in any form of the market. That is important.
Of course, if we give courts the ability to consider Secretary of State guidance, that could be included in the Secretary of State guidelines, but I assume the Minister will reject that proposal, so it is important that there is a backstop. Amendment 160 is important for that backstop.
Then there are some amendments about undue hardship. I support them, and other hon. Members will talk about them. It is important that the Government give some indication of how they think tribunals should interpret these measures. I also say that because it is in nobody’s interest for every single rent to be challenged in the tribunal in the first few years of the new system. That will not help the tribunals, renters or landlords. Landlords need guidelines. If landlords are just told, “Punt a rent and find out what happens in tribunal,” we are letting down landlords as well. Providing some clearer guidelines, either in the Bill or through the Secretary of State, would reassure landlords that when they want to raise their tenants’ rents reasonably, they can do so.
Finally, I have heard some concern externally that if we limit rent increases, a landlord who forgoes a rent increase over one or two years will be unable to match the rent up later. All my amendments refer to when the tenancy started, so the court and tribunal could consider what the rent increases have been throughout that tenancy. Of course, sometimes a landlord will say, “I will not increase your rent for a few years, because I do not need to, but when I do get round to doing it, I will increase it to what it would have been had I done it annually.” That is fair enough, and my amendment allows for it. No landlord would be disadvantaged by the amendment; it would provide security for landlords, security for tenants and flexibility for the tribunals.
If there is any movement from the Government on any of my very reasonable amendments, I would love to hear about it.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mr Mohindra.)
Renters (Reform) Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 23rd November 2023
(1 year 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 23 November 2023 - (23 Nov 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 159, in clause 5, page 6, line 23, at end insert—
“13B Recovery of rent
(1) Any increased rent which is paid otherwise than in accordance with section 13 or section 13A is recoverable from the landlord by the tenant as a debt claim in the courts.
(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for such claims to be recoverable by proceedings in the First-Tier Tribunal, rather than the courts.”
This amendment would ensure that in instances where a private landlord increases the rent without issuing a section 13 or section 13A notice the tenant can seek to recover costs through a debt claim in the court. It also provides the government with the power by regulation for such claims to be recoverable by tribunal.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 201, in clause 6, page 7, line 3, leave out paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) and insert—
“(b) leave out from ‘shall determine the rent’ to end of subsection and insert ‘in accordance with subsection 13(4F)’.”
This amendment would require a tribunal to determine an appropriate rent in accordance with proposed subsection 13(4F).
Amendment 197, in clause 6, page 7, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) After subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) In making a determination under this section, the appropriate tribunal must have regard to the original rent agreed with the tenant and subsequent changes in—
(a) Local Housing Allowance;
(b) the average rent within the broad rental market area as assessed by the Valuation Office Agency or as listed in the Property Portal;
(c) the consumer price index; and
(d) median income growth.’”
This amendment would allow the tribunal to take into account not only new rents in the market but current rents in existing tenancies, changes in wages, inflation, and local housing allowance when making a determination.
Amendment 198, in clause 6, page 7, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) After subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) Where a notice under section 13(2) has been referred to the appropriate tribunal, then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be the same or below the original rent and the increase in consumer price index or medium income growth, whichever is lower over the period since the tenancy started.’”
This amendment would limit tribunals to an upper cap of CPI or medium income growth, whichever is lower, for rent increases.
Amendment 199, in clause 6, page 7, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) After subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) Where a notice under section 13(2) has been referred to the appropriate tribunal, then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be set using the statutory guidance on in-tenancy rent increases laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.’”
Amendment 199 and NC66 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to tribunals on the determination of in-tenancy rent increases, and require tribunals to take such guidance into account when making determinations.
Amendment 160, in clause 6, page 7, line 27, at end insert—
“(7A) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(8A) Where a notice under section 13(2) has been referred to the appropriate tribunal then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) above applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be the same or below the rent specified in the section 13 notice and the rent as determined by the tribunal shall only become payable once the decision of the tribunal has become final.
(8B) A decision becomes final only on the latest of—
(a) the determination of any appeal;
(b) if earlier, on the expiry of the time for bringing a subsequent appeal (if any); or
(c) by its being abandoned or otherwise ceasing to have effect.’”
This amendment would ensure that where a rent assessment is carried out by a tribunal, the rent subsequently determined by that tribunal cannot be higher than that originally requested by a landlord in a section 13 notice.
Amendment 190, in clause 6, page 7, line 38, at end insert—
“(c) no more than the rent proposed by the landlord in the notice served on the tenant under section 13 of the 1988 Act.”
This amendment would mean that the rent payable after a tribunal determination can be no higher than the rent initially proposed by the landlord in the notice served on the tenant.
Amendment 161, in clause 6, page 8, line 20, at end insert—
“which must be no earlier than two months following the date of determination”.
This amendment would ensure that in cases of undue hardship tenants would have a minimum of two months from the date of determination before a new rent became payable.
Amendment 162, in clause 6, page 8, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) A date specified under subsection (3)(b) must be no earlier than the date on which the determination becomes final, with a decision only becoming final on the latest of—
(a) the determination of any appeal;
(b) if earlier, on the expiry of the time for bringing a subsequent appeal (if any); or
(c) by its being abandoned or otherwise ceasing to have effect.”
This amendment would remove the requirement for a date determined by a court for rent to become payable in cases of undue hardship to not be later than the date of the determination.
Clause 6 stand part.
New clause 58—Requirement to state the amount of rent when advertising residential premises—
“(1) A landlord must not advertise or otherwise offer a tenancy of residential premises unless the amount of rent is stated in the advertisement or offer.
(2) A letting agent acting on behalf of a landlord must not advertise or otherwise offer a tenancy of residential premises unless the amount of rent is stated in the advertisement or offer.”
This new clause would require landlords or persons acting on their behalf to state the proposed rent payable in the advertisement for the premises.
New clause 59—Not inviting or encouraging bids for rent—
“(1) A landlord must not invite or encourage a prospective tenant or any other person to offer to pay an amount of rent for residential premises that exceeds the amount of rent stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises as required by section [requirement to state the amount of rent when advertising residential premises].
(2) A letting agent acting on behalf of a landlord must not invite or encourage a prospective tenant or any other person to offer to pay an amount of rent for residential premises that exceeds the amount of rent stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises as required by section [requirement to state the amount of rent when advertising residential premises].
(3) Subsection (1) does not prohibit a prospective tenant or other person from offering to pay an amount that exceeds the stated amount of rent.”
This new clause would prevent landlords or persons acting on their behalf from inviting or encouraging bids that exceed the amount stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises.
New clause 62—Limit on amount of rent that a residential landlord can request in advance—
“In Schedule 1 to the Tenant Fees Act 2019, after paragraph 1(8) insert—
‘(9) Where rent is payable in advance, the maximum that may be charged is equivalent to the amount specified in paragraph 2(3).’”
This new clause would ensure that the maximum amount of rent that could be lawfully requested by a residential landlord in advance of a tenancy commencing would be 5 weeks’ rent for tenancies of less than £50,000 per annum and to 6 weeks’ rent for tenancies over £50,000 per annum.
New clause 66—Rent increase regulations—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, from time to time, guidance for tribunals on the determination of in-tenancy rent increases under a section 13(2) notice, such guidance shall include reference to Local Housing Allowance, average rents as assessed by the Valuation Office Agency or published on the Property Portal, consumer price index and median income growth.”
Amendment 199 and NC66 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to tribunals on the determination of in-tenancy rent increases, and require tribunals to take such guidance into account when making determinations.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 159 and others tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown for tabling the six amendments that he moved and spoke to this morning. They raise a number of important issues and it is right that the Committee and the Government carefully consider them.
As we have heard, clauses 5 and 6 set out the process for rent increases under the new tenancy system and how any such increase can be challenged by tenants. Under the existing assured tenancy regime, a landlord can only increase the rent during a fixed-term assured shorthold tenancy by including a rent review clause in the tenancy agreement. Rent review clauses of this kind are used by landlords to increase rent levels during fixed-term tenancies, but it is far more common for landlords to offer a new fixed-term tenancy at a higher rent when the old one is coming to an end, or to seek to increase the amount of rent payable once a tenant has fallen into a periodic tenancy with no specific end date.
The rents on periodic assured shorthold tenancies can be increased by the landlord serving notice under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. However, although formal section 13 increases can take place only once a year, under the current system assured shorthold tenants can still be asked by their landlords either to agree informally or to formally sign a new agreement accepting a higher rent level, and there is no limit whatsoever on how high rents can rise by either method.
In theory, the tenant does not have to agree to a rent increase proposed informally or formally via a new agreement, and they can refer increases to a first-tier tribunal on grounds of reasonableness, yet all the available evidence suggests that only an incredibly small proportion of privately renting households do so. An analysis by Generation Rent of market rent assessments undertaken by the first-tier tribunal indicated that only 341 such cases were heard between January 2019 and August 2021. Bearing in mind that there are approximately 4.4 million privately renting households in England alone, it is a miniscule proportion.
The reason why so few tenants determine to make use of the tribunal process under the existing tenancy regime is obvious. If a tenant refuses a rent increase either informally or formally via a new agreement, or successfully challenges a rent increase at tribunal, a landlord can take immediate steps to end their tenancy, most obviously by issuing a no-fault section 21 notice.
With the introduction of the new tenancy system, the ability of landlords to compel tenants to accept rent rises by means of the latent threat of a section 21 notice will obviously be removed. Although there will remain the threat of spurious eviction by means of the remaining de facto no-fault grounds for possession that we discussed at length in previous debates, the new system will be an improvement on the current situation faced by private tenants when it comes to rent increases.
By amending section 13 of the 1988 Act, clause 5 will ensure that issuing a section 13 notice will henceforth be the only valid way that a private landlord—except those of a relevant low-cost tenancy, as specified in the Bill—can increase the rent, and landlords will therefore be able to increase the amount of rent charged only once per year. Supplemented by the provisions in subsection (4), which will increase the notice period for a rent rise from one month to two months, the changes will create more predictability and give tenants more certainty about future rent increases. On that basis, we welcome them.
However, we remain seriously concerned that the provisions in the clauses are not robust enough to prevent unaffordable rent increases from being used as default eviction notices for the purpose of retaliation against complaints, or simply because a landlord wants to try to secure a rent level that is far in excess of what they can reasonably expect from a sitting tenant.
We have consistently raised concerns about this issue since the White Paper was published in the summer of 2022. As I argued in response to a statement accompanying the release of the White Paper that was made by the then Under-Secretary of State at the Department, the hon. Member for Walsall North—he may remember—it is problematic that the Government did not include in the reform package any robust means of redress for tenants facing unreasonable rent rises. Our view remains as set out in that exchange last year—namely, that a one-year rent increase limit, the removal of rent review clauses, and vague assurances about giving tenants the confidence to challenge unjustified increases at tribunal are not enough.
With the scrapping of section 21, the risk of economic evictions by means of extortionate within-tenancy rent hikes will increase markedly. The Government acknowledge that tenants need protection against what they term “back-door eviction” by such means. However, we believe that the Bill as it stands does not protect tenants sufficiently from such economic evictions, and that it needs to be strengthened accordingly in several ways.
In the White Paper, the Government committed to preventing
“the Tribunal increasing rent beyond the amount landlords initially asked for when they proposed a rent increase.”
We believe that that was an entirely sensible proposal. An obvious need under the new tenancy system is to ensure that all tenants are fully aware that they can submit an application to the first-tier tribunal to challenge a rent amount in the first six months of a tenancy or following the issuing of a section 13 notice. Equally as important is that the tribunal process operates in a way that gives them the confidence to do so.
The Bill allows for a situation in which tenants who are handed section 13 notices with what they consider to be completely unreasonable rent increases might apply to the tribunal to challenge the increase, only to see the rent level rise higher. That will act as a powerful deterrent to tenants making such applications. As a consequence, the Bill risks emboldening landlords to press for unaffordable rent increases in the knowledge that tribunal challenges will remain vanishingly rare, as they are now.
The Government’s explicit intent might well be to deter a proportion of tenants from challenging section 13 rent increases. After all, with 4.4 million households now renting privately in England, even a minor uptick in applications to the tribunal will place it under enormous pressure. Without additional resourcing and support, that could lead to extensive delays. Ultimately, however, it is for the Government to ensure that the first-tier tribunal can cope with the implications of the new tenancy regime that they are introducing, not for tenants to have to stomach unreasonable rent rises because there is a chance that they will not do so.
On a point of principle, we believe that the tribunal should only ever be able to increase the rent increase requested in the section 13 notice issued, or to award a rent amount lower than it. Amendment 160 would ensure that that would be the case by specifying that where a rent assessment is carried out by a tribunal, the rent subsequently determined by the tribunal cannot be higher than that originally requested by a landlord in the section 13 notice. We believe that that change, which would ensure that the tribunal process was in line with the commitments made by the Government in their White Paper, and reasonable and proportionate. I urge the Minister to accept it.
We also take the view that the Bill needs to include greater protection for tenants who would suffer undue hardship as a result of a section 13 rent increase. Once the provisions in the Bill are finally enacted, a considerable number of tenants—in particular those in hot rental markets where rent levels increase rapidly—will without doubt be unable to afford an increase in rent as set out in a section 13 notice. Many will simply give notice and leave the property without taking the matter any further.
A significant proportion of those who attempt by means of the tribunal a challenge of a rent increase perceived to be unreasonable, in an effort to secure a rent lower than proposed in the section 13 notice, but fail, will ultimately leave the property. That would even be the case if the Government accept amendment 160 and the tribunal cannot increase the amount further. We believe that those who would experience undue hardship as a result, such as tenants at risk of becoming homeless, because they have to leave what has become an unaffordable, should be afforded a little more time—it is only a little more time—to try to secure a property that they can afford.
Taken together, amendments 161 and 162 would achieve that aim by changing the point at which the rent increase becomes payable from the date at which the tribunal makes a determination to two months after that date. The effect of that pair of amendments would simply be to give vulnerable tenants a reasonable period of time in which to make new arrangements as a result of a rent rise that was unaffordable for them. We hope that the Government can see the merit of accepting the amendments and will give them serious consideration.
We also believe that three other important changes to the Bill are required in relation to rent. The first concerns section 13 notices. As I remarked earlier, the clause amends this section of the 1988 Act so that from the date of commencement it will be the only valid way in which a private landlord, except those of a relevant low-cost tenancy, can increase the rent, once per year. In practice, however, we know that, particularly at the lower end of the private rented market and in the unregulated shadow rental market, a great many landlords will inevitably increase rent levels without issuing a formal section 13 or 13A notice. Amendment 159 would ensure that in instances where they might, a tenant would have the right to seek to recover costs through a debt claim in the court. It would also provide the Government with the power by regulation to have such claims recoverable by tribunal, if Ministers felt that was a more appropriate body to determine such claims.
The second issue concerns rent requested in advance of a tenancy’s commencement. In the White Paper, the Government committed to introducing a power to prohibit the amount of rent that landlords can ask for in advance, and we supported that proposal. We will come to discuss measures aimed at discriminatory practices in relation to the granting of tenancies when we debate the various Government amendments that are to form new chapter 2A of part 1 of the Bill. However, irrespective of how effective those groups of amendments might ultimately be—we have our doubts, which we will set out in due course—blanket prohibitions are not a silver bullet for discriminatory practices in the private rented sector.
A number of informal barriers to renting privately are regularly faced by large numbers of tenants. They include requests that renters appoint a high-earning guarantor—an issue to which I hope we can return in a future sitting—and asking renters for multiple months of rent in advance. According to research carried out by Shelter, a staggering 59% of tenants reported being asked to pay rent in advance when attempting to secure a property the last time they moved; some were even asked to pay in excess of six months’ rent up front. Tenants reported taking out unsecured loans, using their credit cards or going significantly into their overdrafts to make the advance payments. One in 10 of those surveyed reported being denied a property for which they could afford the monthly rent simply because they were unable to pool together the sizeable advance rent payment that the landlord requested.
It is true that clause 1 defines a rental period as one month—a change from the current situation in which periods of a periodic tenancy can be of any length. One reading of the Bill might suggest that a single rental period is all that a landlord will be able to request under the new tenancy regime. If that is the case, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed as much and detailed precisely how clause 1 would prevent landlords from requesting multiple rent payments in advance. Nothing that we can see in the Bill would prevent a landlord from requesting several rent payments at one time before a tenancy was signed.
We believe that the solution is new clause 62, which would ensure that the maximum amount that could be lawfully requested by a residential landlord in advance of a tenancy would be five weeks’ rent for tenancies of less than £50,000 per annum and six weeks’ rent for tenancies of over £50,000 per annum.
The third and final change that we believe is required relates to rental bidding wars—the product of soaring demand and inefficient supply which is, I admit, to a large extent concentrated in our cities and larger towns. The phenomenon involves multiple tenants competing fiercely for individual private lets. Landlords and the agents acting on their behalf, overwhelmed by applicants, now regularly play prospective renters off against each other, with some offering to pay months of rent up front as a lump sum, to sign longer tenancy agreements or to agree to rent levels far in excess of the advertised monthly rate.
Under the new tenancy system, long-term fixed-term tenancy agreements will not exist. We hope the Government will accept our new clause 62 or introduce an amendment of their own, as they promised in the White Paper, to prohibit landlords from asking for rent in advance. That leaves competitive bidding wars in respect of monthly rental periods as the only means by which this inherently inflationary phenomenon could continue—a phenomenon that the unscrupulous can undoubtedly use to discriminate against certain types of tenants and, even where no such discrimination occurs, pushes many to the limit of what they can afford financially.
Taken together, new clauses 58 and 59 would effectively prohibit bidding wars for private rented properties by requiring landlords or persons acting on their behalf to state the proposed rent, based on an estimate of the property’s market rate, in the advertisement for the premises. That should prevent landlords from inviting or encouraging bids that exceed the amount stated.
The new clauses are based on legislation introduced in New Zealand and Australia, the former having banned the practice entirely in February 2021 and the latter having seen it prohibited in most states—including, most recently, New South Wales in December last year and South Australia in June this year. We hope the Minister will give the new clauses due consideration. I look forward to his thoughts about them and about other five amendments in this group.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I thank the shadow Minister, who had some very reasonable thoughts about this issue, for his speech.
Currently, I am dealing with an example of what I believe to be the worst behaviour by a corporate landlord that I have ever come across in 18 years as a councillor or Member of Parliament. I am talking about rent increases. AXA Insurance, which now owns Dolphin Square in Pimlico in my constituency, is carrying out a major refurbishment of that estate; that is understandable. However, it is now asking tenants, some who have been there for many years, to move out of flats that it wants to refurbish and into others. But, if they do move out and into another flat, their tenancy breaks, and they have to take out a new tenancy, which includes a 40% increase in rent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
I thank Members for their amendments. Let me start by being clear that the Government do not support the introduction of rent controls at any point in the tenancy, no matter what they are linked to. The Bill protects tenants from very large rent increases being used as a back-door method of eviction while protecting the ability of landlords to increase rent in line with market levels.
That said, I am concerned by the practices that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned in relation to Dolphin Square and would be happy to meet her to discuss the matter further. Although I appreciate that the Bill will not be passed in time for her constituents, hopefully we can prevent some of those types of practice in the future.
Clause 5 amends section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to ensure that in future all rent increases for private landlords will take place via the specified mechanism. If a landlord tries to make a tenant pay an increased rent outside of the process, it will be unenforceable.
Clause 6 amends section 14 of the Housing Act 1988. It sets out the conditions by which a tenant can submit an application to the first-tier tribunal to challenge the rent amount in the first six months of a tenancy, or following a section 13 rent increase notice.
Let me turn to the amendments. When a tenant challenges a rent increase, it is for the first-tier tribunal to then determine the rent. Although market data can indicate the general trends in an area, it can be challenging to use when calculating the value of a specific property. The tribunal is made up of experts who are experienced in understanding the different factors—including the rent for comparable properties in the area, the quality of fixings and the proximity to amenities—that result in a market rate. The tribunal members are best placed to determine the rent using the data that they feel is most appropriate, rather than having to use whichever indicator is the flavour of the month. The tenant must pay the rent from the date that the tribunal directs, or from the beginning of the rent period specified in the notice. In cases of undue hardship, that will be the date that the tribunal directs, but must not be later than the date of determination.
On new clauses 58 and 59, landlords and agents are already prohibited from engaging in pricing practices that are false or misleading, under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. If a prospective tenant believes that a landlord has acted dishonestly during the lettings process, they will be able to raise the matter via the new private rented sector ombudsman. Complaints about letting agents can be referred to the existing agent redress schemes.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister confirm that he thinks that bidding wars that are not advertised beforehand constitute dishonesty?
Jacob Young
Yes, I do.
New clause 62 seeks to align the maximum amount of rent in advance that landlords can charge tenants with the limits set on security deposits by the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Although I understand the reasoning behind the new clause, to link the two on an arbitrary basis would not be an efficient means to achieve its intended effect. It would mean that any changes to one would directly affect the other.
As the Committee will be aware, and as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned, the Government committed to introduce a similar power to limit rent in advance as part of our White Paper. We have concluded, however, that no such additional power is needed, as it is already possible to limit rent in advance using the power in section 3 of the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Before deciding to use that power, which would significantly infringe on the business interests and financial freedoms of private landlords, it is vital that we gather strong evidence of need and undertake a thorough impact assessment.
Furthermore, rent in advance can be beneficial in a variety of situations. For example, it can be employed to balance a financial risk when a prospective tenant could not otherwise pass a reference or affordability check. Above all, it is vital that landlords retain the ability to ensure a sustainable tenancy for both parties. We have made it clear that asking for a large amount of rent in advance should not be the norm.
On new clause 66, we will update the guidance to ensure that tribunal users have the confidence and information they need to engage with it effectively. This includes helping parties to understand how they can provide evidence of comparable rent. Our reforms strike a balance between the landlord’s ability to increase rent in line with the market and protecting tenants from back-door evictions through excessive rent hikes.
Matthew Pennycook
Forgive me if I missed it, but I do not think the Minister addressed the argument that underpins amendment 160. Why did the Government commit in their White Paper to limit the tribunal to determining a rent increase in line with or below the section 13 notice, instead of giving the tribunal the power to increase notice? If a landlord asks for a certain amount of rent and the tribunal determines that that is the amount to be paid, surely a tenant should not suffer by seeing the rate increased. Does the Minister not worry, as we do, that the Government’s approach will have a chilling effect on the confidence that tenants have in taking such cases to the tribunal?
Jacob Young
I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but we have listened to concerns and think it is fair that the tribunal is not limited when determining the market rent. This will mean that the tribunal has the freedom to make full and fair decisions, and can continue to determine the market rent of property.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The Minister has talked about the tribunal making free and fair determinations, but the tribunal is already limited by what it cannot take into account. For example, it cannot take into account alterations that the tenant has made to the property, at their own cost, to increase its value. The tribunal already indicates what it can take into account, so widening that scope or making it clear that the tribunal should not issue a higher rent is not about giving it more restrictions. Surely it is about giving it clearer guidelines on the face of the Bill, so that everyone entering the process knows where it is going.
Jacob Young
As I have already set out, we believe that the tribunal should be free to make whatever determination it thinks is the market rent for a property. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I think the Minister is missing a trick here, because we have tabled some reasonable amendments. I welcome the fact that he seemed to suggest that it is already possible, via regulation, to prevent rent from being paid in advance, but he needs to enact that and get on with it. He seemed to be a bit cautious about doing so. A regulatory framework that allows advance rent in some, but not all, circumstances would be a good compromise. Maybe that is where the Minister was going, but we need to have more flesh on that bone.
I also worry that when the Minister talks about flexibility for the tribunal, he is actually saying that it can look only at market rent and not at other things. What I am trying to say is that it should be able to look at all the different indicators—not just the flavour of the month, as he put it, but the local housing allowance, the consumer prices index, and the rents via the property portal. At the moment, it is not clear that the tribunal would have access to use the rents via the property portal as an indicator, rather than new rents. That is what the amendments attempt to do. Some of these improvements could be made when the Bill comes back, and I hope the Minister will do that.
Finally, the Minister needs to reconsider the upper limit. A landlord could still re-issue another section 13 if, via the tribunal process, they realised that they wanted to increase it higher, but rather than involving the tribunal, they just set it at a higher rate themselves. That creates a disincentive to go to the tribunal.
Jacob Young
I should be clear that there is no requirement for the landlord to accept the tribunal’s final outcome. The landlord could still offer the initial rent to the tenant.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
They could, so why not? It would be expected if a property was marketed at a certain price for that to be the accepted price. If someone puts a section 13 down, it is a form of marketing what this property is now worth. The Minister is quite right that it is wrong to engage in unfair advertising practices. A section 13 is a form of advertising to a sitting tenant, to say, “I’m advertising that this is the rent that I now want.” To then change their mind via a tribunal is, in my view, unfair. I think the Minister probably gets that point, but I wonder whether it might be possible to change it through regulation, and advice to the courts and the tribunals. These things need to be considered, and the same goes for widening the scope of what the tribunals could push. I will not push my amendments now, but I hope the Minister will genuinely think about how we can increase the scope of what the courts can consider, so that rents are not always inflated up to the very highest level, but are fair for all our communities.
Matthew Pennycook
There were some points of interest raised in this debate that we will certainly come back to—I will check the transcript in relation to a couple of them—but I do not think they satisfy us sufficiently not to press these amendments.
On new clauses 58 and 59, I took the Minister to imply that bidding wars could fall under the category of false, misleading or essentially unfair practices—I think he mentioned dishonesty. I do not think he has given us a cast-iron commitment that bidding wars of any kind constitute an unfair practice. If they do, and the Government know that, why are they not taking action to stamp them out? Lots of people in cities and towns across the country, and certainly in my constituency, are being impacted financially by bidding wars. In some areas, they are extremely intense, and people end up paying huge amounts more than were initially advertised.
I agree with the Minister that advance rent should not be the norm. It seems to be somewhat the norm in many parts of the country. I am interested that he says there is a potential means of addressing this via the Tenant Fees Act 2019. It sounded to me like it may take quite a long time for the Government to bring forward any proposals in that regard. We will certainly not see advance rent stamped out any time soon. The Minister did not address my point on undue hardship. I absolutely realise—it was part of my remarks—that under the Government’s proposals, when a tribunal determines the rent, it will kick in from the point of determination. We think that vulnerable residents need a little more time to adjust and move out if they simply cannot afford those rents.
Finally, on the tribunal awarding rent levels in excess of what is asked for, I think the Government have got it wrong. The Minister referenced unspecified interests that the Government had heard lobbying from—I think he said, “We’d heard concerns.” Who from? I do not know. We can all take a guess who from. There were proposals in the White Paper, this being one of them, that we thought extremely sensible. He is right that some landlords may, having been told by the tribunal that they can increase the rent level even further than asked for, be good-natured enough to charge only the initial rate, but I cannot think that many of them would. They are, after all, running businesses. We need a measure—we will no doubt return to this at a later stage—to ensure that the rent level that the landlord asked for via section 13 is the maximum. In many cases it may reduce, but it should be the maximum that a landlord can ask for. On that basis, I am afraid that we will press our amendments 160 and 161 to a vote.
Jacob Young
I want to be absolutely clear: the Government’s position is that bidding wars are not illegal.
Matthew Pennycook
That was my understanding as well, so I am not sure what the Minister was saying about false, misleading or unfair practices. If that does not apply to bidding wars, it applies to something completely separate from what we are talking about, so he has convinced me that new clauses 58 and 59 are even more necessary than I thought. I thought there was a glimmer of hope there, but there clearly is not. We will press all our amendments to a vote.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Challenging amount or increase of rent
Amendment proposed: 160, in clause 6, page 7, line 27, at end insert—
“(7A) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(8A) Where a notice under section 13(2) has been referred to the appropriate tribunal then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) above applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be the same or below the rent specified in the section 13 notice and the rent as determined by the tribunal shall only become payable once the decision of the tribunal has become final.
(8B) A decision becomes final only on the latest of—
(a) the determination of any appeal;
(b) if earlier, on the expiry of the time for bringing a subsequent appeal (if any); or
(c) by its being abandoned or otherwise ceasing to have effect.’”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment would ensure that where a rent assessment is carried out by a tribunal, the rent subsequently determined by that tribunal cannot be higher than that originally requested by a landlord in a section 13 notice.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 7, page 8, line 36, leave out “42nd” and insert “14th”.
This amendment would ensure a landlord gives or refuses consent in writing within 14 days of the request being made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 182, in clause 7, page 8, line 37, at and insert—
“(d) the landlord may not review or withdraw consent once given.”
This amendment ensures that a tenant may keep a pet for the duration of their tenancy once consent has been given.
Amendment 184, in clause 7, page 9, line 2, leave out “42nd” and insert “14th”.
This amendment would ensure that where a request for further information is made on or before the 14th day after the tenant’s request, the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent for a further 7 days if that information is provided.
Amendment 185, in clause 7, page 9, line 15, leave out “42nd” and insert “14th”.
This amendment would ensure that where a request for the consent of a superior landlord on or before the 14th day after the tenant’s request, the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent for a further 7 days if that information is provided.
Amendment 186, in clause 7, page 9, line 16, leave out “7th” and insert “14th”.
Amendment 187, in clause 7, page 9, line 18, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the consent of a superior landlord is required for the purposes of subsection (3), the superior landlord must give or refuse consent on or before the 14th day after the date of the request from the landlord.”
These amendments require a superior landlord to give or refuse consent within 14 days of a request being received.
Amendment 181, in clause 7, page 9, line 27, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must, within 180 days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish guidance on what constitutes a reasonable ground for refusal of consent to keep a pet for the purposes of this section.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish guidance on what qualifies as a reasonable ground of refusal for a tenant to keep a pet.
Clause stand part.
Clause 8 stand part.
New clause 63—Prohibition of discrimination relating to pet ownership—
“(1) In relation to a dwelling that is to be let on a relevant tenancy, a relevant person must not, on the basis that a pet would be kept by a person at the dwelling if the dwelling were the person’s home—
(a) prevent the person from—
(i) enquiring whether the dwelling is available for let,
(ii) accessing information about the dwelling,
(iii) viewing the dwelling in order to consider whether to seek to rent it, or
(iv) entering into a tenancy of the dwelling, or
(b) apply a provision, criterion or practice in order to make people who keep a pet at the dwelling, if it were their home, less likely to enter into a tenancy of the dwelling than people who would not.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—
(a) the relevant person can show that the conduct is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or
(b) the relevant person can show that the prospective landlord of the dwelling, or a person who would be a superior landlord in relation to the dwelling, is insured under a contract of insurance—
(i) to which section (Terms in insurance contracts relating to pet ownership) does not apply, and
(ii) which contains a term which makes provision (however expressed) requiring the insured to prohibit a tenant under a relevant tenancy from keeping a pet at the dwelling, and the conduct is a means of preventing the insured from breaching that term.
(3) Conduct does not breach the prohibition in subsection (1) if it consists only of—
(a) one or more of the following things done by a person who does nothing in relation to the dwelling that is not mentioned in this paragraph—
(i) publishing advertisements or disseminating information;
(ii) providing a means by which a prospective landlord can communicate directly with a prospective tenant;
(iii) providing a means by which a prospective tenant can communicate directly with a prospective landlord, or
(b) things of a description, or things done by a person of a description, specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
This new clause would prohibit landlords and those who act on their behalf or purport to do so from adopting certain discriminatory practices which make it harder for people who have pets to obtain a relevant tenancy.
New clause 64—Terms in insurance contracts relating to pet ownership—
“(1) A term of a contract of insurance to which this section applies is of no effect so far as the term makes provision (however expressed) requiring the insured to prohibit a tenant under a relevant tenancy or regulated tenancy from keeping a pet at the dwelling.
(2) This section applies to contracts of insurance which were entered into or whose duration was extended on or after the day on which this section comes into force.”
This new clause provides for terms of an insurance contract to be ineffective so far as they would prohibit a tenant from keeping a pet.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 7 will add new provisions to the 1988 Act to strengthen the rights of tenants to keep a pet in their home, including a new legal obligation for landlords to consider requests to keep a pet while providing a route for them to refuse such requests when they can give a reasonable justification for why it would not be suitable. The clause also allows landlords to require insurance to cover pet damage.
We welcome the clause. As many of us know, pets are wonderful companions, and keeping them results in a host of benefits, not only for pet owners but for society. While it may be going too far to ascribe to them the status of a public health intervention, it is not in dispute that pets can help to relieve loneliness, boost physical activity, decrease stress and anxiety and, as I know from my own experience as the owner of a puppy called Clem, bring real comfort and joy to young children. We are therefore extremely pleased that the Government have delivered on the commitment they made in the White Paper to take steps to ensure that landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home.
We also welcome the fact that the Government have explicitly recognised the link between overly restrictive conditions on pets in the private rented sector and the number of animals either left on the street or given up to shelters each year. We know that such steps are required because there is extensive evidence that a significant proportion of landlords do not let to tenants with pets. Figures from the English private landlord survey 2021, which were quoted in the Government’s White Paper, suggest that nearly half of all landlords are unwilling to let to tenants with pets. The fact that so many landlords do not accept pets is not just an inconvenience for private tenants who own them; due to the constrained supply of properties in the private rented sector, it is also a significant contributory factor to the number of animals given up each year. It is telling that, last year, 10% of people who contacted the Dogs Trust with a view to rehoming their dog cited their reason for doing so as issues with accommodation, including being unable to find somewhere to live that was pet-friendly.
However, while we welcome the intent of clause 7, we are concerned that these provisions are not yet robust enough to ensure that the new “right to request” process will operate fairly and effectively in practice to prevent prospective tenants with pets from being disadvantaged at the point that they seek to secure a new periodic tenancy. The amendments to clause 7 that we have tabled in this group are an attempt to ensure that responsible pet owners can, as the White Paper promised, truly feel like their house is their home. We are pleased to have the support of both Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and the Dogs Trust in tabling them.
Amendments 183 to 187 seek to reduce the period in which a landlord can consider a request made to keep a pet from 42 days to 14 days, with the ability to extend by a further 14 days should a superior landlord need to be consulted. We do not believe that the Bill, which currently would give landlords up to six weeks to determine whether to provide or refuse consent to keep a pet, is fair on tenants, particularly those who might already have pets and would presumably, absent a family member or friend temporarily housing them, have to cover the potentially significant costs of putting them in boarding kennels or catteries.
We have also taken seriously the concerns that Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has put to us about the possible impact of the proposed 42-day consideration period on rescue organisations. Its entirely justified fear is that if there are six weeks of uncertainty about whether tenants can live with their pets in a newly secured privately rented home, there is a real risk that a considerable number of animals could be surrendered to rescue organisations, thereby putting significant additional strain on those organisations. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has also highlighted another potential impact of the lengthy proposed period: private tenants looking to rehome an animal from a rescue centre or shelter in a newly secured privately rented home may find themselves unable to do so in a timeframe that the shelter can accommodate.
It is not clear to us why the Government believe that landlords will need up to six weeks to arrive at a decision on a request to keep a pet. If the Minister can provide a justification for why the Government chose 42 days as the period in which a landlord can consider such a request, we would be grateful to learn of it. In all honesty, we struggle to conceive of why any good-faith landlord would need such a lengthy period to make such a decision. It is our belief that a 14-day limit will allow tenants to better plan for pet ownership if they wish to acquire a new pet and make life easier for those who already own them. We hope that the Government will consider accepting these amendments.
Amendment 181 simply seeks to require the Government to address the present lack of clarity on what constitutes a reasonable ground for refusal. Subsection (4) of proposed new section 16B of the 1988 Act states that the
“circumstances in which it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent include”
those in which a pet being kept would breach an existing agreement with a superior landlord. Yet aside from the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4), the Bill is silent on what would constitute a reasonable refusal in those circumstances. Are we to take it that paragraph (1)(b) of proposed new section 16A, which provides that consent to keep a pet is
“not to be unreasonably refused by the landlord”,
applies in all circumstances other than those in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4)? In short, can private tenants who wish to own or already own a pet now be confident that a landlord cannot reasonably refuse a request to keep a pet, unless accepting such a request would breach an agreement with a superior landlord? Or do the Government intend for there to be a greater range of circumstances that could provide legitimate grounds for a reasonable refusal?
I hope the Minister will accept that this is not simply Opposition nit-picking over specific subsections of legislation, because the answer to that question is key to how the provisions will operate in practice. Tenants need to know whether the right to request to keep a pet must be accepted in all but the most extenuating circumstances, or whether there is a broader range of situations where landlords can legitimately refuse. In an attempt to clarify the present ambiguity, our amendment 181 would require the Government to publish guidance on what qualifies as a reasonable ground of refusal for a tenant to keep a pet. We hope the Government will give it serious consideration.
Another area where we believe the Bill would benefit from greater clarification is the nature of the consent once given. Our amendment 182 would ensure that, once given, landlord consent for a tenant to keep a pet cannot be reviewed or withdrawn. That would provide tenants with far greater confidence that, once a consent had been awarded, the landlord could not change their mind, and that they would be able to live with their pet for the duration of the tenancy as a result. We hope the Government will look favourably upon amendment 182, but even if the Minister does not ultimately accept it, we hope that he will provide some reassurance today that, once a consent is given, it cannot be withdrawn or revoked.
Turning to new clauses 63 and 64, as I touched on at the outset of my remarks, not only do we believe that changes are required to clause 7 to ensure that it operates fairly and effectively in practice, but we are concerned about the risk of prospective tenants with pets being disadvantaged at the point that they are seeking to secure a new periodic tenancy. As drafted, the clause applies only to existing tenancies and not prospective ones.
Given that we know that a significant proportion of landlords, perhaps even a majority of them, do not allow pets, we are concerned that any restriction may mean that landlords who do not wish to have a pet in their property, but who are unable to reasonably refuse a right to request from a sitting tenant, may instead seek to screen out tenants who are existing or prospective pet owners. New clauses 63 and 64 would prevent landlords from discriminating in that fashion, thereby ensuring that those with pets can move between properties as freely as those without. We hope that the Government will consider our new clauses carefully and, if they are not minded to accept them, will at least consider what might be done by way of statutory guidance, for example, to ensure that existing or prospective pet owners seeking to agree a new tenancy are not discriminated against.
Before I conclude, I want to touch briefly on how and whether tenants will be able to seek a review of a decision to give or refuse consent by a landlord. The White Paper stated that the Government would
“legislate to ensure landlords do not unreasonably withhold consent…with the tenant able to challenge a decision”,
yet there are no provisions in the Bill to deliver upon that commitment. The only reference to any kind of challenge to non-fulfilment of a landlord’s responsibilities under these provisions is to be found at subsection (5) of proposed new section 16B, which states:
“In proceedings in which a tenant alleges that the landlord has breached the implied term created by section 16A, the court may order specific performance of the obligation.”
If that is indeed the only means of redress available to tenants who have a request for a pet refused, it would be disappointing and, we believe, contrary to what was implied in the White Paper. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether that is the only means of potential redress in the case of a refusal and, if so, whether the Government are at least considering alternative means of non-statutory redress, for example via appeals to the new ombudsman.
I hope that Minister will take these amendments in the spirit in which they are intended, namely as a constructive attempt to ensure that clause 7 works fairly and effectively in practice and that there is no discrimination against pet owners once the new system is in place. I look forward to hearing his response.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I want to make a brief contribution on clause 8, to satisfy my inner insurance nerd and get some clarification. I declare an interest as chair of the insurance and financial services all-party parliamentary group. My understanding from speaking to officials and the Minister—I thank them for their time—is that the clause is intended to allow either landlords or tenants to obtain insurance to cover damage by pets, with the cost then being passed on where it is obtained by the landlord.
The explanatory notes state:
“Clause 8 amends section 1(4) of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to allow landlords to require a tenant keeping a pet to enter into a contract with an insurance company to cover pet damage.”
That suggests that it is very much about only tenants obtaining that cover. As somebody with a background in insurance, I am very pro insurance contracts. The more people who can take them out, the better, but I have concerns about this measure and how it could be interpreted.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Would the market respond to that? Is there an opportunity there?
Craig Tracey
Yes, there is, but there are still some problems, which I will explain now. Even if the market does respond, that cover is not available now, so it might not be available from day one. It might respond in future—the hon. Member is right—but that leads me on to insurable interest. Usually, someone insures only something that they own. If they insure somebody else’s property, they have the potential to make a claim on it and that money goes to them as the policyholder, and they are not obliged to pass it on to the property owner. For that reason most insurance contracts are tied around an insurable interest, which is an important point because what we are trying to do here is cover the landlord’s property.
There could be an instance where a policy is taken out, a dog chews through a cable or something like that, and the tenant claims for it, but does not pass the money on. I will come to how we get round that. Also, Shelter mentioned that—there was a conversation over the weekend with the British Insurance Brokers’ Association —when financial shocks come, insurance products are normally one of the first things to be cancelled. So there is a worry for the landlord that the tenant might take the cover out at the start of the term, but there is nothing to say that that continues through the whole life of the tenancy and that the payments are made and maintained.
The third point is about the ability of a tenant to obtain cover, anyway. There are various barriers that might leave people unable to take out an insurance policy. There might be previous convictions or a previous claims history, or it might just down to the postcode and the particular area. Often such barriers would exclude some of the most vulnerable people who would benefit most from the cover.
The simplest solution is for the landlords to take responsibility for the policy covering their buildings insurance. It is their cover and they can make sure that the correct cover is in place and that there is not an onerous excess on the policy that might exclude payments coming out. They can make sure the cover is in force.
Matthew Pennycook
A point has just struck me. We heard from several advocacy organisations and charities that were sceptical about the need for this provision. Their concern was primarily about the impact on the finances of tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants, in the current cost of living crisis. Does the hon. Gentleman worry that if landlords have to take out insurance, they might pass on unreasonable and inflated costs in addition to the insurance policy? How would we verify that only the cost of the policy was being passed on?
Craig Tracey
My understanding from officials is that only the cost of the additional cover would be passed on. There is always potential for what the hon. Gentleman describes, though, so we do need to prevent it, because we want only the additional cost passed on. However, it comes back to the point that the landlord seems to be the best placed to take out that cover. It gets rid of a lot of the issues and means that the cover could start from day one.
I understand what the amendment is designed to do, but we need a bit more clarity. We do not want the unintended consequences that I have mentioned to prevent people from having a pet in their home, and the lack of insurance being blamed for that being the case.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling the amendments, and I am glad that we are in agreement about the positive role that pets can play, especially his pup Clem—I wonder who that is named after. We know that pets can bring happiness to their owners and provide a vital source of companionship.
Clause 7 will help tenants to make their house a home by introducing a new implied term that strengthens their rights to pet ownership. In future, landlords will be required to consider each request for a pet on a case-by-case basis and will be unable to refuse a tenant’s request without a reasonable rationale. The clause also inserts new section 16A into the Housing Act 1988, setting out that the landlord has to respond to a tenant’s request to keep a pet within 42 days. The landlord can also request more information from the tenant within this time and will have a minimum of seven days to respond once the information is received. That will give landlords adequate time to consider a request, while preventing them from unfairly avoiding or delaying giving tenants a response.
I turn to amendments 183 to 187. Although I appreciate that tenants will want an answer to their request as quickly as possible, 14 days is simply too little. A landlord could easily be on holiday or in hospital, meaning that they would be in breach of the 14-day deadline. Forty-two days gives enough time for landlords to do more research and give due consideration to requests, but it prevents them from delaying indefinitely.
On new clause 63, we expect that the reforms will increase the number of pet-friendly properties from the outset, as landlords will know that they cannot unreasonably refuse a request once the tenant is in situ. There would therefore be little for landlords to gain if they sought to discriminate against pet owners prior to the tenancy starting. We believe that strengthening the rights of tenants within tenancies means that landlords will have more confidence to advertise properties as pet-friendly from the outset. We are bolstering that by allowing landlords to put an insurance policy in place or to ask the tenant to pay for insurance, so that they can recover the cost of any damage. We therefore do not think that legislation is required to achieve this change.
On amendment 182, I reassure the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that when a landlord gives permission for their tenant to keep a pet, it is an implied term of the tenancy that the tenant may keep the pet, so consent cannot be withdrawn. It is clearly important that tenants are aware of their rights, and we will seek to make that point clear in guidance.
I turn to insurance and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. Clause 7 provides reassurance to landlords concerned about damage to their property by allowing them to require the tenant to take out insurance covering pet damage, or to be reimbursed for the cost of getting the insurance themselves. Clause 8 amends the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to allow landlords to require tenants with a pet to take out an insurance policy to cover pet damage. Separately, we will also amend the Tenant Fees Act 2019 so that landlords are able to charge the cost of an insurance policy covering pet damage back to the tenant. This will be delivered using an existing power in that Act, and we will bring forward the secondary legislation before the measures in the Bill are implemented.
I am aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns about the single insurance product that is available at the moment. I really do welcome the Labour party’s position on the open market—it is a new one. As has been discussed in Committee, we feel that the lack of products is a result of the fact that very few landlords currently accept pets, so there is simply no market for it. We do think that will change with the introduction of this legislation.
Mike Amesbury
With regard to passing on the costs of those insurance products once the market responds—as a social democrat, I make no apologies for using that phrase—how will we ensure that those costs are reasonable and transparent? There are lots of practices throughout the private rented sector where that is not the case.
Jacob Young
That is certainly a role the ombudsman can play, which brings me on to the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich as to whether a tenant requesting a pet could challenge the landlord’s decision. We feel that the ombudsman could play a role in that ahead of any court proceedings.
On new clause 64, tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, it would be unusual for an insurance policy to explicitly ban pets as a condition of insurance. It is much more likely that pet damage simply would not be covered. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, and we will consider whether further action is necessary in relation to the new clause.
On amendment 181, we must ensure that the Government are able to work flexibly with stakeholders and properly align our planned guidance with implementation. I am happy to commit on the record today to guidance being issued, but it is vital that the Government are not constrained by the imposition of an arbitrary deadline. In the light of those points, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not press the amendment to a vote. I welcome the clarification from the Minister about guidance being forthcoming and in a number of other areas. I think all our concerns could be addressed if we had greater clarity on what constitutes a reasonable refusal and the circumstances in which a landlord could draw upon that. As I said to the Minister, all I can see in the Bill is proposed new section 16A(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988, which says thats
“such consent is not to be unreasonably refused by the landlord.”
We need to know whether there is only a very narrow set of circumstances where that can be drawn on by landlords, or a wider range. The 42-day period does not matter in some ways if tenants have robust assurance on the reasonable implied period. There will also be far fewer ombudsman cases if there is only a narrow range of grounds on which a pet can be refused. I urge the Minister to write to us, perhaps before Report stage, to give us a bit of clarification around the circumstances in which landlords can reasonably refuse that request. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Duty to give statement of terms and other information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 3—Duty of landlord and contractor to give statement of terms and other information.
Jacob Young
The Government are committed to ensuring that tenants and landlords are aware of their rights and responsibilities. Government new clause 3 will replace clause 9 and insert a new duty requiring landlords to provide tenants with a written statement setting out certain terms of their tenancy. Having terms in a written agreement or statement can help to avoid disputes. If things go wrong, they can provide effective evidence to resolve disputes, and they can provide valuable evidence if the landlord needs to evict an irresponsible tenant. Details of what must be included in the written statement will be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and may include such information as the tenancy start date, rent level and landlord’s address, as well as the basic rights and responsibilities of both parties.
We know that the vast majority of good landlords already put tenancy terms in writing, and we want to formalise that good practice. For those landlords, we intend that there will be little practical difference between this new duty and the tenancy agreement that they already provide. Landlords will need to specify when certain grounds may be used to evict the tenant. These are predominantly specialist grounds, such as where the property is used for a specific purpose or connected to the tenant’s employment.
New clause 3 will help to ensure that all tenants and landlords, as well as those working for the landlord, are aware of their rights and obligations. I commend it to the Committee in place of clause 9.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 9 would insert proposed new section 16D into the 1988 Act. It places a duty on landlords to provide the tenant, as the Minister made clear, with a written statement of terms and information on or before the first day of a tenancy. Landlords must state in the written statement of terms where they may wish to make use of any of the prior notice grounds 1B, 2ZA, 2ZB, 4, 5 to 5G or 18. Given that prior notice is currently required for use of possession ground 1, but the Government propose to remove that requirement from the new ground 1, may I press the Minister again to explain precisely why the Government believe that that change is necessary?
I would like to make some brief comments about Government new clause 3 and put a number of questions to the Minister about it. These are complex questions, so I have no issue with the Minister writing to me at a later date rather than answering now. New clause 3 replaces clause 9, thereby applying the provisions of the clause to landlords’ contractors as well as landlords; carving out certain tenancies by implication; and modifying specific provisions for certain tenancies. Leaving aside quite how the Government got themselves in the situation where they are replacing entire clauses in Committee, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified why the Government have alighted on applying these provisions to “contractors”, given that the standard term, both in plain English and in statute, is “agent”?
A whole series of further questions arises from the new clause. What is the definition of a contractor? Does it have to be a written contract? What happens if the information is not provided? Did the Government consider whether a rent repayment order might be appropriate in the circumstances, or whether a court should be given the power to order that it be provided? What if the contractor excludes liability for providing the material in question, given that we know that that happens in other instances, for example with letting agents excluding liability to tell the landlord about any relevant licensing schemes? I would appreciate any insight that the Minister can offer today into any of those points. As I say, I am more than happy to accept a written response to my detailed questions, if necessary.
Jacob Young
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about prior notice, we are making it a requirement of the new mandatory written statement of terms that landlords must warn their tenants where they may wish to rely on a certain grounds at the outset of the tenancy. If the landlord fails to comply with the mandatory written statement of terms, the tenant can seek redress and local authorities may issue fines.
Matthew Pennycook
But that does not apply to ground 1, does it? I am trying to understand the Government’s thinking on why they have removed the prior notice requirement on ground 1.
Jacob Young
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point and on the other questions that he raised.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 9 accordingly disagreed to.
Clause 10
Other duties of landlords and former landlords
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 132, in clause 10, page 13, line 11, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time which must elapse between a landlord taking ownership of a property for the purposes of them or their family occupying it and making the property available to rent from three months to six months.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 140, in clause 10, page 13, line 11, leave out “three” and insert “12”.
Amendments 140 and 141 would prohibit a landlord from reletting or remarketing a property within 12 months of obtaining possession on the ground for occupation or selling; and from authorising a letting agent to market the property within that period.
Amendment 134, in clause 10, page 13, line 13, after “tenancy” insert
“or on a short-term let or holiday let”.
This amendment would clarify that a landlord cannot let a property as a short-term or holiday let for at least three months after taking ownership of the property for the purposes of them or their family occupying it.
Amendment 135, in clause 10, page 13, line 14, at end insert
“or on a short-term let or holiday let”.
This amendment would clarify that a landlord cannot market a property as a short-term or holiday let for at least three months after taking ownership of the property for the purposes of them or their family occupying it.
Amendment 133, in clause 10, page 13, line 19, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time which must elapse between a landlord taking ownership of a property for the purposes of them or their family occupying it and the landlord authorising a letting agent to make the property available to rent from three months to six months.
Amendment 141, in clause 10, page 13, line 19, leave out “three” and insert “12”.
Amendments 140 and 141 would prohibit a landlord from reletting or remarketing a property within 12 months of obtaining possession on the ground for occupation or selling; and from authorising a letting agent to market the property within that period.
Amendment 142, in clause 10, page 13, line 27, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) the tenant either surrenders the tenancy without an order for possession being made or delivers up possession of the dwelling house under the terms of an order for possession.”
This amendment would extend the prohibitions on a landlord reletting or remarketing a property, and from authorising a letting agent to market the property, for which possession has been obtained on the Ground for occupation or selling by court order.
Clause stand part.
Government new clause 4—Other duties.
Government new clause 5—Landlords acting through others.
Helen Morgan
Once again, I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, on which there are two jointly owned properties: a residential property and a holiday let.
During our evidence sessions, we heard that experience in Scotland has shown that grounds 1 and 1A are open to abuse by landlords who are simply looking to re-market their property either at a higher rent or to a different tenant who will not complain about serious defects in the property. We heard about a pretty horrifying case in which a rat and maggot-infested property was simply re-marketed three months later. Clearly, the time in which the property could not be re-marketed was not enough of a deterrent to prevent abuse of such a clause. Amendments 132 and 133 therefore seek to extend from three to six months the period before which a property can be re-marketed.
In our debates over the past couple of days, I have spoken at length about the need to ensure the maintenance of balance between tenants and landlords, so that landlords are not driven from the market, which would exacerbate the chronic shortage of rental property in the whole UK and the decline in the size of the private rented sector in rural parts. I do not think that these amendments would have an impact on that balance. Any landlord who is seeking repossession under ground 1 or 1A and is acting in good faith has no intention of re-marketing the property at the point at which they seek repossession. Extending the period beyond which it can be re-marketed should not influence their decision in any way.
We understand that people’s circumstances can change, sometimes very suddenly. I think six months is a reasonable length of time both to provide a deterrent to abuse of grounds 1 and 1A and to provide fairness for landlords who have acted in good faith but have suffered an unexpected change in circumstances. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on the steps needed to prevent the recurrence of the situation in Scotland that we heard about and, ultimately, to support the lengthening of the period.
Amendments 134 and 135 seek to address the problem facing many tourist areas that properties for private rent are being flipped into holiday lets or Airbnb-style holiday homes. Members of all parties who represent tourist hotspots have raised the issue in the main Chamber, and there is broad consensus that the over-supply of holiday accommodation is having a hugely detrimental effect on those areas.
There needs to be some holiday accommodation, but the balance of holiday and private rented sector accommodation is very important for those areas, because over-supply of holiday accommodation hollows out communities. It has led to a situation in which the workers needed for the tourist industry to thrive have nowhere to live, so hotels and restaurants are unable to operate at full capacity. That is bad for the local economy, as well as for people who cannot find anywhere to live in the area.
Meanwhile, in rural areas, the private rented sector is shrinking rapidly. Local families and people working in essential services, such as care workers, teachers and nurses, are being driven away. The sector is completely out of balance. My understanding of the legislation is that landlords seeking repossession under ground 1 or 1A must not re-market the property as a residential let within a three-month period; I would prefer six months. There is no provision for holiday let-style marketing, because those properties do not require tenancy agreements.
My amendments recognise that problem by adding holiday letting to the three-month, or ideally six-month, moratorium on re-marketing once ground 1 or 1A has been used to regain possession. I think that that is a pretty uncontroversial addition to the Bill; I very much hope that Government Members support me when I press amendments 134 and 135 to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak to amendments 140 to 142. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Shropshire. We agree fully with the spirit behind amendments 132 to amendments 135, and we will support the hon. Lady when she presses either amendment 134 or amendment 135, regarding short-term lets, to a vote. They highlight a valid concern.
As we made clear during an earlier debate on mandatory possession grounds 1 and 1A when considering clause 3, we believe that there is a clear risk that these de facto no-fault grounds for eviction could be abused in several ways by unscrupulous landlords. As a result, we are convinced of the need to amend the Bill to provide tenants with greater protection against their misuse. However, we do not believe that the hon. Lady’s proposal to extend the no-let provisions in clause 10 from three to six months for both standard periodic and short-term lets is sufficient, for reasons I will go on to explain.
We are once again considering mandatory possession grounds 1 and 1A because clause 10 would insert proposed new section 16E into the 1988 Act, prohibiting certain actions by landlords or former landlords, including re-letting or re-marketing a property or authorising an agent to market the property within three months of obtaining possession on those grounds.
We take no issue with the prohibitions that the clause provides for. It is obviously right that the Bill seeks to prevent landlords letting a fixed-term tenancy; serving an incorrect form of possession notice; failing to give prior notice where required; specifying a ground for possession that the landlord is not entitled to use; and issuing a notice for possession proceedings within the proposed six-month protected period that applies to grounds 1, 1A and 6. We also welcome the clause’s explicit prohibition of the re-letting or re-marketing of a property obtained by means of issuing a ground 1 or 1A notice, and the fact that clause 11 provides for financial penalties and offences for a breach of that prohibition.
As I remarked to the Minister in a previous debate, the fact that the Government have introduced that prohibition highlights that they clearly accept that amended ground 1 and new ground 1A could be used as a form of section 21 by the back door. However, we are absolutely convinced that a three-month no-let period is simply not sufficient to deter and prevent abuse of the kind we fear will occur if the two possession grounds in question remain unchanged. We take that view because of our understanding of the English rental market.
Three months of lost income, which is what any unscrupulous landlord who deliberately abuses mandatory possession grounds 1 and 1A in order to evict a tenant will incur, may act as a significant disincentive for some buy-to-let landlords, particularly those with highly geared large portfolios who have seen their rental yields reduced by rising interest rates and the restriction of mortgage interest tax relief as a result of tax changes under section 24 of the Finance Act 2015.
However, a significant proportion of landlords do not have a mortgage; they own their property outright. A recent survey carried out by Shelter suggested that well over half of all landlords come under that category. For landlords who are mortgage-free or have a mortgage but can absorb extended void periods, a three-month no-let prohibition, which could ultimately see them losing only one month of rental income if the tenant serves out the two-month minimum notice period that applies to grounds 1 and 1A, is not a particularly strong deterrent against abuse.
We believe that the no-let prohibition provided for by clause 10 in respect of mandatory possession grounds 1 and 1A must increase from three months to 12 months. That would ensure, taking into account the full minimum notice period, that any landlord not legitimately using the landlord circumstances grounds to occupy or sell the property would lose 10 months of rent—a financial penalty that we think would be sufficient to deter and prevent such misuse. Amendments 140 and 141 would provide for that 12-month no-let period. I urge the Minister to reflect further on the issue and to accept the amendments.
Amendment 142 seeks to address a distinct but related issue with the no-let prohibitions provided for by clause 10 in relation to grounds 1 and 1A. Proposed new section 16E(5) provides that the prohibition is applicable only if the tenant surrenders the property as a result of a notice having been served, without an order for possession being made. To put it another way, the proposed three-month no-let ban will be applicable only in instances where a tenant has left a property voluntarily without court proceedings, not where a court has issued an order. That is genuinely inexplicable, from our point of view.
Is it the Government’s view that where a ground 1 or 1A notice is served and the tenant wishes to contest it, the no-let prohibited period would, in effect, run throughout the possession proceedings, so that if they take three months or more, the period will have been deemed to have already expired prior to any order being issued? Is that the reason? If so, we would welcome clarification. Otherwise, we cannot understand why the prohibition does not apply where a court has issued an order. The Minister must provide a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the Government’s decision, because we cannot understand why it is equitable to apply the prohibition only to instances where a tenant has left a property without court proceedings, vis-à-vis having challenged them by taking the matter to court.
We are also concerned that the decision to do so will prevent tenants themselves from seeking redress in instances where they have good reason to believe that grounds 1 and 1A have been misused. It stands to reason that tenants who have challenged their eviction in court are inherently more likely to suspect that they are being wrongfully evicted and to be willing and able to pursue their landlord if they are abusing the grounds subsequent to losing their home.
To reiterate a point I made in an earlier debate, it is almost certain that a minority of unscrupulous landlords will abuse grounds 1 and 1A to unfairly evict tenants they perceive as problematic, and will then proceed to re-let those properties in short order. As things stand, if and when they do so the courts will be able to do nothing. Indeed, how will they even know what happened subsequent to a ground 1 or 1A possession case? The obvious mechanism to ensure that grounds 1 and 1A are used legitimately in each instance is to require landlords to evidence and verify prior and subsequent to a notice being issued, but the Government rejected our amendments 138 and 139 out of hand.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support the amendments tabled by our Front Benchers and to ask the Minister about holiday lets. The holiday or short-term let market is due to be regulated, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to explain to us how the Department foresees those regulations pairing with the property portal or the Bill.
If someone is not allowed to re-market their property, but they could market it for short-term let, the short-term let registration portal—I understand that the plan is for that to be separate—will need to interact with the other portal. The Minister might genuinely not mind that properties are being re-let as holiday rentals in the no-let period, but I suspect this is more a case of needing reassurance from him that that loophole will be closed in the regulations to prevent holiday lets. That seems simple, but we need that reassurance from the Minister so that we know that it will be squared off.
On the period that the property cannot be let for, some amendments have been tabled about the evidence that needs to be provided, but what is important here is that the landlord or family members moving in, or the intention to sell, should be genuine. At the moment, there do not seem to be protections to ensure that they are. One such protection would be ensuring that a landlord cannot benefit financially if they are not making a genuine application. Three months does not seem to cover that. Many properties are already empty for a number of months between tenancies for the landlord to make repairs and update the property. It is not unusual for that period to be one or two months.
Three months, therefore, does not seem to be particularly onerous on the landlord, so 12 months should be a possibility. If the Minister does not think that 12 months is appropriate, it may be useful for him to tell us how he thinks enforcement could be done beyond the three months—for example, if it were demonstrated that the landlord never intended to sell, but that only became apparent four months later. It may well be that a landlord has no real intention to sell but issues that particular ground, and the tenant, the local authority and others do not particularly raise eyebrows because it can take a number of months to get a property on to the open market.
People would not necessarily expect a property to be listed the day after the tenant is out, because the landlord will want to tart it up and ensure that it looks its best for the estate agent’s photos. They will want to ensure that they cover all the dodgy spots in the house. We have all done it when we have sold houses: we show the best side of the house that we can. We deep-clean the oven and do all that stuff, which takes a number of weeks, if not months, before we get the letting agent to come round, take pictures and let the property.
It is therefore not unusual for it to take three months before the property is on the market for sale, but in this case that does not come about because the landlord never really aimed to sell it. The danger is that, because the time has elapsed, they can just shove it back on the open market. If the Minister is going to say, “Actually, in those circumstances the landlord would have to demonstrate that they had had a reasonable change of mind because of material circumstances,” he needs to outline how that would be demonstrated. Otherwise, we would just wait, and there would be no evidence at all.
There are other amendments that would give those protections, but before we decide not to press the amendments that we are discussing, the Minister needs to explain that point. Otherwise, the only form of protection can be a prevention from letting for 12 months, or at least the forgoing of 12 months of rent—they are not necessarily the same thing.
Jacob Young
I thank hon. Members for their amendments. We are absolutely clear that any attempt to misuse these grounds will not be tolerated. That is why the Government’s amendments prohibit landlords from re-letting or re-marketing a property for three months after using the moving and selling grounds, and why we are prohibiting landlords from authorising a letting agent to re-market a property on their behalf for three months when they have used those grounds.
That three-month period represents a significant cost to landlords and will deter misuse of the grounds. It is significant enough to remove any profit that a landlord might make from misusing the grounds in order to re-let, for example, at a higher rent.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
What is the average profit that someone makes when selling a property?
Jacob Young
I do not understand how the hon. Member could think that I would possibly know that right now.
Jacob Young
I will not give way again.
Amendments 132, 133, 140 and 141 seek to extend the three-month period to six or 12 months. That would be excessive and keep good properties sitting empty if a landlord’s circumstances changed. It is quite possible that a landlord might not be able to sell and might subsequently need to re-let. Amendment 142 would extend the no-let period to cases where the landlord has gone through the court process to obtain a repossession order. We feel that that restriction is unnecessary, as such a landlord will have proved to the court that their intentions are genuine.
Amendments 134 and 135 look to restrict a landlord from letting their property as a short-term let, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said. It may be reasonable for a landlord to offer a property as a short-term or holiday let within the three months, for example if there is a long gap before a sale completes. However, I have heard her comments and those of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and I know that that is an issue in places such as Cornwall and Devon. I commit to working with the hon. Member for North Shropshire and others to address those points.
If a landlord tries to abuse the system, there are financial repercussions for breaches and offences. We are giving local councils powers to fine landlords up to £5,000 for minor breaches and up to £30,000 for serious offences. The Government think the amendments would cause unreasonable cost to landlords whose sale or plans to move into a property may have fallen through, through no fault of their own.
Turning to Government new clauses 4 and 5, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his questions and confirm that I will write to him on those points. The new clauses replace clause 10, retaining the policy intent in the original drafting but updating it to better reflect its intention. We are clear that any attempt to misuse the grounds will not be tolerated. That is why the Government new clauses prohibit landlords from re-letting or re-marketing a property for three months after using the moving and selling grounds, and why we are prohibiting landlords from authorising a letting agent to re-market the property on their behalf. The three-month period represents a significant cost to landlords and will deter misuse. I therefore commend new clauses 4 and 5, which will replace clause 10, to the Committee and ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that answer. On the length of the no-let period, I think there is just a genuine principled disagreement between the two sides of the Committee about whether the proposed three months will act as a deterrent. In all honesty, because this is a completely new system—although we have the Scottish experience to draw on—we have no evidence on either side to prove that that is the case, but we genuinely fear that three months is not enough to prevent misuse. I will therefore press amendment 140 to a vote.
On amendment 142, I will go back and check the transcript, but I am not convinced that I understood the Minister’s reasoning when he talked about the court knowing that the landlord’s intentions were genuine simply because, at the point of the notice’s being served, the re-let prohibitions apply. I still do not understand why the prohibition on re-letting should not apply in instances where the court has awarded possession. We still want the landlord not to re-let in that period under either scenario, so we cannot understand why one would be exempt and not the other.
Jacob Young
To reiterate my point, amendment 142 would extend the no-let period to cases where the landlord has gone to court to obtain a repossession order. We think that restriction is unnecessary because, if a landlord has gone to court and the judge has granted the possession order, the landlord has proved that their intentions are genuine on those grounds. That is why we feel the amendment is unnecessary.
Matthew Pennycook
I follow the Minister’s argument, but, under those circumstances, the no-let prohibition should apply from that point under that scenario, just as it would at the point when a notice is served.
Jacob Young
The hon. Gentleman’s argument would suggest that a landlord wanting to move into a property within five months would serve notice on their tenant, the tenant would have two months in the property and could then take the landlord to court because they wanted evidence, which could take six months—and he is suggesting an additional three months on top of that. Does he not see that that would be unfair to a landlord, in a genuine case?
Matthew Pennycook
No, I genuinely do not. In a case where a tenant has felt so strongly that they are potentially being evicted unlawfully that they have taken the matter all the way to the court, it is right that the no-let period should apply from the point that the award is granted. Again, that may be a point of genuine disagreement, but we will press amendment 142 to a vote.
Helen Morgan
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his comments. I am in general agreement with his point about needing to extend the period beyond which a property can be re-marketed, although my view is that 12 months is excessive. If a landlord’s circumstances have changed—for example, if they repossess their house to sell it because they are facing financial hardship but are unable to sell and need to re-let it—12 months is punitive.
Jacob Young
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 11, page 14, line 24, leave out
“16E (inserted by section 10”
and insert
“16G (inserted by section (Landlords acting through others)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 20 to 25.
Amendment 163, in clause 11, page 15, line 14, leave out “£5,000” and insert “£30,000”.
This amendment would increase the maximum financial penalty that local authorities could levy against a landlord or former landlord that they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt has contravened provisions contained in clauses 9 (inserted section 16D of the Housing Act 1988) or 10 (inserted section 16E).
Government amendments 26 to 41.
Amendment 164, in clause 11, page 17, line 22, leave out “£30,000” and insert “£60,000”.
Government amendments 42 to 49.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 51 to 54.
Clause 12 stand part.
Government amendments 55 to 59.
Clause 13 stand part.
Jacob Young
As I made clear when I spoke on clause 10, the Government will not tolerate any abuse of the new system. Clauses 11 and 12 give local housing authorities the power to fine the minority of landlords who break the rules, as well as introducing new financial penalties and criminal offences for repeated wrongdoing. Clause 13 provides that those criminal offences do not bind the Crown, although it will be possible for councils to issue fines to private landlords. Under that new provision, local housing authorities will be able to fine landlords and former landlords up to a maximum of £5,000 for less serious and initial breaches of the new tenancy system, including failing to follow process when evicting a tenant and trying to offer a fixed-term tenancy. To be clear, £5,000 is the maximum that a landlord can be fined, rather than the norm.
We expect local authorities to be reasonable, and we are issuing guidance that they must have regard to when issuing fines. We are exploring a national framework for setting fines to ensure a consistent approach. This will ensure that penalties are proportionate to the severity of the breach of conduct, and that local authorities impose them accordingly. If landlords deliberately and seriously flout the new rules, local housing authorities will be able to fine them up to £30,000, or choose to prosecute them, including for re-letting or re-marketing a property within three months of using possession grounds for sale and occupation, or knowingly or recklessly misusing a ground for eviction. Repeated breaches will also be met with those higher fines.
Amendments 163 and 164, tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, would increase the maximum fine for initial or less serious breaches from £5,000 to £30,000, and the potential fine for repeated breaches and serious offences from £30,000 to £60,000. I would like to reassure him that multiple fines can be issued where a landlord has committed more than one breach. We will issue guidance to support councillors in making enforcement decisions, but we think that the maximum fines that the amendments would introduce are disproportionate to the severity of the breach or offence. The fines proposed by the hon. Member are out of step with other housing enforcement, such as the existing measures for breaches and offences under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and the Housing Act 2004. Given the substantial fines that can already be levied repeatedly under the legislation, I ask him not to press his amendments to a Division.
The Government amendments extend the prohibited activities to those acting on a landlord’s behalf. That means that local housing authorities can impose penalties on all relevant persons who breach the rules, not just landlords. That includes those with formal relationships, such as letting agents, and more informal relationships. The amendments apply the penalties to those people.
The Government amendments also further strengthen rules against landlords and agents. Instead of demonstrating that a tenant left a property as a result of receiving an improper notice, local authorities will simply have to prove that a tenant left within three months after receiving the notice. That will make it easier for local authorities to take action against the minority of landlords who break the law.
I commend the Government amendments to the Committee and ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to withdraw his amendments.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak to amendments 163 and 164. As the Minister has just set out, clause 11 inserts four new sections into the Housing Act 1988, setting out the financial penalties and offences he has referred to for breaches of the prohibitions in clause 10, including those relating to mandatory grounds 1 and 1A, which we have just discussed, and for not providing for a written statement of terms, as required by clause 9.
Clause 11 raises for the first time the crucial issue of enforcement, which arises in relation to a number of the prohibitions and requirements in the Bill, including those I just mentioned. It is obviously preferable to ensure that there are sufficient incentives in place to encourage landlords to comply with the various requirements in the Bill, and that abuse of possession grounds is identified before eviction takes place. It is, however, inevitable that some landlords will fail to comply with the requirements in the Bill, including the requirement to provide a written statement of terms and conditions to the tenant on or before the first day of a tenancy, and that there will be misuse of possession grounds 1 and 1A that are identified after an eviction has taken place.
The Government are currently proposing two means by which redress might be secured in those circumstances. First, they are proposing to enable the new ombudsman to award compensation to the wronged tenant. Secondly, as the Minister made clear, they are giving local authorities the power to impose financial penalties if the relevant authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a landlord or former landlord has contravened provisions contained in clauses 9 or 10, or if a landlord or former landlord is guilty of an offence but is not prosecuted.
I note and welcome the Minister’s comments, in terms of the Government’s intention to look at developing a national framework that might ensure that those fines are properly co-ordinated across the country. We will come on to consider whether those two means of redress could be supplemented by others when we address the issue of whether tenants themselves should be allowed to seek compensation for an abuse of possession grounds by means of a rent repayment order, as provided for by our new clause 57.
Amendments 163 and 164 are probing amendments that are designed to facilitate a debate on whether the amounts that the Government have chosen as the maximum financial penalties that a local authority can impose—namely £5,000 for a contravention and £30,000 for an serious offence—are sufficient. Notwithstanding the point that the Minister has just made—and it is useful to have clarification that multiple fines can be levied—we are concerned that the maximum levels are insufficient.
It is our contention that the type of unscrupulous landlord that might seek to abuse ground 1 or 1A to evict a tenant who has made a legitimate complaint—the rectification of which, if it is a serious hazard, may cost them tens of thousands of pounds—is unlikely to be deterred by the prospect of a fine of £5,000 or less. That is assuming that the local authority has the capacity and capability to investigate and enforce it. The Minister was also very clear that £5,000 is the maximum; the Government do not wish for it to be the norm. Similarly, a fine of £30,000—or less—for an offence strikes us as far too low to act as a serious deterrent.
Amendments 163 and 164 would raise the maximum financial penalty that local authorities could levy from £5,000 to £30,000 in instances where the provisions contained in clauses 9 or 10 were contravened, and from £30,000 to £60,000 where an offence has been committed. We have proposed those higher figures, very deliberately, on the basis that £30,000 mirrors the current maximum financial penalty for housing offences, and by doubling the maximum financial penalty for an offence to reflect the severity of that outcome. I hope that the Minister might go away and reconsider whether the maximum levels that the Government have chosen are sufficient to act as the deterrent that I think we both absolutely wish to see.
Clause 12, which is grouped with these amendments, requires a local housing authority to issue a notice of intent before imposing a financial penalty on a person under two of the new sections—16F and 16H—inserted into the 1988 Act by clause 11. It requires them to do so within six months of collecting sufficient evidence or, if the conduct is continuing, during the period that it continues within or within six months of it ending.
The clause further specifies that after a landlord has been issued with a notice of intent as required, a landlord will have the opportunity to make representations to the authority, which will then decide whether to issue the fine. What is more, even after an authority has heard representations and has still decided to impose a financial penalty, clause 12 gives the sanctioned party a right to appeal to the tribunal.
I ask the Minister—particularly in the light of the Government’s having resisted our efforts to strengthen the Bill to ensure that the replacement possession regime cannot be so easily abused—why the Government have provided landlords, who, let us remember, a local authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt have contravened provisions contained in clauses 9 or 10, with a series of opportunities to evade a financial penalty.
Jacob Young
I am grateful to the hon. Member. I did not quite catch his question, so, if it is fine with him, I will write to him on that point. I apologise, because I did not quite follow it.
Jacob Young
I know that the Opposition have a few questions about the clause, so I will allow them.
Matthew Pennycook
I bridle slightly at the use of the word “allow”. [Laughter.] I have two questions for the Minister in relation to this clause. Under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988, landlords of assured tenancies are currently required to pay the tenant’s reasonable moving expenses when they are awarded possession under ground 6, relating to redevelopment, or ground 9, where suitable alternative accommodation is available. This clause restricts that requirement solely to registered providers of social housing.
The Bill’s explanatory notes simply state:
“When the Bill takes effect, all landlords will use assured tenancies, so this provision is necessary to ensure only private registered providers of social housing are required to pay removal expenses.”
From our point of view, that does not explain why the Government believe it is necessary to remove the existing requirement for landlords to pay the tenant’s reasonable moving expenses in instances where possession has been gained under grounds 6 or 9. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to the following questions: first, why do the Government no longer believe it is reasonable to pay for a tenant’s removal costs in cases under ground 6, where substantial redevelopment cannot take place with the tenant in situ, or ground 9, where suitable alternative accommodation has been identified? Secondly, why do the Government believe it remains appropriate for providers of social housing to cover those costs, if it is now judged inappropriate that private landlords should have to do so?
Jacob Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. We think it is an unfair burden to ask private landlords to pay for removal costs, which prevent them from redeveloping and ensuring that good-quality housing stock is available on the market. The purpose of the current requirement is to ensure that social tenants are paid moving costs when a social landlord is using grounds that help them to manage their stock—that is, redeveloping a property and moving tenants into suitable alternative accommodation. It would be unfair to place that burden on private landlords if it were applied to them and widened to include all no-fault grounds: for example, a landlord might find themselves in financial difficulties and need to sell or move into a property. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s questions, but if he wants to reply, he can do so.
Matthew Pennycook
I am still not clear why it is deemed appropriate under those two specific grounds for assured tenancies—as is currently the case—but not under the new system. However, I am not going to press the matter any further.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Accommodation for homeless people: duties of local authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 178, in schedule 2, page 77, line 17, leave out “omit subsection (5)” and insert—
“for subsection (5) substitute—
‘(5) A person is also threatened with homelessness if—
(a) a valid notice has been given to the person under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 in respect of the only accommodation the person has that is available for the person’s occupation, and
(b) that notice will expire within 56 days.’”
This amendment would maintain the homelessness prevention duty owed by local authorities to persons who have received a notice to vacate a property and would extend it to notices for possession issued under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988.
Amendment 179, in schedule 2, page 77, line 26, leave out “omit subsection (6)” and insert—
“for subsection (6) substitute—
‘(6) But the authority may not give notice to the applicant under subsection (5) on the basis that the circumstances in subsection (8)(b) apply if a valid notice has been given to the applicant under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 that—
(a) will expire within 56 days or has expired, and
(b) is in respect of the only accommodation that is available for the applicant’s occupation.’”
This amendment would ensure that the homelessness prevention duty owed by a local authority cannot end whilst a valid notice under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 has been issued in respect of the only accommodation available to that person.
Government new clause 7—Accommodation for homeless people under section 199A of the Housing Act 1996.
Mike Amesbury
I rise to speak in support of amendments 178 and 179, which stand in the name of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, the shadow Minister. I am part of the Front-Bench team.
I know that everybody in this Committee room shares my firm belief that no one in our society should face homelessness. Research from Crisis and Heriot-Watt University shows that nearly a quarter of a million households across England now experience the worst forms of homelessness. Lots of us will see the visible consequences of that human tragedy as we travel into Westminster day in, day out, and far too many of us deal with those consequences week in, week out through our caseloads—with people who are in temporary or emergency accommodation. In fact, temporary accommodation is becoming de facto permanent in far too many cases.
According to the Government’s own latest data, 298,000 people are homeless—a rise of 6.8% on just a year ago. The end of a tenancy in the private rented sector is a leading cause of homelessness in England, accounting for over a quarter of households seeking support. To their credit, the Government supported the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which began as a private Member’s Bill championed by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—a Bill that many of us from across the political divide welcomed. Part of the Act ensures that private renters have the right to immediate help from their local authority—the prevention duty, which we are all familiar with—on being served a section 21 notice by their landlord.
Since the 2017 Act came into force in 2018, over 640,000 households have been prevented from becoming homeless or supported into settled accommodation. Hence, it makes little sense that the Bill is diluting that right. It could lead to missed opportunities to help families avoid becoming homeless. I am genuinely perplexed by this and look forward to the Minister’s answer on this matter in the not-too-distant future.
We know that this issue is even more critical right now, as we see a complete lack of genuinely affordable housing options for people who are homeless or at risk, evidenced by the shockingly high numbers of families trapped in temporary accommodation and the rising numbers of people forced to sleep rough on our streets. Everyone In, from the not-too-distant past, seems to be becoming “Everybody Out” at quite a rapid rate. Just over 7,600 homes for social rent were built last year. If we take right to buy and demolitions into consideration, I think on average since 2010 that takes us into the minus 14,000 territory. It is certainly distant from the “building back better” rhetoric that we had in the not-too-distant past. We live in a world where 1.2 million people are in desperate need of social housing.
Currently, a tenant served with a valid section 21 notice can take that notice to their local authority, which automatically accepts the prevention duty and spends the next two months either helping them find somewhere to live or helping to sustain their tenancy. This benefits tenants, landlords and local authorities. It presents a clear opportunity to provide help that could prevent homelessness. When it works, it avoids a traumatic experience for tenants who are facing costly placements in temporary accommodation from local authorities, and a landlord can retain a paying tenant. However, as a consequence of the changes in the Bill, the clarity that a tenant has when served an eviction notice—they are owed a prevention duty—and threatened with homelessness has now been removed.
Tenants served with a section 8 notice will no longer have the right to immediate help from the council, even though there remain no-fault, mandatory grounds within section 8 notices. For example, when a landlord seeks to sell or take back the property for a family member, that could easily result in a tenant becoming homeless, just as the current section 21 notices can lead to. This dilution of rights puts tenants at greater risk of homelessness, which is far from the stated aims of the Bill.
A local authority will instead need to decide whether tenants are threatened with homelessness and make that judgment—on the serving of the notice, when the notice expires, at a court hearing or when the court has granted a possession order? Without the legal trigger or automatic right upon notice, it will take more time to establish what help is needed, making the prevention duty more onerous for local authorities. It risks tenants facing burdensome additional tests and gatekeeping. That gatekeeping is driven in a lot of cases by the precarious finances of local government, not really made any better by yesterday’s autumn statement. Authorities might tell tenants to come back at a later date—maybe when a landlord has started court proceedings—and well beyond the point at which steps to prevent homelessness, such as help with rent arrears, could have been taken. This will create a postcode lottery up and down the nation.
Jacob Young
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments. The reforms in the Bill will remove fixed-term tenancies and section 21 evictions. The changes mean that we also need to amend part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 to make sure that councils’ statutory homelessness duties align. Clause 18 makes three changes to homelessness legislation.
First, the clause makes changes to how local authorities discharge their main housing duty. One of the ways in which local authorities may currently bring their main housing duty to an end is by making an offer to a tenant of a suitable private rented sector tenancy with a fixed term of at least 12 months. With the removal of fixed-term tenancies, section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 is amended to refer instead to an “assured tenancy”.
Secondly, the clause amends section 193C of the Housing Act 1996, relating to what happens when a person owed either the prevention or relief duty deliberately and unreasonably fails to co-operate with the local authority. If the local housing authority is satisfied that the applicant is, first, homeless; secondly, eligible for assistance; thirdly, has a priority need; and fourthly, is not intentionally homeless, the applicant is still owed a duty to be accommodated. However, that duty is currently a lesser one than the main housing duty. The lesser duty is to offer a fixed-term tenancy of at least six months, as opposed to the period of at least 12 months required under the main duty. With the repeal of fixed-term tenancies, the lesser offer is redundant and removed by the clause.
Thirdly, subsection (4) repeals section 195A of the Housing Act 1996, which is the duty in homelessness legislation
“to offer accommodation following re-application after private sector offer.”
It is known more commonly as the “reapplication duty”. The reapplication duty is a homelessness duty that offers accommodation following a reapplication after a private sector offer, where the applicant becomes homeless again within two years and reapplies for homelessness support. The duty applies regardless of whether the applicant has priority need. It was introduced to respond to concerns that, due to the short-term nature of assured shorthold tenancies, applicants who accept a private rented sector offer may become homeless again within two years and no longer have the priority need.
The increased security of tenure and removal of section 21 evictions through this Bill means that the reapplication duty will no longer be relevant. The amendment will streamline the management of reapproaches, and make sure that all applicants are treated according to their current circumstances at the point of approaching. There will be no differential treatment between those placed in either private rented or social housing accommodation.
Amendments 178 and 179 seek to broaden the scope of those threatened with homelessness, and thereby owed the prevention duty, to all those who have been served with a valid section 8 eviction notice that expires within 56 days, and to remove the option for local authorities to limit the assistance under the prevention duty to 56 days.
These amendments would prevent a local authority from using its judgement as to whether there is a risk and from deploying its resources to cases where there is a more imminent risk of homelessness. If the amendments were accepted, they could result in local authorities having cases open for a long time. Requiring local authorities to accept a duty in such circumstances, with no time limit, would create significant resourcing pressures. That would ultimately be to the detriment of those seeking homelessness support if local authorities were overwhelmed and unable to manage their increase caseload.
Local authorities are experienced at identifying when someone is threatened with homelessness, as opposed to arbitrary requirements that do not account for individual circumstances.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The Minister must acknowledge that local authorities will push lots of constituents back to the very last statutorily permitted minute because their resources are so pressured. That often makes the situation worse: it is saving a penny here, but losing a pound down the road.
Homelessness duties are mixed and varied. Some of them, with early intervention, can mean re-placing in the private sector—that actually does not cost the local authority very much. Without providing a clear duty, many officers will go to councillors saying, “You need to push the policy back to the statutory minimum, because we cannot do anything else. That is all we can do at the moment.” Those conversations are happening in every council. Surely the Minister recognises that without clear statutory guidelines on when they need to intervene, councils at the moment, I am afraid, will not.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Gentleman, although I do not think his intervention directly addresses the amendment. The amendment would put more burden on local authorities. For example, if I was served a section 8 notice, I would not need to be covered under the homelessness prevention duty, because just me and my partner would be involved. We do not have any dependants, and would probably find it quite easy to find a new property. It is important that we do not overburden local authorities unnecessarily, as these amendments would.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The duty does not mean a requirement for a place for every person; it means that there is a duty to analyse the need of the person, assess their ability to access the market and provide access into the market in different ways. If the Minister was involved, the duty would be for the council to point him in the direction of private letting agents; to ensure that he was able to search properly; and to monitor and ensure that he was getting on with that properly.
The duty is rather light-touch. The danger is that if we do not provide a duty that everyone comes through, including light-touch people—of course, no one has to go to their local authority, so they could just divert that if it was the Minister anyway—the most vulnerable people will not come at all until it is too late. Does the Minister recognise that vulnerable people tend to come only when it is too late if they feel that there is not an earlier duty?
Jacob Young
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. That is why we have said, in various discussions throughout the debate, that forms will be provided to people when they are served with such an order. They will be pointed in the right direction. That addresses the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, rather than forcing everyone to be considered under the duty, no matter how light-touch—[Interruption.] I do not think that I need Redcar and Cleveland Council to be worried about me.
Jacob Young
I will end that point there.
Government new clause 7 delivers a technical change that will ensure that a tenancy granted in carrying out a local authority homelessness duty to provide interim accommodation cannot be an assured tenancy, other than in the circumstances allowed for. There is an existing provision in the Housing Act 1996 that already provides an exemption to that effect; however, it does not encompass all instances where the local authorities have an interim duty or discretion to provide temporary accommodation, as section 199A is not included. The new clause remedies that. It allows private landlords who provide local authorities with temporary accommodation to regain possession of their property once the local authority’s duty to provide it ceases. That will ensure that local authorities can continue to procure interim temporary accommodation to meet their duties.
I commend the new clause to the Committee, and I ask the hon. Member for Weaver Vale not to press the Opposition amendment.
Mike Amesbury
It is essential that the prevention duty is extended here. The Renters (Reform) Bill is supposed to be about homelessness prevention. Local authorities use their discretion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown said. I will not press the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mr Mohindra.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Batteries for Electric Vehicle Manufacturing
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We begin with the Select Committee statement. Liam Byrne will speak on the publication of the first report of the Business and Trade Committee, “Batteries for electric vehicle manufacturing”, HC 196, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Liam Byrne to respond to these in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may only ask one question each. I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, Liam Byrne.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for making time available for this statement today. I understand that the Backbench Business Committee was reinstituted last night, so Select Committees and their Chairs will now have the opportunity to make applications to it, but I am grateful for the time granted by the Liaison Committee today.
When the great steam engine tycoon Matthew Boulton, who was from my neck of the woods, in Birmingham, welcomed people to the Soho manufactory—the first great steam engine factory in the world—he used to say, “I make here, Sir, what all the world desires—power,” and he was right. Just as power was at the heart of the industrial revolution all those centuries ago, so power will be at the heart of the green industrial revolution in the years to come. Our nation has to move fast now to transform the battery industry, to create jobs, and to safeguard the 165,000 workers in the automotive industry and the other 800,000 in the supply chain.
Batteries are big and heavy, and they are expensive to move around. We have to wake up to the risk that, if we do not build the gigafactories that make those batteries here in this country, our great automotive factories will up sticks and move to where the gigafactories are being built—perhaps in the United States or Europe. If we do not do that, we risk becoming dependent on imports from China, where, as we know, there are questions about the integrity of the supply chain and the labour that is used.
The challenge the Committee wants to flag is that we are now falling behind our competitors and need to take steps urgently to create a better environment for electric vehicle battery production. We have a huge gigafactory gap; the estimates are quite widely developed in the industry and academia, but even under the Minister’s own estimates, we are going to need about 100 GW of manufacturing capacity just to supply the automotive industry for us by 2030. But the demands will be much greater than that, because there will be all sorts of other applications too. Right now, we have online just 2 GW of capacity and deals in place that cover barely half the capacity we will need.
We conclude in our report that the Government have done well to reinforce this country’s strengths in battery research and development—we are, after all, the nation of Faraday. We also conclude that the lack of a stable, long-term industrial strategy has hampered our ability to secure long-term investment. As a country, we have real competitive advantages. We could harness the UK’s low-carbon energy sources to ensure that we become a global frontrunner in making sustainable and ethical batteries.
I am conscious that tomorrow is a big day for the Minister—she has just arrived back from Kazakhstan, and I am grateful she could join us today. We know that an advanced manufacturing plan and a UK battery strategy are coming. These things—or some of them—may arrive tomorrow but we do not know yet. We as a Committee wanted to set out the seven things we would like to see in those strategies, so that we could mark the autumn statement, and the House would have a way of judging whether the Minister’s strategy is what the country needs.
First, we cannot escape the fact that public subsidies will be needed. American cash for battery firms could total $150 billion over the next 10 years, which is an enormous amount of subsidy, while European subsidies are at around three times what we are currently providing. By contrast, the UK’s automotive transformation fund has just £850 million, and some of that has been burgled for other purposes. We think the Chancellor will need to put in more money for subsidies, and we call for an international study to benchmark what subsidies others are providing, so that we can ensure that our financial offer is internationally competitive.
Yesterday, the Chancellor announced £2 billion for zero-emission vehicles, batteries and associated supply chains over five years, but those five years begin in 2025. That was part of a £4.5 billion fund for advanced manufacturing. We do not yet know, but we assume, that the £2 billion extra is in addition to the £850 million already in the automotive transformation fund. Presumably, that fund will be the mechanism through which new funding is invested. There have been problems in the way the fund has been administered, and there are crucial questions about the timing of the funding, because the Government have only a very short window to get the advanced manufacturing money moving.
The autumn statement also said the Government are
“unlocking new sources of finance for advanced manufacturing.”
There was not a lot of detail about that, apart from a side reference to the UK Infrastructure Bank. I know that the Government’s priorities for the bank include investing in the critical mineral supply chain, on which the Minister has been working, but it is not yet clear what plans the Government have in place to unlock that new finance.
The Government also announced a ministerial investment group that will
“increase resourcing for the Office for Investment, strengthening the UK’s world-class concierge service for investors.”
In our report, we recommended that the Department for Business and Trade establish an office within the Department to bring together the various bodies involved in getting gigafactory investments to happen faster and more efficiently, so I hope what the Government have announced will help to address that point.
Our second key point was on energy and long-term certainty for battery supply chains on accessing electricity at comparable rates. From what we could see, there was nothing in the autumn statement on that. That is a big concern across the battery supply chain.
Thirdly, we wanted to see strategically important sites designated. There is a tiny bit of progress on that, and I hope the investment zone announced for the west midlands and around Coventry airport will help ensure that there is progress in Coventry. However, we wanted to see a bigger plan than simply Coventry; we wanted to see the key sites that are needed across the country designated.
Fourthly, we wanted to see real action on addressing skills gaps across the battery supply chain and gigafactories specifically. There is a tongue-twister in yesterday’s autumn statement: the Government say that they are going to support
“plans to catalyse the growth sectors by committing £50 million to deliver a two-year apprenticeships pilot to explore ways to stimulate training in these sectors and address barriers to entry in high-value standards.”
If we can interpret and understand what that might mean, and ensure that the training funding is in the right places, we may make progress, but right now we are not clear. Our key point was that we want to see devolved funding to those areas where there are gigafactory sites, so that they have the funding for adult skills that they are going to need.
Our fifth conclusion was that we needed to secure tariff-free access to global markets for electric vehicles so that we could trade easily and well. We advised the Government to seek a three-year extension to the rules of origin agreement with the EU, because we certainly do not have the battery capacity we need to meet those new rules, and we are not sure that Europe does either, frankly, because of displacement of investment into America.
Our sixth recommendation was about de-risking access to the requisite critical minerals and supply chains. I know that the Minister was working hard on that up to her flight home last night. It is hugely important that we work closely with our partners, particularly in Africa, to help unlock the $1.9 trillion of investment that is needed in critical minerals, and to help build a processing industry in Africa so that we are not critically dependent on countries such as China.
Finally, we need to continue something that I know the Government believe in: putting research and development in battery technology on a long-term footing. Power was always at the heart of the industrial revolution, and it will be at the heart of the green industrial revolution. It was Michael Faraday, the pioneer of the electricity industry, who, when explaining this to Gladstone, was greeted by the question, “Well, man, what is the use of it?” to which Faraday answered, “Well, sir, there is every chance that you may one day be able to tax it.”
We see the battery industry as mission-critical to safeguarding and growing the huge numbers of jobs in the automotive industry and the wider supply chains. The truth is that, if we are to compete with Beijing, Bidenomics and Brussels, we will have to raise our game. The time to do that is now.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Although it has been thrilling for all of us to hear it, I would not want him to be under the impression that he can make these statements only in Westminster Hall. He can apply for time in the main Chamber, and that may be something he wants to consider for the future.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the Select Committee for its work, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) for the way in which he introduced the Committee’s report.
One issue, I want to touch on, which the report rightly highlights, is the looming cliff edge in the trade and co-operation agreement, with much tighter rules of origin for electric vehicles from 1 January. As I understand it, Ministers have still not set up a key working group on automotive parts, which was agreed in the TCA. That group could have helped industry to get heard a lot earlier and in its understandable call, backed by the Committee, for a three-year extension to the current rules of origin. Ministers seem to have gone quiet on whether agreement will be reached on a three-year extension. Indeed, the Prime Minister appears to have taken little interest in what could be a significant drag on UK exports of electric vehicles in the coming months. Will the Chair of the Select Committee update the House on what he knows about the current state of negotiations and Ministers’ current efforts to win a three-year extension to the rules of origin?
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As ever, he is on the money. The rules of origin framework was put in place with the best intentions, to try to incentivise people in Europe and the United Kingdom to get gigafactory investments in place, but that has not yet happened. We have a looming gigafactory gap in this country, and if we do not negotiate an extension to the rules of origin, we will have tariffs of up to 10% on some of our exports, which will have a really serious impact on hundreds of thousands of jobs. Given how much is at stake and how many jobs are in peril, we were surprised to see almost no news about where the renegotiation of the rules of origin had got to. That was one reason why we stated it so clearly as a requirement in our conclusions—so that the Government now have to go on the record to explain to the House, and indeed the country, precisely what they are doing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement. I have a specific question, which I spoke to him about beforehand. As I understand it, EV batteries used in the UK are likely to be sourced from Europe and elsewhere, so we very much welcome talk about British production of batteries. In my constituency of Strangford—the Chair of the Committee has referred to regionalisation, to which my question relates—there is much interest in electric and hybrid vehicles, and many engineering companies there are willing to get involved in the production of batteries. I have asked about this in oral questions in the main Chamber, but today I ask the Chair of the Committee the same question: does he agree that there is an opportunity for Northern Ireland and my constituency of Strangford to get involved in the production of EV batteries, and that any legislation that comes forward in this place must take on board, and extend to, the devolved institutions as well?
Liam Byrne
I am grateful for that question. Although I do not have the specific details of the opportunities in the constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the spirit of the Committee’s report is that we need to be using industrial policy to do three things: to de-risk supply chains, to decarbonise, and to decentralise the sources of economic growth. That is why we are so clear about the need for the Government to designate strategically critical sites for gigafactories in the future. As to quite how many we need, the Minister and I may have different views, but we know how much capacity we need, and that can perhaps be delivered by between five and eight gigafactories, depending on how much each factory can produce. But the broad point is that we cannot be producing batteries simply for the automotive industry; we need a wide range of applications for them in the future.
Once we have designated the sites, we need to think about how industrial policy helps to unlock the wide range of policy levers that any place will need. That includes access to low-cost electricity, skills, and incentives and subsidies to get factories built in the first place. Of course, we then need the trading arrangements, so that people can export and we can ensure that the export of EV batteries is a real growth sector for our economy. The point the hon. Member for Strangford made is therefore absolutely the right one, and we have sought to provide the checklist of things he needs to be asking of Ministers.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank the Chair and the Select Committee for putting together such a comprehensive and valuable report. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on electric vehicles and the all-party parliamentary motor group, I agree with him: my frustration is that we find ourselves behind our major competitors—China, the US, Japan, Germany, France and many others—in our capacity to manufacture battery units for electric vehicles and other uses.
That is frustrating because, from what I sense from the report and more widely, we have an energy advantage in the UK—indeed, we should have a huge energy advantage over other nations. In my constituency, National Grid reminds me of what we can do by bringing green energy to this country through the interconnectors. We also have organisations such as Warwick Manufacturing Group, which is at the forefront of the development of new battery units. We have two great advantages, but because of what the Chair of the Select Committee describes as a lack of industrial strategy, we are way off the pace.
I have a couple of points on skills—not just on the manufacturing side, but in terms of what we will need up and down the country in our franchise dealer network and other vehicle marketing sites. In terms of what we need to do on infrastructure for the consumer—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is meant to be asking a question, not making a second statement. We are running out of time, so if he could put a question to Liam Byrne, Liam Byrne might answer him.
Matt Western
I apologise, Mr Hollobone. My question is about infrastructure for consumers. Also, I hear that Europe will perhaps grant us a three-year extension on the issue of rules of origin, which would be advantageous. Does my right hon. Friend know any more about that? And what is his estimation of how long it will take the UK to catch up with our major competitors, such as Germany and France?
Liam Byrne
I commend my hon. Friend’s work; his leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on electric vehicles and the all-party parliamentary motor group has been so important in ensuring that we in Parliament can benefit from informed debate.
We are two to three years behind our European competition, and we therefore have to move quickly to catch up. The lack of certainty has damaged confidence—moving the goalposts on phasing out petrol engines, for example, has hurt confidence. Ultimately, despite the public investment that needs to go into building things such as gigafactories, the investment overwhelmingly comes from the private sector, and when we damage confidence, we damage the speed of that private investment. I am afraid that the Committee came to the conclusion that the lack of an industrial policy has hampered our ability to secure the needed investment.
It is not too late to catch up. There is a real risk that we cannot win a subsidy race with the United States, or indeed Europe, so we will need a smart policy framework—the seven things I set out. They include devolved funding on skills and guarantees around infrastructure and low-cost energy access. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a niche—in the global market, it is a huge niche—for the UK to provide, build and sell batteries built with low-carbon energy and with the highest levels of integrity right through the supply chain. That is a big opportunity for the UK, which we should be seizing with both hands.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his statement.
World Stroke Day
(1 year 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
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World Stroke Day.
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important topic. This year, World Stroke Day fell on 29 October. We had hoped to have this debate a little nearer to then, but the date we were originally given had to be vacated because of the Prorogation of Parliament. I am grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for so swiftly rescheduling it.
I refer Members to my interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on stroke. I am delighted to see one of the vice-chairs, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), in her place. I also declare a personal interest. My wife Anne-Louise suffered a stroke four years ago, as many in this House know. She made a courageous fight to recover, and I think we have discovered a number of areas where much more work needs to be done because stroke is very often, to a degree, a hidden condition. It does not receive as much publicity as heart attack or cancer, for example. Although we have made improvements and advances in recognising early stroke symptoms so that swift treatment can be given, the thrust of the debate is to say that much more needs to be done.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, and I appreciate his passion. He spoke of awareness, understanding and education about strokes. We need much more work on that; many people are unaware of stroke symptoms. They should be aware of what might be happening to a family member or friend before their very eyes.
Sir Robert Neill
That is right and that is why I commend the Stroke Association for raising awareness and recognition of symptoms. It promotes the Act FAST campaign, which details the symptoms that should be looked out for: if someone shows facial weakness, arm weakness or speech problems, then it is time to call 999. That has been important in raising awareness. I thank the Stroke Association for the briefing it has provided, as well as others who have assisted in the preparation of my comments, including the Royal College of Radiologists and, from the private sector, Ipsen UK, a biopharmaceutical company that works in this field. I will refer to its research.
The essence of the matter is this: stroke is not often recognised, but even when it is, the quantity is not talked about enough. In the UK, stroke strikes every five minutes and more than 100,000 people have strokes every year. It is a leading cause of adult disability; two thirds of stroke survivors leave hospital with a disability. Sadly, it is also a leading cause of death in the UK. Leaving aside the human cost, there is also an economic cost. Too many survivors are unable to return to work. A conservative estimate of the cost to the economy is some £26 billion a year. Some would suggest that it is even more. Never mind the care costs and the burdens on unpaid carers, which some of us know all too well.
Stroke is preventable. In about 80% of cases, it can be treated by changing risk factors, checking for high blood pressure and atrial fibrillation, but we still lag behind other countries on stroke outcomes. The Stroke Association told me that, for every minute a stroke is left untreated, nearly 2 million brain cells die. The brain is both extraordinary and fragile, which is why fast treatment and swift responses are so important. That means getting somebody to a specialist stroke unit as soon as possible. In Anne-Louise’s case, we were lucky that that was not far away, but sadly there will always be disability thereafter. However, that can be reduced through investment in treatments, such as mechanical thrombectomy. If a patient gets mechanical thrombectomy swiftly, their level of impairment is greatly reduced.
Sadly, access to mechanical thrombectomy greatly varies across the country. In Greater London, where my constituency is, the percentage of patients given a thrombectomy in 2021—there may be updated figures, but this is the latest one the Stroke Association had—was 7.8%. In the east of England, it was 0.3%. In most other parts of the country, it hovers around 2%. Even if that has grown somewhat, it is still far less than we would wish to see. I welcome the Minister and am grateful to see him in his place, and I am sure that he is aware that investment across the piece would greatly improve people’s outcomes. That needs to be mainstreamed into investment plans, and we certainly seek to do that. I hope the Minister will commit to removing that postcode lottery in survival according to where a person is when they have the misfortune of having a stroke. If we do not do anything about this, the cost I referred to is predicted to increase to about £75 billion by 2035. We cannot afford for that to happen, either economically or in human terms.
We have talked about prevention and thrombectomies, which can be a game changer, but we do not have anything like the numbers accessing them that other countries do and the figures are not in line with the Government’s own targets. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what is being done to catch up and spread availability across the piece, because at the moment only about a third of the people who need that treatment receive it. That is simply not good enough for the two thirds that were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is important, but there is also the issue of the workforce. I am indebted to the Royal College of Radiologists on this point. Early diagnosis, of course, can help through either thrombectomy or other interventions, but we have a shortfall in the number of clinical radiology consultants of some 30%. They are needed to do the imaging—the MRIs and all the other things—that could enable those other treatments to take place swiftly. Without further action, that shortfall of consultants in radiology is forecast to increase to 41% by 2027—2,890-odd posts. What is being done to address the shortfall in that specialism and, indeed, others?
Only 48% of hospital trusts can provide adequate 24/7 interventional radiology services, largely because of that workforce shortage. I am sure the Minister will once again agree that that is not satisfactory. The use of interventional radiology—image-guided surgical treatments, effectively—is critical in the modern treatment of strokes. When we look at the national health service’s workforce plan, what are the plans specifically to recruit the workforce—the skilled specialists we need to support those new procedures, which will save lives and improve lives for survivors?
As well as the key issues of intervention and treatment, the other issue I want to touch on is what happens thereafter, because the outcomes can vary greatly. Some people, as we all know, are fortunate enough to be out of hospital quite quickly, whereas others—my wife included—spend much longer there. What troubled me was when Anne-Louise eventually left the rehabilitation unit in Orpington, where she had excellent care, we were lucky enough to be able to continue care at a proper level, through our own resources as a family. There was a young woman in there, probably in her mid-40s, who was a single parent. She lived on her own and had no one to take care of her. She was there before Anne-Louise arrived in the unit; she was still there when Anne-Louise left. What happens to someone in that condition is a real worry to us.
I am sure the Minister will rightly observe that the percentage of patients discharged into community stroke services has risen from 53% to 61% in 2022-23, but the quality and consistency of the community service provision is very variable. There are real shortfalls in the number of specialists—again—so we have a workforce problem in the community as well when it comes to physiotherapists, speech and language therapists and neuropsychiatrists.
We sometimes forget that, as well as the very real physical impacts of stroke—which can be a lack of mobility or balance, a level of paralysis, speech impairment and post-stroke spasticity, as it is called, which I will come back to in a moment—there is very frequently a degree of mental ill health associated with such a life-changing event. Many stroke survivors suffer from varying degrees of depression, and the lack of neuropsychiatrists and psychologists to assist them is very stark.
We know that nearly half of stroke survivors experience some degree of post-stroke spasticity within six months of having a stroke, and some will be classed as severely disabled. We then find that some 80% of survivors may develop it at some point unless they get that proper and consistent treatment. At the moment, we do not deliver the recommended levels of community care in the therapies, of all kinds, that are recommended by the nationally accepted guidelines. What is being done to improve that?
At the moment, in the community setting, post-stroke patients experiencing post-stroke spasticity may have to wait four to seven months to be seen for a multi- disciplinary-team assessment. That is far too long. I have a constituent who has been waiting for nearly a year to be assessed to receive the multidisciplinary treatment that she needs. Accessing that support surely should not be done on such a fragile basis.
Ipsen has recently published a report, “Neuro- rehabilitation: State of the Nation”, which discusses this issue. It found that there is a lack of foundational awareness about spasticity and that it is not picked up often or soon enough. In fact, there are issues with the sporadic nature of treatment and a five to six months average waiting time for spasticity services. One in four NHS sites in England do not have access to specialist services for spasticity—there are only 0.26 consultants per 1,000 in prescribed specialist services in England and Wales compared with two to three in most European countries. Something like two in three stroke survivors do not receive a six-month review of their care, and that is one of the fundamental targets set out in the national guidelines. If two thirds are not receiving it, then clearly something is failing us badly.
We would like the Government to designate stroke as a major condition, and they also ought to consider post-stroke spasticity management as an integral part of the major conditions strategy. Perhaps the Minister will take that away and consider it. What can be done to level up the commissioning and provision of those rehabilitation services? What can be done to look at the high-level priority areas for stroke research that have been identified? These are important matters and we would hope that that could be done. There are other things that I hope the Minister will take a look at. Can we continue to improve availability at community level? Can we ensure that everybody receives the treatment set out in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines? As I say, at the moment we are falling significantly short.
In conclusion, having set out those points—I could go on for much longer if we wanted—I hope that my speech highlights some of the real areas of concern. I also want to say a word about the voluntary groups; most of us in the field have become aware of the work of the very well-established Stroke Association, but we have a number of other groups, and in some cases entirely survivor-led groups give each other mutual self-support without any support from public funding.
I want to pay tribute to one group—frankly, the one that helps my wife and that she has received a great deal of assistance from being a member of. It is called Sidcup Speakability Group, and, as the name implies, it operates in our part of south-east London. It is the group’s 10th anniversary, so I just wanted to put on the record what it has done. It works entirely off its own back, and the level of conditions that people have varies greatly. But it proves that there is willingness. It is also worth remembering, as any senior consultant in the field will say, that there is sometimes a myth that a patient gets to a stage where they can never improve any more. Obviously, a patient has the best improvement earlier on. That is why early treatment and interventions are so important, and why the waiting times are so unacceptable. But even if the rate might be less, if people work continually, gains can still always be made incrementally. That is what the people at Speakability have found. To do that, we cannot expect the burden to fall simply upon friends and families. We need specialist treatment to be consistently available. That can turn people’s lives around. In our case, it may not be enough to turn it around in time, but it will be for others. That will be worth our while. The more people we can get back into work, as they wish, the more people can lead enriching lives, to a greater or lesser extent, as many stroke survivors do. There is light at the end of the tunnel, but we have to give them those fundamental services to start with.
I am very grateful to the Minister for paying great attention to the issue, and I hope he will take away those specific asks. Perhaps he could keep in touch with us, as a group, on how we could roll out services much more consistently and give people the level of treatment they deserve. I know a number of us in this room have been affected by stroke within our families, and I think we all want to work together—there is no party political issue in this—to have a proper strategy to sort it out.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 10 minutes past 3. I am obliged to call the Scottish National party spokesperson no later than 2.37 pm. The guideline limits are 10 minutes for the SNP; 10 minutes for His Majesty’s Opposition; 10 minutes for the Minister; and then Sir Bob Neill will have three minutes to sum up at the end of the debate. We have half an hour of Backbench time, and I have to decide which of two stellar Members I should call first. I will go on the principle of ladies first, but also because I understand that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) is vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on stroke, so is probably far more qualified to talk about these issues than the delightful hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for those kind words, Mr Hollobone. I will open by saying that I used to be a physiotherapist working in acute care, specialising in stroke care, so I bring other experience to the debate as well. I serve on the all-party parliamentary group on stroke, and I am indebted to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for securing today’s debate. We work assiduously on this issue here in Parliament, and it is so important for all our constituents. We believe there is real scope for change within the Government’s approach to help our constituents not only to prevent stroke, but to survive stroke, and to benefit from that.
As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, every single five minutes, somebody will experience a stroke. For some people, it will be brief—a transient ischaemic attack. For other people, it will clearly be very serious indeed, and for some people it will lead to mortality. To bring that home, during the course of the debate another 18 people will have experienced strokes. The urgency is now, and we cannot lose time. Over the course of a year, around 100,000 individuals experience stroke, but that means that 100,000 families also come into contact with the NHS. As a result, it is really important that the Government renew their focus. Although we welcome the major conditions strategy, it is simply not enough. Of course, the major conditions strategy is so major that the necessary focus needs to be brought to the fore. I suggest that we make 2024 a year of stroke, so that we really bring that focus down to deliver. If we had that focus across the system, we could make such a difference.
I will not go into all the statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did, but I just want to say that stroke is very avoidable. Of the people who experience it, 80% will have risk factors that can be controlled. We must talk about prevention. As a vice-chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, I must mention our inquiry into prevention in health and social care, which I am sure the Minister will pay much attention to. We must look at how we prevent individuals having stroke. Of course, we can undertake monitoring, for instance around blood pressure, with high blood pressure being an indicator and also atrial fibrillation. This is also about lifestyle choices; it is really important that we remember that smoking is still a major cause of stroke. We must ensure that individuals have early help, not least if there is a familial issue with stroke, to see how we can avoid that.
I also want to talk about health checks. It is really important to make those early interventions. We heard today about a 41-year-old who experienced a stroke, and one in four people who experience a stroke are under retirement age, so we must remember that it is often younger people who experience the need for this process. As a result, we should monitor people. The health checks that came in for those aged 40 are not often applied within integrated care board areas. We need a real sea change there, because monitoring things such as what is happening with blood pressure as early as we can, with really quick tests, can make a sizeable difference.
The Health and Social Care Committee has just returned from Singapore, where we heard about the early healthcare interventions being made there and, of course, saw the outcomes. If the Minister is determined to make a difference in his short time in the role before my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) takes charge, introducing those interventions to monitor what is happening could be a life-changer.
I also want to highlight how we need to respond. Response is too slow, and I want to challenge the system. For ambulances, a stroke is currently a category 2 call. I would like it to be made a category 1 call and the response expedited, because every minute that passes in the golden hour can make a difference to somebody’s future and whether they will experience severe disability—or, indeed, die—or receive interventions that could prevent such disability. Changing the categorisation would save both money and lives. It is important to look at that again. It could make a difference, not least because the time lags for the ambulance service on category 1 and category 2 calls at the moment mean that categorisations are insufficient to get patients to the right place at the right time in order to get the right interventions. I hope that the Minister will take that away and carry out some work in that area to expedite the process towards diagnosis and treatment.
I turn to diagnosis. In a country like Germany, individuals are diagnosed at the kerbside, at home, or wherever they have their stroke, and the process will start immediately. At the point that the patient is experiencing deficits—perhaps they are still going through a cerebral event—or as soon as the ambulance is called, the clock starts on the diagnostic process and then treatment. Using the best diagnostic techniques to scan at the kerbside, using AI to help, we know—[Interruption.] It looks like the Minister is in some pain; perhaps he needs my physio skills.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Andrew Stephenson)
Sorry; it is my shoulder.
Rachael Maskell
Being able to undertake the diagnostic process really early means being able to get the information into the stroke unit of the hospital as early as possible, so that when the patient arrives at the door, they are whipped through the system and interventions can start. The problem is that we have such a time lag that intervention is often too late. Will the Minister look at what is happening on a global scale with interventions that could really make a difference?
Of course, there are two types of stroke: some people have a cerebral bleed and some have an infarct, or a blockage, where the brain is starved of oxygen. As a result, different treatments are undertaken. There is thrombolysis, which is a medical intervention to blast a clot through, and mechanical thrombectomy, which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst talked about, where a wire is fed through the femoral artery into the brain, captures the clot and withdraws it. As a result, the brain can receive the oxygen it needs so that it does not experience the damage that we have heard about.
We need to increase the specialist interventional neuroradiologist workforce. It is a highly trained specialism; we need enough of them, and a sufficient supply. We should have a workforce plan for the specialism to ensure we are training sufficiently and expanding the workforce. In other countries, there has been a real increase in the number of people able to access this treatment. As we have heard, the average across the UK is 3.3%, but in other countries it is 10%. Not all patients can benefit from this life-saving treatment, but of those who can, only about a third get access to it.
We need to think about where the centres are based. It is important that they are in major centres because doctors need to do a lot of these procedures to be expert in them. We need people to be expert in them, but we also need more centres. I ask the Minister to look at the mapping of that, and at specialist commissioning through NHS England to ensure provision right across the country. Will he also work with the ICBs in this area?
We need a specialist workforce. It is positive that we are training more people in stroke specialisms, but in physiotherapy, for example, significant further training is needed on Bobath—a technique used in stroke rehabilitation—and we need to ensure that it is easily accessible. Other professionals do not get the same access to training budgets as medics, so there is often a lag in getting people through the specialist training that is needed. I ask the Minister to look at that to ensure that the workforce is trained in the best techniques to treat stroke, and to carry that specialism.
This is all about investing to save money, because the better the intervention, the better the outcome for the patient. We need physios, occupational therapists, speech and language specialists—there is a significant shortage of them—and clinical psychologists to work as a team around the patient. They often work together. To give hon. Members an idea of how long it takes, a physio can spend an hour a day with a patient, because they have to break down and rebuild their tone and spasticity, which takes time. But as they are sitting the patient up, the speech therapist often comes along and does a swallow test, and an OT may do some function work. That team needs to come together. Unfortunately, the gaps in the workforce mean that it is hard to have the quality of treatment that will benefit the patient, from the most acute phases of the stroke right through to rehabilitation.
Of course, we want patients to go to stroke units—specialist rehabilitation places—where they can benefit from therapeutic intervention and get the best outcomes possible to optimise their baseline before they are discharged back home. Being in that environment is really important, but at the point of discharge, after all that cost—we have talked about diagnosis, intervention and therapy—what happens? Well, experiences are very varied, and 45% of survivors feel abandoned, so we know something is going wrong. Individuals can easily lose confidence and function.
If an individual is on a pathway to a care home, the care home should be properly trained in supporting people who have had a stroke. Everything matters: the person’s positioning, how they lie in bed, how they sit in a chair and how their hand rests can make a real difference to their function, and their hygiene and personal care. It is necessary to ensure that, if they are mobilising, it has an impact. How patients are transferred can make a difference to those outcomes, so it is important that a person is discharged not just to a care home, but to a care home that has undergone proper training. If someone is moving to the community, we need to ensure that the family around them are trained in how to support them, just as carers who provide domiciliary care must be.
I want to pick up on what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said about people seeing improvements in their baseline functioning. It is possible that individuals do and will. Through the process of neuroplasticity, a person’s brain changes and can make alterations and repair, so we need to ensure that, when somebody gets home, there is ongoing therapeutic intervention. It is easy to slip into bad ways and take shortcuts, which can undo some of that good work, and those interventions to top people up can make a difference and keep people functional, mobile and independent. If people miss out on those interventions, they will rapidly require more acute care.
I draw the Minister’s attention to that and ask him to look at the whole pipeline. The lack of support is clear: only 37% of patients got their six-month check last year, which is completely insufficient. We need the figure to be 100%, so there is clearly some work for the Government to do. We are talking about 40,000 people who missed out altogether, which affects ongoing care and support. In the same way that a cancer care navigator works with patients, we need somebody who co-ordinates care and individual support on the stroke pathway, as a permanent process.
As I have already said, we have an opportunity next year to make a seismic difference to individuals by focusing on stroke. I hope that the Minister will take that opportunity, with a laser focus on a new stroke strategy across the country. If he does not, I will badger my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish to take that on, whenever he gets the first opportunity. It is important that we do that.
Finally, research in this area could be improved, and investment in research is needed. As we have seen in recent times, investment in thrombectomy has been a game changer. It gives people who experience a stroke real hope. Other interventions can and will be made: we need to understand more about our brain health, therapeutic interventions, and how to use new technologies to help people to be independent and live full and comprehensive lives. I trust that the Government will look at the research base and at investment in research as an opportunity. I trust that they will also work with the voluntary organisations that work so hard in this area—they are real experts—to ensure that we have the best stroke strategy and stroke outcomes that any country could ever have.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
No Westminster Hall debate would be complete without a contribution from Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You are most kind, Mr Hollobone; thank you for calling me. May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)? Her contribution was truly magnificent. It was full of the detail, knowledge and experience that the hon. Lady brings to these debates. To be honest, I am a bit in awe of her contribution, because it was exceptional. We thank her for it.
I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for leading the debate. He has spoken on these matters in the main Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and he speaks from personal knowledge and experience. We all have him and his wife in our thoughts. I mean that sincerely and honestly; I cannot begin to understand the difficulties and experiences that he has had. He should be assured that he is in our thoughts.
As my party’s spokesperson for health, it is great to be here to mark World Stroke Day. I am sure that everyone present has been touched by the impact that strokes can have on families and friends. Over the years, I have had a number of friends who have had strokes, and they have been greatly physically disadvantaged. It is not just that; there is also an emotional aspect.
I was recently made aware of the “Neurorehabilitation: State of the Nation” report, published in October by Ipsen UK—which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to—and Different Strokes. The report outlines the state of UK stroke rehabilitation services, with a focus on post-stroke spasticity, and uses 2022 data to assess the extent of post-pandemic recovery. Post-stroke spasticity is pain and muscle stiffness caused by stroke and nerve damage. Almost half of people who survive a stroke experience it within six months, and it quickly forms part of their physical disability and contributes to the loss of their ability to have a normal life. It interferes with someone’s normal physical function, speech and daily activities, and it is linked to poor health outcomes, including anxiety and depression. People are not able to do what they once did or follow their normal routine—that is the reality of their new physical condition.
The report’s findings demonstrate that many of the needs resulting from the impact of the covid-19 pandemic still have not been actively addressed. Its recommendations include levelling up neurorehabilitation service infrastructure across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is so important that we all do the same thing everywhere. The report also recommends the adoption of a standardised commissioning framework for those services to balance out regional health inequalities. We do not want to find that there is a postcode where services are good, but that in our postcode they are not so good. Other recommendations include better continuity of care after patients are discharged into the community, to ensure that they have access to rehabilitation and treatments needed to manage their spasticity, and better integration of post-stroke spasticity needs into wider stroke policy, such as the upcoming major conditions strategy.
Every three hours, someone has a stroke in Northern Ireland. There are more than 40,000 stroke survivors in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Chest Heart & Stroke is an active charity, and I put on record my thanks to it. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to charities and volunteers. There are so many groups that do such great work; it is purely voluntary, but it really affects, challenges and helps people.
Stroke is one of the biggest killers in Northern Ireland and a leading cause of adult disability. In addition, we have the second-highest incidence of stroke in the UK and the second-highest mortality rate; in Northern Ireland, whether it is because of our lifestyle or the anxieties and problems of the last 40 years, we have a high mortality rate. For my constituency of Strangford, which is fairly rural, transforming stroke services is crucial in ensuring that patients have immediate access to the care that they need. The hon. Member for York Central outlined the necessity of stroke patients going to the right place and the right home. If they receive at-home care, it should be of a level that can give the necessary assistance.
The recommendations in the major conditions strategy are also applicable to Northern Ireland. While this debate is probably GB-specific, the recommendations and the way forward are clear, and they are things that we would wish to replicate in Northern Ireland. In summer 2022, the Northern Ireland Department of Health published its stroke action plan, detailing future steps in stroke care in Northern Ireland. However, progress implementing the plan is slow, with many stroke patients still not receiving treatment. The hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for York Central both mentioned that. It is so important, whenever someone’s life is changing physically and emotionally—and family weighs on top of that—that they have all the help they need to ensure that they can deal with their new condition and circumstances.
There is no doubt that there is still work to be done nationwide in our NHS. This debate will raise awareness of that and ensure that we move forward in a positive fashion. We must ensure that stroke patients are able to access the care and aftercare support that they require.
I look forward very much to hearing what the two shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), have to say; I do not think there has been any Westminster Hall debate about health that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and I have not been in together—in most cases, we say the same thing. As I say, I also look forward to what my friend and colleague the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, who speaks for the Scots Nats, says. I especially look forward to hearing from the Minister. He is a man of compassion and understanding. I am quite confident that he will endorse what we are requesting.
One thing that we can all take away from this debate is knowledge of the earliest signs of a stroke, not only for ourselves individually but for the people around us—those whom we love and have been good to us, as we have been good to them, and our friends. With the right specialist support, research and campaigning, it is possible—this is the ambition—to rebuild even more lives and support people through their post-stroke treatment. That is my wish. I am sure it is also the wish of the hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for York Central, who spoke before, and the two who will speak after, the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish and for Motherwell and Wishaw.
I am pleased that we have been able to revisit this topic after Parliament was prorogued. I thank the Stroke Association and Ipsen in particular for their delightful and helpful insights into this debate.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this debate. It is always better in any debate if there is a degree of experience and I think we all benefited from his. It is very good of him to share it.
The Scottish Government recently published their Stroke Improvement Plan 2023. In many cases Scotland is more fortunate because we have our own NHS and a smaller area to cover; there are only seven health boards, so there is less difference across the country. I am not saying there is not any difference, but it is much easier for the Government to work with individual health boards and organisations and produce a plan that everyone has bought into.
Unfortunately, strokes remain a leading cause of death in Scotland. The Scottish Government’s new stroke improvement plan seeks to minimise strokes. It is difficult to imagine that anyone in this room will not have had contact with someone who has had a stroke or who knows of someone still suffering. It is still the leading cause of death and disability in Scotland.
I hate to say this, but age is the most important factor. A stroke is most likely to occur after the age of 55 —I will say no more on that at the moment—but younger people can be affected as well. It is the fourth single leading cause of death in the UK.
Some good news is that the number of deaths from stroke is going down, partly due to a reduction in the incidence of strokes, but also thanks to the greater awareness of symptoms. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst told us, the FAST programme was the first advertising campaign. It was really useful: most people can now recognise what a stroke is, what the factors are and can try their very best to get people into hospital much more quickly.
I will not go down the path of describing the treatments available because that was done in an exceptional manner—in a way that even I can understand—by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). But it is really important that we are all aware of what we and Governments can do to help people have better health in general. If someone has high blood pressure, high cholesterol, an irregular heartbeat or diabetes, that makes them more likely to have a stroke.
One of the things the Scottish Government are trying to do is reduce health inequalities across Scotland. It is really important that the Scottish Government use a human rights approach on this basis. Poverty is also one of the leading factors for bad health. As Lorraine Tulloch, the programme lead of Obesity Action Scotland said, those facing the choice of heating or eating amid the ongoing cost of living crisis are likely to be more focused on ensuring that there is enough food to go around than noting the nutritional value of food. In Scotland, we are having to deal with the consequences of poor diet and higher weight—we also need to look at poverty, which is the leading cause of those two things.
In Glasgow, the Scottish Government are investing £500 million through the city region deal, and regional partners have secured £300,000 of Health Foundation funding as part of their work to align economic development and improved health conditions. This will include the development of a capital investment health inequalities impact assessment tool, which will ensure that the health inequality impacts on the people who live and work in the Glasgow region—which includes my own constituency of Motherwell and Wishaw—are considered throughout the life of the project. Again, the Scottish Government are doing all they can to minimise the impact of poverty, but it is really difficult.
It is also important that the plan looks at the psychological issues referred to by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—and it does. Often, someone who has a stroke needs not only physical recovery, but the right recovery from depression and the psychological impact. I have had some personal experience of that with people I know who have had strokes. Often, they may be accepting of the fact that they will not recover all their mobility, but they find it quite difficult to lose the life they had. That is something we must all take into account. The range of disabilities stroke can give is greater than for any other condition: limb weakness; visual problems; language and communication problems; extreme fatigue; and depression, as I have already mentioned. They are all common. The really difficult thing is that two thirds of working-age survivors are unable to return to work. That leads again to further depression and anxiety.
In order for those who experience stroke to be best placed to navigate their journey, stroke care should be provided in line with the principles of realistic medicine, which include listening to and understanding the patient’s problems and care preferences; ensuring that patients are allowed to take part in the decision making; and ensuring that patients have access to the clear and understandable information required to make an informed choice about their care.
I am not quite finished. I would like to talk about something that I find really interesting and that is a wee bit more uplifting than what we have been hearing. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to self-led post-stroke care groups. He and I have to declare an interest: my son’s father-in-law leads one of those in Wishaw. I know from him and some of the people in his group how beneficial they find that kind of thing. But it would be much better for everyone if they did not have the problem of finding premises and all the other things. Across the UK, that should be something that Governments can take on and fund, because it helps with the psychological distress, anxiety and depression.
I recently heard about a tech-enriched rehab programme that recently opened at University Hospital Wishaw—or “Wishy General”, as most of my constituents would refer to it. It is to help meet the overwhelming demand for rehabilitation. I talked to a patient who was treated there, and she says how wonderful it is and how good it is to get something like that locally. This incredibly exciting pilot between the University of Strathclyde and NHS Lanarkshire is aimed at reducing disability and bettering outcomes after strokes. Recent research conducted at the University of Strathclyde has shown this type of model to be safe and feasible when used by people in the chronic phase of stroke recovery and has led to improved outcomes. It is really exciting to hear of these kinds of trials; it is something the Minister might consider looking into in order to benefit folk across the United Kingdom.
I make no apologies for being a Scottish nationalist and for praising my Government for what they do, but I do not think anyone could ever accuse me of not caring about people across the UK. It is important that we share knowledge and understanding to benefit all the people in what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) refers to as this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister will have listened carefully. I hope he will take on board what has been said and look to Scotland for answers in some of the things that we do that might help to improve lives here in England and in Northern Ireland and Wales.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Like others, I begin by thanking my hon. Friend—I will call him that, because we are friends—the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for securing this important debate to mark World Stroke Day. I thank him for not just his continued advocacy and the work he does here in Parliament, but sharing his personal experiences. On behalf of the whole House, we send our love to his wife and to him for the work he does to look after her.
We have had a small but perfectly formed debate. I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) in particular for her powerful contribution. She speaks with experience that I could only ever dream of; it is so important that her expertise, knowledge and past experiences should shape and inform the debate. I thank her for that. Likewise, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who leads on health issues for the SNP, for their contributions. We have had a good, thorough debate, covering a lot of issues. Hopefully we have marked World Stroke Day well in this place today.
It is stating the obvious to say that stroke can have a life-changing impact. As we have already heard, the statistics show that in the time we are here this afternoon, 14 people across the United Kingdom will have had a stroke—that is one stroke every five minutes. Although often a sudden event, the lasting impact of stroke for patients can be devastating. It is one of the leading causes of adult disability across the United Kingdom. Two thirds of stroke patients—let that sink in—will leave hospital with a permanent disability, often needing lifelong care. Sadly, stroke is often fatal, causing around 35,000 fatalities across the UK every year, making it the fourth leading cause of adult death.
What those statistics demonstrate to me is that however far we have come on the journey with stroke, we need more concerted action going forwards—not just from a patient care perspective, but given the significant impact that not acting on stroke has on the economy. There is an economic argument, not just a patient care argument.
I pay tribute to the work of the Stroke Association, which does incredible advocacy, campaigning and research in this area, as well as other organisations across the UK. Stroke Association research shows that by 2035, stroke is expected to cost the British economy £75 billion a year. That is up from £26 billion as recently as 2015—a rise of 190% in just two decades. Given the strain already on stroke pathways across our health and care system, that is simply unsustainable. The need is clear, and the need is now.
One of the issues holding us back in our fight against stroke is the workforce, as is so often the case and as we have heard today in other contributions. A well-skilled, well-resourced workforce is vital to saving lives and improving the outcomes for patients. However, for too many across the United Kingdom, the workforce is simply not there for them or not there for them in adequate numbers. Half of all stroke units across the country have at least one vacant consultancy post, with the average vacancy being left open for 18 months.
When it comes to thrombectomy—a life-changing treatment that can have a fundamental impact on patient outcomes, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst set out—the postcode lottery for care only gets worse. A third of clinicians in this country who can perform thrombectomy are based in London. That is good for Londoners but not for other parts of the country. Given that speed of treatment is critical when it comes to long-term outcomes for strokes, this lottery facing so many people cannot be allowed to continue.
Further along the stroke treatment pathway, other issues persist. Only a quarter of community rehab teams and early supported discharge services are offering support seven days a week. That is not good enough. With patients waiting too long for treatment when they need it and too long for support in the community following treatment, it is clear that the system is broken. That is why I am proud of Labour’s firm commitments on giving our NHS the workforce it needs to get patients seen on time, by delivering an extra 7,500 medical school places, training an extra 700 district nurses each year and ensuring that at every stage of the treatment pathway stroke patients will have access to the care they need when they need it.
But there is so much more work we can do to break down the barriers that too many stroke patients face on their care journey. Breaking down those barriers will take innovation and all parts of the system to be pulling in the same direction. For stroke patients, that is exactly what is needed. Given the crucial role played by primary, acute and social care services in delivering positive, long-term outcomes for stroke patients, co-ordination is the key. However, in too many cases, that co-ordination is simply not happening, and patients are suffering as a result.
We have a primary care system with vast variety in detection of key stroke indicators, such as heart conditions, atrial fibrillation and so on. We have people not getting to the right place in hospital, with only 40% of stroke patients admitted to a stroke unit within four hours of arrival. We have a community care system without the resources it needs to deliver for patients, with the Stroke Association’s report about life after stroke highlighting that only 37% of stroke patients receive a six-month post-stroke review of their needs. It smacks of a system that is not working for anyone.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. When it comes to social care, people are often untrained and as a result could cause more harm than good if they do not know how to care for a patient who has had a stroke. Will he ensure that Labour discusses how it will train our care workforce to have the right skills to deliver ongoing care?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some of the discussions that I have had, including this week, with professionals in the care sector have been about how we upskill care professionals working in our social care system so that they are able to genuinely—in an integrated fashion, with the NHS—work in accordance with the interests of the person they are caring for and take that person’s needs as a whole. It is also important for these workers to have the professional development, and parity of esteem, terms and conditions and so on with the NHS, to be able to take on those extra responsibilities. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that issue is certainly on the radar of the shadow health and social care team as we develop our plans—not just Labour’s workforce plan for coming into government, but our plans on the road map to a national care service.
Whether it is by training more GPs to ease the immense pressure on our primary care system, by putting an end to dangerous hospital waits or through a 10-year plan for fundamental social care reform delivered in partnership with users and their families, Labour is determined to get the system working again. We are determined to build a national health service that is fit for the future, with a long-term vision for a national care service firmly integrated within it. Only by doing all that, getting it right and taking people with us on that journey can we deliver on our long-term mission of cutting stroke deaths by a quarter within the next decade. That is a mission. It is something we are determined to do, because at the heart of this are people’s lives and we want to ensure that we have in place the stroke services that patients deserve.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on opening today’s debate, which is on such an important issue. He is a tireless campaigner for stroke survivors, and his experience is invaluable in bringing their voice into this place. I am sure that his wife is very proud of the work that he does.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her thoughtful contribution, drawing on her own professional experience, and for the helpful and constructive suggestions that she put forward during the debate. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution and his kind words. As he knows, I have family in Northern Ireland, and I think it is vital that on issues as important as this, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland work together where we can to deliver the best outcomes for patients—something that I was also very grateful to hear the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), making clear in her response to the debate. I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), for his contribution.
[Sir George Howarth in the Chair]
Finally, I thank my hard-working Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). He is not allowed to speak in the debate, but he was a founder member of the all-party parliamentary group on stroke. He lost his stepfather to a stroke in July 2019, just five months before he was elected to this place, and the stroke issue is a huge priority for him; he has done an awful lot of work on it since he was elected to the House.
I would like to start as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and so many of the contributors today did, by paying tribute to the outstanding charities that support people up and down the country to thrive after stroke. I know that my hon. Friend works closely with the Stroke Association. I was pleased to meet its CEO, Juliet Bouverie, this morning while on a visit to the Royal Berkshire Hospital to see the innovative ways that the hospital is harnessing technology to improve stroke care. I look forward to continuing to engage with her, including on the major conditions strategy, which I will cover later in my speech. I also commend the many other charities involved in this field of work, such as The Brain Charity, Think Ahead Stroke and the other—many much smaller—charities referred to by many hon. Members today. They all do fantastic work to support patients and drive forward improvements in care.
Sir George, it is excellent to see you now in the Chair. In recent years we have made great progress in understanding the condition, but as has been said, more than 100,000 people have a stroke in the UK every year. As the hon. Member for York Central reminded us, that means that during this one debate alone, 18 people will have experienced a stroke. One third of them will be left with some form of long-term disability. I am grateful to hon. Members for giving me the opportunity, less than a month after World Stroke Day, to update the House on the work that the Government are doing in this space.
I will now address as many of the points that have been raised in the debate as I can. The Government’s priority is to prevent stroke in the first place. That is why I am pleased that we are rolling out an innovative, new digital NHS health check in the spring. The original programme saw the highest number of NHS checks between April and June since its creation in 2013. We are backing the programme with £17 million to deliver a million extra checks in the first four years. We have also appointed Professor John Deanfield to develop an ambitious vision for a modern, personalised cardio- vascular disease prevention service. We are investing up to £645 million over two years to expand services offered by community pharmacies, including expanding blood pressure services. That extra capacity in the first year could prevent over 1,350 cardiovascular events, including strokes.
One ambition of the NHS long-term plan is the inclusion of a national stroke programme, seeking to improve stroke services through increased access to specialist stroke units, with a flexible and skilled workforce and better rehabilitation services. We are making progress on expanding the range of scanning across the country. Between April and June, over 95% of stroke patients were scanned within 12 hours of arrival into hospital, and 87% of patients eligible for thrombolysis received clot-busting drugs to treat their stroke. While there is of course more to be done, stroke patients now have better access to scans than ever before, but as many have said, integration is key. That is why, since April 2021, we have established 20 integrated stroke delivery networks, which bring together key partners in our fight against stroke to deliver joined-up whole pathway transformation across integrated care systems. They are now responsible for delivering optimum stroke pathways and ensuring that patients receive high-quality specialist care from before they are admitted to hospital through to rehabilitation and life after stroke.
Over the past 10 years there have been clear improvements in access to community stroke care, and the percentage of patients discharged from hospital to community stroke services has risen to 61% from just 41% 10 years ago. Every patient with acute stroke should gain swift access to a stroke unit within four hours and receive early multidisciplinary assessment. The latest data shows that 60% of patients are currently admitted to a stroke unit within that time. We have to ensure that we do better across the whole United Kingdom. That has improved over the past five years, but I recognise, as many have said, that more needs to be done. I am pleased that NHS England is trialling a new virtual consultation project between paramedics and stroke teams. We are confident that these innovative pilots will ensure timely access for patients accessing stroke units. That is being promoted across the country, and I am pleased that phase 1 was successfully completed this month and phase 2 began last month.
The hon. Member for York Central made an interesting point about whether stroke cases could be classified as cat 1 by the ambulance service. That is something I am quite passionate about. For the past nine years, I have been a community first responder with North West Ambulance Service. She will probably be aware that at the moment only cardiac and respiratory arrests are classified as cat 1, so I am not sure that that is a change I instinctively would support. However, I completely and utterly agree that it is critical that ambulances arrive as soon as possible, and that we triage patients to the correct services as soon as possible. I am happy to look at that and some of the other suggestions she made because she suggested an awful lot of good things that if we are not already looking at, we should be.
There is strong evidence that, when used appropriately, thrombectomy significantly reduces the severity of disability caused by stroke. Thrombectomy is a suitable treatment for around 10% of stroke patients and is available now in 24 centres in England, with a further two non-neuroscience centres on the way. NHS England has assured me that it remains committed and on track to reach its 10% target for all eligible patients to receive a thrombectomy by the end of 2025-26. The latest data shows that the thrombectomy rate has more than doubled in the past three years. To reach the target, the General Medical Council has approved the thrombectomy credential to support neuroradiologists to perform the procedure and increase the number that can be conducted. We have made great progress in getting cutting-edge AI technology into now over 90% of acute stroke-care providers in England. AI brain-scanning is now installed in all these thrombectomy units, reducing the time between patients’ first experiencing stroke-like symptoms and receiving treatment by more than 60 minutes. I saw that for myself this morning at the Royal Berkshire Hospital and I was incredibly impressed.
We know that stroke survivors commonly experience serious psychological, emotional and cognitive effects. Those greatly impact a person’s rehabilitation, quality of life and ability to return to work. We understand that there is a high level of demand for space in hospitals for rehabilitation services, which play an important role in a patient’s recovery and discharge from hospital. NHS England has taken important steps to increase capacity as part of its winter planning by ensuring that functions such as physiotherapy have the space they need in hospitals to operate effectively.
Of course, stroke treatment is dependent on our amazing NHS staff providing the care. There has been good progress in addressing staff shortages in several rehabilitation areas, although again I appreciate that more needs to be done. Between 2019 and 2023, we grew the number of full-time equivalent physiotherapists working in the NHS by almost a fifth, to over 23,000. NHSE has been working to increase the number of available student placements, and we have developed the speech therapy apprenticeship. Clinical neuropsychologists are a flexible workforce specifically trained to intervene across multiple care pathways, including stroke, acquired brain injury and other conditions. By 2024, NHSE will have doubled the number of training places available compared with the start of 2022.
The major conditions strategy will tackle conditions that contribute most to morbidity and mortality across the population in England. The strategy will cover prevention and treatment for cardiovascular disease across a person’s whole lifetime. As I have already touched upon, some of the key planks of the strategy include prevention, unlocking the transformative power of AI, and tackling the comorbidities that cause ill health in the first place. We published the strategy in August, and I hope to keep my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and other Members across the House updated on progress.
My hon. Friend—and most Members who spoke—raised concerns about the variation of stroke services across England. The NHS England national thrombectomy implementation group is gathering data on regional variations in access to mechanical thrombectomy. It will report on the outcomes of that by the end of this year, and if I can, I look forward to sharing that information with the APPG and others. The major conditions strategy will set out that integrated care systems tackle clusters of disadvantages in their local areas. That will include addressing variations in outcomes and the care that people receive in the context of the recovery from the pandemic.
This Government have a profound ambition to improve the lives and health outcomes of people in this country who have survived a stroke. The contributions today have played a vital role in pushing this agenda forward. I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend, and the other Members who have spoken, that I will continue to do everything I can for this matter to remain a top priority for our health service, and that the thrombectomy target will stay on track. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend for everything that he has done to encourage his constituents to sign up for the Our Future Health programme. Our work here will have huge benefits both to patients and to our NHS overall, so that all survivors may survive and thrive after stroke.
Sir Robert Neill
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir George. I warmly thank all hon. Members who have spoken. I am grateful to them for their support from both the Front and Back Benches. I particularly thank my vice-chairman of the APPG on stroke, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), whose expertise in this area is phenomenal.
I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his characteristically compassionate remarks, as well as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). We all agree that we want better outcomes for people who suffer from this condition and that there are ways in which that can be done.
I look forward to working with the Minister, as do all the members of the APPG, and I am glad that he paid tribute to his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who was a driving force in setting up the all-party parliamentary group. I know that he will kindly and discreetly, but firmly, hold the feet at the Department to the fire on this matter. That will make our task easier.
I appreciated the references to some interesting developments. The pilot in Strathclyde, which the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw mentioned, is particularly useful and interesting. In the short time I have left, I would like to mention one more—an online speech therapy app called Beautiful Voice. It has finished a useability pilot, and is run by a mixture of entrepreneurs, therapists and academics with virtually no Government funding, apart from sometimes a bit of research funding. From our experience as a family, it has been useful. Given the shortage of speech and language therapists, anything that can enable people to undertake therapy in their own home is something that I hope the Minister will look at. The Beautiful Voice app, which is available online, is delivered in conjunction with Hobbs Rehabilitation and the MiNT Academy, so there is an academic background. I hope the Government will try to find out more about that and get behind it.
With thanks to everyone, I hope that we continue to keep up the pressure. I know that it is not for want of intention, but the fact is that there is still a way to go to get us to where we want to be. If it can be done elsewhere, this is a classic case in which some investment up front—in thrombectomy, for example—and support for some of these therapies can save the country money in the long run. Above all, it can save human life and it can save and improve human experience, which is more important than anything. I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World Stroke Day.
Energy Social Tariffs
(1 year 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
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Before I call Marion Fellows to move the motion, I remind Members that if they wish to take part in the debate, they must bob.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered energy social tariffs.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George, in this debate on the introduction of an energy social tariff to support disabled people with the cost of living crisis. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for originally timetabling it and the Chairman of Ways and Means for giving me the opportunity to bring this urgent issue here today.
As we enter the winter months, lots of us are really looking forward to the festive period, but for many the winter months, with their colder weather, are a time of genuine worry, stress and anxiety. That is the case for many vulnerable people, particularly in low-income and disabled households, who once again are greatly concerned about high energy bills over the coming winter. That concern has been relayed to me by constituents and all the disabled organisations I regularly meet, which have been stressing to me for months their members’ real concerns about energy bills. It is a top priority for them.
At the outset, I would like to thank the many organisations that sent me briefings for today’s debate: Sense, Scope, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, Mencap, Marie Curie, Age UK, and Kidney Care UK, as well as Citizens Advice, National Energy Action, Warm This Winter and Centrica—a record amount of briefings for me. Yesterday’s disappointing autumn statement did nothing to address the concerns of low-income, vulnerable and disabled households about energy bills this winter.
Alongside that, Ofgem’s announcement means that households will start paying higher prices for their energy as they enter 2024. I was reliably informed that the new price cap represents a £94 increase on the current rate, but I have since received an email from National Energy Action saying:
“At first glance, it might look like prices are only increasing slightly, but they are not. That’s because Ofgem has just changed how it calculates ‘typical use’. Just three months ago this was a 2-3 bedroom household using 2,900 kWh of electricity and 12,000 kWh of gas a year. Now it’s based on a household using 2,700 kWh of electricity”—
2,000 kWh fewer—
“and 11,500 kWh of gas. It’s important to note the price cap isn’t a cap on the total bill but on the price per kWh of energy.”
I was originally given a figure for a typical annual bill of £1,928, which is now £2,023 if it is based on the same criteria used previously by Ofgem. This will only add to the worry of millions up and down the country.
During the autumn statement one year ago, this very same Government committed to developing a new approach to consumer protection in energy markets by working with consumer groups and industry to consider the best approach, including options such as social tariffs. That commitment has been repeated multiple times since, including by the Prime Minister and others. In April, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero reiterated that pledge by promising to consult on an energy social tariff in the summer of 2023. However, despite multiple commitments, a consultation has never materialised, and as we approach the end of November there is a significant risk that no new protections will be in place in April 2024. All the while, the very real anxieties of low-income and disabled households over their ability to heat their homes this winter have risen exponentially.
The great need for an energy social tariff is best demonstrated by the wide and varied support for the implementation of one. Disability groups, debt advice groups, politicians across the political spectrum, consumer groups, local authorities, housing providers, Ofgem and even energy companies are in favour. That exemplifies the united front on this vital issue and makes it even more surprising that the UK Government have failed even to hold the consultation they promised. They have continued to bury their head in the sand, despite the fact that National Energy Action, Energy Action Scotland, Age UK, Scope, Citizens Advice, Money Saving Expert and 150 other organisations, as well as MPs, wrote to the Prime Minister in September to call for a consultation on an energy social tariff, as promised last year.
Sir George, you may ask what an energy social tariff is. It is a system of targeted support, through a reduction in energy bills for vulnerable, low-income and disabled households, in response to incredibly high energy bills. The need for a social tariff cannot be stressed enough, as one in three households will spend more this winter on energy bills than they did last winter, and the figure is closer to half for the poorest households. Citizens Advice research shows that energy bills are 61% higher than 2021 levels. Other research suggests that high energy bills will become the new normal for the rest of the decade, highlighting the desperate need for meaningful long-term support.
The year 2022 was widely seen as the turning point in the cost of living crisis in terms of energy bills. The Government continually said that global factors were responsible for the rise, but even though we are told that the energy market has stabilised, bills remain sky high, and 2023 is projected to be much worse due to the huge levels of energy debt accrued last winter. Ofgem and Citizens Advice research shows that energy debt is at the highest level ever. It is clear that action is needed to address the looming debt crisis. Additionally, Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brearley has said:
“we think there is a case for examining, with urgency, the feasibility of a social tariff”.
Furthermore, in the absence of an energy bill support scheme this winter, bills will be 13% higher than last, and today’s announcement confirms that. Rising costs have a huge impact on disabled and low-income households. Many people have to choose between heating and eating. They live in cold, dark homes, struggling to cook meals. For those with disabilities, the results can be catastrophic for their physical and mental wellbeing. Disabled households have significantly higher energy needs, as mobility and hygiene can require increased consumption of electricity—for example, to run electric wheelchairs or to use washing machines frequently. Additionally, some conditions require the constant charging of essential, life-saving equipment, such as oxygen concentrators or feeding pumps.
Scope’s 2023 disability price tag shows that the average monthly cost for a disabled household is already a staggering £975 extra. However, for some conditions, it could be even more. Last year’s Government support—the additional £150 offered to disabled people—did not come close to covering their additional costs. According to Mencap, half of all low-income disabled households have been in arrears on at least one household bill since winter 2022.
The impact is not just financial. The rationing of energy can have a devastating impact on the health of those with disabilities. Some 31% of those surveyed by Scope said that going without heating would severely impact their health, and 9% said it would put their life at risk. According to Marie Curie, there is also a huge impact on those receiving end-of-life care. Many have to spend their final days in hospital, rather than in their own home. That also puts pressure on the NHS, and the costs are significant. Marie Curie says that an NHS in-patient palliative care bed costs £349 a day. Currently, about 5.5 million bed days are required by people at the end of their life in England alone.
Age UK highlights the concerns of some of my constituents, of whom 8,000 live in fuel poverty, about the lack of Government support:
“I am so very tired of being old and invisible. I am frightened to death!!! I can’t seem to save anything to help us for the winter to come, not even credit on the energy bill which I was counting on to help this winter. I worry daily.”
To show the stark reality of the energy consumption that some conditions require, I was going to discuss the power use of life-saving machines such a nebulisers, extra fridges and all that, but I do not have time to go through them all. They are a huge cost for many disabled families, who worry about being able to run them. If they cannot afford to run them because of the cost of electricity, what does the Minister think will happen? People will end up in hospital, or they will not make it to hospital. Do we expect people to fall deeper into debt to protect their health, or do we simply let their conditions deteriorate? The disabled and most vulnerable need more support, and this Government must listen to them.
An energy social tariff is the best way forward. The organisations I have talked to say that such a tariff has five main principles: it must be additional to the warm home discount and the default tariff price cap; it must be targeted to those most in need and go beyond the benefits system—National Energy Action estimates that approximately two thirds of fuel-poor households are not in receipt of any social security payments; it must be mandated across all suppliers; all eligible consumers should be auto-enrolled using suppliers’ existing data and/or data shared by the Department for Work and Pensions; and the tariff must reduce costs for consumers to pre-crisis levels. It is important that people are able to stop worrying this winter about how they are going to deal with the increased prices, which, as I have explained, are even higher than I first thought.
National Energy Action believes that an energy social tariff should meet several tests. Although prices have dropped significantly, they are still high—the July price cap is 80% more than pre-crisis levels—so an energy social tariff must be sufficiently discounted to make a difference. We also have to consider whether an energy social tariff would capture enough households automatically and whether there would be enough support for eligible households. That is particularly relevant to disabled households that are medically dependent on high-demand medical equipment and need to—must—live in warmer homes. It is also relevant to those who live in a home that is not energy efficient, and the UK has the least energy-efficient homes in western Europe.
Will such a tariff work for the legacy prepayment meters used by some of the most vulnerable households in the country? Last year, 20% of the money earmarked for those households went unused, because of difficulties redeeming vouchers. Automatic enrolment is therefore essential. Will support be available for those in Northern Ireland? There must not be disparities across devolved nations in the roll-out. Will it be funded in a fair way? I am assuming that the Government are going to listen to this plea—not from me, but from all the organisations I have listed.
Let us be realistic: we all know that an energy social tariff will cost money. It is essential that the costs are met in a progressive way. If not, there is a risk that the tariff will create a significant cliff edge, where those who narrowly miss out will be much worse off. It is essential that that is avoided. National Energy Action, Citizens Advice and Centrica all say that an energy social tariff should be funded by general taxation, rather than a levy on everyone’s bills, as happens now. That would ensure the greatest level of fairness. If that cannot be done, low-income households on the fringes of support must be exempted from paying towards the social tariff.
A social tariff is affordable. Recent reports show significant headroom in Government finances, and the Prime Minister and Secretary of State have said that the Government’s new round of oil and gas licensing would raise money to reduce bills. A social tariff would have numerous economic benefits; it would also offset the costs. For example, illnesses brought on by having a cold and damp home cost the NHS between £500 million and £1.4 billion a year.
Energy debt is also dramatically reducing the spending power of households who can no longer spend money in their local communities and high streets. That point was reiterated by people interviewed by Scope. One member said:
“I want a social tariff for energy…What that would mean to my quality of life would be incredible…I’d be able to buy a wheelchair, I’d be able to pay for my medicine, I would be able to go to the cinema and I’d be able to eat without going to a food bank. It would change my life.”
Another Scope member in Scotland has highlighted how not being able to afford to pay energy bills puts additional strain on the NHS:
“The house has to be warm, due to my COPD. If it gets too cold, it can lead to chest infection and respiratory failure. If the house is cold, my arthritis pain increases, and mobility is impaired even more. If I get disconnected, I will most likely be taken into hospital.”
That perfectly demonstrates how an energy social tariff could change the quality of life for everyone.
There is additional money for the Government to pay for this. The warm home discount, energy bills support scheme, and energy bills support scheme alternative funding—all designed to help the most vulnerable households —had a cumulative underspend of £440 million last year. That is alongside an additional £1.1 billion extra that the Government generated in VAT from high energy bills. In Scotland, that totalled £96 million that could be distributed to low-income and vulnerable households. Dame Clare Moriarty, chief executive of CAB, has said:
“Energy affordability is a long-term problem that needs a long-term solution. A social tariff protects millions of people from spending excessive amounts on their bills.”
My question to the Minister is this: what level does this crisis have to reach before the Government will commit to supporting households facing high prices for decades? How many vulnerable constituents need to sit in cold, dark houses this winter? How many more years of anxiety do parents of disabled children have to endure, worrying whether they can afford to charge their child’s lifesaving medical equipment? I know things like that are true: my assistant has talked to parents who worry about them. When will people with disabilities get the support necessary to keep warm and manage their condition through the colder months? How many low-income households have to plunge themselves deeper into debt this winter and endure the mental health consequences?
The Government may feel comfortable breaking promises to the most vulnerable in society as the quality of their lives diminishes, but I will continue to fight their corner, as will many others, including all the organisations I have referred to. When will we finally see a consultation on energy social tariffs? It is now too late to introduce an energy social tariff this winter, because it will take about six months. Can we have progress next year? If we cannot have an energy social tariff, will the Minister commit to reinstating the £400 rebate on energy bills and put additional support in place for people with disabilities? Will she commit to expanding the eligibility criteria for the £300 cost of living payments, so that disabled households in receipt of contribution-based or new-style employment and support allowance are eligible?
I know that, in an independent Scotland, we could assist those in need of support, just as other small, independent countries are helping their citizens—for example, Ireland is giving €450 in support to all households. Will the Government extend the energy price guarantee for disabled households beyond March 2024, until a social tariff is introduced? Finally, will the Minister commit to reversing changes to the eligibility criteria for the warm home discount and expand the scheme to provide short-term help for those in need this winter?
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this debate and setting out in comprehensive detail the evidence base for an energy social tariff. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate.
Everyone should have access to a warm and secure home. For the majority of people, that will be provided through the marketplace, although our energy market is imperfect and invariably, at all times, in the interest of fairness, there is a need for Government intervention. Before the current cost of living crisis, that intervention was provided predominantly through the energy price cap, which, while not perfect, performed an important role. The energy price cap has been increased today, although from what we have heard from the hon. Lady, and from the feedback that I am receiving, that will be of limited relevance to many of those who are struggling with their bills.
The dramatic increase in energy prices, primarily caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has necessitated a different approach, and to their credit the Government have stepped in with more direct support over the past 18 months to two years. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer continued with that strategy yesterday in his autumn statement, and I particularly welcome the increase in the local housing allowance. I have also heard that, as the hon. Lady has outlined, there is some concern as to whether he has done enough. I think he has tried, and I hope he has done enough, but in many ways I am on tenterhooks to see whether he actually has.
That said, it is clear that in the medium-to-long term—when I talk about the medium term, realistically I am now talking about 2024-25 onwards—a different approach is required to protect the most vulnerable. The energy price cap on its own has run its course, and it is thus appropriate to consider a social tariff, which can provide longer-term, more targeted support for the most vulnerable households.
The fact that we need such support is clear from the evidence base we heard about from the hon. Lady and from the feedback that we all receive in our constituencies from those who come into our surgeries, often with heartbreaking stories of the challenges they face. Those messages are reinforced by the briefings we all received ahead of this debate—as the hon. Lady said, we have received a great many of them—from such organisations as Citizens Advice, Mencap, Marie Curie, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and Scope. All those organisations have one thing in common: their clients—the people they look after, whom they support and whose needs they articulate to us as Members of Parliament—are the most vulnerable. They are the people who are the most challenged at this time.
It is also important to thank those churches and other faith groups, charities and volunteers, aided by local councils right throughout the country, who have reached out and are supporting those who are struggling with their energy bills. A network of warm rooms has now sprung up across the UK, which shows British society operating at its very best.
From my perspective, as I have said, the case for a social tariff is proven. It is now necessary to move on to the more complicated and difficult challenge: how to design that tariff and then introduce it. We have received a great many representations ahead of this debate; the one I found particularly interesting and relevant was the report of the Social Market Foundation from March this year, entitled “Fairer, warmer, cheaper”. That report is a good starting point for the discussion about the form that a social energy tariff might take.
As we have heard, the Social Market Foundation concluded:
“The current system of policies supporting households with high energy bills is inadequate for an era of high energy bills”—
one that is, I fear, likely to continue for the foreseeable future. It recommends a social tariff arrangement whereby households that spend an excessive proportion of their income on energy bills should receive targeted financial support to reduce those bills in the form of a social tariff. The Social Market Foundation also points out that the precise form of the social tariff warrants further consideration, but its own analysis suggests that the most progressive and fiscally efficient form is a lump sum payment. I will return in a minute to the precise form that the tariff might take.
The Social Market Foundation believes that the social tariff should be funded from general taxation—a view that the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw articulated and with which I concur. It also rightly emphasises that at the same time as we introduce an energy social tariff, we need to significantly expand the energy company obligation scheme so as to improve the energy efficiency of homes. As we have heard, we have a very leaky housing stock; we have made some progress in improving it, but there is a long way to go. It is absolutely vital that we are not diverted from that pressing and crucial task, and we must significantly step up our efforts in that regard, with funding for the ECO continuing to be raised via on-bill levies.
As I have mentioned, the issue on which there is some dispute and where there is a need for discussion is the form that the tariff should take: whether it should be a social tariff or what is known as a block tariff. That is a complicated debate and I am not going to go into it in any great detail now—that is why we need the consultation that I am going to plead for in a minute, and which the hon. Lady already asked for. National Energy Action, which does great work in this field, favours a social tariff: it believes that a block tariff would be distributionally unfair and would create very vulnerable users. The counter- argument in favour of a block tariff is that it would incentivise energy efficiency, which should be a long-term goal and objective and is a challenge we must not shirk.
In conclusion, although I shall not go into any detail as to the design of the tariff, we need to get on straightaway and talk about it. It is ironic that, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, we are having this debate the day after this year’s autumn statement. If we go back a year to the autumn statement of 2022, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor undertook to
“develop a new approach to consumer protection in energy markets, which will apply from April 2024 onwards.”
That commitment was reiterated in the April just gone by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which set out the intention to consult this summer.
This is a very important task, as well as an incredibly complicated one, and we need to be getting on with it as quickly as possible. April 2024 is six months away, and I am not sure that that provides us with sufficient time to have an energy tariff in place for 2024-25. I know that there will be other distractions but, for an awful lot of vulnerable people, it is vital that we put that longer-term arrangement in place. I am not begrudging the support that has been given—the sticking-plaster approach of short-term support—but the longer-term approach is vital.
I would be grateful if, in her summing up, my hon. Friend the Minister, who does great work in this policy area, could provide us with details of when the consultation will get under way. Time is of the essence. We will not have it in place this winter—no way— but we do need it in place for 2024-25.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this important debate.
It is pleasing that the Ofgem chief executive has called for a “serious assessment” of an energy social tariff and that energy suppliers are saying they stand ready to work with the Government to deliver one. That leaves me curious to know what the hold-up is. Surely it cannot be that difficult if water companies and broadband businesses already use this very approach. We are not used to congratulating water companies in this place, but I am aware that Severn Trent and, I believe, all the other water companies in the country use a scheme called WaterSure, which is a social tariff to cap water bills for vulnerable households. Ofcom goes out of its way to advertise social tariffs for broadband and phone packages for those on benefits—the very people I assume the Chancellor expects to work from home on pain of losing their benefits.
As we have heard, in last year’s autumn statement we were told that the Government planned to consult this summer on long-term measures, including a social tariff. Perhaps I missed the Chancellor’s update yesterday, but I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on what has happened to the consultation on the energy social tariff and when she expects to announce some progress.
This is a particular issue for disabled people and those with long-term medical conditions. A survey for the disability equality charity Scope, which the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw mentioned—it is very active in Scotland and throughout England—found that in the west midlands, the region I represent, the number of disabled people getting into debt because of energy costs was double that of non-disabled households, and around 37% of disabled people said they were reduced to buying lower-quality food, skipping meals and often eating less than they felt they needed. There are numerous reports—I recall questions in the House and a debate on this—of people who need their homes at constant temperatures because of their medical conditions. Those who suffer from severe arthritis would be a good example, as would those who rely on medical devices to keep them alive. Those people are having enormous difficulty paying bills.
I assume the Minister will tell me that there is an NHS electricity rebate scheme for some kinds of equipment—I think dialysis machines are one example—but she will also be aware of recent research that suggests that that support is reaching only a relatively small proportion of eligible consumers, and often fails to reflect the costs of running the relevant technology. The problem is that it not only threatens their health but impacts on their general wellbeing and quality of life. In too many cases, as I think Scope puts it rather well, people cannot thrive because they are too busy trying to survive. There are even accounts of people having to give up their pets—their dogs and their cats; sometimes their only companion—because they have to choose between looking after them and trying to pay excessive energy bills.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw touched on this, but I reiterate that four groups in particular would benefit from an energy social tariff: people who receive means-tested benefits, people who receive disability benefits, those who receive the carer’s allowance, and those who are struggling with bills but are just below the criteria for support from the welfare system. Poor pensioners who just miss out on pension credit would be a particularly good example. I am sure that the Minister will have come across the same kind of people in her constituency as I have—pensioners who just fail to meet the threshold for pension credit but are struggling by all other metrics to survive.
The Work and Pensions Committee, on which I serve, recently inquired into the cost of living payments and concluded that the £150 disability payment is just not enough to support disabled people during this cost of living crisis. The Committee advised that the Government should increase the financial support for those with disabilities in proportion to the additional costs that they actually incur. It would have been nice to have heard some recognition of that from the Chancellor yesterday. There are things the Government could do in the interim. They could, as we have heard, reinstate the warm home discount for 300,000 disabled people, who lost it when the Government changed the eligibility criteria. You will remember, Sir George, that they rearranged it so that it was determined by the size of the property, which meant that many people who had previously qualified lost access to that support.
The Government might also consider extending the proposed ban on prepayment meters to cover homes where there is a disabled person, and permit households where one has already been installed to have it removed. More than 30% of those in energy debt are on prepayment meters. As we have heard, in the absence of a scheme that, with the best will in the world, almost certainly will not be available this winter, the Government could extend the energy price guarantee for disabled households until such time as a social tariff is introduced. I do not doubt for a second that the Minister shares my concern about the struggles the people I have referred to are experiencing, but it would be good if she could reassure us that the Government have listened and will act to address the issue.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I will not go into great detail this afternoon on behalf of the Opposition on the background and the need for a social tariff, or a similar instrument, because the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have made the case for one excellently. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who introduced the debate, not only on the debate, but on the comprehensive way in which she presented the case for social tariffs and urged the action that needs to be taken.
I very much commend the contribution—thoughtful, as always—from the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). On other occasions, I have said that he is virtually an hon. Friend on these issues. I commend him for the forthright and detailed way in which he not only made the case for social tariffs, but also talked about what we ought to be talking about this afternoon, which is what happens after we have concluded that this is the right thing to do. He covered the fact that the onus is on the Government to take action and what considerations we have to undertake to secure not just a sticking-plaster solution for perhaps one winter, but something that applies long term and targets the right people in society, giving them the help that they need to keep their energy bills affordable.
I also very much commend the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), my actual hon. Friend. Among other things, he set out the groups of people involved. In particular, he talked about those in very difficult circumstances that have not just arisen from the energy price shock that we had a little while ago, but that affect their daily living requirements on a longer-term basis. They are the people who would very much be eligible and we should think very seriously about ensuring that those people have that long-term social tariff support.
That point is very much underlined by Ofgem’s very recent announcement on the energy price cap. The announcement underlines—if underlining were necessary —just what a difficult situation the people we are talking about continue to find themselves in. The price cap comes to just under £2,000 for a dual fuel tariff. Of course, that is not the actual bill that anyone will pay; it is an average of the sort of bill that people can expect to pay under the price cap. A lot of people—particularly those in disadvantaged and difficult situations—will pay a huge amount more, either because of their need for constant heat, because of their circumstances, or because they have other issues such as a combination of difficult living circumstances, inadequately insulated homes and high heating bills all at the same time. The price cap is the very least indication of where a lot of those people will be. Not only that, but we know from projections that the cap will be something like that for a very long time to come.
The price cap is not a way station in the downward curve of energy bills for the future. All the projections we have, particularly from Cornwall Insight, are that it is likely to remain at the same level, certainly throughout 2024 and probably going into 2025, and that they will not dip much below about £2,000 on average. As recently as April 2021, the price cap was precisely half that amount.
The people we are talking about are faced with the prospect of paying twice as much as they were as recently as two years ago for the next two or three years, with all the affordability issues that that will continue to bring into play. That underlines the point made by hon. Members this afternoon. It would be great if we had a social tariff this winter that could effectively continue the price support that has been applied previously, but that energy price support is coming to an end. After this winter, at the latest, it is not being replaced. That underlines the fact that a social tariff should not just be for Christmas—it needs to endure in providing assistance and help for those groups in society.
That is the problem with the other key point that has been mentioned this afternoon—namely, where is the consultation? It is not that the Government have said that a social tariff is a terrible idea that will never be done by Government ever. It is difficult to remember exactly which Minister of State for Energy it was, because they keep changing, but in January the Minister said:
“we will look at a social tariff and at how vulnerable people are looked after, but we have to look at it in a considered manner.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 1031.]
On 18 April, the then Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero said:
“We do think that things like a social tariff could be very helpful”.—[Official Report, 18 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 111.]
Then, in May, the Government stated, in response to a petition:
“The Government is considering potential approaches to consumer energy protection post-April 2024. The Government intends to consult on options in summer 2023…Government officials are considering potential options, including discounted tariffs, for a new approach to consumer protection in energy markets that will apply from April 2024”.
They have said all these things. They have said that there will be a consultation. What has not actually happened is a consultation.
It is difficult for us in this Chamber to home in on what a social tariff might look like, because the Government have not said anything about the sort of area that the social tariff would fall into as part of any consultation. We do not need just a consultation; we need to see the substance of that consultation and what the Government are minded to do about the commitments they have already made. That is completely lacking at the moment.
We can speculate to some extent on why there has been no consultation. Personally, I think the Government were rather hoping that this energy price crisis would be completely a thing of the past by now, and that instead of the energy price trajectory going down and flattening out, there would be a more straightforward downward price trajectory so that we would return to the position in 2021, when prices were about £1,000. Then the Government could say, “Well, actually, we don’t need a social tariff because it is much more affordable for everybody now, and we can tweak various other forms of assistance to make sure that life is good.” That has not happened. The data from just the past few days shows that it has not happened and will not happen in the near future, which should concentrate minds about what solutions need to be proposed.
This may be a little bit of speculation, but perhaps the Government are thinking, “Well, maybe we do need a social tariff.” But as hon. Members have mentioned, where will that be funded from? Will it be smeared across customer bills? Will it come from general taxation or some other arrangement? Of course, because there is no consultation, we do not know what the Government are thinking.
I could see the Government thinking, “Ooh, we’ve spent all this money on price support during the height of the crisis. Do we want to commit ourselves to another fairly substantial amount of taxpayer support for energy bills for the future?” Many of us would say the answer is yes, they should. But the Government may have other views and, indeed, there may even have been tension between Departments on the enactment and funding of that policy. I do not know, but that could have been the case.
There are ways of establishing a social tariff—the hon. Member for Waveney alluded to this—that do not actually cost the amount of money that the Government perhaps think it will. They involve changes in how the energy retail market works, but can deliver very solid back-up arrangements for social tariffs on a sustainable basis, which is what we all want, without that necessary and apparently large chunk of money coming from the Treasury. Again, as was the case for the hon. Member for Waveney, it would be inappropriate to expatiate on that at great length this afternoon, but I think that there are interesting ways we can examine it.
Steve McCabe
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a very valuable point. It would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us what discussions the Government have already had with the energy suppliers and the director of Ofgem, since they have both indicated that they are in favour of a social tariff. Some of the work referred to by my hon. Friend must have been done—we just need to hear what has been discussed.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Basically, what we need on the table now is—as they say about homework—for the Government to show their workings. That is why I emphasised that we need not just the promise of a consultation, but a consultation with some substance in the consultation document. We need to see how the thinking process has emerged and what propositions there might be. I agree that getting a social tariff right is quite a long way further on from deciding that there should be one.
It is absolutely right to undertake that process, but we have virtually no information. The Government have certainly not conveyed anything to me about their workings. All I know, along with everybody else, is that there is no consultation. It appears that no action is taking place at all. I would certainly be happy to talk to the Minister about ways to establish a decent social tariff without placing a substantial burden on the taxpayer in order to bring it into being over time. That is an open offer, but we will see whether it is taken up.
To conclude, the onus is on the Minister to stand up this afternoon to say that first, yes, there will be a consultation; secondly, that although we have missed out on help that could have come forward this winter, we will urgently consider what can be done in the meantime to help stabilise some of those bills in light of the new price cap for this winter; and, thirdly, that the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has said, will lay their workings on the table at a very early date so that we can collectively take part in the debate as to how we get a social tariff that works in the long term and that protects the people and makes their energy affordable in the way that we all want.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
This is an incredibly important issue, and I thank hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to the informed, interesting and heartfelt discussion. I particularly wish to thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for raising this important topic for debate and for the previous conversations that we have had on this subject—I have had similar such conversations with many Members across all political parties. I also thank the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for their valuable contributions to this important debate.
As the Minister for energy, consumers and affordability, I am working really hard to try to bring down bills for households and to tackle fuel poverty as it is clearly the most important thing on my mind. I recognise the challenges that families face and continue to stand firm behind energy consumers.
Last winter, as Members will know, we spent £40 billion on an unprecedented package of support for households and businesses. That meant that a typical family have saved £1,500 through the energy price guarantee and energy bill support scheme since last October.
The hon. Members for Motherwell and Wishaw and for Birmingham, Selly Oak both raised the important issue of support for disabled people, particularly those with in-home medical equipment. The Government’s support package assists the most vulnerable with rising energy bills, including charges incurred by patients dependent on medical equipment and devices as part of their homecare. I am reminded of my mother who suffered with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and who sadly died at the age of 67, so I am very conscious of the kind of care that we should be giving to this important group of people.
We have certain specialised NHS services, which include the provision of financial support to offset increased energy costs faced by patients using medical equipment at home. Home oxygen suppliers, as I have previously mentioned, also reimburse patients for the cost of electricity that is required to run oxygen-concentrate devices in a patient’s home.
As the departmental ministerial disability champion, I am aware that energy prices are a major concern for those with a disability or a long-term health condition. I am proud of the support that the Government offer to those with disabilities. That includes, for example, more than 6 million people across the UK eligible for extra costs disability benefits who have already received the £150 disability cost of living payment. It also includes the personal independence payment, which pays up to £172.75 a week to those with the greatest additional needs. Our national disability strategy, published in 2021, sets out the actions that the Government are taking to improve the lives of disabled people.
Members have my assurance that I continue to discuss with charities how we can best tackle fuel poverty and other such issues. I have had many recent meetings with Mencap, Scope, the Motor Neurone Disease Association and Citizens Advice, as well as many other stakeholders.
We set out in our 2022 autumn statement that we were exploring the best approach to consumer protection as part of wider retail market reform. The outlook has improved significantly since then, with the Ofgem price cap more than halving since its peak earlier this year. However, even with prices dropping, energy bills represent a challenge to many low-income and vulnerable households, leading to debt and self-disconnections. We have taken additional steps to support those households. The term “social tariff” means different things, but ultimately it is about providing financial support to those who struggle to afford bills, for one reason or another. We are approaching that in three ways. First, we are working closely with Ofgem, which I have very regular meetings with, and suppliers—of course, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked, I have meetings with suppliers —in relation to those facing energy issues such as debt. Secondly, we are supporting those who face challenges particularly linked to energy—for example, because they live in a poorly insulated home. Lastly, we are supporting those with cost of living pressures.
However, it is important to consider any further energy support in the context of wider changes to incomes and Government support, including that which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out in yesterday’s autumn statement. Although prices have stabilised, they could rise in the future. It is important that any new approach can respond to a future price spike. I was listening to all the hon. Members when they talked about long-term solutions rather than just putting a sticking plaster over this. That is one of the challenges that we face.
The energy price guarantee will remain in place until the end of March 2024 to have protection in place should energy bills increase significantly during this period. The Government have also ended the prepayment meter premium by providing a discount to prepayment meter customers through the energy price guarantee. As laid out in yesterday’s autumn statement, the Government continue to invest in infrastructure and will deliver more than £600 billion of planned public sector investment over the next five years, underpinning our future growth and supporting energy security, net zero and, of course, vital public services. We have also highlighted proposals to offer electricity bill discounts for properties close to electricity transmission infrastructure. That could be up to £1,000 per year over 10 years for those properties.
In the past year, we have worked with Ofgem and energy companies to ensure better treatment for energy consumers. I chaired a supplier roundtable on 24 October. I have of course had previous discussions, but at this meeting we discussed how the energy market can work better for all consumers, including the most vulnerable. We have already taken steps to stop prepayment meters being forcibly installed where they should not be. Suppliers are no longer permitted to forcibly install prepayment meters in households with certain categories of vulnerabilities, including people over the age of 75 and those who may be medically dependent on a continuous source of energy or heating.
Steve McCabe
I acknowledge the work that the Government have undertaken on prepayment meters. Would the Minister be willing to consider extending that to households in which a disabled person is living?
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Of course, from a prepayment meter point of view, one thing that we really wanted to ensure was that we were not penalising those who were vulnerable. I am always very happy to consider anything that would help and enable us to ensure that.
We also welcome Ofgem’s new rules to ensure that all consumers get the service that they deserve. Suppliers will now be required to prioritise vulnerable customers first when they request help, offer timely repayment plans for those struggling with bills and make customer ratings easy to find on their websites. Furthermore, the Government and Ofgem have been working to progress towards a shared priority services register, which could make things easier for customers and better prioritise services to vulnerable consumers who are dependent on a regular energy supply.
Overall, the best approach to consumer protection is to have an effective retail market. That is why we are pursuing retail market reforms that will set us on a path to unlocking competition, investment and innovation, which will empower consumers and enable suppliers to succeed and usher in new business models.
The Government are reviewing the fuel poverty strategy for England. Under the current approach, we see energy efficiency as the best way to tackle fuel poverty as it contributes to the long-term reduction of energy bills, as well as reducing carbon emissions in line with net zero. There are multiple targeted schemes in place in England to deliver efficiency measures to low-income and fuel-poor households. Targeted energy efficiency support is provided to fuel-poor households in England, Wales and Scotland through the energy company obligation.
Last winter, we extended and expanded the warm home discount scheme, which supported fuel-poor households by taking £150 directly off their energy bills. For this winter, we expect over 3 million households to receive a rebate under the scheme. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, following a public consultation in 2021 we reformed the scheme in England and Wales to better target households in fuel poverty and provide the vast majority of rebates automatically. Last winter, around 95% of eligible households received their rebates automatically, without having to take any action, under this element of the scheme. The remaining 5% received their rebates after confirming their details to the Government’s warm home discount helpline.
Under the reformed scheme, we have focused the support to households in receipt of means-tested benefits who are living in properties that we estimate to be relatively costly to heat. We have used data on benefits and property characteristics to identify eligible households, and we estimate that the reformed scheme should enable around 560,000 more fuel-poor households to receive a rebate, including around 160,000 more households with a person who is disabled or has a long-term illness. At the time of the Government’s response to the consultation, we assessed that the proportion of rebates received by households with a disability or long-term illness should remain higher than the proportion of the fuel-poor population with a disability, and higher than the proportion of the overall population with a disability. Although the reforms were not possible in Scotland, because of differences in Government-held data, we implemented an expansion of the scheme in Scotland to support more fuel-poor households. The scheme obligates energy suppliers to provide additional energy-related and financial support, known as industry initiatives, to households in or at risk of fuel poverty. The industry initiatives may include benefit entitlement checks, energy advice, energy efficiency measures, financial assistance and debt write-off, and can be given to households regardless of their eligibility for a rebate.
The Government are also assisting households’ and individuals’ rising cost of living. That assistance will total over £94 billion for 2022-23 and 2023-24. For 2023-24, it will include providing over 8 million households on eligible means-tested benefits with additional cost of living payments that total up to £900, over 6 million people on eligible extra-costs disability benefits with a further £150 disability cost of living payment, and over 8 million pensioner households across the UK with an additional £300 cost of living payment.
The Government continue to stand firm behind energy consumers, especially our most vulnerable households. The Government are determined to drive down cost of living pressures, having already met our goal to halve inflation. As set out yesterday in the autumn statement, lower wholesale energy prices have been the main driver of lower inflation, but we recognise that we must continue to monitor the situation closely. We are committed, and I particularly commit, to delivering a fair deal for consumers, and most of all for vulnerable households.
Marion Fellows
I thank the hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) for their contributions. I also thank the Minister for her perspicacity; she managed to go through everything that the Government have done for disabled people and to protect consumers. However, I am still waiting to hear that there will be a consultation on an energy social tariff. I am disappointed that I have not heard that there will, because so many disability organisations have listened to this debate and wanted to hear good news.
I thank the Minister, and I note some of the work that has been done. But in spite of all that work that has been done, and that the Minister said will be done, disability organisations are still—I will use the Scottish term, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will understand—ragin. The Government have to do better.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered energy social tariffs.
Written Statement
Levelling Up, Housing and Planning Update
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
The autumn statement made further significant progress to level up and deliver positive change across the UK.
Levelling Up
Levelling up is at the core of this Government’s mission. The autumn statement confirmed £450 million in new funding for levelling up on top of the billions already allocated—through new levelling-up partnerships, investment zones, an investment opportunity fund, and additional money for transformative projects across the country.
Investment zones will embed innovation throughout the economy—supporting the growth of priority sectors and leveraging existing strengths to drive rapid expansion. This week we announced new investment zones which build on existing private sector investment in these areas. These zones will be focused on advanced manufacturing in Greater Manchester and the west midlands, on green industries in the east midlands, and on life sciences in West Yorkshire. In partnership with the Welsh Government, we have also announced two investment zones for Wales—one in Cardiff and Newport, and a second in Wrexham and Flintshire. We have also doubled the duration of incentives within investment zones and freeports to 10 years—doubling their value to communities across the United Kingdom. Alongside this, the Government are creating a £150 million flexible investment opportunity fund to support investment zones and freeports to secure business investment across the UK over the next five years.
In Scotland we announced four new levelling-up partnerships—through a selection methodology developed in collaboration with the Scottish Government— bringing £80 million of investment to Na h-Eileanan an lar, Argyll and Bute, Dundee city, and the Scottish Borders. We will also work with the Welsh Government on potential opportunities in Wales and continue to work with local stakeholders on how best to level up communities in Northern Ireland.
The Department has also announced successful projects from the third round of the levelling-up fund, which has now awarded £4.8 billion to a range of initiatives across Great Britain. We will also fund five additional projects that were previously shortlisted across regeneration, transport, and culture: the Isles of Scilly Museum and Cultural Centre; Fakenham Sports and Fitness Centre; the Inspiring Eden enterprise facility; transport in Chepstow; and improved connections in Warrington.
In addition, to ensure targeted funding reaches each of the priority places based on the levelling-up White Paper metrics, we have allocated £15 million to Bolsover. There will also be £5 million for Barrow-in-Furness to unlock housing growth, regenerate the town centre, and deliver a range of measures across transport, skills and education, alongside the area’s significant and growing contributions to our national security. My Department will also continue to work with the UK Infrastructure Bank, the British Business Bank, Homes England, and other Departments to consider—with local and private sector partners—how to support levelling up through improving access to finance.
Devolution
As set out in the levelling-up White Paper, this Government believe in driving power down to local communities. A core principle of our partnership with local leaders is giving them the authority to take decisions that most affect their local people. To that end, we have confirmed four new devolution deals: level 3 mayoral deals for Greater Lincolnshire, and Hull and East Yorkshire; and level 2 non-mayoral deals for Cornwall and Lancashire. We are also in advanced negotiations with Devon and Torbay about a level 2 devolution deal for the area.
As we widen the pool of devolution, we also continue to deepen it: a new level 4 deal in our devolution framework offers local authorities more devolved power in the future, greater influence over spending from the affordable homes programme, and more local control over adult skills, transport, and achieving net zero. For Greater Manchester and the west midlands, we have also published a new memorandum of understanding that sets out how new single funding settlements will work.
Housing
In July I set out my long-term housing plan and this autumn statement continues to deliver it. That includes ambitious plans to accelerate inner-city developments in Cambridge, Leeds and London. We will tackle their respective challenges, whether that is by addressing water scarcity near Cambridge or supporting plans for a new West Yorkshire mass transit system, as part of Network North. In Cambridge, we are allocating £9 million—including £5 million of new funding—to improve the barrier of water scarcity and accelerate the new Cambridge Delivery Group. In Leeds, £2 million will support Leeds City Council to develop integrated plans for three new city quarters—bringing together housing, transport and economic investments to transform the liveability and productivity of the city centre. In London, subject to business case, the allocation of £23 million for a new bus network will unlock housing as part of Docklands 2.0.
Our housing associations and local authorities are critical to boosting overall housing supply: we cannot build the homes we need without them. By extending the affordable homes guarantee scheme by £3 billion we will help the already successful scheme support the delivery of a total of 20,000 new affordable homes, as well as supporting works to improve quality and energy efficiency.
As well as building the homes of the future, this Government are committed to removing the barriers that make buying a home unnecessarily difficult. We will exploit the potential of new technology to improve the buying and selling process, including running pilots to develop proptech products and digitise council property data. We will continue our reforms to the process of purchasing and selling homes.
Planning
We will maintain a focus on the blockers to development, recognising the scale of the challenge. The House of Lords voted against Government proposals that would have unlocked over 100,000 homes, while protecting and improving the environment. This is despite the reforms having had the strong support of house builders and local authorities. The Government are now focusing on making rapid progress in unlocking homes within the existing legal framework in order to meet our manifesto commitment to build 1 million homes over this Parliament. That is why we will make £110 million available through the local nutrient mitigation fund, to help planning authorities in affected areas deliver tens of thousands more homes before the end of the decade. We are injecting up to £17 million in additional funding for the planning system, of which £14 million is new funding, to help local authorities reduce planning application backlogs, accelerate the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure, and unlock commercial development where it is needed. Where there are reasonable proposals to reconfigure homes, where the exterior is unchanged, we will make this easier, consulting extensively with the public, councils and MPs on a new permitted development right to streamline planning decisions for homeowners.
We are also publishing a new prospectus on infrastructure delivery that sets out how we will go further to unlock and speed up projects that are critical to our national prosperity. Only by building major infrastructure faster and cheaper will we prepare the UK for the challenges of the 2030s and 2040s, lay the foundations for the economy of the future, and make sure that everyone, everywhere, benefits from the opportunities ahead.
Alleviating housing need and supporting communities
We are also allocating £450 million across two years to a third round of the local authority housing fund, which will help support those in temporary housing need. This funding allows councils to manage homelessness pressures more effectively and makes it easier for vulnerable people to find a permanent home.
The Government are providing £120 million for local authorities across the UK to invest in homelessness prevention, supporting private renters to remain in their homes and providing temporary accommodation to families and individuals. We will also continue to support our guests from Ukraine, extending the “thank you” payments for sponsors across the UK into a third year. The level will remain at £500 after a guest’s first 12 months in the UK.
The Government are increasing the local housing allowance to cover the 30th percentile of local market rents. This will make 1.6 million low-income households better off, with an average gain of £800 in 2024-25. Rates will be raised across Great Britain in April 2024.
Copies of the relevant documents will also be placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS67]
Grand Committee
Food and Biological Security: Agricultural Fungicide
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how the United Kingdom’s current agricultural fungicide use will affect long-term food and biological security.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have joined this debate, to the Library for its excellent briefing and to the University of Manchester and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy among others who have prepared additional material on a subject that may at first appear niche and specialist. I hope that by the end of this debate it will be much more familiar to this Committee and far beyond, with its status lifted up in Defra’s and the Department of Health’s agenda. I must also thank my BSAC intern, Lorna Flintham, who has played a major part in my preparations for today.
The severity and widespread impact of fungal disease and fungicide use are often greatly overlooked. Annually more than 150 million severe cases of human fungal infections occur worldwide, resulting in about 1.7 million deaths a year. Many of those deaths are because the drugs that once worked to cure now work no longer because the fungi are resistant. That is not solely or even primarily because of medical use of drugs.
First, I shall make a quick distinction. Antifungals are human medicines used to treat fungal infections; fungicides are pesticides used to treat and prevent fungal plant infections, particularly in food crops. Some 4,000 tonnes of fungicide are sprayed on arable crops annually, accounting for 38% of pesticide use. They are not used without reason. The Irish potato famine, African wheat blight and the way our world coffee industry now sits in South America, and not where it originated in south Asia, are all the result of fungi defeating human efforts. The problem is what these fungicides are doing to our environment, food security and biosecurity.
First, there is their direct killing action. To date no policy document has shown an appreciation of the state of the UK’s soil microbiosphere and how it is being affected by biocides such as fungicides. We benefit hugely from mycorrhizal fungi and, indeed, many other fungi that break down materials that would otherwise literally cover our planet, but they are being eradicated by indiscriminate fungicide use in industrial agriculture in what is being termed a large microbial extinction event. Not only is this destroying environmental biodiversity but soils depleted of these microbes have lower crop yields. Some 80% of our food is dependent on plants. Lower crop yields will push food security and supermarket prices only one way.
Then there is cross-resistance. Most fungi exposed to fungicides in a crop field will die, but some will survive and become inherently resistant to the fungicide due to natural selection. The fungicide will also stop working in the field. The key issue is that the fungicides that fungi are resistant to are extremely similar chemically to the antifungals we rely on to treat patients in healthcare. By developing resistance to fungicides, these fungi also develop cross-resistance to clinical antifungals. More and more patients are coming forward with resistant fungal infections that healthcare providers simply cannot treat.
Fungal diseases affect more than 1 billion people every year. For those billion people, antifungals are indispensable tools in fighting infection. Development of treatments for fungal diseases in humans is intrinsically more challenging than agricultural fungicides due to the shared characteristics of human and fungal cells—that is, it is very challenging to eradicate a fungal cell without also damaging the host, and therefore the utmost care must be taken to produce and protect effective antifungal drugs.
A new emerging antifungal drug, Olorofim, has been effectively trialled in the treatment of aspergillosis, a highly debilitating fungal lung infection with a 30% to 50% death rate even when the strain is not resistant to medication, which 20% of cases are. Olorofim could make a real difference to the patient population, but there is a big problem: its efficacy is threatened by ipflufenoquin, a newly developed agricultural fungicide. These two drugs use the same mechanism of action to kill fungi, a big problem considering cross-resistance and the spread of resistance from our fields to our hospitals. As a government priority, the approval of ipflufenoquin for use in agriculture and other commercial sectors should be paused pending further investigation into the cross-resistance risk. I hope the Minister, to whom I have given prior notice of all the questions in this speech, will be able to directly respond on that issue.
We should not allow the approval of a pesticide that could undermine decades of antifungal drug development and risk the well-being—the life—of thousands of patients who could benefit from it. There is an opportunity here to truly benefit physically vulnerable people, which most of the affected patients are, who are absolutely reliant on this new breakthrough medication, which is a spin-out from University of Manchester research.
Further, the Government need to assess the feasibility of ring-fencing certain mechanisms of action for human antifungals. Ring-fencing could prevent the fungi in our environment being exposed to similar chemicals that we use to treat fungal disease in healthcare, ultimately safeguarding effective antifungals for the future. In addition, to promote the safe deployment of novel fungicides, regulators should introduce new criteria when approving antifungal compounds for commercial use. Are the Government looking at that?
Our infrastructure could greatly benefit from developing a risk management framework to evaluate the likelihood of cross-resistance emerging between new agricultural antifungals and existing clinical agents before they are approved for use. This is a genie that, once out of the bottle, cannot be put back in. In doing so, we could stop the inevitable inefficacy of antifungals in future and allow our UK antifungal innovation to remain competitive.
Unsurprisingly, it has to be noted that the climate emergency will only increase the pressure to act. The UK Food Security Report 2021 mentions fungal pathogens only three times in 322 pages, although it notes that:
“Warmer temperatures can also encourage fungal diseases such as potato blight”,
backing up what the science has told us in multiple directions—that the effect of the climate emergency on plant diseases, of which 80% are fungi-based, will lower crop yields. In humans, fungi such as the valley fever pathogen are known to thrive in warmer soils. More frequent severe storms, floods and hurricanes are also increasingly dispersing harmful fungi across hundreds of miles to human hosts, potentially causing infection outbreaks through what were previously rare diseases. Here in Parliament, we need to seriously consider how fungicide use will fit into the growing pressure from fungal diseases in a warming world.
I turn to broader issues. Increasing our fungicide use in agriculture is not the answer; in fact, we clearly have to massively decrease it. Innovation should not automatically mean new synthetic chemicals. Yes, we need to make further research funds available to replenish our antifungals and fungicides but, much more, we need to explore innovative agricultural practices that reduce our reliance on fungicides. The Minister has frequently expressed agreement with me about the need for agro-ecological practices. To put it another way, as does the Exeter researcher Jamie Lorimer, we need to use life to manage life—using mechanisms that have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Our approach to agriculture is outdated and comes from a time when we were not aware of the environmental and human risks of pesticide use. In that vein, I strongly urge His Majesty’s Government to share their plans and ask the Minister when we will see the updated UK national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides.
I acknowledge to the Government that striking the balance between prioritising our food security and safeguarding our clinical treatments is an impossible challenge, but it is an essential one that we have to meet as best we possibly can. Managing fungal crop disease has always been essential to our ability to feed the population, but we cannot afford a haphazard, piecemeal approach that will hurt our public health and our NHS. We need integrated, “one health” considerations of the impact of the climate emergency and responsible fungicide legislation.
Mitigating these risks will require the Government to work collaboratively with cross-sector stakeholders: clinicians, industry representatives from agritech and pharma and third-sector organisations in both those spaces, and farmers. Globally, as we are reminded by reports of a new disease outbreak in China, no one is safe until everyone is safe.
Are the Government working with the Quadripartite, the organisation that brings together the WHO, the FAO, the UNEP and the WOAH, to look at the specific antifungal and fungicide issues I have outlined? Are they seeking mechanisms to reserve particular actions of chemicals for human drug use? Urgently, we need to delay the approval of ipflufenoquin in the UK pending further investigation and to leverage international mechanisms to address the approval of this chemical worldwide. Ultimately, no one is safe until everyone is safe. I look forward to the debate and hope for urgent consideration of the issues raised.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for introducing this important but niche subject. As a botanist, I have always felt that fungi are often underestimated and largely ignored, yet they play a major role in the natural environment, in particular in the soil ecosystem, where they break down organic matter and make it available to plant roots through the miles of mycelium under our feet. Without the fungi in a healthy soil, our crops would fail and our food security would be affected. However, as we heard from the noble Baroness, some fungi are regarded as pests that infect food crops and reduce the harvest, or even make the food inedible. The challenge is to control the one without damaging the other or, indeed, insect pollinators and our wild bird population.
The major tool for the challenge of these fungal pests is fungicides, controlled by our plant protection products—PPP—regime, now independent since the UK left the European Union. I am glad to say that it is true that the use of fungicides has fallen in recent years, partly because of more sensible and economical use of fungicides—what farmer does not want to save money on unnecessary spraying?—and partly through the development of resistant varieties of crops, in particular wheat, barley and oilseed rape.
What support are the Government providing for research to develop disease-resistant varieties of crops? What damage has been done to such projects since the Government’s protracted negotiation about joining the EU Horizon scheme, from which UK scientific research benefited so much for so many years?
I do not deny that there is a role for minimal pesticide use if we are to feed our country as much as possible from our own limited land area, on which there is so much pressure, and I look forward to the Government’s long-awaited land use strategy. However, there are other ways of skinning the cat, and sustainable farming methods can be just as productive and better for our damaged biodiversity. Practices that protect soil health and pollinators will give just as much benefit as widespread use of pesticides of all kinds, if not more, and still give farmers a living.
However, the briefing we received from CropLife UK, which made the case for the controlled and legal use of pesticides, noted that:
“The UK has one of the most rigorous regulatory regimes for PPPs in the world. Active substances and products must be safe for the environment and pose no unacceptable risks to human health”.
I underline that last phrase.
This brings us to the point of the noble Baroness’s debate today, for she and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, which also briefed us, believe that we are in danger of just such a risk unless action is taken. The same fungi that affect crops can also affect humans, as she said, and are very dangerous to the most vulnerable patients. Nature is endlessly inventive, and clever fungi have developed resistance to the fungicides that farmers commonly use. But the researchers in bioscience are also very clever, and have developed a very effective treatment for humans. There is also a new treatment, developed by the University of Manchester, which is effective against the new antimicrobial-resistant strains of fungi when they affect humans.
So far, so good. However, a new product approved by the FDA in the US has now been developed for agricultural use and is effective against the antimicrobial-resistant strains of Aspergillus in the field—I will not try to pronounce the name, as the noble Baroness has already done so. You can therefore see the attraction to farmers. Yet there is a risk to human health because it uses, as the noble Baroness said, the same molecular mechanism as the effective human treatment. Scientists believe that, if it came into general use, it would both stimulate the development of more resistant strains of fungus in the field and jeopardise the effectiveness of the new treatment currently undergoing clinal trials.
I therefore support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in asking for a pause and a risk assessment before this product is licensed for use in the UK. If we do not do this, we will be constantly chasing our tails as nature develops resistance to our chemicals, and we then have to develop more and more chemicals to protect humans. Nature will always win in the end. That is why I support the further implementation of low-pesticide agricultural practices to protect our soils and reduce environmental selective pressure, which undoubtedly leads to more resistant strains emerging. Can the Minister therefore outline the environmental land management payments that are relevant to this sort of agricultural practice? Can he also say how successful uptake has been among farmers of all sizes, including tenant farmers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing us this debate today. We have heard a lot about how fungicide infections have an impact on humans—it is a huge global problem—and about the environmental impact of the use of fungicides.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about the importance of protecting pollinators and soil, and the damage that can happen if we are not careful. Fungicides can affect the gut microbial fauna of invertebrates, and honey bees are a classic example of that. But we do not have enough information about the impact on other pollinators, so it would be interesting to know whether the Government plan to do any more research in that area. We have also heard about the difficulties of fungicide resistance and the resulting impact on infection in humans. I am sure that the Minister is very aware of the issues around run-off into freshwater environments; we have had many debates about that, and fungicides and pesticides are part of that issue.
To think further about how pesticides affect people indirectly through the environment, farmers are not required by law to notify people when spraying is taking place. We know that this is best practice, and voluntary initiatives encourage it. Most farmers do it, but we also know that the health impacts from dietary exposures to pesticides are unclear. Again, it would be useful to know what the Government do to check how many farmers do not comply with that, given that it could have an impact on health. The European Environment Agency has looked at links between human exposure to chemical pesticides and increased risk of various chronic illnesses. I know that it comes more under health than Defra, but this is an important thing to be aware of.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, went into some detail about the concerns that have been raised around serious fungal infections in humans—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about that—and the impact of potentially undermining the new research and new treatments if something similar is then introduced into agriculture. So it is important that the Government assess the feasibility of ring-fencing certain mechanisms so that fungi in the field are not exposed to the same types of chemicals that are used clinically—the noble Baroness put that point across extremely well.
I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on pausing the approval of ipflufenoquin for use in UK agriculture until more research has been done on the implications for cross-resistance, for example. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also talked about the importance of developing a risk management framework to evaluate the likelihood of cross-resistance, which again we would support—it needs to happen before antifungals are approved for use—as well as the importance of further research funds so that we know we have safe, effective treatments going forward for both humans and crops.
I want to ask the Minister about the UK National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. We know that its review is a statutory requirement and that publication was scheduled for spring last year, but we have not had an update since December 2021. The Government have also said that the revised plan would have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement that was published following the Environment Act 2021.
In September the Government said that the UK was committed, as a party to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, to meet a global target to
“reduce the overall risks from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half by 2030, as agreed at COP15”,
and added that the Government would need to
“update and submit its National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans by the 16th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biodiversity”,
which is due to be held next year. It would be very helpful if the Minister could provide an update on what is happening in these areas.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about the decreased environmental impact and the fact that usage is coming down. I want to ask the Minister about integrated pest management—I thank CropLife UK for its briefing on this. CropLife has asked for the expansion of the adoption of the IPM—the integrated pest management strategy—and apparently it is expected in the upcoming national action plan. Again, it would be very useful if the Minister was able to update us on that.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on securing this debate and welcome the opportunity to respond on the assessment of how the UK’s current agricultural fungicide use will affect long-term food and biological security. I thank her not only for the way in which she opened the debate but for giving notice of the very serious questions that she put; I will endeavour to answer them and other questions that have been put in this debate.
The noble Baroness is entirely right: fungal diseases can cause serious damage to crops and other plants. Potato blight, which was mentioned, and Dutch elm disease are well-known examples but fungal infections can affect all crops. Fungi can also leave poisonous chemicals, such as mycotoxins, in infected plants, with consequent risks to people.
Most of the food we eat here in the UK is produced here in the UK. While the diversity of our food supply chain, where domestic production is combined with imports through stable trade routes, ensures its resilience, we cannot underestimate the importance of British farming in delivering food security in the UK. A key component of this is the management of pests, weeds and diseases. Careful selection of crop varieties and attention to good husbandry will help to limit fungal infection of crops. However, fungicides will be essential in some situations to prevent or control infection.
I come to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness. She asked what was being done to address the damage done to the microbiosphere and soil fungi—a point also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We know that agricultural fungicides can affect the structure of soil microbial communities, including beneficial soil fungi, of which there are many. We promote the use of integrated pest management approaches, including the use of cover crops, which are known to increase soil microbial diversity. Through our environmental land management schemes, we are encouraging, incentivising and supporting farmers to develop integrated pest management into how they farm, and the use of green cover crops, which is absolutely vital. I will perhaps come on to say a little more about that.
I come to the noble Baroness’s specific point about ipflufenoquin and whether its use in agricultural or other commercial sectors is right, pending further investigation into the risk of cross-resistance emerging. I am of the belief—and I am happy to discuss this further with the noble Baroness—that this is not an active substance that is currently approved in the UK, or one that the HSE, which regulates this area, has received an application to approve. As and when it does, there is a very proper debate that the noble Baroness would be right in raising.
The noble Baroness also asked what work the Government were doing to reserve certain modes of action of antifungals for human medicine only, and about a risk management framework against cross-resistance development. The scope of the current regulatory regime extends only to considering resistance in the target pest, weed or disease, and therefore does not consider human pathogens. This is consistent with internationally accepted standards and guidance. However, we recognise the importance of understanding the broader impacts of resistance beyond single species. The new antimicrobial resistance national action plan, due to be published in 2024, will include a focus on plant health and will have commitments focused on better stewardship of antimicrobials in plants, as well as a call for a search on drivers of AMR in plants and the transmission routes of AMR through plants—directly responding to the very good point that the noble Baroness made—and on our greater understanding of the impacts of these fungicides in the wider contexts of the food we eat and the environment we seek to protect.
As with all pesticides authorised for use in Great Britain, fungicides can be placed on the market only after a thorough scientific risk assessment. That assessment and subsequent reviews consider risks to the environment and human health, as well as the efficacy of the fungicide. The assessment of efficacy is important in this context. To avoid excessive use, the regulator, the Health and Safety Executive, assesses the minimum dose of the active substance—that is the chemical that delivers the required effect—needed in the product. This will ensure that the product is sufficiently effective without applying more of it than is required, minimising the potential for resistance to develop. However, any pesticide must be used with care. We know that overuse of pesticides can have an impact on the natural environment but it can also lead to resistance, which costs farmers more and may cause further downstream impacts, including to human health, as the noble Baroness said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about compliance. There is a very strict enforcement process, governed mainly by the Environment Agency, on the release of chemicals into the environment, particularly into watercourses. I do not have a figure for the number of cases that we have dealt with in recent years, but it is certainly available and I am very happy to provide it to the House.
Managing antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, effectively is essential for biological security in the UK and globally. Our understanding of fungicide resistance as an emerging AMR threat is still growing. We are currently reviewing evidence of the link between fungicide resistance in crops and transition to animals, including humans. This work will fit into the broader context of the action this Government are taking on AMR, which encompasses resistance to infections caused by fungi, bacteria and other micro-organisms. In 2019 we published our 20-year vision to contain and control AMR by 2040. This strategic vision is supported by our current five-year AMR national action plan, running from 2019 to 2024, and a new action plan due to be published next year.
We have already made significant progress in combating AMR in agriculture. Our work on antibiotic resistance in animal agriculture has led to a 59% reduction in the use of antibiotic medicines in farmed animals between 2014 and 2022. It is a remarkable story, and there have been some staggering increases of way more than that. Alarmingly, last year there was a big spike of antibiotic use in salmon farming. We hope to see that continue to improve, but there are serious issues to answer there. Within this new plan, we seek to promote research into better understanding the transmission of antifungal resistance through the environment to humans and to encourage responsible antimicrobial use in crops by providing evidence-based guidance.
The noble Baroness asked what the Government are doing with the Quadripartite on these issues. Antifungal resistance is a subset of AMR and is taken into consideration in the UK and in global AMR strategies. I work with Ministers in other departments to make sure that the UK is absolutely at the forefront of these issues through our “one health” agenda. The UK is a leading member of the Quadripartite multi-stakeholder partnership platform on AMR, which is driving action on AMR across the sectors, including Governments, researchers, civil society organisations and funders.
A question was put about the national action plan on pesticides. We appreciate that noble Lords are concerned that the publication of the NAP has been delayed, and we will publish it shortly. We have not waited for its publication to move forward with work supporting sustainable pest management. Farmers can now sign up to new paid integrated pest management actions within the sustainable farming incentive scheme. We are really pleased with the level of interest in the new scheme, which includes integrated pest management, and we have had more people showing interest in the first month after the new actions were announced than we had in five months under the previous one. We are starting to see real buy-in to this. Feeding into that is a near doubling of the number of farmers in Countryside Stewardship, and our landscape recovery schemes are also taking place. This is moving into a good place, but there is much more work to be done.
We are also supporting research into pest management and IPM through the £270 million farming innovation programme, through which farmers and growers in England, with industry partners, can apply for funding to develop innovative methods and technologies to boost sustainable productivity in agriculture and horticulture. This work will help farmers access the most effective pest management tools available and ensure that we understand the changing trends in pest threats across the UK. It is really important that we see this grow and that research can be scaled here in the UK. Too often in the past we have seen really good ideas brought forward by unbelievably talented universities that have to go abroad to be scaled up. We want to see this investment here and this great new green tech boom exporting good practice and innovations across the world. We have not waited for the new AMR plan to be published to take action on pesticide resistance, as I said. This Government are already supporting this in a variety of different ways.
This holistic approach carefully considers all available plant protection methods to ensure that pesticides are used only where they are needed. Alternative methods of prevention and control are encouraged, and decision-making tools and monitoring systems are used to track pests and understand when intervention is required. IPM therefore helps to minimise chemical intervention and diversify the techniques used for pest and disease management, which reduces input costs for farmers and growers. We are all pulling in the same direction here: it absolutely makes sense for a farmer to use fewer pesticides, fungicides, sprays and other interventions if they possible can. The added advantage is that, over time, that will increase their resilience and reduce the likelihood of resistance. This year we announced new IPM actions as part of the SFI. That is working holistically, seeing better results for food security, the environment and, we hope, our health.
Around 10 years ago, when people started talking about precision farming, it seemed to be the future. Now, precision farming seems a little analogue in a digital age, when we are starting to see technologies coming through that can treat individual plants using data that is in the tractor cab and available through satellite imaging and other tools. We are starting to see benefits to both agriculture and horticulture, which could mean a dramatic diminution in the amount of spray we use.
Finally, in 2021 this Government established a £19.2 million research programme called Pathogen Surveillance in Agriculture, Food and the Environment, PATH-SAFE. This programme, led by the Food Standards Agency, will bolster our understanding of AMR in the environment, including the importance of different sources and potential transmission routes. We expect the final details of this project to be published next year.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the Minister concludes, I want to raise a couple of points that he has not covered. One thing that he alluded to is how this crosses over with the Department of Health. I have an easy question for him: will he please refer this debate to that department and make sure that it is aware of it? On the new AMR action plan, can the Minister ask the department whether we can have a meeting to talk about the specific issue of antifungals and make sure that it gets the attention it deserves?
I have two other questions that have not been covered. The Minister said that he does not know of any attempt to get ipflufenoquin registered here. Of course, if it is being used in the US, it is creating resistance that will be imported here, which is where the issue of trade deals will come in. Can the Minister make sure that this is drawn to the attention of our trade negotiators?
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the numbers in terms of the SFI and integrated pest management. I understand that the Minister may not be able to answer now, but can he update us in a letter on the numbers of people applying to that?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for those points. I sit on a cross-ministerial committee with Health Ministers, and we are absolutely making the point that antimicrobial resistance is a matter not just for health but for Defra, and that we have an international role in different fora, such as the WHO, UNEP and others. We certainly take this extremely seriously. I will write to the noble Baroness with more details about when the AMR action plan comes out. I am very happy to connect her with the officials who will draw that up.
On trade deals, we have a write-round process in government and I can assure her that we take this really seriously. There is perhaps enough interest in the House on SFI that I could write and put a letter in the Library with up-to-date figures on the uptake of ELMS.
I am conscious of time, so I will conclude by saying that, as with many areas of environmental and health policy, there are connections and tensions between two priorities. We are bringing together expertise from across government to ensure that our policy, regulation and strategy strike the right balance, so that pests, weeds and diseases can be managed effectively, while reducing the impacts of resistance across society, our environment, the food we eat and our reliance on it.
The specific actions being taken on resistance through the AMR national action plan and pesticide-specific policies and regulation are only one component in this broader picture. The recently published UK Biological Security Strategy and next year’s edition of the UK Food Security Report—a requirement of the Agriculture Act—showcase the UK Government’s focus on these key areas and how we will ensure that this country remains ready to handle these challenges.
Mopeds, Motorcycles and Powered Light Vehicle Industry
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support a safe and sustainable future for mopeds, motorcycles and the powered light vehicle industry.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to have secured this debate. I hasten to add that I am not a petrolhead, and if anybody asks me to go on one of these vehicles I might run a mile. Notwithstanding that, there are certain issues that require debate.
There is a need for increased government promotion of powered light vehicles. The primary challenge for the sector, in the shape of the Motor Cycle Industry Association, is transitioning to zero emissions at the tailpipe. The powered light vehicle sector calls for granting large motorcycles more time to transition due to architectural, technical and consumer challenges—and I emphasise that I support the journey to zero. The sector also stresses the importance of technology neutrality, supporting clean and synthetic fuels alongside electric options. It outlines steps for a safer and more sustainable PLV future, urging collaboration between government and industry.
The industry faces several challenges. The first, as I have referred to, is to phase out new non-zero-emission L-category options. In July 2021 the Government proposed phasing out all new non-zero-emission PLVs by 2035, subject to consultation. The Motor Cycle Industry Association engaged selectively with the consultation and officials and submitted a response in September 2022, to which the Government have not yet responded. Maybe the Minister can enlighten us about a possible response today.
It is important to note that, while the industry fully supports the net-zero agenda, any government agenda must not negatively impact this £7 billion-a-year industry and should recognise the diversity of PLV usage and energy capacity. The industry association asserts that focusing on a single-technology approach of zero emissions at the tailpipe does not reflect the complexity of the sector.
PLVs make a contribution to the economy, as we know, and the industry suggests that they contribute less than 0.5% of UK domestic transport emissions. In this respect, government action should be pragmatic, realistic and proportionate to emissions, minimal miles travelled annually and urban mobility benefits, such as reduced congestion and increased air quality.
PLVs face technical, architectural and safety challenges in transitioning to zero emissions. It is also suggested by the industry that all technologies should be supported with equal measure. Electric has proved a workable solution for lower-powered L-category vehicles, but that is not the case for high-powered ones. There is therefore a suggestion that a technology-neutral approach is needed.
The second challenge is having the ability to deliver on joint government and industry powered light vehicle action. Once the Government finalise the phase-out dates, it is crucial to establish the necessary policies and regulations to ensure the feasibility of these timelines.
To fully realise the potential of PLVs by harnessing opportunities and overcoming barriers, the Government should implement a series of recommendations. There should be a review of the existing L-category vehicle regulation to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and caters for the evolution of future PLVs, including assessing the potential for a new vehicle category. There should also be a review of the current grant and incentivisation structure in the PLV sector, including adopting learning from other vehicle categories, where the rollout of zero-emission tailpipe vehicles has proven successful. A public awareness campaign should be jointly led by government and industry to promote the existence, availability and benefits of zero-emission PLVs to consumers and businesses.
Central to all this is simplifying the existing licensing regime across all L-category segments to improve access to zero-emission PLVs for a wider section of the community, increasing access, uptake and adoption. This view is supported by the industry association. Motor drivers might take a slightly different position, but I am inclined to agree that there needs to be a simplified licensing system. The present licensing process has failed to improve safety. A Licence to Net Zero will improve safety by removing provisions that disincentivise riders from receiving more training and becoming safe road users. Road safety is a main issue in all this.
I also recommend engaging with local authorities through the local authority transport decarbonisation toolkit to ensure that zero-emission PLVs form part of an integrated transport solution for the UK, and engaging with industry to ensure that zero-emission PLVs are considered and incorporated into the development of the EV charging infrastructure.
As a result of this, I would like the Minister to answer several questions; if he cannot do so today, perhaps he will write at a later date. What plans do the Government have to consider the whole life-cycle analysis of L-category vehicles in helping to get to net zero? The Prime Minister recently extended the phase-out for vans and cars as part of a
“pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic approach”
to reducing emissions. Will this be extended to the L-category sector? Will the Government conduct readiness checks ahead of phasing out L-category vehicles to ensure that infrastructure, technology and demand-side policies are all in place before deciding on the final phase-out dates?
Given the joint nature of the government and industry action plan, what assessment does the Minister make of the industry’s A Licence to Net Zero campaign? Will he commit to a full-scale review of the existing licensing regime? What plans do the Government have to progress the additional actions in the action plan for the rest of this year, next year and, perhaps, the future?
This is obviously a very important issue for the industry, which is seeking to do the right thing and progress to net zero, but it needs the necessary infrastructure and technology to enable it to do so. I look forward to the Minister’s answers, outlining what steps the Government will take to support a safe and sustainable future for mopeds, motorcycles and the powered light vehicle industry.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I find it very difficult to follow the acute and comprehensive speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, in which she covered a wide range of detailed issues relevant to this topic. I shall say only that the questions that she raises are extremely important, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give comprehensive answers to them, if not today then appropriately in writing in due course.
I find myself, a little bit like the noble Baroness, slightly a fish out of water in this particular debate. Although, unlike her, I would very much like to ride pillion on a motorcycle, my one experience of doing so when I was a teenager was so terrifying that I have never actually repeated it. That has been my sole exposure to riding a motorcycle ever since then. Maybe, as I move into my dotage, I shall take up riding pillion, but I do not bring that particular experience.
What I do have experience of is working with people who are transport policy professionals. When I started working in the field of transport and was involved as a local councillor and later with Transport for London, I was surprised at the comprehensive hostility of transport policy professionals towards the motorcycle sector, which they dignified with the name “powered two-wheelers”, a bizarre distortion of the English language, or even “category L vehicles”. In my few minutes I shall refer to them as motorcycles generally because that is a word that more people understand. Transport policy professionals are very hostile to them and to any suggestion that there should be a privilege for them or special provision. Special provision for push-bikes is absolutely all right, but nothing at all to do with motorcycles. Any suggestion like that is pushed back.
Part of the reason is to do with their safety record. It is true that, if you are riding on a motorcycle and travelling at speed and you come off, you more likely to injure yourself than in other circumstances. That is part of the reason: it contributes to poorer road safety figures. However, it is also worth bearing in mind that motorcycles probably do less harm to other road users in collisions than cars do. When we look at the road safety figures, we do not always sufficiently take account of the fact that making it safer for motorists to drive a car often transfers risk to people who are not in the car—that is, to pedestrians and others who are using the road—because it encourages slightly riskier behaviour on the part of the motor car driver. That does not happen with motorcyclists as one sees them dashing through the traffic.
There is also a sense in which the market is getting ahead of the definitions that the department uses. It used to be clear what was a car, what was a motorcycle and what was a push bike, but we now have all sorts of intermediate vehicles, which are creating a sort of merger between different modes of transport that are increasingly hard to distinguish. We have e-scooters, which are encouraged by the department, at least to the extent that trials have been authorised in certain places to allow e-scooters to be looked at, although no final decision has been taken. We have electric-assisted push bikes, which help you up the hill, and so on, so we are getting this merger of typologies. Indeed, even in the motor car sector, you now see tiny cars that are basically little more than tricycles with a vacuum cleaner engine attached to them going through the streets. The department sticks to very old typologies, which are being set to one side.
In pursuit of that, the Government have their target of non-zero motorcycles by 2035, subject to consultation. I often wonder whether the Conservative Party, the heir to the Cavaliers, has adopted a puritan agenda. Even if one actually accepts that the large-scale destruction of much of our economic capacity is justified by the very serious threats of climate change, it is a net-zero target, not an absolute zero target—that is, it is accepted that there will be some carbon emissions going ahead. Given the very small contribution that this sector makes to our overall emissions, could my noble friend perhaps say when he answers that he is willing to cut this sector some slack?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to contribute to this short debate and congratulate the noble Baroness on achieving it. We seem to spend a lot of time talking about this subject in the round at the moment. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, also expanded on the complexity and the different types. There is the generic type, which is probably “a wheeled vehicle”, although I am not sure about that. However, there are more and more of them; we had a very interesting debate on pedicabs last night, and some of us thought that that legislation should be extended to scooters for various reasons that I will not get into now.
The important thing is that the Government, when looking at all these different types of transport and the regulations that inevitably go with them, do so on a consistent basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, some of that is to do with net zero, but some of it is also to do with things such as safety, which is in the title of the debate, and sustainability. You could add things such as parking, the electric power, regulation and what these vehicles are used for. We have talked about different types of motorbike today: there are big ones and small ones, and some noble Lords will say that some of them are hated by people and others are loved. However, they may also be hauling trailers taking kids to school. They may be doing all kinds of different things. The legislation must somehow cover all that.
One issue has not come up so far, which is the question of lithium-ion battery fires. I have been studying quite a lot of them in relation to fires on ships, which are a much bigger problem because obviously the vehicles are bigger. They have a habit of setting themselves on fire. That can apply to motorbikes or whatever we are going to call them, and to electric bikes, cars and everything else. All that needs looking at because it is a terribly important safety element.
The other issue which the noble Baroness mentioned was the consultation that has been going on for these L-category vehicles. I hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to tell us when we are likely to get some answers on that because we need them. I was, frankly, surprised at the Prime Minister’s statement on the delay in phasing out petrol and diesel cars. It is interesting that the Financial Times reports today that the Office for Budget Responsibility says that the take-up of EV cars has slowed, which it appears is the result of that delay, although we know that they are expensive. Clearly, the Prime Minister does not really mind too much about where they are manufactured and how many are manufactured, but he cares about people who want to go around in 4x4s emitting a maximum amount of pollution. We need to look at all these things in the round.
I remember, probably before most noble Lords were even in this House, moving an amendment to some Bill suggesting that 4x4s were the most unsafe vehicle if you were to hit a child outside. They are very safe inside for little Johnny but if you are going to hit somebody outside, they are very unsafe. Therefore I suggested that 4x4s should be banned for one mile around schools during the school-run period. Of course, the Government did not like that. Is that surprising? We love the cars and nothing else.
It is important to take into consideration the special circumstances of the motorcycle industry—it is a very wide industry; my electric bike could well have been built within it—and for the Government to get the staging of net zero and any other regulation that goes along with it into a proper sequence. We will talk about automatic vehicles next week, and there is the same problem there. Given the whole-life effect, as the noble Baroness said, and the involvement of cars, vans, trailers and everything, there needs to be a consistent and comprehensive policy. Does the Minister agree? If so, when will the Government produce one?
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role and congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate. Like her, I am certainly not a petrolhead but should declare that I own a moped. I apologise that my contribution will be narrowly focused on the safety of powered light vehicles, echoing a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
Electrically powered micromobility, such as e-bikes and e-scooters, is increasingly popular as a greener, healthier and more economic form of transport. However, I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the categorisation system we now use is way out of date for what is happening in modern society. Last year, the e-bike market alone was worth £300 million and it is growing rapidly, but as demand for them increases, so too does the risk of battery fires.
Lithium-ion batteries store more energy than any other battery type, allowing longer use. Yet most people are totally unaware that a fully charged e-bike battery contains a similar amount of energy to six hand grenades and that they can be putting their lives at risk when charging them. If overheated, through damage, flawed design or using a substandard charger, lithium-ion batteries can create fierce fires—with temperatures over 600 degrees centigrade—that are not only difficult to extinguish but release toxic gas.
Helped by the charity Electrical Safety First, I entered this year’s Private Members’ Bill ballot with my “Safety of Electric Powered Micromobility Vehicles and Lithium Batteries” Bill. Sadly, I was unsuccessful, but I hope it will be taken up in the other place or perhaps by the Government, because fires from lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes have surged since 2020, with an estimated average of one every day this year. They have caused millions of pounds-worth of property damage and 48% of fires in waste facilities are from these batteries, also costing millions. They have caused more than 190 reported injuries and, tragically, 12 lives have been lost. I know the Government plan to consult on battery regulations—it would help if the Minister could update us on that—but, to save lives and property, a wider range of actions is urgently needed.
E-scooters, e-bikes and their batteries can currently be sold without independent safety checks, unlike other high-risk products such as fireworks. There are inadequate standards for charging systems and conversion kits for turning an ordinary bike into an e-bike, and no regulations on safe disposal of these batteries. The Bill I mentioned would rectify all these omissions. It includes requirements for pre-sale independent safety checks, regulations for safety standards for conversion kits and charging systems and regulations for the safe disposal of lithium batteries.
The Bill is ready to go. It offers a pragmatic, life-saving solution, first outlined in Electrical Safety First’s report Battery Breakdown. It is supported by fire and ambulance chiefs, insurance companies from AXA to Zurich, consumer groups, RoSPA and many others. To prevent further tragedies, we need the political will to tackle this issue head on. I hope the Minister will respond by saying that the Government will seriously consider taking up the proposed legislation and, if not, tell us what they will do about it.
Viscount Craigavon (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to take part in this debate encouraging motorcycling in its regulation. I have been a motorcyclist for some years, largely in London, and have always felt that, with a few judicious pushes—or perhaps more than a few—motorcycling could become much more central to our whole transport system. I hope that if we, as well as the industry and the Government, get this right, we could now lay down markers for the future as to how all this develops, particularly in how we deal with decarbonisation and the fluctuating net-zero targets.
This a useful debate, but what we have before us are slightly more technical aspects than can be readily resolved by a debate such as this one. Still, I am largely happy to support the direction of the briefing from the Motor Cycle Industry Association, for which I am grateful. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, kindly outlined a lot of what it is putting forward, and she put to the Minister the questions that arise from that.
I am fully aware of the need for transitional processes to mesh in with what is possible in this important and significant industry, and I hope the department can carefully play its part in helping all interests, both short-term and long-term, to zero emissions in due course. I am also aware of the need to come up with standards that do not isolate us from international and continental practices and manufacturers. We have seen what the announcements about cars’ net-zero timescales have made possible and achieved, but there is no direct read-across to the very different circumstances for motorcycles.
It is good to see that the promotion of low or zero-emission powered light vehicles—PLVs—could be the occasion to stimulate or drive demand in the market, and that there could be more public awareness of what would be achieved by lowering emissions. I would very much support a concentration on low-cost PLVs, with which the apparent move to rationalise the whole process of simplifying the licence acquisition for individuals goes well.
Those using the roads and pavements are aware of the profusion of personal and commercial battery-assisted cycles and step scooters, which should not be any substitute for traditional low-powered motorcycles. I declare my interest as a London owner of a succession of Piaggio 125s. I hope I am not being out of order to suggest that, although I have a full motorcycle licence, their twist-and-go operation, not needing gears, should make life much more accessible to encourage novices into the motorcycle habit. Also, slightly beyond the scope of this debate, I believe that our more general access to use marked bus lanes might be becoming more possible.
Another aspect, also currently influenced by local government, would be a more sympathetic attitude to being able to park motorcycles more readily. Given the space that parked motorcycles take up compared to a car, that is another area that we, with the help of the department and local government, could try to change.
I believe there are many more ways in which we can make motorcycling more user-friendly. However, before us in this debate are more serious issues and changes that we should be supporting, and I hope that the Minister and the department can treat some of those with the urgency and importance that they deserve.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on calling this debate at such a timely moment. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower on his new position and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on his position on the Opposition Benches.
I will focus on safety and a possibly tenuous connection to e-scooters and e-bikes. Like the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, I too have a little Bill prepared on which I hope my noble friend and the Government will look favourably. It proposes to
“amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to create criminal offences relating to dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, in particular applying to a pedal cycle, an electrically assisted pedal cycle, and an electric scooter”.
I associate myself with all the previous remarks on batteries, but time does not permit me to explore that here.
I recognise that the majority of cyclists are responsible. However, they must have regard to other road users. I am appalled at the flagrant abuse of legislation by e-bikes, e-scooters and regular scooters from Deliveroo and others, particularly in mounting pavements. How long are these delivery scooters allowed to ride with an L-plate without passing a test to show that they are legally competent to drive? Not stopping for pedestrians at pedestrian crossings is an increasing problem. What fines have been issued in the last six months or year and what prosecutions have been made for the illegal use of such e-bikes and e-scooters?
Why have the Government extended trials of e-scooters to 2026? If the evidence already exists that there are issues regarding their safety, why are these not being addressed now and regulated? For what reason are e-cyclists and those on e-scooters allowed to ride without any insurance or a driving test as a prerequisite? Is it still the case that e-scooters, other than rented ones, cannot legally be used on public roads?
I took great heart from the fact that, in connection with the tragic case of Kim Briggs, who died from injuries caused when she was knocked over by a cyclist travelling at speed on a bicycle with no legal brakes at all, my noble friend’s predecessor, my noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton, wrote to her husband Matt Briggs on 23 March 2022:
“As the Secretary of State has already announced, we are considering bringing forward legislation to introduce new offences around dangerous cycling; we will do this as part of a suite of measures to improve the safety of all road and pavement users”.
What has happened to that legislation?
The ABI is deeply concerned about the implications for the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of a corresponding insurance requirement being levied on e-scooters in particular. Its key point is that legalising the use of e-scooters on UK roads should ensure that no additional liabilities are placed on the Motor Insurers’ Bureau without such a corresponding insurance requirement. By what date does my noble friend intend that the Government will introduce that? The ABI also argues that enforcement against illegal use of e-scooters on UK roads should be increased; is it my noble friend’s intention to do so? It also argues that the Government should share data on the outputs and results from trials to date to inform the public about ongoing discussions in this regard.
In conclusion, there should be space for cyclists, e-scooters and e-bikes, but only in so far as they are driven responsibly and with regard to the law. Are noble Lords aware of the superhighway to be built along Millbank, and that the iconic palm tree on the roundabout will be removed, enabling cyclists and e-scooters to travel at even faster speeds? That will put your Lordships at even greater risk when we try to cross the pedestrian crossing at Millbank. I regret that it may lead to more deaths and casualties of pedestrians and other road users.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on bringing this debate forward and I welcome my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to their roles.
It is a privilege to be able to speak, as I was not going to do so. I speak from a personal perspective as much as a professional one. I held the role of the mayor’s transport adviser from 2008 to 2011 in this city. During that time, I had much chance to consider and look at the policies for different modes of transport as they applied in the city. One mode I was not part of then and did not use was motorcycling. I fixed that by learning how to ride a motorbike when I took on the role. I thought that, if we were judging policy on them, it was important to have the experience. I had to learn how to ride and not fall off, but it also taught me heightened awareness of the safety and security of not just me as a rider but all other users of the road network—pedestrians, cyclists, HGVs and everything else. It was a revolutionary experience, because you have a completely different perspective on what is happening and how you feel about your personal safety and usage.
It also took me into a very deep conversation about the benefits and the challenges. The benefits became ever clearer when asking the motorcycling and powered two-wheeler community, as it was then—there were no electric mopeds at that point—about their usage. I must acknowledge the warmth of the community. It is very strong. Anyone who is a biker will know that it is a very good community to be part of. They see journey time reliability, flexibility and safety as vital parts of using this mode of transport. It brings benefits not just to them but to broader society and to the city.
London lags behind similar cities in the world that rely on powered two-wheelers as part of the extensive social mix. Cities in a number of European countries demonstrate that. There is something cultural that we have not quite got right there. I ask the Minister to consider in his deliberations the need to recognise the personal ability to use bikes and the benefits it brings for commuting, logistics and minimal impact on the environment. Enforcement must be considered with greater usage of motorbikes and powered two-wheelers in the logistics industry, but it is a growing industry that will only provide benefit to dense urban areas rather than be a hindrance.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for securing this debate, which is badly needed. As everyone is giving their bona fides on transport, all I can offer is that I spent my youth perilously on the pillion of the back of a 1952 Excelsior Talisman Twin motorbike—an antique even then.
This debate is badly needed because the Government consulted 14 months ago and we have still had no response from them on their decisions. Given the pace of technological change, this is a ridiculous delay. The Department for Transport seems to have been in hibernation while a technological revolution has taken place. Anyone who ventures outside their front door knows that electric bikes, motorbikes, mopeds, scooters and cargo bikes have proliferated in the past couple of years. I must congratulate the Motor Cycle Industry Association on the very effective campaign and detailed briefing putting its point of view and raising some very valid points on these issues. In particular, it emphasises the need for certainty and swift government decision-making if the UK is to retain its motorcycle manufacturing investors in future. When the Minister responds, I hope he will be able to give us some of that certainty.
It is also important to point out to that, inspired by their narrow victory in the Uxbridge by-election, the Government have changed their plans in the meantime on net zero for cars and changed their rhetoric in relation to cars versus alternative methods of transport: cycling, walking and so on. That was illustrated yesterday by the Minister in his answer to an Oral Question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. In the light of that, the Government’s original plans on PLVs on which they consulted are now somewhat out of kilter with the rest of the hierarchy—if I can put it that way—of vehicles. My own discussions with members of the automotive industry indicate that the industry is desperate for certainty. They were knocked sideways by the Government’s change of heart, and they really need certainty in future.
I am an enthusiast about the benefits from electric bikes—the bikes that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to as a push bike—because they encourage people to extend the length of their journey or to extend their cycling career into older age. However, as other noble Lords have pointed out, there is an urgent need for clarity on the different categories. There is a great deal of confusion out there, and there is need for enforcement of the regulation for the larger categories of L-category vehicles. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, also mentioned the concept of intermediate vehicles.
The police need resources to implement the regulations. I live in Cardiff, where noble Lords will recall that, tragically, two young boys were killed on an electric bike earlier this year. Following that, the police took action in the centre of the city, where they seized dozens of bikes that were being illegally ridden without the appropriate registration or licences. But it is not just the police. As my noble friend has said, the fire brigade needs additional resources because of the considerable fire hazard, trading standards needs additional resources, and we need to improve training and awareness in the supply chain and the repair sector of the industry.
Lastly, it is coming up to Christmas. Thousands of these vehicles are going to be sold as presents, some of them from very dubious sources of supply. We need a public information campaign to raise awareness of the dangers involved.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for her intelligent introduction to this brief debate. I agree with many of the points that have been made by other members. The key points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the merger of typologies and the diversity of what technical change is bringing are things that we have to take into account.
While the net zero dimension of all this is important, it is not the whole story. It is a net zero policy, as someone said, but we have to consider the whole issue in the context of the problems that emissions from these vehicles pose compared with those from cars. Is it proportionate to apply the same tests to them?
A dimension of this that not many noble Lords have referred to is that of industrial policy, which I am personally very interested in. We used to have a thriving motorcycle industry in Britain; it has declined, but there are still some firms that are now growing. What are the Government doing to promote that industry? Do they have a forum of regular consultation with the industry to see what can be done to help it to compete? Of course, that industry needs a clear regulatory framework for the future. That regulatory framework also has to align with what is happening globally, particularly in Europe, because people are not just producing for the domestic market. What is happening on the industrial policy dimension?
I have a couple of other questions for the Minister. Given that emissions from these vehicles, especially when viewed on an all-life basis, are often less than from cars, has the Minister considered taking steps in order to encourage drivers to switch? Have the Government thought about that question? On another point, it has been reported that, increasingly, vehicles in this category are being used for food delivery services. What assessment have the Government made of this? Would promoting electric light vehicles be a good way of reducing emissions from vans that traditionally do this job?
Above all, I think that the simple point is that the Government are dithering on their policy. They have had lots of consultations, but they are not offering the sector any clarity. It is time that they did so. My direct question to the Minister is: are the Government planning to do anything that will give clarity to the industry between now and the general election?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate and thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to the debate before the Grand Committee today. Whether I will be able to answer all noble Lords’ questions in the 12 minutes allocated, I do not know, but I will attempt to respond to as many questions and concerns as possible and, when I am not able to, I will certainly follow up with a letter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, talked about decarbonisation, net zero and the Government’s commitment. We have a legal obligation to meet net zero, and the Government are committed to phasing out the sale of all new non-zero emission road vehicles by 2040. This includes ending the sale of polluting motorcycles and mopeds. The Government are committed to our net-zero ambitions and will continue to drive forward our work to cut emissions. The broad approach is one that is fair, affordable and pragmatic, easing the burdens on the British public.
Following a consultation last year, we are now analysing the responses to our consultation on when to end the sale of new non-zero emission L-category vehicles, including views from the industry, with which we have been engaging. We will respond in due course. Our approach will continue to account for technical and commercial feasibility and ensure that transition is affordable for consumers. The Prime Minister’s announcement pushed back the end-of-sales date for new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035 by requiring 80% of new cars to be fully ZEV by 2030. The mandate will continue to require the most ambitious regulatory trajectory to 2030 of any country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, talked about the end-of-sale dates for non-zero-emission motorbikes and mopeds. We consulted between July and September last year on when to end the sale of new non-zero-emission L-category vehicles, which was supported by a thorough programme of stakeholder engagement with manufacturers and the wider industry. The Government are analysing the responses and taking into consideration the wide range of views expressed. The consultation proposed two separate dates for the end of sale of new non-zero-emission L-category vehicles: 2035 for all L-category vehicles at the latest, and 2030 for L-category vehicles in the L1 L2, L3, L6 and L7 subcategories.
The Government recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating emissions from road vehicles is not appropriate, as the technology pathway is not as clear for certain segments of the market. However, they will continue to engage with industry and the public to ensure that the final confirmed end-of-sale dates for new non-zero-emission L-category vehicles are feasible from both a technological and a commercial perspective. That includes ensuring that adequate infrastructure for the sector is in place and that the transition is affordable for consumers.
We are now analysing the responses to the consultation on ending the sale of new non-zero-emission L-category vehicles, including evidence provided on this issue, and we will bring forward the government response in due course. Analysis of lifecycle emissions is an important consideration as we accelerate the transition to a zero-emission fleet of road vehicles. While there is no internationally recognised method of measuring lifecycle emissions in any transport sector, the Department for Transport’s energy model, published in 2018, and the externally commissioned lifecycle analysis of UK road vehicles, published in 2021, provide clear assessments of the relative environmental impacts of different road vehicle technologies and fuels in the UK.
The Government will consult on any future regulatory framework to deliver and enforce the end-of-sale dates for non-zero-emission L-category vehicles as appropriate. The Government keep all their regulations under review to ensure that they are fit for purpose and future-proofed. Policies are already in place to support the transition, such as plug-in motorcycle grants, and the Government recently made up to £350,000 of funding available for research and development projects to grow the zero-emission motorcycle supply chain in the UK. However, we appreciate that there are technology and infrastructure considerations for these vehicles as we transition, and we will continue to work with the sector to support and consider how best to overcome demand-side challenges, including the infrastructure needs of zero-emission L-category vehicles.
On the Motor Cycle Industry Association action plan, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the Government are committed to continuing to work with the industry and other stakeholders to ensure that the sector is ready, ahead of decarbonisation. In February 2022, the Motor Cycle Industry Association published Realising the Full Potential of Zero Emission Powered Light Vehicles: A Joint Action Plan for Government and Industry. That was commissioned by the Government as a transport decarbonisation plan commitment and was delivered in partnership with the Motorcycle Industry Association. The document aimed to set out the 10 key actions that the industry believes are needed to support the L-category sector ahead of decarbonisation.
The Government are engaged with the industry to deliver the action plan where appropriate. Zero-emission vehicles offer an opportunity to create jobs, strengthen British industry, cut emissions and keep Britain moving. Phasing out new non-zero-emission L-category vehicles positions the UK as a world leader in L-category decarbonisation, driving innovation and creating a market for zero-emission vehicles.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, spoke about a plan for the future, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. The Government are pleased with the progress made so far on the action plan and will continue to engage with the sector on it. For example, to address actions 2 and 3 on growing and developing the supply chain, as I said earlier, the Government made up to £350,000 of funding available for research and development projects to grow the zero-emission motorcycle supply chain in the UK.
The department is also working with the recently established powered light vehicle community to address action 9 on creating a formal L-category community. Additionally, the department is currently engaged with the MCIA’s recent licensing review proposals to address action 6, to review minimum testing and licence entitlements for all battery, electric L-category vehicles. We continue to engage with industry to deliver the action plan where appropriate and will continue to do so.
The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Foster of Bath, referred to the plan for drivers in as much as it applies to motorcyclists. Like drivers, motorcyclists will benefit from many of the measures in the plan, including around fixing roads faster, better traffic lights, and the right speed limits in the right place. Specifically, in seeking to make better use of bus lanes, we will refresh the technical advice for local authorities to make it clear that they should use their powers to ensure that bus lanes are open to motorcycles, and we will launch a consultation on allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes by default. The plan confirms that, to help riders make the transition to zero-emission vehicles, plug-in vehicle grants continue to be available for motorcycles.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, asked a question about lithium batteries. There is no real evidence that electric vehicle fires are more likely to occur than petrol or diesel vehicle fires, and it remains safe to have them in covered car parks. The safety of electric vehicles and their charging is of course of paramount importance to the Government and is kept under regular review. Multiple safety systems are designed into electric vehicles to protect passengers, emergency services personnel and other users from harm. However, the risks are different and need to be understood and controlled. Fire prevention, fire detection and firefighting in electric vehicles is a developing area, and the Government review their guidance and regulations in step with the development of best practice. We continue to work with the fire services, industry and experts from across the UK on this, and before vehicles can be sold or registered in the UK, the manufacturer must supply evidence that the vehicle complies with international approval requirements. For hybrid and electric vehicles, fire and electrical safety is included in this assessment. The department is therefore working with the Office for Product Safety and Standards and other government departments to develop guidance on the safe use of batteries in e-cycles and e-scooters and will publish this at a later date.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about cycle offences and dangerous cycling. Of course, dangerous cycling puts lives at risk and is completely unacceptable. Like all road users, cyclists are required to comply with road traffic law in the interests of their own safety and that of other road users—that is of course reflected in the Highway Code. If they do not adopt a responsible attitude and if their use of the highway creates an unsafe environment, they may well of course be committing offences, which is a matter for the police to prosecute.
I think I have covered most of the questions that have been asked.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
Perhaps the noble Lord might say something about the simplification of the licensing scheme—and I welcome him and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to the Front Benches.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I will go back to the department and see exactly where we are on that, and I will certainly write to the noble Baroness on it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Perhaps we might pursue very briefly the issue of fires, as raised by my noble friend Lord Foster. There are lots of statistics on this, and there is a very big difference between the record of electric cars and vans and so on, which have an extremely good record on fires—they are much less likely to burst into flames than, for example, petrol and diesel cars. However, my noble friend was referring to the issue of bikes and mopeds, and so on.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I take the noble Baroness’s point and I will write on that issue in respect of motorcycles.
To conclude, the steps that the Government are taking, which I have set out today, provide a package of support for the motorcycle and powered light vehicle industry that will help this sector to contribute to a safe and environmentally sustainable future for road user transport in this country.
Air Travel: Disabled Passengers
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of air travel for disabled passengers.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group. I thank the House of Lords Library for its helpful briefing, as well as Transport for All, Disability Rights UK and Rights on Flights for their continuous campaigning to improve the service that disabled people receive when trying to travel by air.
I emailed the group of disabled Peers prior to this debate and am grateful to those unable to attend today for their comments and to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for being here. Every single one of us has faced repeated problems, and our experience reflects that of the wider disabled community.
More than a decade ago, when I started using a wheelchair regularly, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, warned me that flying with a wheelchair was a fraught issue. A couple of days ago, she said to me:
“Until I gave up flying, I was regularly left on aeroplanes, sometimes for hours waiting for my power chair to be brought to the door of the plane. In the end I decided I simply couldn’t stand the stress anymore after my power chair was smashed by the bag handlers at Heathrow. I didn’t find out until we arrived in Canada and … was unable to use the chair independently (my husband had to push me everywhere) for the entire holiday. We could not find any repairers near enough to our location who stocked the part needed. I was not compensated and only after several complaining letters did I receive an apology”.
What has changed since then? Not a lot. Disabled passengers are still having to fight for their right to be able to use a plane, travel through an airport and rely on their wheelchairs and mobility equipment not being treated as baggage. Not only is failing to provide a safe service in breach of the UN charter for disabled people but it is legally discriminatory in the UK, the EU, the USA and many other countries. Worse, every glitch in the journey is emotionally exhausting. This is not like losing a suitcase. Damage to mobility aids can mean that you cannot get around in the country you are travelling to, and the level of payment, set internationally, when damage is done on the journey does not recompense for the actual cost of repairing the mobility aid or the hiring of an alternative, if that is even possible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, told me.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, told me that he avoids flying whenever he can, because he feels he is treated like cargo, not a customer. Disabled passengers have to sit around and wait: check into the airport at least an hour before everybody else and wait on the plane, and wait on the plane while one’s chair is, or more usually is not, brought from the hold. That reminds me of arriving at Mexico City Airport and waiting for my wheelchair to arrive in the baggage reclaim area. British Airways had put it in the special wheelchair container—I wish everybody used those—and through the glass window I watched staff remove it from that then try to put it on the moving conveyor belt. Unsurprisingly, it got stuck because the chair was larger than the hole it was going through. It fell off the conveyer was damaged. That was not a good start to being a UNICEF visitor followed by an international conference.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, told us that it is the practice that we need to change, rather than just keeping stepping up enforcement, because enforcement is not working. Too many airlines send out messages that disabled people are just not welcome. He says that changing practice would ensure a win-win because smooth journeys mean an end to horror stories and a better reputation for the airline and service providers in the airport, even though it is only the airline that has responsibility under 1107/2006.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, told our group that he has been left on planes twice this year when ground staff forgot about him. On one occasion the pilot took him off the plane and even through passport control. The pressure for that, by the way, is that the new captain and crew for the next flight cannot come on board until the last passenger leaves. There is no comparable pressure on ground staff. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, also talked about the ridiculous process we have to fill in for our wheelchair dimensions and battery details when booking the flight, then again when the airline confirms the booking, then again when you check in online to get your seat, then again when you arrive at check-in and again when you arrive at the departure gate.
My experience of three flights this year has forced me to reconsider whether I should fly at all. In May I flew from Gatwick to Stockholm with Norwegian. All forms were repeatedly filled in, and Gatwick and Norwegian accepted my lightweight travel chair with two lithium batteries, carried into the cabin by ground staff for safety as per IATA guidance. After my conference I returned to Arlanda Airport. I got through check-in, again repeating battery details, but when I got to the plane the ground staff told me that the pilot had refused to allow the lithium batteries to be brought into the cabin because under IATA rules they cannot be in the hold. I asked to see the pilot, showed him my outward ticket from Gatwick and said, “But your colleague flew me out”. At that point he said, “Well, on this one occasion you can fly, but not again”. Thank goodness I had flown out with the same airline.
In September I flew Wizz Air from Luton to Vilnius for the day to speak at another international conference. I checked in to be told that my lithium batteries were now too big. They were not, according to the IATA chart, but the ground services manager refused to come to talk to me directly, so I had to leave my chair at Luton and fly without it. I was in considerable pain, and not just for that one day.
In October I flew Wizz Air from Bucharest to Luton after speaking at another international conference, this time about the barriers that disabled people face. This time I took my regular dry cell battery wheelchair—this one—to avoid the row about lithium batteries. The ground services manager in Bucharest had got his battery types muddled and would let me on the plane only if I personally carried them both into the cabin. These batteries are old-fashioned bus batteries. They are bigger than old-fashioned car batteries. I cannot lift even one of them easily, and under IATA guidance they are designed to remain in situ in the hold with the electrics immobilised. He refused to allow me on the flight. It cost me €900 to fly back with British Airways as there was only one seat available over the next 48 hours. Worse, the Wizz Air complaints system does not work for this type of problem because the flight was not delayed or cancelled. The CAA has now kindly put me in touch with a senior Wizz Air manager, but I was in despair for seven hours at Bucharest Airport that day.
Here is the problem. The current systems allow too many tiers of staff to make ill-informed decisions that muddle up different regulations and different types of batteries. In my role as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group I recognise the importance of keeping batteries safe and getting it right. IATA has two sets of guidance: the Battery-Powered Wheelchair and Mobility Aid Guidance Document and the Dangerous Goods Regulations, which sits with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. The latter, the DGR, is related to commercial freight and differs entirely from the Battery-Powered Wheelchair and Mobility Aid Guidance Document, but it is not clear.
My first question to the Minister is: when will there be one clear international flowchart with one set of common data relating to wheelchairs and mobility aids and one standard for service for disabled passengers? There is much confusion about what is or is not included, and I fear that is often an underlying problem when things go so wrong. There are moves for a universally accepted wheelchair passport, which would help, but it must be recognised by all the airlines, not left to the whim of checking staff or even the pilot.
There must also be a standard for training staff and for ensuring that disabled people are not handed on from person to person. On one journey at Madrid airport, I was handled by four different people before I could get to my own chair. At one point, I was literally just dumped in front of a concrete wall airside and told to wait for the next person to arrive; I was on my own for nearly 15 minutes.
There are plenty of talking shops. I have sometimes been invited to the industry/departmental meetings convened by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, in the past, as have other Peers, and it is good that disabled people and organisations are involved, but until there are real changes nothing will change. The examples that I have given today are repeated every day when disabled people travel. Everyone is horrified when they hear what has happened, but there is no urgency to solve it. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said that if non-disabled people received this level of service it would simply be deemed unacceptable. Personally, I think there would be riots.
My last question to the Minister is: how can this Government get all the parties together to change what is happening? I do not mean just in the UK. This is a global problem that can be solved only by Governments, regulators and airlines coming together. It can and must be improved so that disabled people can travel and live their lives like everyone else.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling this debate today and asking such pertinent questions. Nothing that she has said has surprised me. This issue is close to my heart, and working on this speech has been relatively cathartic.
As an athlete, I was privileged to be able to travel extensively, and with that have come many interesting experiences. The issue with being a disabled traveller is that the bad journeys are so horrendous that it is easy to think that getting on and off a plane in a vaguely timely manner, not being forced to sit in a special little room—which is claimed to be better for us—and not having a damaged chair is fabulous, when actually it is just what non-disabled people take for granted. When your view of travelling is so skewed to expect it to be bad, it is easy to see why things are slow to improve.
I do not mind checking in early, getting to the gate early, having to give up my day chair and not getting off until the end. I understand that, being disabled, I have to do things differently, but, even with all that, we do not have equality. I shall take a few moments to recount some of my favourite disasters. If I had the whole hour, that would still not be enough to cover them all.
When flying with my then young daughter, the two of us had preboarded but I was told that I was not a responsible adult to fly with her and that I needed to find someone, literally anyone—in fact, a stranger—to say that they would take responsibility for her.
Over the years, both my racing chair and my day chair have been severely damaged and even lost. One time my day chair was put on a completely different plane to me, which was incredible, seeing that it was carried down the steps and the hold door was right next to them. I realised, thanks to the length of time that I was left on the plane when I arrived back in Birmingham, that there was something wrong, and my day chair did not arrive. I was asked whether I really needed it. That is potentially a fair question, as not everyone is a permanent wheelchair user and I might have been able to use an airport chair. I was asked if I could walk and I said no, I was paralysed. The next question was, “Have you ever tried to walk?” Clearly I was missing the obvious: maybe I had just not tried hard enough.
Later, I was excited to be told that my missing item was going to be returned to me. When it landed on my doorstep, it was two sleeping bags with another person’s name on them going to a destination that I was nowhere near. The individual who dropped them off queried whether I actually knew what I had lost. When I said it was a wheelchair, I was asked whether I was sure it was a wheelchair. My day chair was returned to me several months later pretty much sawn in half, and I was offered £200 compensation for a £5,000 wheelchair.
Disabled people are asked to preboard to give us more time to allow the use of an aisle chair, but on one occasion, when the team did not turn up to help me on, the airline had to start boarding the rest of the plane. When I eventually managed to get on, the pilot announced to the whole cabin that we were late because of me. I have to say that I was angry for being blamed. I was not even accorded the courtesy of being called a wheelchair user; I was called “the wheelchair”. That has happened so many times.
Another time, when I was refused my day chair at the gate, even though it had a gate tag on it, I was blamed for delaying the next flight. My daughter was two years old and by that age we did not use a pram for her; she used to sit on my knee for longer walks, and the distance from the gate to baggage was too far for her to walk. The airport would not allow her to sit on my knee in the airport chair because it was not insured to carry two people. It was suggested that, if she could not walk that far on her own, perhaps she could crawl.
I have also been refused boarding after checking in because the pilot told me, “We already have three of you”. I am not entirely sure what the three of us were. I was travelling with the British team, so we had to work out which three of us should take the first flight to get to our destination in order to compete and which athletes could be left behind. On a different flight, I was asked whether I really needed my racing chair to compete. The answer was yes.
One airline told me that it had put me in a specific seat on the plane because if there was a problem it did not want me getting in the way of anyone else getting off and risking non-disabled people’s safety. In fact, in front of other people I was told that if the plane went down, I was not likely to make it off. I was clearly being told that my value as a disabled person did not exist. As disabled people, there are things that we know and do not need to be told, certainly not in front of other passengers. This happened when we were going off to compete in a major games.
Another airline sent me a form which asked me whether my impairment would cause offence to other passengers. When the airline then rang up to cancel my flight because it had decided my impairment was offensive—it told me that on the phone—I happened to have a TV crew at my house doing an interview about the competition I was trying to get to. That allowed me to get a full refund. The airline wanted to charge me for it cancelling my flight.
It is not just me. Wheelchair athlete Nikki Emerson said that when she flew to Australia for the Commonwealth Games airline staff told her she would “upset other passengers” by “climbing on the floor”. She had had to drag herself up the aisle after being told she would have to wait an hour to get to her seat from the toilet. I have also been refused access to toilets. I totally understand that the cabin crew cannot and should not assist inside the toilet, but because of the inaccessible nature of the cabin there should be a reasonable expectation of an aisle chair. The reality is that some airlines that run short-haul flights do not even have an aisle chair on board. Many might be surprised to know that “short haul” can include flights of up to four hours’ duration.
Victoria Brignell, who works at the BBC, was left on a plane at Gatwick for 90 minutes, and I despair of the number of times that Frank Gardner has posted about being abandoned. When I talk about train travel, I joke that I want the same miserable experience of commuting as everyone else, which I do not get, but I always hope for slightly better on planes. I know that Frank is not arguing for any special treatment, but if an airline cannot flag his name in the system and make sure that he gets on and off, given the amount he travels and his public profile, what hope is there for anyone else?
While airports and airlines call this unacceptable, change just does not happen. I commend Sophie Morgan on using her platform to highlight this issue using the hashtag #RightsOnFlights. Many are campaigning to ensure that disabled people who need to remain in their wheelchair, such as my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton, are able to travel. I am really interested to see that some trials are now taking place that would stop people being discriminated against.
The reality is that we are always asked to be patient. We are treated as though it is the first time that it has ever happened when, quite frankly, it is not. Earlier this year I met the CAA, which was very helpful, but, sadly, I am now of the opinion that financial penalties are perhaps the only way things will change. It has gone on far too long and it is far too distressing for many disabled people. The time for excuses should now have passed, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Brinton for providing the opportunity for this important debate. Noble Lords will forgive me if I occasionally have to look over my shoulder; the only timer in the room is over there.
My experience of provision for people with disabilities when travelling is at one remove: my late husband, Steve Hitchins, had a leg amputated in 2015 to save his life from sepsis and, after a few months in a loaned wheelchair while the wound healed, was fitted with a prosthetic leg. This was heavy and unwieldy, given especially that the amputation was above the knee, so he could not walk very far and needed wheelchair assistance when travelling by air or train to get to or from the gate or platform. I learned a great deal about access problems in the four years before he died—of unrelated causes—in 2019. I came to the conclusion that provision for the protected characteristic of disability is not only 20 years behind that of other protected characteristics under the Equality Act but is flavoured too often with patronising pity rather than simple efficiency.
In the period that Steve used a wheelchair, he once found himself stranded inside the courtyard of Somerset House. It was the anxiety about how on earth he would get out, as much the inconvenience, that was so distressing. We took only a couple of flights, but my recollection is of quite a lot of toing and froing at the airport to check that the promised wheelchair assistance would materialise and anxiety as to whether it would appear in time. The problem is often the outsourcing of the service and lack of seamless communication. Because he was not taking his own wheelchair, Steve did not have the issues referred to by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
The helpful Lords Library briefing tells us that, in their December 2018 consultation on the future of aviation, the Government noted that 70% of passengers who had requested assistance when flying in the previous 12 months were
“happy with the service provided”.
That is fine, but it means that 30%—almost one in three—were not. There seem to have been lots more consultation exercises and responses from both the Civil Aviation Authority and the Government than actual delivery of improvements.
In June last year, the CAA said that significant service failings were “unacceptable”. It warned airlines that they could face enforcement action regarding their legal obligations. What enforcement is actually happening? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. In June this year, the Government said it would seek to
“legislate when parliamentary time allows”—
in the time-honoured phrase—on enforcement powers of the CAA. We have learned in this House not to hold our breath regarding such promises. Can the Minister give us a date for such legislation? What is happening in the meantime on enforcement?
Many passengers—including, as we have heard, colleagues in this House—have been left stranded on planes without their wheelchairs being returned to them or with wheelchairs and other mobility aids lost or damaged, and the ensuing fight for compensation. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has spoken about poor experiences and said that disabled people are
“routinely … told they are not allowed to fly on their own because of health and safety”.
To anyone who is, for instance, single or widowed, or for any reason whatever is travelling alone, for business or pleasure, this is a massive and patronising inconvenience.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, had a documentary on the BBC World Service last night, entitled “Tanni’s Lifetime Road to Disabled Equality”, about how not only in the UK but worldwide countries are still struggling with providing proper access for people with disabilities. One thing she highlighted—not about travel—was that 40% of the disabled people who lived in Grenfell Tower died in that fire. She campaigns on evacuation provision. As she said, the BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner, whose being stranded on a plane waiting for the return of his wheelchair hit the headlines, complained on the noble Baroness’s programme about being treated as an “invalid” or “special person” instead of a service user like any other with particular needs. He wants common-sense practice, not “policy”, to guide service.
My main experience with my husband was of train travel, so I will say something about that, if I may—I think my noble friend Lady Brinton is permissive on this score. Provision for him was pretty hit and miss, with lots of pre-booking and checking up necessary. It arrived, more often than not, though often with a delay or with it needing to be chased by phone, but a majority of times is not good enough. I do not know if the situation has improved these days, with apps, but being stranded on trains is reported regularly. People’s needs differ. I recall one hairy occasion at St Pancras when, getting off a Thameslink train, the only offer was a ramp, but that was of no use to Steve, by then on his legs. He could step down but the big gap between train and platform without well-placed grab rails was nerve-wracking. By the way, Steve found the grab rails in the new electric taxis not to be very convenient, but they are great otherwise.
In the programme I just cited, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, reminded us that step-free access to trains, once promised for January 2020, has been put back to—unless I misheard—2070. Can this possibly be true? Even if there is level boarding from platform to train, there remains the problem of reaching the platform. Disgracefully, it was proposed at one point that seven stations on the Elizabeth line would be denied disabled access for cost-cutting reasons. This was reversed after an outcry but, of all the things to cut, what a telling reaction it was that slashing disabled access was top of the list.
Lifts at stations are very often out of action, sometimes with a casual apology notice stuck on. I wonder if Network Rail and the train companies understand the devastation that can be caused by a broken lift. It means either a horrible struggle up the stairs with great difficulty, maybe with a suitcase, or simply being unable to travel. Breakdowns need fixing in a maximum of hours, not days—let alone weeks.
My worst experience with my late husband was on our last holiday abroad, in May 2019, to Amsterdam on a direct Eurostar train. It was ruined, despite Eurostar’s promise in its website’s “special assistance” section that:
“If you’re travelling with a disability or reduced mobility, free special assistance is there to help you get to and from the train. At many of our stations, you’ll be helped by our Eurostar Assist team; at some of our stations, you’ll be helped by the local team. Although some local teams provide a slightly different service, we work closely with them to make sure everything goes smoothly”.
When he arranged the service, my husband was not told that the Amsterdam station’s “slightly different service” meant no loan wheelchair to meet him off the train, such as was provided at St Pancras to get on it. It provided a ramp only to passengers travelling in their own wheelchairs. Eurostar later claimed that we should somehow have known that
“free special assistance … to help you get to and from the train”
did not include a wheelchair loan at Amsterdam, as it did at St Pancras, since we were reliant on a Dutch railway service. I pointed out that our contract was with Eurostar, not NS, the Dutch railways.
The train manager on the Brussels-Amsterdam section of the outward trip came to find us to say, “I know you are registered for assistance but there is in fact no wheelchair loan at Amsterdam”. He clearly understood that we would not know about that and would be hearing it for the first time. We had been allocated seats in the end carriage of the outward train, which I had not thought was a problem, given that we were going to get a wheelchair to the door of the train. When we did not, my husband had the longest possible walk to the lift, which was a physical challenge for him with his prosthetic leg and distressing for me to observe. Even the memory of it distresses me. This was anything but the promised smooth experience.
I will spare you the details of the ruined weekend, with me making phone calls all over the shop to Eurostar and, when the company told me to, to SNCB, Thalys and goodness knows what—even though it was Eurostar’s responsibility. I have recounted this tale at some length for the snapshot it gives of not only poor service and lack of communication but poor co-ordination between providers, disingenuous explanations and attempts to wriggle out of responsibility. That is common to all modes of travel. I expect the Government and/or regulators to stop all this.
I am sorry; I have gone on. The fact is that we have an ageing society where the demand for assistance from those with either disability or reduced mobility can only grow, so the urgent need is for all those access and assistance promises to finally be fulfilled.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Brinton for bringing us the opportunity for such an important debate. She has recounted some very sobering experiences. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke, I recalled the apparent progress that we made during the 2012 Olympics in developing public understanding, appreciation and awareness of disability issues. Paralympic athletes such as the noble Baroness became our national heroes. My thought was: have we forgotten so soon? Has our society moved to ignoring these problems and issues again?
Of course, a change has occurred. Statistics show that requests for assistance for disabled passengers have doubled for airlines in the past two or three years. Those requests, as people decided to go on holiday and travel again after years of Covid restrictions, were being lodged at a time when the aviation industry had huge problems with recruitment, but some of the problems are not just transitory. They are endemic in the system.
When I was preparing for this debate, I was trying to analyse the source of the problems. Meeting these needs is a combination of provision by the airport and provision by the airline. One thing that is very useful indeed is the CAA’s annual survey and report on the record of individual airports. I am sure that the Minister will refer to this in this response. The CAA’s report shows that there have been improvements since what can be regarded only as the complete nadir in 2022—things have improved somewhat.
That report is important for two reasons. First, it incentivises the airports to improve their achievements and service, because they are named and shamed. Secondly, it is a source of information for people using wheelchairs who wish to travel, because you can pick out a better airport. It used to be that you avoided Luton at all costs but it has improved lately. What gives me real concern is that Heathrow seems to have a consistently poor record. That is our premier airport; it has the numbers to be able to provide a regular service and I cannot see why it does not consistently do well.
The other part of the jigsaw is the airlines. International lists of good airlines dealing with passengers with disabilities do not feature British-based airlines very much and that is a matter of concern to me.
My noble friend Lady Ludford talked about her Eurostar experience. I have never tried to board a plane in a wheelchair, but I needed a wheelchair last year, soon after my heart operation, when I got on the Eurostar. I have to say that I was treated brilliantly; the staff were absolutely lovely. The whole process was smooth—but I was not, of course, using my own wheelchair. I was using Eurostar’s and I could, with assistance, walk up a step, so it was not parallel to my noble friend’s experience with her husband. I hope the fact that I was treated so well suggests that, over the couple of years since the incident she recounted, things might have improved.
One problem is that this is partly an international issue, and we can control the British end better than we can control the further end of the journey. I also want to draw attention to the fact that airport services are remarkably fragmented: ground handling, luggage, catering, retail, security and passport control, bus transfers and the flight itself are all provided by different companies, and the co-ordination of those is a massive task. I am not trying today to reorganise the aviation industry but I wonder whether there might be a better way of co-ordinating it.
This debate has been overwhelmingly about aviation, but I suggest that a similar story could and should be told about railway services. On a weekly basis, on the trains that I travel on, I watch people in their wheelchairs—there are always people in wheelchairs on intercity services—who are worrying. You can see that they are not sure about the provision of services, and on a couple of occasions I have had to come to someone’s rescue by shouting at a member of staff further down the platform to make the point that there is someone waiting to get off. There is still a long way to ago.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, in his place fulfilling his duties as a Government Whip, having so recently been introduced to the House. We look forward to seeing much more of him.
What we are talking about here is a fundamental issue of equality and we clearly have to do something about it. I shall not speak for long on the issue; we have heard moving contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Ludford. The question is: what are the Government doing about it?
In the case of air travel, this is obviously primarily an international issue, so there is the difficult question of how one enforces standards across the EU, with the US and across the world as a whole, but there is no excuse for the poor treatment of people with disabilities on public transport in our own country. We have to do better than we are at present. The numerous reports of problems are really unanswerable.
What are the Government doing to monitor compliance with the relevant domestic legislation? In the case of airlines, is this something that they regard as the CAA’s responsibility and therefore the department does not have to do much, or is the department itself taking these questions seriously? If it is, what in the near future is it planning to do about it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for asking this important question and all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Aviation passengers’ rights remain a priority and the Government are committed to ensuring that air travel is accessible for all. I am extremely sorry to hear of the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the other shocking experiences that have been unfolded in Grand Committee today. For what it is worth, in my role as a Minister I am responsible for maritime accessibility, so I take this very seriously.
My responses today relate to contributions made by all noble Lords. I will start by talking about the rights of disabled passengers and the Government’s position. We have been clear with industry that passengers should be provided with the best service possible, including providing services and support to disabled and less mobile passengers so that they can travel with ease and dignity. Failure in this area is totally unacceptable.
In the Civil Aviation Authority’s latest aviation consumer survey, 21% of respondents identified as having a disability or health condition. Out of these people, 58% stated that they had difficulty in accessing or using airports or flying, and 70% required assistance when flying. The Government are committed to tackling the barriers affecting disabled and less mobile passengers while flying. The department has consulted formally on accessibility and regularly engages with disability experts and people with lived experience to further understand the issues. The department is committed to continuing to work collaboratively to bring about positive changes in aviation accessibility. To help bolster understanding and drive improvements, the department works closely with the government-appointed Disability and Access Ambassador for Aviation, Ann Frye OBE, and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to ensure that disabled passengers’ voices are represented.
I recognise and take on board the notion that this is a global issue and must be addressed accordingly. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is quite correct to point out that this is a matter of equality. The Government are working actively with other countries at a European level through the ECAC and internationally with the ICAO.
Following consultation, the Government have committed to a range of legislative reforms, when parliamentary time allows, and non-legislative measures to improve air passenger rights for all passengers, first to remove the compensation cap for damaged wheelchairs on domestic UK flights through legislation. The Government will also work with industry to encourage voluntary waiving of this cap on international flights. It is important that when industry is in breach of its obligations to consumers, there are means of addressing this. Therefore, the department will take forward legislation to give the CAA additional enforcement powers: for example, the power to issue fines. Additionally, alternative dispute resolution membership for all airlines operating to, from and within the United Kingdom will be mandatory, so that all passengers can escalate complaints no matter who they choose to fly with. The right training is vital for the sector to understand the needs of disabled and less-mobile passengers. That is why the department launched a new training module for industry on handling powered wheelchairs to help mitigate damage to these vitally important items.
On stakeholder engagement, my noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton, the previous Aviation Minister, hosted a round table with accessibility experts in June 2023. This focused on gaining a deeper understanding of the barriers faced by disabled and less-mobile passengers and what more could be done to address these. The round table was invaluable in identifying key areas that could be reformed. The department is now taking forward discussions with industry to drive forward improvements in the sector focusing on these key issues, including, for example, training, data sharing, complaint handling and infrastructure. The department is committed to continuing its engagement with industry and stakeholders to make air travel enjoyable and comfortable for everyone. To help drive improvements, the Government work closely with the government-appointed Disability and Access Ambassador for Aviation whom I mentioned earlier, and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, to ensure that disabled passengers’ voices are represented.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about the Civil Aviation Authority’s role. We have a regulatory framework that sets out the rights of disabled and less mobile passengers when flying, which is enforced by the CAA. The recent public body review of the CAA looked at the efficiency, effectiveness, governance and accountability of the CAA as a whole, including the use of its current consumer protection enforcement powers. The independent review reported that the CAA is a highly effective regulator. The CAA is committed to its role to consumers, which is evident from several key initiatives, including the release of a recent airport accessibility performance report, the ongoing consultation on introducing a similar airline performance framework, the assessment of airline website accessibility and the publication of a new consumer strategy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned staff training. Training is key to ensuring that staff across the aviation sector understand the needs of disabled passengers. The ministerial round table with disability experts in June 2023 raised staff training as one of the key barriers to disabled people’s confidence to fly. UK law obliges all staff to receive appropriate disability awareness training. The department will work with industry to understand what issues or gaps, if any, exist and will consider ways to address these. The department published a free online disability awareness and equality training package for all transport mode operators, including aviation, in November 2020. The REAL training programme was created to improve the sector’s confidence and skills in delivering inclusive journeys for disabled passengers. The department launched a new module as part of the REAL programme in June for handling powered wheelchairs; the training focuses on the importance of careful handling and the impact that any damage has on the passenger.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also talked about seating on board aircraft. We strongly believe that everyone should have equal access to air travel. Under UK law, airlines are required to make all reasonable efforts to arrange seating to meet a disabled passenger’s needs, including seating a travelling companion next to the passenger. While there is no legal requirement for airlines to offer free or discounted seats to an accompanying person, it is the CAA’s view that it is best practice for airlines to do so where they require a disabled or less mobile passenger to travel with an accompanying person. Airlines are allowed to request an accompanying person only due to safety concerns: for example, if a passenger could not evacuate the aircraft in an emergency.
On non-visible disabilities, providing accessible aviation to all passengers is a government priority. As I mentioned earlier, the CAA has published guidance for both airlines and airports on providing assistance to passengers with non-visible disabilities. In fact, the Government’s Disability and Access Ambassador ran an excellent session with industry and experts on a new UK standard for the built environment and neurodiversity, called “Design for the Mind”. The session considered how the airport environment can be better designed and managed to be an enjoyable environment for neurodiverse people. The Government are working with experts following this session to understand what practical steps can be taken.
On accessible toilets on board aircraft, there is already guidance on accessibility requirements under UK law that airlines are expected to follow, including guidance on accessible toilets on different aircraft types. The CAA has recently reinforced, in its consultation on an airline accessibility performance framework, that airlines must meet the requirements set out in the guidance, including providing assistance to and from the toilet via an on-board wheelchair in order to meet their legal obligations.
Airport security screening was mentioned. As I said, the Government are committed to ensuring that flying is enjoyable and accessible for everyone, and the department is engaging with industry to identify ways that this can be achieved for the entire passenger journey. All passengers must be screened effectively, and, as far as possible, disabled and less mobile passengers will be screened to the same standard and in the same way as other passengers. Where passengers are not able to be screened in the usual way, an alternative method will be used that may take slightly longer. Security officers are expected to make reasonable adjustments when screening or searching passengers with a disability.
The reports we have seen in recent years about the mistreatment of disabled and less mobile passengers travelling by air are, as I said earlier, completely unacceptable. The department is committed to making aviation accessible and enjoyable for everyone, and there are plans in place, both legislative and non-legislative, to drive this forward. There is legislation in place to protect the rights of passengers, and the CAA will take enforcement action, where necessary, to protect the rights of consumers. The industry has made some real changes over the last year to improve the service it provides to consumers, including disabled and less mobile passengers, and this is evident in the CAA’s most recent report on airport accessibility performance. However, there is more to do, and the department and the CAA will continue to work collaboratively with industry to focus on improving the accessibility of aviation and the service provided to passengers.
The Government are clear that all passengers must be treated with respect and dignity while travelling by air. It is vital that government, the CAA, industry and accessibility stakeholders continue to work together to making flying an enjoyable, safe and comfortable experience. I thank noble Lords for their input on this important issue.
Educational Technology
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kidron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of educational technology (ed tech) being used in schools in relation to (1) the educational outcomes, (2) the social development, and (3) the privacy of schoolchildren.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests, particularly that of chair of the Digital Futures Commission, which published the Blueprint for Educational Data in 2022, as chair of 5Rights Foundation and adviser to the Institute for Ethics in AI in Oxford.
School is a place of learning and an environment where children build relationships, life choices are made and futures initiated. For most children, school is compulsory, so while they are there, the school is in loco parentis. I welcome the use of technology, whether for learning or management, but it is uniquely important that it meets the school’s multiple responsibilities for the children in its care.
The debate this afternoon asks us to consider the impact of edtech on learning, privacy and the social development of children. Each could fill a debate on its own, but in touching on all three, I wish to make the point that we need standards and oversight of all.
For more than a decade, Silicon Valley, with its ecosystem of industry-financed NGOs, academics and think tanks, has promised that edtech would transform education, claiming that personalised learning would supercharge children’s achievements and learning data would empower teachers, and even that tech might in some places replace teachers or reach students who might otherwise not be taught.
Meanwhile, many teachers and academics worry that the sector has provided little evidence for these claims. A recent review by the UCL’s Centre for Education Policy found that, of 25 of the most popular maths apps for children aged five, only one had been empirically evaluated for positive impacts on maths outcomes. Half of them did not include features known to support learning, such as feedback loops, and six of the 25 contained no mathematical content at all. If the UCL finding was extrapolated across the half a million apps labelled “education apps” in the app store, 480,000 would not be evaluated, a quarter of a million would provide no learning support and 120,000 would have no educational content at all. The lack of quality standards is not restricted to apps but is widely spread across all forms of edtech. Of course we should have tech in school, but it must be educationally sound.
Covid supercharged the adoption of edtech and, while we must not conflate remote learning with edtech in the classroom, the Covid moment offers two important insights. First, as forensically set out in the UNESCO publication An Ed-Tech Tragedy, the “unprecedented” dependence on technology worsened disparities and learning loss across the world—including in Kenya, Brazil, the United States and Britain. Unsurprisingly, in each country the privileged children with space, connectivity, their own device and an engaged adult had better outcomes than their peers. A more surprising finding was that, where there was no remote learning at all but children were supplied with printouts or teaching via TV or radio, the majority of students did better. The exact reasons are complex but, in short, teaching prepared by teachers for students whom they know, unmediated by the values and normative engineering practices of Silicon Valley, had better outcomes. UNESCO calls on us to ensure that the promises of edtech are supported by evidence.
Secondly, Covid embedded edtech in our schools. Sixty-four per cent of schools introduced, increased or upgraded their technology with no corresponding focus on pupil privacy. In 2021, LSE Professor Sonia Livingstone and barrister Louise Hooper for the Digital Futures Commission mapped the journey of pupil data on Google Classroom and Class Dojo. Their report showed children’s data leaking from school and homework assignments into the commercial world at eye-watering scale, readily available to advertisers and commercial players without children, parents or teachers even knowing.
It is worth noting that, in 2021, the Netherlands negotiated a contract that restricted the data that Google’s education products could share. In 2022, Helsingør in Denmark banned Google Workspace and Chromebooks altogether—the same year the French Ministry of Education urged schools to stop using free versions of both Google and Microsoft.
Children’s privacy is non-trivial. Data may include school attendance, visits to the nurse, immigration status, test results, disciplinary record, aptitude and personality tests, mental health records, biometric data, or the granular detail of how a child interacted with an educational product—whether they hesitated or misspelled. Between management platforms, multiple connected devices and programmes used for teaching, the data that can be collected on a child is almost infinite and the data protection breathtakingly poor. Pupil data has been made available to gambling firms and advertisers, and even been found to track their use of mental health services.
I turn briefly to the impact on social development. Child development is a multifaceted affair, in which not only the tech itself but the opportunity cost—that is, what the child is not doing—is of equal import. I was in Manchester last week, where a programme to bring professional dancers to nursery schools is being developed because children were arriving unable to play, look each other in the eye or move confidently. Although schools are not to blame if children come in overstimulated and undersocialised, in part because of the sedentary screen time of early years, it is absolutely crucial that school remains a place of movement, singing, playing, drawing, reading and class teaching, supported by tech but not replaced by it, not only in a handful of Manchester nurseries but throughout the school system, and, very importantly, during the teenage years. Decisions about edtech should be in the light of and in response to not simply learning but the whole child and their development needs.
In my final minutes, I will speak briefly about safety tech. Here, I record my gratitude to Ministers and officials in the Department for Education, past and present, who have made very significant progress on this issue this year.
Frankie Thomas was 15 when she accessed a story that promoted suicide on a school iPad that had not been connected to the school filtering system. Subsequently, she took her own life exactly as she had seen online. Since that time, her parents, Judy and Andy, have campaigned tirelessly to bring the governance of safety tech to our notice. They deserve much credit for the advances that have been made. However, we still do not have standards for safety tech in schools. Schools can buy, and are buying, in good faith, systems that fail to search for self-harm or have illegal content filters switched off and so on. Secondarily, while we have excellent new guidance, Ofsted inspections do not explicitly ask whether schools are reviewing and checking that their online safety systems are working, meaning that thousands of schools have not properly engaged with that guidance.
I gave the Minister notice of my questions and very much look forward to her response. Will the department introduce quality control for edtech, including peer review and certification that evidences that it is suitable to meet children’s educational and development needs? Will the department use the upcoming Data Protection and Digital Information Bill to introduce a data protection regime for schools, which is so urgently needed? Will the department introduce standard procurement contracts, such as the Netherlands has, recognising that a single school cannot negotiate performance and privacy standards with global companies? Will the department bring forward a requirement for minimum standards of filtering and monitoring so that safety systems are fit for purpose, and simultaneously ensure that Ofsted’s inspecting schools handbook explicitly requires an inspector to ask whether a school is regularly checking its safety tech?
I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have chosen to speak and look forward to their contributions. Education is an extremely precious contribution to child development and widely regarded as a public good. It must not be undermined by allowing an unregulated market to develop without regard for the learning, privacy and safety of children.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has set out the parameters for today’s short debate so powerfully and with her customary expertise. It is a great pleasure to see a number of other noble Lords in the Chamber who I have spent quite a long time debating online safety issues with so far in 2023. I mention my honorary position as a member of the political advisers panel of AI in Education. I shall come back to that in a moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, set out a very clear case for standards and oversight of tech in education. I know that this is not a new issue; it is something that my noble friend the Minister and the Department for Education have been looking at for quite some time. When I was Secretary of State for Education, quite a long time ago now, I remember being invited to a number of edtech conferences and events, where I was told how technology was going to revolutionise the classroom, make everybody’s lives so much easier and cut workloads. I still think that all those things are possible and that we should see both the risks and opportunities of technology in education. My former constituency of Loughborough experienced, many, many years ago, the Luddites, as they came through and smashed up the cotton frames. I do not think we want to be Luddites about technology in education or say that we need to put the genie back in the bottle. I will be very interested to hear from the Minister how much the department is already doing in this particular space.
Of course, it is not just about government. As with so many other things, government Ministers, officials, and advisory groups can do so much, but there are many other organisations. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, talked about one; AI in Education, led by Sir Anthony Seldon, is another; the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who cannot be here today, has talked about the Institute for Ethical AI in Education. I very much hope that the department is calling on all those institutions, as well as many others in the space, to gather the best expertise, because I do not think that in this fast-moving world government can possibly be expected to solve the issues that today’s short debate will highlight on its own.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, this issue of tech in education has been only accelerated—as so many other things relating to technology were—by the pandemic. The Covid-19 Committee that this House set up in 2020, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, took evidence on the specific issue of technology in education during the pandemic. While, of course, there were issues—technology adopted very quickly, issues relating to privacy and other things thought about later than they should have been—I was also struck at the time by the evidence from parents and others working with, in particular, children with special needs, for whom the opportunity to learn online in a quieter environment had, for many, been something that they welcomed. I think it is fair to say that we all now live in a hybrid world. While there is no doubt that children learn best in a classroom—we all learn and communicate better face-to-face—there will still be times when the hybrid option is suitable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, talked about safety tech. The first message I urge my noble friend to take back to the department and others is that I really hope that we are not going to play catch-up on all these issues, as we have done with internet regulation. We now have the Online Safety Act, and are all now waiting for the regulator to do what it needs to do, but there is no doubt that we—and not just us but Governments around the world—have been playing catch-up with the growth of the internet. The issues relating to technology and education, and how we keep our young people safe, are not new; we need to think them through and try to keep as ahead as we possibly can of the challenges.
In the time available, I will make two points. One relates to the curriculum and the other relates to character education, my favourite subject. It seems to me that, over the course of the past nine years, since I had the fortune to become the Secretary for Education, which is a fantastic role, our curriculum has slipped behind somewhat in being relevant for the 21st century. Knowledge is very important, but the world has changed, along with the way that we all access that knowledge—that genie will not go back in the bottle. As the noble Baroness said, getting young people to understand the risks of sharing their data but also being confident about broader issues relating to data analysis and the use of statistics are things that our curriculum does not accurately teach now. A lot of the rest of us, who are not in school or college, could also benefit from lessons in these things, so a programme of adult education on these matters would not go amiss either.
I used to get a lot of lobbying about the taking of exams: why do we still ask young people to sit in rooms for three hours scribbling on a piece of paper? Again, the recall of knowledge is important, but there are ways of designing the use of technology in exam settings that would stop people accessing information on the internet to help them but also reflect the fact that, when you get out into the big wide world and the workplace, people will be using technology. I say this not as somebody whose handwriting is abysmal, but the fact is that I type every day and do not write that much anymore. We have to reflect that fact.
The other point is being sceptical about what young people are finding out from artificial intelligence and the internet. Again, all of us could benefit from lessons in that. But if young people and those who are teaching them are going to use artificial intelligence in education, let us work with them to make sure that they are confident in how they use it, how they check what it is and any underlying biases in the AI that they have been using.
My final point is on character. I firmly believe that our education system is for teaching not just knowledge but characteristics—values, virtues, things such as integrity, honesty, curiosity and the desire to constantly learn. That is more relevant than ever when you have the influence of technology in our classrooms. I would really welcome my noble friend’s comments on the need to update the curriculum to reflect the use of data and AI technology in the modern world, but also how schools will teach character skills to help young people to really use AI and technology in a way that benefits their education.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses. I do not think that there was a word that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said that I did not agree with. I declare my interests at the outset: I, too, am a political adviser to AI in Education; I chair a multi-academy trust, E-ACT; I am a director of Suklaa, whose clients include Iris Software and Goodnotes; I am a director of Macat; and I chair the boards at Century Tech and EDUCATE Ventures Research. I am very proud that the last two are headed up by two great experts around AI and education, Professor Rose Luckin and Priya Lakhani.
I am a long-term evangelist for the use of technology in education, as well as change in education and our school system, but I recognise the efficacy problem that the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Morgan, talked about. I signed off, and was responsible as a Minister for, the harnessing technology grants—rather a lot of money was spent on rather a lot of whiteboards. I am not sure that they made a massive difference when we did not accompany that investment with the training of teachers to transform their pedagogy to go with it, and we need to learn from that.
It is also fair to reflect that, with the current orthodoxy of the curriculum—what we require of young people and how they take tests writing on paper with pens in large sports halls every summer—perhaps we do not need technology. It may well be that, given that that system has not really changed for the last 50 to 70 years, we know how to teach it. If we think that that is right and we should preserve the status quo for ever, then perhaps we do not need technology. But I happen to believe, particularly with the workforce crisis that we face in our schools, and the changing environment externally that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, talked about, that we need to change.
I am guided by the work back in the late 1990s of Professor Ruben Puentedura from Boston who talked about his SAMR model—that is, substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition. It is only when you get to the modification or redefinition of pedagogy that you achieve proper gains with the application of technology in education.
Currently we have a curriculum problem for the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness. We have an opportunity for change enabled by technology assisting teachers, and technology is making that change inevitable and essential. In order to realise that opportunity, we have to be mindful of some of the problems of safety, data and privacy, the digital divide—the divide around access to devices and data—and the confidence of teachers and learners to be able to use technology and of parents to be able to support their children during homework using technology. We have to be mindful of all those things, but they should not be an obstacle to progress.
There are alternative visions. There is a dystopian vision where technology replaces teachers and young people are isolated, learning on screens, cramming for tests of knowledge and ultimately falling behind machines because they leave school unable to compete with highly intelligent machines and their ability to regurgitate knowledge far more accurately than humans ever could. At the same time, in that dystopian world, we would have all the problems of data privacy and privatisation that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, talked about.
The utopian vision is of technology as a co-pilot to teachers, keeping them informed about the differences in their class, the scaffolding gaps in the knowledge of their children and the skills that those children need as technology helps them to interpret how their children are doing. This vision includes the opportunity for flipped learning so that the instructional knowledge-based elements of the learning can be done at home using technology so that school is a human place of social interaction and group work with the application of knowledge in an exciting way that teachers at the moment are not equipped and trained to be able to do. With the application of technology, there is an opportunity to do that and to develop a more rounded curriculum powered by novel forms of assessment with portfolios as endpoint qualifications that can deliver higher education entrance in a way that is a transformation from where we are at the moment and, to my mind, hugely exciting.
Artificial intelligence represents an opportunity. There are opportunities for tools for workload and workflow and pedagogic tools around adaptive learning, formative assessment on the fly and being able to deliver project-based learning in a way that is currently practically really hard for teachers but could be made a lot easier, thereby engaging all learners with relevant knowledge and skills in a way that is currently inconceivable.
However, we have to be mindful of the risks. I am interested in data trusts for public services and in whether we can set up trusts in statute not only for the NHS but for education so that we can own and control the use of children’s data, navigate which commercial partners we might want to use and get some return on the AI that that data is being used to train so that we can use that to help to fund our education system if that intellectual property is then exploited overseas.
The Minister will not be surprised that I question why we are investing £2 million of public money in Oak National Academy without procurement for it to do AI development, rather than using the private sector and others or even going through any kind of procurement to see how we might do that. Generally, I would love to see Oak repurposed into a modern-day version of BECTA that could properly advise the system on the safety, efficacy and workload implications of technology and generate the best-value procurement possible.
Edtech is a great opportunity. The need for change is pressing. We should chase after the utopian vision, with technology for good being embedded in what we do our schools.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Knight, who has just demonstrated his extraordinary depth of knowledge in both education and technology. In fact, it is rather daunting to speak after him and the two noble Baronesses. Rather than declare my interests, I feel I have to do the opposite and declare my lack of knowledge, as I am not an educationalist at all, other than being the mother of two teenage daughters. I speak solely from my experience in digital transformation and digital regulation in other sectors.
With that caveat, I will dare to say a few points. From other sectors, there are four things that we know, which I would like to pull out. The first is obvious: the huge opportunity coupled and paired with the risks that digital technology brings. The yin and the yang are visible in every single place that digital goes. The second thing we know is that you cannot stop it. As my noble friend describes, the Luddites failed, as has everyone else who has attempted to stop technology. Like water in a flood, it finds a way through. You cannot ban it; you also cannot ignore it. We know that from every other sector.
Thirdly, the problem is not the technology, but the people. In every sector, it is people who make technological change hard. While 98% of the population embrace technology in an open, whole-hearted, moral and legal way, there will always be those who use technology in other ways. Change, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred to, involves people changing. We know that from every sector that digital has touched, but it is hard in every sector.
Fourthly, every sector is learning that it has to lean in itself. It is not possible to do what my parents did, which was to abdicate responsibility for the DVD or video player to the younger generation to program, because they did not know how. With technology, it is hugely tempting to want to abdicate responsibility to the “experts”, to the CTO or the technology function. Every sector is learning that you cannot do that. Educationalists, just like politicians, cannot abdicate this to other people. We have to lean in and learn ourselves.
It is here already. As I tried to mug up a little bit on the edtech sector in advance of this debate, I was really struck by some statistics from an RM Technology research pamphlet, published in June 2023. It did some research on 1,000 secondary school students this summer: 67% of them already used chatbots such as ChatGPT—67%, just six months after it launched—and 48% said that excluding it would really hold them back. However, 38% said they felt guilty about using it. Teenagers are expressing the yin and yang already: the opportunity and the threat of that new technology.
Those of us who have worked together on online safety for many years know that we were far too slow to challenge the tech exceptionalism in child online safety. We were far too slow to win the argument that self-regulation was patently not going to be fine. I worry that there is a real risk of almost a double exceptionalism here: the tech exceptionalism, of “Don’t worry, self-regulation will be fine”, coupled with the “Education is different, it’s all a bit too complicated; we need to leave it to the educational establishment and teachers—don’t worry”. Through that double exceptionalism, I was shocked to discover that the age-appropriate design code does not apply to education technology. I do not know why. Can my noble friend the Minister say why would we not extend the age-appropriate design code to edtech? We know that safety by design is the way to build in the right checks and balances for opportunity and risk in digital. If that is not regulated, it does not happen—we have seen that time and again in social media. While it is easy for me to say, “Lean in”, we must really invest to lean in and learn about the technologies. Can my noble friend the Minister say what the Department for Education is doing to build its knowledge as these new technologies grow?
I sit on the Lords Communications and Digital Committee, which is currently doing an inquiry into large language models. We have asked a whole series of regulators how prepared they are to regulate AI. I am ashamed to say that I do not think we have asked anyone in education, so I will do so now. I am keen to understand what the department is doing to build its expertise in large language models, because we can see they are being used. How many AI experts and data scientists does the department have? Is it starting to put together a regulatory sandbox? These are all questions we are asking other regulators and I suggest that the Department for Education should look at them too.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Knight, I too want to highlight the importance of digital inclusion. It is all very well for us to discuss the opportunities and risks of all this wonderful technology, but the harsh reality is that far too many children are growing up in this country without access to it at all. According to Ofcom’s 2023 media use and attitudes report, 19% of 16 to 24 year-olds use only a smartphone to go online. Imagine trying to do your homework just with a smartphone—possibly one that is shared among the whole family. That is a huge disadvantage, which serves to exacerbate all the things that I know the department is working so hard to try to improve.
The report showed that 28% of 16 to 24 year-olds are only “narrow” internet users, which Ofcom defines as those who use the internet for only one to four activities out of a defined list of 13. These are not technical—buying things, streaming videos, looking for jobs or using it for research. That is a very large proportion of our young people without a broad range of basic digital skills. What are we doing in education to ensure that all pupils have basic digital skills and access to more than just a smartphone?
The opportunities are so great—I am a tech evangelist in so many ways—but the risks are also very real. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, standards and oversight need to be in every sector. Probably none is more important than education.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for initiating this relevant and highly pertinent debate. I confess that tech is not my area of expertise, but I have received so many briefings and emails and so much helpful advice that I am now well aware of the importance of edtech in schools.
I was a teacher before technology. If we needed to duplicate, we had a jelly tray on which you put one sheet at a time. I seem to remember the print came out purple, for some reason. The advent of photocopiers was a revolution to teachers—the heady days of yesteryear—but, as we have heard, educational technology is on the rise and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, we cannot halt it. However, we need to learn how to manage it so that it is our servant and not our master. Much of what I was going to say has been said, but of course I have not said it. I shall try not to be repetitive.
There is always the danger that students are likely to be one step ahead of teachers, as the young have grown up with technology whereas many teachers have had to learn it. As others have pointed out, there are dangers for the social development of pupils if they rely too much on technology and not enough on their own learning. There is also a danger of taking the personal interaction between teacher and pupil out of the picture.
My daughter was a primary teacher during Covid, working excessive hours to ensure that her four year-old pupils continued their education, albeit in a strange and unusual way. Her first task was always to ensure that they had access to a computer and to an adult who could use it, and then to construct relevant and interesting lessons to ensure that they did not lose out. We share concerns about the Oak National Academy, which was set up during Covid to support remote learning, which was new to pupils and teachers. Can the Minister say what the status of the Oak National Academy is now? AI was supposed to help teachers with lesson planning and other materials that would reduce their workload, but it is not at all certain that that was achieved.
We have heard from Jen Persson, the director of Defend Digital Me, who writes:
“To reduce the debate on edTech to questions of data processing or particular pros and cons of a single product is to misunderstand the socio-political and economic underpinning and goals of the edTech market”.
Jen raises concerns that
“the introduction of many common technology tools, apps and platforms into the school setting means the introduction of hundreds, often thousands, of strangers who influence a child’s life through interactions with companies and their affiliates in the digital world”.
Others have pointed this out. They say these platforms are by no means secure and can
“bypass the gatekeepers within the school system to deliver EdTech directly to young people, their families and lifelong learners”.
In other words, the privacy and safety of children may be compromised by these exciting new tools. The issue of the privacy and safety of children must surely be addressed, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others.
For teachers who are overworked and underpaid, there could be help in their workload if they are provided with a personalised AI lesson-planning assistant, but, once again, we need to know how secure these assistants will be. Schools may decide to use tools and platforms to help with management and administration, monitor the progress of students and communicate with other staff members and even with parents. There are copious uses of AI. However, we raise concerns about the cost of the equipment, such as interactive whiteboards, laptops or tablets. They do not come cheap and, as we know only too well, school budgets are stretched to the limit. So what priority will these have in the decisions of head teachers? If payment for those things means that schools go without other things, we have to address that carefully.
We are certainly well aware of the use of edtech for special educational needs. My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who is dyslexic, has always relied heavily on devices to assist him. Many other students with different needs will find invaluable the use of adaptive technologies, such as braille machines and other pieces of equipment for blind students. Edtech can be transformational for students who otherwise would miss out on education.
Could technology also be used to ease teacher workload of lesson planning, marking and assessment? Our teachers provide an amazing service to pupils, parents and the country, and anything that helps to reduce workload has to be welcomed. However, once again, we need to be assured of confidentiality in relation to young people. AI might tackle some of the administrative tasks that might keep teachers from investing more time with their peers or students.
There are arguments that edtech could contribute to pastoral support, mental health and pupils’ well-being, but surely only up to a point. The personal touch of teachers and parents can never be sidelined. According to the Government, the UK’s edtech sector is the largest in Europe. They also report that UK schools already spend an estimated £900 million a year on educational technology. If that means that it improves learner engagement and progress, this has to be money well spent. We know that during Covid edtech was invaluable, but surely machines, however sophisticated, can never replace face-to-face teaching.
I will digress slightly by saying, particularly in response to the comment by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Aberdare, and I are on a committee looking at 11-16 education, and we have concluded that GCSEs have completely failed our young people. Our report will come out in December, and I urge noble Lords to look at it because the whole process of 11-16 education is deeply flawed at the moment.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply and hope that the country’s students will be able to benefit from dedicated teachers and world-class technology.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in promoting the interests of children in relation to AI and the need to put them at the heart of the debate on AI and online safety. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, I am not an expert in technology, so I feel slightly at a loss compared to some of the greater knowledge in the Room, but I have learned a huge amount this week and in this debate.
Every part of our lives is already being affected by AI, but there is a huge divide between those who understand how it works and how it affects us, and those who do not. However, all policy areas should have a renewed focus on the risks and opportunities of AI, and this should be at the front and centre of our work here in Parliament. As the Tony Blair Institute has said, this is a technology with
“a level of impact akin to the internal combustion engine, electricity and the internet, so incrementalism will not be enough”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, we cannot stop it.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that each part of the question could fill a debate on its own. She highlighted the global issues in inequality, which we should be concerned about. I will, however, focus on the UK in my remarks. Her examples of the need to ensure that children do not lose the opportunity to socialise and gain social development were powerful. Can the Minister provide reassurance on this and on the online safety issues and the need for safety tech? The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, noted the advantages to some pupils with special educational needs, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. This offers an immense opportunity. Is the Minister confident that this is being used effectively by schools and promoted effectively by the department?
My noble friend Lord Knight spoke about the need to redefine pedagogy to reflect tech change. This has to be a priority for all of us. I agree that we do not need to assume that we are going to have a dystopian future, but we need to have a balanced debate between this and the utopian vision. Sometimes, there is a big divide between those who see it as a dystopia and those who see it as a utopia. We need to find somewhere in the middle, otherwise we will not be able to embrace the potential, both for the children and for the country, and provide the safeguarding required.
Covid clearly fast-tracked technology in our schools. Technology clearly has the power to transform our education system. But we should not assume that technological advancements in our classrooms will automatically lead to educational advancements. Technology will not be the silver bullet that alone recruits, retains or replaces the teaching staff we desperately need. It will not rebuild our schools or bring a generation of persistently absent children back into classrooms—although there may be some ways in which it can help in terms of the administration of some of these issues.
As the pace of impact of educational technology threatens to outstrip our ability to respond to individual developments, we must work with schools, colleges, universities, employers and unions, as well as pupils and parents and others with parental responsibility to create an overriding strategy that can address the challenges, risks and opportunities that technology poses. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that the curriculum needs to change. Her suggestion about education would perhaps ensure that policymakers better understand the tech as well. I would work on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and my noble friend Lord Knight raised points around Oak Academy. The recent announcement on the new role of AI on the platform warrants additional answers from the department. Concerns have already been raised about the operation, evaluation and assurance at Oak National Academy. AI only serves to amplify this. Could the Minister tell us how much public money is being spent on this and what exactly it will provide? Will it provide exactly what teachers want and need?
Labour knows that we must better prepare our children and young people for the coming digital future. They must be able to use new, emerging and future technology. They must also understand how to shape these technologies and understand their opportunities, risks and limitations. The questioning style and the critical skills we need to teach children in this emerging area are vital. We must ensure that all young people are equipped with both literacy and numeracy skills as well as analytical, critical thinking, problem-solving, creative and collaborative skills that will enable them not only to adapt to change but to lead it and understand what their roles and opportunities are within this new technological world. In this context, I welcome the work undertaken by the organisation AI in Education and note the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and my noble friend Lord Knight. Could the Minister outline how the DfE is engaging with and learning from this group and ensuring its professional perspective and expertise? I was staggered by the number of people involved when I looked through the website. It is a huge resource. How is the DfE utilising this expertise and the expertise of other groups, including those that have been mentioned in this debate?
I want to finish on the third question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on privacy for children and online safety and also raise questions on the potential for bias in AI algorithms, which may end up causing issues within all settings and educational settings in particular.
Can the Minister outline how the Government intend to protect the interests of children, not least in relation to privacy? Are they exploring measures from the Netherlands and Denmark, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, highlighted? What advice are the Government providing to schools about the use of AI, and will they insist on safety by design, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, suggests? I will finish with a quote from the World Economic Forum:
“There is no doubt that artificial intelligence will change the way children interact with their surroundings including their learning, play and development environment. However, it is our responsibility to ensure that this change becomes a force for good”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her work in establishing standards for online safety and privacy, and for securing this debate. Her speech highlighted many of the risks inherent in these technologies as well as some of the opportunities. My noble friend Lady Harding felt daunted after just a couple of your Lordships’ speeches, but I feel even more daunted coming at the end after such expertise and insight from your Lordships.
I am pleased to say in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, about our work with AI in Education that we have been working and liaising with it, and I share the noble Baronesses’ respect. I also spent time on its website recently, and I was stunned at the range of resources that it has created. I was fortunate enough to be part of its conference yesterday, which was an incredibly vibrant event bringing together many teachers and educators from around the country.
My noble friend Lady Morgan suggested that the Government need to avoid playing catch-up; I am sure she will recognise that it feels particularly hard for government, which is perhaps not generally famed for its agility, to operate and not play catch-up in an area where the pace of change is so extraordinarily fast. The way I would try to characterise this for my noble friend is that we are looking at this through two lenses. The first is to stay very close to teachers and work closely with them to understand what their immediate needs and worries are in relation to these technologies, and make sure that we can respond to those where appropriate. However, this is also about working very hard on the medium and longer-term issues—I will touch a little more on that in my remarks, but I do not want to underestimate the scale of the task because I know my noble friend Lady Morgan does not either.
We want to create an environment where all schools and trusts can use technology to improve access to education and outcomes, reduce staff workload and run their operations more efficiently. Technology is certainly not an easy solution to all this, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, raised important questions on the role of government in protecting students from the harms of technology. She asked whether we will introduce a data protection regime design for school settings; we are developing the Education Privacy Assurance Scheme—or EPAS to its friends—to work with education settings to help them understand and deliver their obligations and responsibilities in relation to data protection legislation. However, I will look more closely at the points she raised about the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and I will of course come back to the noble Baroness in writing with an update on that.
In relation to whether we will introduce standard procurement contracts, we are currently looking at the ways in which we can make the procurement of technology easier for schools. We have five ICT frameworks in place, which are accessible via the find a framework service, and we are looking at how we can support schools beyond the framework, such as providing support developing specifications.
In relation to the peer review of education technology, we have the same expectations for robust evidence for education technology as we do elsewhere in education. I think the House would acknowledge that we are genuinely world leading in our quality of our education research, and so only where there is robust evidence of the impact of technology will we go further in actively encouraging adoption of that technology in the classroom. We have provided £137 million to the Education Endowment Foundation. Its upcoming research trials will explore teaching approaches that use educational technology, including which features of the technology, and how they are used, may support academic attainment—or not, as the noble Baroness suggested.
In relation to filtering and monitoring, we have published standards to help schools understand their responsibilities and statutory duties to safeguard children online, and we have embedded these standards in our Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance. That update was launched in March of this year and the standards have had over 100,000 views, so this is clearly touching something that feels very relevant to schools. We have also provided useful links to training materials and guidance to support schools, including commissioning the UK Safer Internet Centre to create and run a series of webinars.
We have set technology standards on connectivity, cybersecurity, filtering and monitoring, use of the cloud, and servers and storage. We want all schools to meet these standards, which is one reason why we have provided £200 million of investment to upgrade schools that fall below our wifi standards. We are also piloting a digital service to help schools to benchmark their technology, identify areas of improvement and implement these recommendations. We are currently testing those in Blackpool and Portsmouth, and will open it up to more schools next year.
We know that technology evolves at pace and that adoption of generative AI is ever more widespread. We must work very closely with the whole education sector to provide support on how best to use the technology, maximising opportunity while minimising risk. My noble friend Lady Harding asked what the department is doing in relation to LLMs and some of the points she raised are certainly on our radar, or are things that we are actively working on. We began by launching a call for evidence on generative AI in education over the summer. We had 567 responses from practitioners, edtech companies and AI experts across all stages of education, and we will publish the responses this autumn.
In October, we began work with Faculty and the National Institute of Teaching to understand the possible uses of generative AI in education, in a safe setting, exploring the opportunities that this technology presents to reduce teacher workload; to improve outcomes, particularly and explicitly for children with special educational needs, as referred to by my noble friend Lady Morgan, and those from disadvantaged backgrounds; and to use the technology to run school operations more efficiently.
We have held our first hackathon, which was huge fun as well as very insightful. I hope that we can expand some of that work in the new year, and we will publish the findings in spring 2024.
I absolutely agree with the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about AI becoming a co-pilot with teachers. There has perhaps been a focus on using technology to substitute things that teachers already do rather than using it to enhance what they could do.
We have worked closely with Ofqual, Ofsted, the Office for Students and the Education Endowment Foundation as we develop our thinking. We are exploring the role of the Government in relation to the aggregation and curation of content, which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred to. We are also exploring our regulatory approach, including the role of a regulatory sandbox for looking at the behaviour of individual products, helping us understand what our regulatory approach should be and, as also picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, looking at how we can maximise the value of our educational IP.
The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, talked about the importance of children socialising. There are rightly concerns about tools that are serving children directly but, as the Committee has heard, our initial focus has been more on working with teachers and looking at some of the back-office functions. There is a tension and a need to hold on to the short-term pressures that teachers face in relation to the risk of plagiarising, for example; the medium-term issues about curation of content and regulation; and the really big-picture philosophical issues about how we think a classroom will look in five, 10 or 15 years.
My noble friend Lady Morgan and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked about and challenged the current curriculum. I remind the Committee that our focus on numeracy and literacy and a knowledge-rich curriculum has helped us to be ranked the highest country in the western world for the reading ability of nine and 10 year-olds. We rank fourth out of 43 countries that assessed children at the same time for the PIRLS 2021 survey. Similarly, we have seen significant improvement in maths. I am happy to write to noble Lords with more detail on the digital content in our curriculum.
My noble friend Lady Harding asked about the exception from the age-appropriate design code. There are exemptions for low-risk services, which include those managed by education providers, that are already subject to regulatory frameworks such as the Keeping Children Safe in Education framework.
Finally, in the last minute—which I do not have—I turn to the questions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Garden and Lady Twycross, about the role of Oak. Oak has been established as an arm’s-length body and is working very collaboratively with the education system and with teachers across the country to develop free curriculum resources.
I end by crediting the hard work and tenacity shown by teachers and leaders up and down the country, and by reassuring the Committee that the Government remain committed not only to supporting schools and students to achieve the best possible results but to consulting and working closely with the sector as we develop our work on the technology that will touch every child and teacher.
House of Lords
Workers’ Rights
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to legislate to ensure high standards of workers’ rights.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
Protecting and enhancing workers’ rights while supporting businesses to grow remains a priority for this Government. The Government have supported a package of six Private Members’ Bills, which enhance workers’ rights, to achieve Royal Assent, and will lay down secondary legislation in due course to implement these Acts. This package of legislation will increase workforce participation, protect vulnerable workers and level the playing field, ensuring that unscrupulous businesses do not have a competitive edge.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I will shock the Minister by thanking him for his support for investment in Vauxhall Ellesmere Port for a new car; it is appreciated. After a challenge by my union, Unite, and others, the High Court ruled in July that the Government had acted unlawfully by allowing bad bosses to use agency workers to break strikes. But now the Government are trying again, launching a consultation in an attempt to get around the court’s judgment, which ruled that their proposals were unfair, unlawful and irrational. Can the Minister explain why the Government seem so determined to crush workers’ rights, despite being elected on a promise very much to improve them?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I believe that, over the last 13 years, we have made significant and wholehearted reforms to workers’ rights legislation to ensure that they are properly protected. On the matter that he specifically referred to, we launched a consultation on repealing Regulation 7 on 16 November. It will remain open for eight weeks, and I very much invite his participation in the process, which will finish on 16 January next year.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that rights are of course important but, as I know from my experience as an MP for 32 years, what workers want most of all is improved pay? Does he welcome the increase in the national minimum wage from £10.42 to £11.44, which is a significant move?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that point. In fact, if I look back to 2016, I see that the national living wage was £7.20 for those 25 and over, and it will soon go to £11.44, which, by my maths, is an increase of over 50% in that period.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, there are well over 4 million self-employed workers in the country. Does the Minister not agree that much more could be done for their workers’ rights? Furthermore, is he aware of the growing calls within the creative industries for the appointment of a freelance commissioner to oversee the concerns of a group that is significant but relatively neglected within the workforce?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I agree with the noble Earl’s comments about the importance of self-employed individuals, who are the backbone of this country—I have been one myself in the past. That is why, in what I thought was a fabulous Autumn Statement, designed to power this economy forward into the future, the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday cut various sections of national insurance contributions for self-employed people, not simply allowing them to keep more hard-earned money from their work but making their lives easier, which is a fundamental principle of this Conservative Government.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the Government made a commitment not to reduce the standards of workers’ rights when EU law was retained. If new EU law improved the standards of workers, what would the Government’s reaction be?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
The Government have rightly maintained a whole series of sections of EU law that allow workers to be properly treated. We are also consulting on a range of other areas where we can ensure that workers’ rights are protected—but, I am pleased to say, under British rather than European law.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said applies particularly to self-employed musicians, which are a neglected section of the community. I invite my noble friend to give some real thought to how their lot can be improved.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am delighted to be taking through the CPTPP Bill, of which one of the key tenets is ensuring that musicians receive a fair proportion of the money they earn from broadcast media. This is just one of the many areas that we are focusing on, and I will also mention the support allocated in the Autumn Statement yesterday to the creative industries in general. We make all the great films in the world here, including “Barbie”, and I hope that will continue, whether you are a self-employed musician or part of a larger organisation.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I will follow on from my noble friend’s supplementary question. On Tuesday this week, the Supreme Court ruled that Deliveroo drivers are not entitled to certain rights, including unionisation, because they are considered to be self-employed and not workers. Do the Government have any plans to protect the growing number of workers in the gig economy, rather than allowing multinationals to dodge basic employer obligations by pretending that some of these lowest-paid workers are able to exercise their freedom to turn down work?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
The Government have done a huge amount to ensure that principles such as zero-hours contracts can remain flexible, allowing millions of people to do the work they wish to do and allowing students to participate in the workforce, while ensuring that they have the right levels of protection for holidays and other crucial concepts in workers’ rights. It is important that we have a strong economy, which will enable people to have these jobs. I remind all noble Lords that we have increased the number of employed people by over 3 million since we came to power in 2010.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, when we left the European Union, Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box and promised that workers’ rights would be protected. Will the Minister produce a list from his department of the rights that have been lost since we left the European Union and a list of the Government’s actions to address that issue?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
This debate has run for many months. Over the last year in this House—I am honoured to have played my role in this—we have introduced a number of key workers’ rights Acts, including the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act, the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act, the Carer’s Leave Act and, very importantly—I am a generous tipper myself—the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023, which ensures that people who are given their tips are, rightly, receiving them.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that important though legal rights at work are, they are meaningless unless there are plentiful job opportunities created by a dynamic labour market? It is no use giving workers freedom from being sacked if they have no job to be sacked from or to go to.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
In yesterday’s Autumn Statement, a whole range of measures was announced to ensure that we increase productivity and growth in the economy. In particular, I draw this House’s attention to the £4.5 billion plan to encourage advanced manufacturing in this country, which has enabled us—as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, mentioned—to encourage more car production in this country. Today, I was pleased to read in the papers that Nissan intends to expand its manufacturing lines to make the Qashqai and the Juke. This comes on top of BMW making the Mini in Oxford, the extraordinary gains we have had with Stellantis in Ellesmere Port, and the celebrated Tata gigafactory, which will become one of the largest buildings ever constructed by humans in the world and, clearly, in the United Kingdom as well.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, the Government have spent some years looking at the case for electronic balloting in trade unions, and have got nowhere. Since it is okay for the Conservative Party to elect its leadership by electronic balloting, does the Minister accept that the technical problems have now been overcome, and that we should speed towards getting electronic balloting allowed for trade unions in electing their general secretaries, et cetera?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I rejoice that the electronic ballot results have produced the leader of my own party. I recommend that trade unions look at ways to modernise—not just the way they ballot but the way they look at the economy. Ending the concept of labour flexibility in this country would be devastating, particularly to the sorts of investment I work on daily, including the celebration of over £20 billion of new capital committed to this country two days ago by a number of Korean companies. They are coming here because of our economic growth prospects and the flexibility of our labour markets, among other things. Trade unionists and all my colleagues opposite should remember that.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is no stranger to hyperbole, but his description of the CPTPP issues around intellectual property contains several misapprehensions. Could he undertake to read, carefully, the debate in Hansard that accompanied that Bill’s Second Reading? There are serious concerns from the creative industries about the clauses on intellectual property.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I will read Hansard on that debate. I seem to remember being there myself; I delegated the opening to one of our newest Members. We promised, during that debate, to have a full consultation on how artists’ rights are treated. It is extremely important that we get the balance right. Ultimately, it is about fairness and equity, and we stand four-square behind that, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree is right.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
The noble Lord mentioned the carer’s Act. Does he recognise that we have millions of workers in this country who are paid nothing at all? It is high time we started paying more attention to carers and giving them support. Looking to the future, is one way we could do this not to have a universal wage rather than a minimum wage? In due course, as AI spreads, there will be less requirement for people to be leaving their home, and they will be working more from home. We need to think longer term, rather than short term.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
The Government wholeheartedly agree that the support we must give to carers should be continually reviewed. That is why I was so proud to bring in the Carer’s Leave Act and the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act, which will result in millions of people being able to take leave in order to look after their loved ones and, we believe, 36,000 parents being able to take up the right to one week’s paid leave. I am grateful for the comments, and we will continue to work in this important area.
Destitution: Low Median Wage
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to address the UK’s low median wage and its contribution to the level of destitution presently under consideration by the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, boosting economic growth is the only sustainable way to increase wages. This Government have overseen significant falls in poverty since 2009-10, with 1.7 million fewer people in absolute poverty after housing costs. Supported by the national living wage, the proportion of low-paid jobs fell to 8.9% in 2023, from 21.3% in 2010.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. While extortionate price increases have recently moderated, the real value of wages has been static since 2007—a nominal 6.2% increase in median wages last year translated into a 1.2% drop in their real value, according to the ONS. Half the working population earns less than £29,600. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reports that 19.2 million people live below the minimum required to be warm, dry, clean and fed, with 3.8 million in destitution. The increase in the national minimum wage still leaves it, in real terms, no higher than it was 20 years ago. Wages need to rise. Only extensive collective bargaining can achieve that. Will the Minister make that happen?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I fundamentally disagree that collective bargaining will be the way to lift wages; I believe that economic growth will be the way to lift wages. What I would like to say—and I would criticise this Government and previous Governments for not making the most of this—is that, when we look at the national living wage, the increases we made yesterday mean that, next year, someone working full time on the national living wage will see their real after-tax take-home pay go up by 30% since 2010. I think that is a very significant achievement.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her new spokesperson role. The Chancellor was very pleased to pull the reduction in national insurance from his chancellorial hat at the end of his speech, and has been going around touting that very much. There is one statistic that I hope the noble Baroness can help me with. The Resolution Foundation notes that the top fifth of earners will receive five times the benefit from that cut than the bottom fifth of earners. Can she confirm that statistic?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
What we did yesterday—and we were absolutely clear about this—was to reward workers. It is critical that we reduce work-related taxes, because by doing so we increase the number of hours worked, which will lift the number of full-time equivalents by 94,000. We think that the cut yesterday was absolutely the right thing to do.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome a number of aspects of the announcements yesterday in the Autumn Statement, not least the rises in the living wage and in pensions. There is an issue, though, over structural pay gaps which hide even greater disparities: pay gaps to do with gender, disability, social mobility and regional disparities, which are vital as we think about our levelling-up strategy. Can the Minister give us some indication of how the Government hope to address those structural pay differentials and gaps?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
What we are trying to do here is boost the entire economy by ensuring that everybody has good work. It is the case that, between the Spring Budget of 2023 and the package that we announced yesterday, there will be more than 200,000 more jobs, but what we are also trying to do is boost the economy in general such that those jobs are well paid. The right reverend Prelate mentioned those who might be sick or disabled. Again, we have to support those people back to work when they can, because we know that work is the best way out of poverty; it can have social and health benefits. At the moment, there are 2.4 million claimants of incapacity benefit, and that has gone up by 700,000 since May 2019. I cannot believe that the nation is getting significantly more sick, and we need to help those people back to work.
Lord Bird (CB)
Does the Minister agree that there are actually an enormous number of people in this country who are the working poor? I was with a whole group of them last week—with the King—who are out there trying to get food. They are trying to get food because, whatever the Government are doing, they seem to be a bit tinkering and not profound in their commitment to end a low-wage economy.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
This Government are absolutely committed to ending a low-wage economy, and that is why we have just introduced the largest ever rise in the national living wage. Also, it is not just about the national living wage; I absolutely accept that there will be people who are living on benefits—that may be for a temporary period—and that is why we uprated benefits by 6.7%, which was the September CPI, versus a forecast inflation rate next year of 3.1%, so people will see more pounds in their pocket.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, should we not express the hope that yesterday’s measures will represent a real turning point in the economic life of our country, opening the way for sustained growth and greater prosperity for all our people?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. It is an absolute turning point. It is about the long-term decisions that have to be made, and that is about investing not only in businesses but also in our people. From a business perspective, the full expensing has been widely welcomed across the economy. It will add an extra £3 billion of new investment. We already have the lowest corporation tax in the G7 and now, with full expensing, that will bring in the investments that my noble friend Lord Johnson really needs to see.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in again welcoming the noble Baroness to her new role. Yesterday’s Autumn Statement saw growth down and inflation up every year for the next three years, debt rising every year for the next three years and the tax burden rising every year for the next five years, making this the biggest tax raising Parliament ever. Even after yesterday’s announcements, households are £1,900 worse off. Against this backdrop, what advice does the Minister have for the 11 million people with barely any savings as they now try to withstand the biggest ever fall in living standards since records began?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Yesterday did bring out some very important statistics, as indeed has the entire year. The noble Lord will know that, in terms of growth, it is true that the forecasts have been revised down. However, the actual assessment of the size of the economy has been revised up; indeed, it has been revised up by 2%, which is an enormous amount—that is the equivalent of the aerospace industry. On inflation, the OBR was absolutely clear that the discretionary fiscal policy measures introduced in the Autumn Statement do not have a material impact on the path of inflation. We have already halved inflation and by 2025 it will be at 2%. On tax, the noble Lord may have forgotten, but this Government intervened enormously during Covid, including £400 billion to support lives and livelihoods and, in our support for cost of living, £100 billion to support households through some very difficult economic shocks. Those things have to be paid for, but the things we introduced yesterday in terms of tax brought down the tax burden by 0.7%.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I think that in answer to an earlier question the noble Baroness said that the reduction in national insurance rates would mean that people work longer hours. What evidence does she have to support that assertion?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It is the case that of course those are assessments made by people far cleverer than me, within the OBR and the Treasury, but that is the analysis. Of course, people will be able to choose whether they work longer hours, but the simple point is that if somebody does work longer hours, they get more pounds in their pocket, so it is not beyond the wit of man to understand that they might want to do more hours.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, as we advance into winter, will everything possible be done to assist those charities who are doing everything they can to get people off the streets and into proper accommodation? Can my noble friend give the House an absolute assurance that those who provide tents will not be fined for doing so?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
This Government have a laser-like focus on homelessness and, of course nobody wishes for anybody to be homeless. That is why we have a range of cost of living payments which are yet to be paid: 8 million households on means-tested benefits will get two £300 payments in autumn and in spring; pensioners will get their £300 in the winter; and of course 6 million people on disability benefits will receive an additional £150.
Northern Ireland Investment Summit
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the success of the Northern Ireland Investment Summit held in Belfast in September.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
The summit was a success. It was a truly global occasion, attended by 181 international investors from 24 countries, representing 130 companies and organisations. The Department for Business and Trade has had hugely positive feedback from the delegates. The summit sent a clear message about the opportunities and ambition of Northern Ireland. I am very grateful to Invest Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Office for their collaboration and partnership. Some 1,000 jobs were announced at the summit and more investments are expected as a result.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I hope the Minister understands just how important his contribution was to the success of that conference. His hard work and enthusiasm went down very well and I have to say that he is more popular now in Northern Ireland than the Secretary of State. Could he have a gentle word with the Secretary of State and advise him not to go ahead with the suggested removal of industrial derating used for the purposes of manufacturing, because this would have a detrimental effect on businesses that are working so hard in that sector? Does the Minister agree that the decision not to award Northern Ireland levelling-up money from the latest round, because there is no Executive, is very strange given that, in the past, when there was no Executive, it having been brought down by Sinn Féin, the funding was given? Are there double standards operating?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her compliments. The effort around the Northern Ireland Investment Summit was huge, and everyone played their part. I am pleased to say all parties also played their part, including Joe Kennedy III in his leadership as President Biden’s envoy to Northern Ireland. I will certainly review the concept with the Northern Ireland Office around the matter the noble Baroness mentioned, but I believe that our Secretary of State is a phenomenal advocate for Northern Ireland and a significant ambassador in encouraging investment, as is my noble friend Lord Caine, who spends much of his time travelling around the world getting more money into Northern Ireland, so that everyone can prosper.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, one of the messages that came out of the Northern Ireland Investment Summit was the need for political stability to encourage much needed investment, with Joe Biden even saying that US firms would be willing to pump billions of dollars into the Northern Ireland economy if there was more political stability. Recently, the Northern Ireland Secretary said talks to restore a functioning Executive in Northern Ireland were in their final phase. Will the Government provide an update on these negotiations?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am not sure whether the Government provide an ongoing commentary for such sensitive, but very important, negotiations. However, for me it is cause for great optimism that, a few weeks ago, Joe Kennedy III led a delegation, as a follow-up to the Northern Ireland Investment Summit, where a number of United States companies announced specific investments. Some 70 companies and business leaders accompanied him, so the appetite is there regardless. We totally push for a resolution to the formation of the Executive because we know that there is more to come.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I had the privilege of being in Northern Ireland in October and seeing at first hand the vibrant business scene that is operating there. Is there perhaps more we can do across government, particularly from the departments which are involved in foreign travel and foreign engagement, to more coherently showcase what many of these small and medium-sized enterprises—not only in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom—are achieving?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for asking that question, although I am sorry not to see her sitting alongside me on the Front Bench. She is quite right; there is always more to do, and my noble friend Lord Offord announced recently a further package to encourage exports, not only from Northern Ireland but from the rest of the United Kingdom. We continue to work very hard in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that our message is spread throughout the world. The Harrington review, which has been very favourably received by the Government and commented on in the Autumn Statement yesterday, goes further in talking about ensuring that we have the resources and the right technologies and systems to encourage further investment in the United Kingdom.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, Northern Ireland scores highly on any indices of a place to live and work and to invest, so I welcome the success of the summit. However, these summits are only so good if they are repeated. What plans does my noble friend have to repeat an investment summit in Northern Ireland? In the event that there is going to be one—and I hope it will become a regular event—what plans can he suggest to involve more people from this House, who might be able to contribute some expertise and ideas towards it?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that prompt. The Northern Ireland Investment Summit was itself ultimately funded by an initiative led by our current Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am determined to ensure that we follow up, which is why, this week, we hosted a round table at No. 10 with venture capitalists, to encourage investment in Northern Ireland. We supported Joe Kennedy’s mission and we have many more projects and plans to come. However, I note my noble friend’s recommendation for a further summit. It is something I would certainly celebrate, but we have to ensure that we can pay for it and that it would deliver strong value for money for the taxpayer.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, there appears to be rare harmony between the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the Minister and myself. This was clearly a very successful event. Does the Minister put a strong measure of that success down to the fact that Northern Ireland has a unique opportunity, with access to both the EU and the UK markets? Is the Minister pushing that key selling point?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I must say that I am delighted that my friend the noble Lord, Lord Fox, from the Liberal Democrat Benches is rejoicing and celebrating the benefits of Brexit, because that is exactly what the Windsor Framework delivers. It puts Northern Ireland in a unique place to benefit precisely from the regulatory environments and frameworks that we have in this nation, while at the same accessing the goods and markets in the European Union.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, coming from Northern Ireland, I am well aware of the success of the investment conference and the large number of investors who came from the United States, along with the economic envoy, Joe Kennedy III. However, would the Minister agree that it would be much better if there was a restoration of the political institutions to underpin our local economy in Northern Ireland and provide that necessary confidence to potential investors? Will the Minister, along with Invest NI, investigate the need for a more equal distribution of those potential investors looking at sites in Northern Ireland with a view to further investments and job opportunities to avail themselves of the Windsor Framework and access to both markets?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Baroness on the need to come to a conclusion over forming a stable political environment for businesses to invest in Northern Ireland. I reassure her that the United States is not the only market that invests heavily in Northern Ireland. Across the world, particularly in Asian countries such as Japan, there is enormous interest in taking advantage of the skills in Northern Ireland. It is not simply the opportunities presented by the Windsor Framework; it is the opportunities presented by the people of Northern Ireland and their brains and brilliance.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, there is time for both noble Lords to come in, so we will hear from my noble friend first.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I declare my interest as a former Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland. Having travelled around the world raising interest in investment in Northern Ireland, I confirm what my noble friend has just said. There was immense attention to the sheer quality of the training and skills in Northern Ireland, particularly then in the aeronautical sector, in Harland & Wolff, and in a number of other high-tech electronic industries—Japan was especially interested. This was some decades ago, but now that we have a renewed and strong interest in links of every kind with Japan, is that aspect to be emphasised in Northern Ireland?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that point and I agree with him. We have a renewed staff level in Belfast to encourage this type of investment, and I hope that they will continue their excellent work.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, like everyone else in your Lordships’ House, I too welcome the recent summit and hope that there will be an increase in good news following it. Can the Minister tell me to what degree does the rate of corporation tax impact our economy and the attraction of foreign investment, bearing in mind that the rate today is 25% while in the Republic of Ireland it is 12.5%?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful for that question and the opportunity to discuss matters of tax. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced in his Autumn Statement a raft of incredibly powerful measures to ensure that businesses are competitive, that we invest and that we can create the jobs for our modern future economy. It is crucial to remember—and the point is often made in this House—that fiscal responsibility is the central component of good government finances. That is what my investor base looks forward to—predictability, certainty and decent long-term returns—and that is what we are providing.
Levelling Up: Project Delivery
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the publication of the National Audit Office report Levelling up funding to local government on 17 November, what action they are planning to take to improve the delivery of projects approved under their levelling-up agenda.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer the House to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, the department has implemented several measures to support local authorities in their delivery of levelling-up projects. These include committing over £65 million for capacity support to unblock delivery issues and giving authorities greater flexibility over spending decisions. The National Audit Office report covers the progress of projects up to March 2023, and in the eight months since then the department has paid out over £1.5 billion of further funding to local authorities.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. The report from the National Audit Office makes shocking reading: it tells of money allocated but not spent, contracts not signed and projects not delivered. Can the Minister explain to the House how a flagship programme of the Government is in such a mess?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the report itself highlights a number of issues that have delayed some of the delivery, including rising costs and inflation and other outside factors. That is why we are working with local authorities to address those issues. As I say, in the eight months since the report, the department has paid over £1.5 billion of further funding out to local places. We have already seen several projects completed or near completion, which are making a difference to the lives of people in those communities.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Further to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the NAO was not entirely critical of my noble friend’s department. It did say that evaluation was better and that the grant management process had improved. But it also said that a number of projects would not be completed by the proposed deadline. Where there are good reasons for that delay, will there be some flexibility in those deadlines? Otherwise, some very worthwhile projects will be abandoned.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I thank my noble friend for drawing out some of the positives of that report, as there were indeed some. He is right that, while we are keen to see the delivery impact of this investment as soon as possible, there have been some delays. For example, we have talked about inflationary pressures, so for the levelling-up fund, the prospectus for both rounds 1 and 2 said that we expected all funding provided to be spent by March 2024 and March 2025 respectively. However, those deadlines can be extended by one year on an exceptional basis. Similarly, for the future high streets fund, we have given a six-month extension for the spend deadline, taking it to 30 September next year, giving local places additional time to deliver their transformational projects.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As has been pointed out, one of the reasons for the problems we have is rising cost pressures, both inflation and interest rate levels, and in some cases, of course, withdrawal of contractors. Will the Minister assure the House that, in such circumstances, it cannot just be an “exceptional case”? I quote the phrase that she used in her previous reply. The NAO has shown that there is an average delay of almost 10 months across projects as a whole. That is simply too much, and I ask the Minister to consider very carefully extra money to support the budgets of projects where there is a case and, secondly, for an automatic extension to the length of budgets, otherwise we will carry on having some of the problems that we have seen.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, we are keen to see the delivery impact of the investment as soon as possible. That is why we have not moved to an automatic extension to the deadlines involved. However, we have moved to give local authorities more flexibility about how they spend their money without coming back to central government, to enable delivery. We have also put in place both more funding and more support to local authorities in the delivery of their projects, to help them meet their own deadlines.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that some of the most difficult cuts in local government spending over the last decade were in the support for children and families. The probation inspectorate looked at the number of young people in secure accommodation and reported that many of these young people could be accommodated in the community with the right kind of support. That is not only in the interests of the young people but considerably cheaper. Could the noble Baroness do all that she can to make sure that the money that has been allocated is properly spent?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government are really focused on ensuring that the levelling-up funds deliver value for money and provide transformative outcomes for the local areas that they deliver for. The Government set out a really clear approach to the evaluation of these projects to make sure that they do just that.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest chairing the slate quarrying levelling-up fund on Gwynedd Council, which is also facing the challenge of meeting the deadline of April 2025. If indeed the pressures arise from a systematic shortage—a capacity shortage—within the system, will the Government lean towards giving the flexibility of an extra year to ensure that worthwhile projects are not lost?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I have highlighted, the department is very happy to speak to any project that sees that it is facing perhaps unavoidable delays in delivery. Our first priority should be looking at what we can do to reduce those delays, but, as I have said, we have also put in place flexibility in the system to extend some of the deadlines.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House how much damage to levelling up is being done by the cancellation of HS2 to Manchester? Is she aware that, once HS2 is built to Birmingham but not to Manchester, it will take 40 minutes from Euston to Birmingham but 2 hours and 10 minutes from Euston to Manchester? What does she think that will do to business investment decisions over the next generation, and does she not see that this will decimate the economic prospects of the north of England?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am afraid I completely disagree with the noble Lord. There is a choice to be made about where that investment goes, and the Government have made the choice to invest in transport projects that will connect towns and cities within the north far better. It will deliver more improvements to more people faster than the continuation of further legs of HS2.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, is not the key finding of all this that centralised Whitehall one-off bidding is not the key to level up across this country?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we deliver funding to local authorities in all sorts of ways. We are looking to deliver more funding to local authorities. That is why we are taking forward an approach of a single departmental settlement to those mayoral combined authorities in Birmingham and Manchester. We have a commitment to roll that out further to those areas that have directly elected representatives.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, councils up and down the country spent millions of pounds preparing for their application to bid for the levelling-up funds. I am glad that the Government have changed the system now. Do the Government have any idea how many millions these cash-strapped councils have spent on preparing their applications—or maybe the Government did not ask that question because they did not want to know the answer?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, after announcing round 2 of the levelling-up funding, we recognised how many high-quality bids we had from councils that we were not able to meet during that round. That is why we took a different approach in round 3, looked at those existing bids and were able to make the allocations that were announced earlier this week. All in all, over 200 places have benefited from funding from the levelling-up funds. We recognise that there is a cost involved in bidding in these processes. That is why we provided those local authorities that were assessed as most in need in rounds 1 and 2 with additional funding to support the development of the bids in the first place.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Government have talked a lot about the need to reduce bureaucracy and to cut the size of the Civil Service. Yet this entire scheme is extremely bureaucratic and takes a great deal of Civil Service time for the competitive allocation of very small funds, and a great deal of local government time in preparing for competitive bids, some of which are unsuccessful. Has not the design been unfortunate? Would it not be better for the Government to do something about devolving spending decisions to local government in a much more thorough way?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I have set out, we took a different approach in round 3 of the levelling-up fund. Instead of having a competitive process, we looked at the existing bids that we had. That is all part of the Government’s funding simplification plan for local government that we published last year, which looks at streamlining the different forms of funding that go to local government, while making sure that it is spent in the most effective way, delivers value for money and that there is accountability for what is spent.
Hereditary Peers By-election
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, at this time, the House usually hears from my noble friend Lord Grocott. He is indisposed at the moment and much regrets his not being able to be here. He has authorised me to say that he continues to be distressed that the Government are not fast-tracking his Bill to stop this regular farce, which damages the reputation of this good House.
Resolution of Central Counterparties (Modified Application of Corporate Law and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 20 November
Genocide (Prevention and Response) Bill [HL]
Thursday 23rd November 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Genocide (Prevention and Response) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Genocide (Prevention and Response) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
Workforce Information (Ethnicity) Bill [HL]
Thursday 23rd November 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Workforce Information (Ethnicity) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Workforce Information (Ethnicity) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Institute of Directors’ commission, “The Future of Business: Harnessing Diverse Talent for Success”.
Mental Health: Children and Young People
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
That this House takes note of the current state of mental health support for children and young people in England.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to have secured this debate. There is no more important issue, to my mind, than ensuring that we are adequately supporting our children and young people when they are not well and at their most vulnerable. I thank the Members of your Lordships’ House who have put their names on the speakers’ list for today.
I have been moved to bring this debate as I have personal experience of poor mental health and the impact it has on young people, following my own daughter’s five years of struggle. As a parent, it has been one of the most challenging periods of my life. No parent ever wants to see their child unable to keep themselves safe. It is important that we, as politicians, share our personal experiences as part of the fight for change. I am proud of the progress she has made. I wish to use my experience to help fight for better outcomes for other children who find themselves in similar positions. I know that others in this Chamber will have had similar personal experiences.
I have also brought this debate as I want all children out there who are struggling to keep themselves safe and well right now to know that everyone in this House and across government are working together to help make things better for them. This is not a political issue nor is this a political debate; I know we are all united in wanting to improve services and outcomes for children and young people. As my daughter might say, “We got you”.
I will make three key points. First, children and young people are facing an expediential crisis from the combination of the impacts of Covid and a general increase in poverty that has overwhelmed previously overstrained systems, so real and immediate action is needed. We are facing a young persons’ mental health emergency. Secondly, the systems in place are not working; there is a need for a full root-and-branch review and reform of the systems and services. Thirdly, I will call for a more integrated national mental health service for children and young people to be established, with an emphasis on early intervention, extra support in schools and a call on the Government to take urgent measures to provide additional funding. I note the Government’s decision not to bring forward the promised mental health Bill in the King’s Speech. It is disappointing that the mental health Bill has been dropped and parliamentary time has been diverted to other measures.
There has been an 89% increase in the number of children and young people coming into contact with mental health services between August 2022 and August this year. NHS Digital conducts a regular survey of children and young people, with results published between 2017 and 2022, and the fourth wave published just this week. The most recent key findings show that one in five of our young people aged eight to 25 had a probable mental health disorder. Rates remain at elevated levels following the pandemic and for 17 to 25 year-olds, rates were twice as high for young women as they were for young men. In 2023, 20.3% of children in England aged seven to 16 had a probable mental health disorder, up from 18% in 2022 and 12% in 2017. Rates among young people aged 17 to 19 with a probable mental health disorder rose from 10.1% in 2017 to 17.7% in 2020 and 25.7% in 2022, and they remain high at 21.7% now.
Not only are we seeing rising numbers; we are also seeing increases in the severity and complexity of the mental health needs of our children and young people. For example, we are treating double the numbers of children and young people with eating disorders who need urgent care than before the pandemic. This is a staggering and highly alarming increase. The reasons and causes for this rise in cases are many and complex, as are the solutions. We have very little understanding of the real root causes; more research must be done and young people themselves must be given greater opportunities to have their voices properly heard and understood. Isolation during Covid was a serious shock, taking away the normality of everyday life and children’s own sense of autonomy over their daily lives. Home education was a challenge for us all.
The rise in poverty and the collapse of youth services are also relevant. Poverty brings family stress and an increased prevalence of family breakdown. For children, poverty all too often creates feelings of shame. More than one in four children aged eight to 16 with a probable mental health disorder had a parent who could not afford for their child to take part in activities outside of school or college.
Social media is also to blame. Our children are constantly plugged in and susceptible to harmful content, bullying and harassment. Pernicious phones get in the way of real family quality time, often leading to social isolation in the home and an increased sense of worthlessness. The modern world we are creating for our children is undoubtedly toxic. Pressures at school are ever-growing and many children feel that they are already failures before they are even at the starting line. The transition from primary to secondary school is a crucial time in young people’s development and not enough is done to support it.
Waiting times for treatment are skyrocketing. Research conducted by the House magazine, based on FoI requests to 70 UK NHS trusts and boards published this year, found that a quarter of a million children in the UK with mental health problems have been denied help, with some NHS trusts failing to offer treatment to 60% of those referred by GPs. The research also uncovered a postcode lottery, with spending per child four times higher in some parts of the country than others. Average wait times varied from 10 days to three years. In 2021-22, trusts were forced to raise thresholds for treatment to tackle backlogs, resulting in hundreds of thousands of children being turned away altogether. The research showed that, overall, 32% of all GP referrals were denied treatment. I ask your Lordships to reflect on that shocking statistic for a moment.
Young people who are seriously ill are routinely being denied any access to treatment. Research from YoungMinds has indicated that a third of children and young people are not seeking support for their poor mental health, despite acknowledging that they are struggling. Stigma around mental health issues continues to be s problem, and these figures indicate a further unmet demand. An estimated 1.5 million children and teenagers will need new and additional support for their mental health over the next three to five years, including seeking treatment for eating disorders.
Research conducted by the Children’s Commissioner for England has shown that the threshold for any treatment is now so high that, in many areas of the country, the first help children receive is only after they have made multiple attempts at suicide. The first attempt does not always provide access to any support. If parents acted in that way, it would rightly be classed as child neglect.
Young people are left self-harming and attempting suicide for months, without support. While they are struggling to stay safe, many of them end up engaging in risky behaviours such as self-medicating with illegal drugs. New data from YoungMinds has revealed that urgent referrals of children to emergency mental health services have tripled since 2019. There is no early intervention or support. We only help when cases are extreme and children are in imminent danger. By this point, much damage has already been done.
This is a cruel and inefficient way to provide essential health services. We do little or no prevention work and ignore alarming presenting symptoms. This failure to provide treatment causes pain and long-term damage, leaves lasting psychological scars and damages children’s long-term life chances. Vital self-development, education and life chances are permanently missed. This also places increased pressures and costs on other health and educational services.
Another impact is the huge increase in long-term absences from schools’ rolls since Covid. The Children’s Commissioner for England, Rachel de Souza, said in a recent report:
“I fear that attendance has become the issue of our time. The number of children regularly missing school has more than doubled compared to pre-pandemic … Worryingly, over 120,000 children are missing at least half of their time in school.”
While the causes of persistent absence from school are complex, one key factor is the lack of mental health support. Indeed, her report calls for the rollout of mental health support teams to be expedited, to reach all children by 2025.
Delaying or denying treatment and providing treatment that is too little and often too late is unfair on our children and young people. It fails to meet basic needs or to protect the welfare and well-being of children. Prevention is better than cure. Even when first appointments are given, they are often highly administrative, providing little or no treatment. The waits for second appointments are often even longer. Even when treatment is provided, it often results only in the prescription of medication. I am not against medication—it has a valuable role in treating children—but medication alone is not an adequate treatment plan in most cases.
We need more talking therapies. Evidence increasingly suggests that trauma and feelings of shame and worthlessness need to be discussed in order to be processed by the human brain and thus resolved. We need whole-family-based approaches; we need family therapy to be made available; we need dedicated support in schools to help keep children in school and turning up for life.
I welcome the steps the Government have already taken to increase funding, including the introduction of the mental health care standard in 2018. I recognise that government spending on CAMHS has gone up year on year. I am delighted that my party has put forward detailed proposals to provide a dedicated mental health professional in all 22,000 state-funded schools in England, so that every child has someone to turn to. The estimated cost is £620 million per year. My party has proposed that this be funded by trebling the digital services tax.
I kindly ask the Minister to acknowledge the scale of the problems and inadequacies of service provision that children and young people face. I ask him also to ring-fence CAMHS funding and work to provide equality of service provision. The Government must provide additional funding and work urgently, in the words of YoungMinds, to “end the wait”. The Government must provide mental health services with long-term and sustained investment to help meet demand. According to the NHS Confederation, that means an extra £900 million per year by 2024-25.
The rollout of mental health support teams in schools and colleges nationwide must be accelerated. I call on the Government to commit to bringing forward their target of 50% access by 2024-25 and make it 100%. I believe this is one of the most urgent and achievable things they can do. It is essential that children have access quickly and that there is a triage service available to children who are in crisis. This is one of the easiest ways the Government could really make a difference to a huge number of young people’s lives.
Finally, I call on the Government to commit to a full implementation of the four-week piloted clinical access standard for children and young people’s community mental health services, and to produce a fully funded plan for the sector to show how they plan to reach this target.
This issue is personal to me, but I really wish to work with the Minister and across the House to raise these issues for our children and young people. It is not right that our children are suffering in these ways. We must do more to help them. It is not beyond our capabilities to do more to make sure that their needs are met and that they are supported. We should not be leaving them to suffer. I beg to move.
Baroness Hale of Richmond (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am so grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for giving us the opportunity to debate this most important subject, one in which I have taken a close personal interest in my professional career. But first, I owe you an apology. This is my maiden speech, yet I was sworn in as a Member of this House as long ago as 12 January 2004. I am rushing to remedy the defect before the 20th anniversary. Please allow me to offer your Lordships an explanation, if not an excuse.
I was sworn in to hold office as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary,
“so long as she shall well behave herself therein”.
This caused much merriment on the day. It also caused some puzzlement to one of my guests, the Chief Justice of Alberta, because the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, who was sworn in at the same time, did not have to promise to behave himself—although I am sure he has. She wondered whether it was because I am a woman, but of course, it was not: it was because I was a judge and, since the Act of Settlement of 1701, it has been a guarantee of judicial independence that we hold office during good behaviour and not during His Majesty’s pleasure.
I have tried throughout my judicial career to uphold the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary on which it depends, and it is for that reason that I never made a maiden speech during the five and a half happy years that I spent in this House as a Law Lord. Your Lordships were very friendly and welcoming, but I did not think that we should be here. Making laws and holding the Government to account are constitutionally different functions from applying and interpreting the laws and adjudicating disputes. So, I was glad when we crossed the square to become the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. This has, I believe, turned out to be a thoroughly good thing. It also meant that for more than 10 years I was disqualified from taking part in parliamentary business.
That is all very well, you may say, but that disqualification was lifted when I retired in January 2020. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, could make his maiden speech so soon after his retirement, why could not I? I have no real excuse, other than the disruption caused by Covid and my own diffidence about whether I could make a useful contribution.
I saw, and see, myself as a lawyer and judge rather than a parliamentarian, but I have long taken a professional interest in mental health. My very first book, in 1975, was on mental health law. My very first judicial appointment, in 1989, was as a presiding legal member of mental health review tribunals; and in 2007, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, conferred on me one of my most treasured honours, the Fellowship of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, for which I am so grateful. So, I am emboldened to make two short points about mental health services for children and young people, conscious that those who follow me will have much more important things to say.
First, I share the disappointment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, at the omission from the King’s Speech of the proposed mental health Bill, which has already undergone pre-legislative scrutiny and been widely welcomed. It would have provided an opportunity to address some serious issues affecting children and young people, not least by excluding learning disabilities and autism from the compulsory procedures in the Act, something which I know is of deep concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.
It might also have given us the opportunity to solve some difficult legal questions around consent to psychiatric treatment for children and young people. When can they give consent themselves? When can their parents or others with parental responsibility—such as local authorities—give consent on their behalf? Most important of all, when can they refuse consent to treatment? These are all very important issues, and they are not easy questions. The answers are not as clear as they might be, as I learned when I was speaking with psychiatrists in Northern Ireland only the other week.
Secondly, I speak as a member of the Commission on the Integration of Refugees, set up by the Woolf Institute in Cambridge. The evidence we have received has made us very well aware of the special mental health needs of young people seeking and granted asylum in this country, especially but not only those who have come here on their own, unaccompanied by adult family or friends. Many have suffered appalling experiences in their home country and on the way here. Many have missed significant amounts of education. Many suffer from mental disorders as a result. Yet they face considerable barriers, additional to those of other people, in gaining access to the trauma-informed and culturally sensitive services they need. Addressing these needs is essential if they are to become the fully integrated members of our society that we all hope they will be.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, it is my honour to follow my noble and learned friend Lady Hale, whose eminent career has included, of course, serving as President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and being the first woman appointed President of the Supreme Court.
We were brought up in different parts of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and both ended up being head girl in our different grammar schools—Yorkshire grit. I am particularly proud to have presented my noble and learned friend with her honorary fellowship of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Noble Lords will be grateful to my noble and learned friend for explaining why her membership had to cease in 2009. This of course included a period as a non-permanent judge at the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong, where I am sure her wisdom benefited their system greatly.
Noble Lords will also recall when, in September 2019, as President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, found Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament to be unlawful, thus terminating the suspension of Parliament.
I congratulate my noble and learned friend on her remarkable maiden speech, of no less interest given the time since her introduction. It is so fitting that it should be about children’s mental health. I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for speaking so honestly, openly and movingly about the subject of children’s mental health.
I declare my interests and experience. I trained as a child and family psychiatrist and later specialised in the psychiatry of learning disability. I have served as President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. His Majesty’s Government has just published my report My Heart Breaks—Solitary Confinement in Hospital Has No Therapeutic Benefit for People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People. We will be debating this in the topical debate to follow. I have also devoted several years to addressing child protection in families and institutions, and to considering the long-term mental health consequences of child abuse.
Why is this all so important? Childhood is a period of extraordinary potential. If we get it right, we are investing in the whole of society’s future. Pregnancy and the first five years of a child’s life are the time when the foundations of healthy development are laid. Our relationship patterns are formed in the first few years of our lives, which also impacts on our future mental health. We know that adverse childhood experiences—ACEs—are key predictors of poor physical and mental health across the lifespan, and that poverty increases the risk that ACEs will occur during childhood. Half of all mental health problems present the first time before the age of 14, which is why prevention and population health really matter.
There are rising rates of referral to mental health services. These services are overwhelmed. Social care and school staff are feeling overstretched. We know that burnout is higher in those who work with children. There are rising rates of self-harm and suicide, particularly in teenage girls. Families are struggling with the cost of living crisis. To understand the current state of children’s mental health, I suggest we need to look at their relational and physical environments. Let us think about the post-pandemic world that children are growing up in right now. What is it like for them at home, at school, online, in their local communities and in the wider world?
Thinking about a child’s home environment, we need to acknowledge parents’ own significant social and mental health needs. Many are anxious and stressed; they are worried about money, their jobs, their families and the world. But when parents feel calm, safe and connected, their emotional availability to their children increases. This enables them to listen to their children and recognise their needs and helps them develop their emotional resilience and mental health for life. Let us not underestimate the power of accompanying parents in the tough and important journey of parenthood.
Thinking about a child’s school environment, we need to develop a culture of nurture as the foundation for learning. Nurture means creating a safe environment in which all behaviours are understood as a communication of underlying needs. When we realise this, we can transform a child’s experience in school and find ways of unlocking their love of learning and forming friendships.
Thinking of a child’s online environment, we see that it is one of the biggest current dangers to a child’s mental health. The Online Safety Act will help, but it requires society to support parents and schools in making a radical change to the current status quo. Children’s friendships and the social media environment in which they meet have a toxic potential, with some children never able to switch off. The physical environment, including housing, school and transport, may all contribute to our mental health, and we often overlook chemical factors—I am thinking about a healthy diet and reducing the impact of pollution and climate change.
We need to invest time and resources in building a population health approach that addresses the huge impact of health inequalities and the social determinants of health on the mental health of children. This requires a local, skilled workforce in population and public health too. We need an attachment, family-based approach that supports early relationships and secure attachments between parents and their babies. We need universally available family hubs and local community settings where parents can meet and share the ups and downs of family life and relationships.
We need early diagnosis for autism. Too many authorities are delaying assessment of autism at the moment. It is a mistake. It is not cost-effective. We need a skilled, supported and well-paid workforce for children, including early years childcare workers, midwives and health visitors, pre-school, primary school and secondary school teachers—all the practitioners who support children’s health and development in our communities and education settings. I agree with the noble Earl that we need more psychotherapy and more family therapy.
Focus on waiting lists for treatment misses the point. I suggest that we need less focus on mental health problems and more on emotional intelligence and resilience; more on understanding that it is normal to have strong feelings of sadness, grief and anger; more in relation to life and being human; and perhaps less focus on isolation and loneliness and more focus on human connection. A child’s emotional well-being and mental health cannot be considered, however, in isolation from their family’s health and well-being, and support for parents’ mental health must also be prioritised.
For those with milder problems, respectful, relational, family, school and community-based care is more effective than medicalising individuals. Mental health needs in schools can make a huge difference, and they should be there in every school. There are some excellent school-based initiatives. For example, nurture groups and whole-school nurture programmes are being planned across Surrey next year. The charity Place2Be offers one-to-one therapies in several hundred primary schools. I declare an interest in that feelings groups in mainstream primary schools in South Yorkshire and in special schools are transforming children’s lives, using resources provided by Books Beyond Words, a charity that I founded and chair.
CAMH services are needed to help children who are more seriously unwell. There is a move away from in-patient services to services being able to offer intensive community treatment, which I welcome. They need to offer long-term continuity of care, working closely with primary care and all agencies, and to support children at home or close to home. If required, in-patient admissions should be short, focused and timely to help prevent any problems developing further.
I have been told about a young teenage girl, whom I shall call Emma. She started struggling with her mental health during her transition to secondary school; such a transition is a very difficult time. Her way of coping with difficult feelings was to stop eating. She lost weight rapidly. Despite attempts to treat her at home, she was admitted to a psychiatric ward against her will for refeeding. On the ward, she developed self-harming behaviours, in part influenced by her peers’ self-harming behaviours around her. She was then diagnosed as autistic; it was a late diagnosis.
After five months, Emma’s weight improved and an intensive community team agreed to support her within the hospital, including in a small school and a therapy group as well as during her transition back to the community. The community team supported her parents in their fight for her place at school to be restored. She has developed hobbies again and the whole trajectory of her life has been altered. Teams such as this, which can help children and young people with complex needs to recover, must be able to work in a thoughtful and flexible way. It takes commitment and perseverance from the team members, who need to provide powerful advocacy for both the child or young people and their family. Could more have been done to keep Emma at home?
In my work looking at the reasons for people with learning disabilities and autistic people being detained in long-term segregation and the reasons for delayed discharges, risk aversion in the community seemed to be a key factor. At a round table yesterday, Dr Mezzina, a leading psychiatrist in the acclaimed mental health services in Trieste, Italy, challenged our concept of risk and suggested that institutionalisation is the main risk in mental health services. He questioned why we admit so many children and young people and why we do not have an open-door policy.
What is the way forward? A number of key initiatives would make a difference, including investing in early years services, developing support hubs for young families and schools-based interventions for at-risk individuals. We also need a robust workforce plan to address serious recruitment and retention issues; that workforce must have competencies in working with children and young people with learning disabilities and autistic children.
This Monday was World Children’s Day. The United Nations annual day of action for children, by children, it marks the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989 and attends to the social determinants of health and well-being, including poverty. Let us look forward to the day when every child can have a happy childhood, and let us remember that there is no health without mental health.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Russell for securing this debate. Like many others, I am impressed by how quickly he has brought value to the work of this House and by the combination of passion and reasoned argument that he brought to today’s debate.
I congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, on her maiden speech. I had not realised that she is from Yorkshire but, based on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, I can say, as a Sheffielder, that we are now on a Yorkshire hat trick as a group of three speakers. In my household, it is not often that we talk about the law as a cool and attractive profession, but the activities of the noble and learned Baroness in her previous role triggered such comments. Based on her contribution today, I am sure that, in future, she will provide examples of how our words here can be both impactful and entertaining. I hope that she does not let her natural diffidence get the better of her too often.
Turning to the subject of the debate, I start with a question: what do we call a family with experience of child mental health issues? The answer is “a normal family”. That has been reflected in the debate, as well as in my noble friend’s contribution as he related his own experience, but I suspect that every person sitting here today has their own direct personal experience of a young person suffering from mental health issues during their childhood, whether through their children, their nieces and nephews, their grandchildren or those children’s cousins. This understanding is necessary not to trivialise the matter—quite the opposite. If we normalise it, we may get to a position where we understand that child mental health issues need to be treated as seriously as other child health conditions, with an infrastructure and an understanding that, as my noble friend said, it is unacceptable to ignore them or somehow treat them as less serious.
The tools that we need to help people are common to all kinds of healthcare. First, we need early and accurate identification of problems. Secondly, we need good availability of the right treatment options; that is the case whether it is a physical issue or a mental health one. There are also four settings that need to work for young people in order to achieve these goals of the identification and treatment of the issues with which they present. The first is families themselves; the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, referred to the importance of family as the primary setting. The second is the educational institutions in which children find themselves; the third is primary healthcare; and then there are the acute services to which children may need to turn. I will not go into the issues around family support in any depth today other than to flag the fact that families and the care they provide must be recognised and supported. There is an important objective for government in supporting families who provide care for somebody, whether they have a physical condition or a mental health one; that care provides enormous value to the individual but also to society. There are questions around the extent to which, today, government provides the support that those families need.
I turn to educational settings. These are generally schools for younger children but we should not forget the significant role of universities and colleges. That is important because we are talking today about children and young people; to me, that extends through into those university years. It is another period of transition. For many of the young people who reach the age of 18 or 19 and transition to university, that is when the crisis hits. Again, universities have a critical role to play in this.
Major shifts are needed to improve staff training. Staff across all these different kinds of establishment need to be trained in such a way that they can help identify problems, because problems may first present themselves in an interaction between a young person and a professional in an institution. We also need to make sure that counsellors are available when they represent an appropriate form of treatment; they are frequently the first line. The Minister has made commitments around both those aspects previously—the training of all staff in educational establishments where that may be useful in identifying problems; and the provision of counselling services to the right degree so that, when issues have presented themselves, that first line of treatment is available—so I hope that he will be able to demonstrate progress.
I am interested to understand from the Minister how budgets will operate in this space given that it sits between different government departments. The young person does not care that one thing sits with DHSC and another sits with DfE, or whatever acronyms we are using now; they care about whether treatment is available. I hope that the Minister can indicate how we will ensure that budgets follow need rather than being stuck in departmental silos.
I want to touch on bullying, which can be both a cause and an exacerbating factor for somebody with mental health issues: it can trigger the mental health issue but, sadly, the start of bullying can also sometimes be the response of young people to someone in their school who has a mental health issue. It then compounds the crisis that a young person is suffering. The challenge is to have an effective response because these issues are often labour intensive, requiring engagement—often over a long period—with the children and families involved.
As noble Lords may be aware, I have professional experience of the online component of this as I spent many years working at a large online platform. It seems obvious that the nature of bullying has changed with ubiquitous connectivity. However, sometimes, there is also the risk of us seeing the solutions as entirely within the domain of technology. People report bullying to a platform, which can result in the removal of the content and sometimes the closure of the bullying account, but it rarely solves the underlying problem.
In some cases, the bullying is entirely within an online community, but much more typically the online activity is an extension of something that is happening offline in the real world. The intervention that resolves the problem is one that brings young people, parents and others together to discuss the offline and online activity. I understand the challenges for school staff in resourcing this, but some option will have to be found or we will simply be playing whack-a-mole on the online platforms, knocking down individual instances while the young person’s mental health continues to deteriorate because the bullying is moving from place to place and never being addressed at its root causes.
Some of the best work that I have seen on this involves civil society organisations working with schools. I cite one young person, Alex Holmes, an individual who experienced online bullying in large part because of a racial dimension. He came to me when I worked at an online platform to try to turn his experience into something positive. He went on to work for the Diana Award and he now works for the BBC Children in Need foundation. I saw the work that he did, and that similar organisations do, complementing the work that is being done in schools, running effective anti-bullying programmes and getting the kind of intervention that we need to deal with those root causes. I hope that the Minister will agree that this kind of approach, bringing together schools, platforms, online platforms, which do have their responsibilities, and also civil society organisations with anti-bullying expertise, is a smart way to reduce the risk of bullying affecting young people’s mental health.
The other natural choice for people who are seeking help is to look to primary care, particularly their GP. The response is likely to vary considerably, as not all general practices have the skills to offer specialist mental health support. This is not to criticise or blame GPs but is a simple recognition of the limitation in capacities in most practices and that the support needed may go beyond that which the GP contract was designed to deliver. GPs are bound within a particular framework. This may result in the GP referring someone to a mental health service, but it is worth asking whether more could be done in the primary care setting itself. This might be better for the patient, it might involve shorter waiting times and, from the Minister’s point of view, it may well be more cost effective, which the department would see as a positive take.
Recently, I met with a group of mental health nurses working in primary care at the Royal College of Nursing who made a very strong case for developing their profession. At the moment, there are not mental health nurses in all practices, but some of the best practices do have them. This could happen on a group basis—for example, where a primary care network contracts together to ensure that there is a mental health nurse available so that, whichever GP you go to, you get the benefit of that mental health nurse; it does not necessarily require every practice to have one. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, referred to the need for public health support. Understanding the pattern of need and ensuring that you resource appropriately is critical and something that public health professionals really can help with. This could also be delivered through specialist centres. We propose that there should be youth mental health drop-in centres. This is something that we need to ask young people about. It may be that they would prefer a different setting from the general practice setting if they want to talk about something as sensitive as this. In either case, the critical thing is that there is some trained professional available to that individual if they present within the primary care system. Today, we must recognise that support is very patchy.
The acute sector will be necessary for some young people as other interventions have proved insufficient. I think that we will come back to one aspect of this in our next debate, but I have some questions for the Government now. The first is whether there is sufficient investment in community-based treatment for people with serious mental health that allows them not to be moved into in-patient settings except where this is strictly necessary. Some of the stories that are reported to us suggest that people are being taken to an in-patient setting not because that is the best treatment option but simply because their complex needs cannot be treated in a community setting due to resources, not due to the fact there is no treatment available. It is a shame if we are moving people to in-patient settings where it is not necessary. I would be interested in the Minister’s view on whether the test is being met or whether too many young people are still being treated as in-patients only because of that lack of appropriate out-patient support.
Secondly, and somewhat related, there is the question of where young people go when they need a place in a hospital. It is usually beneficial for all patients, but especially for young people, to be near to their home area, for the family visits and support and, crucially, because of their reintegration into the community on discharge. Being taken far away and then moved back is clearly more disruptive, particularly if you are going through a process of phased discharge from an institution, when it is much more helpful to be in your home community normally. There are exceptions, but typically we would want to see that. I am keen to understand the Minister’s views on out-of-area placements and how these can be minimised where they are not helpful from a treatment point of view.
Once again, I thank my noble friend Lord Russell for securing this debate, and I congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, on her maiden speech. I close with a ready reckoner reminding the Minister of the issues which I hope that he can address in his response. Are the Government committed to building a culture where we treat mental health on a par with other forms of childhood illness? How are the Government ensuring that educational institutions can provide the support that their students need, especially around anti-bullying where that is a significant component in mental health problems? What is the department doing to provide more specialist support in primary care settings, whether that is by GPs or dedicated centres? What is the NHS doing to minimise the need for in-patient treatment where there are out-patient alternatives available but it is simply a question of resourcing? Finally, what are the Government doing to ensure that placements are not out-of-area where in-patient treatment is unavoidable?
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, on her excellent maiden speech, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on securing this debate on an area of huge importance for all of us. As has been noted by many noble Lords already, and raised in the Question asked in the House by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, on Tuesday, the omission of the mental health Bill from the King’s Speech has caused a great deal of worry and concern. It seems that we have time to debate pedicabs but not the urgent need for this review of our mental health provision.
With the number of children and young people being referred to mental health services increasing, alongside increasing waiting times for treatment, it is clear how urgent and pressing the reform of the Mental Health Act is. The Government have said that the Bill would be published when parliamentary time allows. I would argue that this is of the highest priority. Improved mental health in our young people and children—and the rest of the population, more broadly—would not only decrease the huge levels of suffering and anguish but bring immense economic benefits, saving taxpayers’ money and bringing more people into the workforce.
Mental Health Foundation research shows higher levels of unemployment and in-patient stays and a higher likelihood of contact with criminal justice for those with mental health problems. The annual mean cost to the public purse is 16 times greater for those with mental health problems. We on these Benches and Members in the other place can all agree that mental ill health is extremely costly for our nation. At the end of August 2023, 414,550 children and young people were in contact with children and young people’s mental health services and waiting times have increased, as have the number of children referred who do not end up ever receiving treatment. The scale of the problem is not the only concern. The quality of care, and the conditions under which our children and young people are being detained, urgently need to be rethought, according to the recommendations set out in the Health and Social Care Committee’s report, many of which the Government have accepted but which have not yet been implemented.
Given that over 50,000 people were detained under the Mental Health Act last year, there are clear arguments that reforming the Act needs to be a government priority. Concerns that the report raised included inappropriate use of restrictive practices and many children and young people facing long stays in adult wards, or, as we already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, in wards far away from their homes where they are not being visited. I ask the Government to consider how traumatising these conditions must be for children and young people who are already mentally unwell enough to be admitted to a mental health care ward.
The Commons Health and Social Care Committee report comments:
“The use of restraint against children and young people can be humiliating and cause unnecessary distress”.
This is the case for any child or young person, let alone a child who is already extremely distressed and suffering from a mental health condition. I am sure that His Majesty’s Government are aware, having responded to this report, that the use of restrictive practices remains very high in children and young people’s mental health services, with the use of restraint on children and young people being on average five times the level of the adult equivalent. This is deeply worrying.
There are also deep injustices embedded in the implementation of the Mental Health Act, with black people four times more likely to be detained, and, in 2021-22, girls making up 71% of all children detained. We desperately need to address these problems to ensure that our staff and services are educated in trauma-informed practice and to ensure that we are not retraumatising these children and young people during their treatment.
Many of these issues could be addressed, as was recommended, by expanding the legal right to support from an independent mental health advocate to all children and young people. The Government accepted this recommendation in their 2021 mental health White Paper, but even then this was subject to future funding availability. Children’s rights expert, Kamena Dorling, highlights how serious these current conditions are. As it stands, we have mentally unwell children as in-patients who do not have the right to advocacy, and many of whom do not understand their rights and worry that they must do as they are told or they may end up being sectioned. She writes:
“There is a real question about whether we have a section of children who are unlawfully deprived of their liberty”.
This is a very serious and deeply worrying situation, and one that I hope the Minister will reflect on.
Finally, I will stray into a related area which no one has mentioned so far but on which I have been campaigning for a number of years. I want to comment briefly on some of the problems encountered due to the lack of regulation of online gambling and gaming. Some 60,000 to 62,000 young people in this country are classified as having a gambling disorder—according to law they should not even be gambling. If 60,000 to 62,000 young people have been diagnosed with these problems, how many are gambling? Presumably hundreds and hundreds of thousands, which shows the level of the problem that we are facing.
Of the 15 gambling clinics that have now been opened, funded by the NHS, at a time of huge financial constraints, 12 are facing huge waiting lists for people to get specialist treatment—they simply cannot access this treatment. Fortunately, the Government are now moving on the need for better regulation, but this really is needed to protect vulnerable young people. We have evidence that there are aspects of the gambling industry taking advice on how to produce games that are very addictive and encourage people to keep returning to them. If you talk to a family who have a teenager with a gambling addiction, they will tell you it can ruin the whole family. It is so compulsive that children can be stealing and lying to feed this devastating addiction.
I turn briefly to gaming. The WHO has classified gaming disorder as a mental health disorder. In 2019, the National Centre for Gaming Disorders opened a clinic in London, again funded by the very hard-pressed NHS, and 70% of the patients are under 18 years old. Noble Lords will have seen, as I have, a series of stories in the papers about the devastating damage that this is causing in families, where children really cannot tear themselves away from these, in some cases, highly addictive games. We need to support our world-leading, brilliant gaming industry—it brings a lot of pleasure which many people enjoy, so I am told—but there is, nevertheless, a downside, which urgently need regulation. Surely the gambling and gaming industry needs to pay a compulsory levy on the principle that the polluter pays. The industry has brilliantly privatised the profits and nationalised the costs. We as taxpayers are picking up the problem, and although this is a much smaller and niche problem, it is growing and we need to attend to it.
Polling shows that the population now ranks mental health as a more important issue than unemployment, industrial action and Brexit. Those under 40 rank it as more important even than climate change. I believe this shows that the public are telling the Government what their priorities are, and I hope His Majesty’s Government will listen. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on many of these complex but deeply worrying issues.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I want to look at mental health in the context of schools. Before I do, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hale, on her maiden speech. She is wearing a butterfly brooch, as opposed to a spider, and I feel more relaxed seeing that. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Russell on his speech. I thought it was very honest, and perhaps brave of him, to reference his own family and his daughter in an open Chamber.
I will give two brief examples before I turn to children. Four years ago, as part of Learn with the Lords, I went to speak to some secondary pupils at a school in Cheshire. The school was on a large council estate. I went into the school and the head sort of pushed me off with one of her teachers, and so I went in and spoke to the pupils. When I came out, the head asked me if I would like a cup of tea, and I said yes. I got into her office and she just burst into tears. I did not see it coming and I did not know what to do. She just stood there crying, so I naturally gave her a cuddle. She pulled herself together and said, “I’m really sorry about that. I have just had a letter from Ofsted telling me that we are a failed school, and I don’t know how to tell my staff. My staff are so hard-working. This is a very difficult circumstance for the school and I just don’t know what to do.”. We talked it through, and that made it clear to me that when we talk about mental health in schools, we should think about the teaching and non-teaching staff as well.
Interestingly, a friend of mine is head teacher of a three-form entry primary school of more than 500 pupils in a very deprived part of Liverpool. I asked—I will call him by his first name—Andrew how he is coping in his community. He said, “Well, I see my job not as a head teacher but as a social worker, quite honestly”. I turned to the subject of mental health and how he supports the pupils in that school. He said that from his school budget, he is able to spend £10,000 on one person to support the probably hundreds of pupils in his school who need mental health support. He said that the problem is that professionals are in high demand and other schools will pay more to poach them. He said, “I am lucky to get somebody to stay with me for a year”. That is a major problem. If we are to support pupils, children and staff in schools, we will need to be sure that professionals are available to do that and that they will not suddenly leave, leaving disappointed pupils and a case load of other children for somebody else to deal with.
My noble friend Lord Allan mentioned the second problem we face in education. There are literally—this is no exaggeration—hundreds of thousands of children missing from our school registers. They are missing because they were at home during Covid, they came back to school and they could not cope. They went back to their parents, mainly in deprived communities, and said, “Mum, dad, I don’t want to go to school. I can’t cope”. “Oh, stay at home. We will have home education”, they were told. As we know, home education is not registered. After a brief period, those children increasingly do no home education at all.
Imagine the strain that puts on the parent and the mental problems it will create for those children in the future. We can see that in the published figures and the increasing numbers of children who are permanently excluded from school. We have hundreds of thousands of children missing from our school registers, and there are even children who have been put on education healthcare plans who are permanently excluded from school, so we cannot implement those plans. That does not seem in the best interests of our pupils’ education.
Why has the number of children with mental health problems in school increased? Perhaps we have always had children with mental health problems in our schools but have never recognised or realised it. Perhaps we thought, “This is a disruptive child” or “This is a child with behavioural problems”. Thankfully, that is not the case now.
We know why there has been such a dramatic increase: Covid was one reason. I was also interested in my noble friend Lord Allan’s comments on social media, but the pressures of it—of having to respond, and the potential bullying—all create mental anguish and problems.
Our school system does not help. We are the most tested country in the world. We subject our children and young people to more tests than any other country does. Imagine the pressure that puts on young children. Imagine the pressures of Ofsted: I mentioned the example of the head teacher I met, and we know the tragic circumstances of the head teacher who took her own life as the result of an Ofsted inspection. All those pressures are happening at schools, with the high grades that schools require their pupils to achieve. What happened to the enjoyment of school? What happened to discovery and fun in school? It is all focused on a results outcome.
We name and shame. We put banners outside schools saying, “We are a good school”. In schools that do not have that banner, do parents and children feel a sort of anguish as a result? Our education system is not conducive to people’s well-being.
As has been said, we need to ensure that teachers are properly trained. As I have said on so many occasions, I do not think that Teach First, which takes a graduate, gives them a few weeks’ intensive training and then puts them in a school with a mentor, is the best possible way to train a teacher. It took me three years and when I started teaching, I was still learning. There needs to be an understanding of child development, for example, and of how to identify special educational needs. Part of that training should also include an understanding and recognition of mental health problems.
Finally, we need to support parents. We also need parents to understand what they can do to support their children. They need to bring routine to their children’s lives, to talk to their children, to ask how they are doing, to encourage them and be able to speak to them.
Mental health is a very serious issue in education and schooling. If we think that we can just put in a few million pounds here and make a promise there, it will not go away. We need dedicated, well-trained professionals in our schools who know what they are doing and how to support those pupils.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I add my welcome to the most distinguished noble and learned Baroness and congratulate her on an outstanding maiden speech. The House is the richer for having her, and I hope she visits us much more frequently in the future.
We are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for enabling the House to debate this subject, which, as previous speakers have said, is of great importance not only to children but to our wider society. It is generally agreed that this generation of young people have had, and are still having, a rather hard time. While many of these young people are able to rise to the challenge and are inspiring, both in their values and achievements, we must nevertheless recognise that the development of many has been badly affected in recent years and that they now need considerable help.
This generation of youngsters has unexpectedly experienced many changes. For example, in the decade following 2010, there were cuts in local government finances. As a result, many of the programmes that were designed to support young people and their families were cut and some, sadly, disappeared altogether, especially in the preventive and support services. We have not recovered from that situation. While the recent increase in funding is most welcome, I am advised that, in many areas, today’s budgets have not returned to where they were a decade ago, in real terms.
What had an even bigger impact on the well-being of young people, however, were the decisions related to Covid. The lockdown of schools and all other related activities not only interrupted their education but, in its wake, created their isolation, which had a marked impact on their intellectual, social and emotional development. As a result, very many young people became anxious, withdrawn and lacking in self-confidence. Here, we are not referring to just a small number of children and young people but, as has already been said, to many thousands.
The Children’s Commissioner’s recently published excellent report on school absences in England supports this. She says that absence figures have risen to “crisis levels” and are not recovering quickly enough. In Spring 2022, the last term for which we have data, 2% of all children were not just occasionally but severely absent. This is equivalent to 140,700 children. Her briefing goes on to say that:
“For some, the pandemic has led to disengagement. Schools and families have said that they feel like the … contract between parents and schools has been broken”.
That is a serious matter.
The fact that these issues are persisting into adolescence is well illustrated in the very helpful report by the Prince’s Trust from 2022 entitled The Power of Potential. That report makes it clear that:
“Young people were hit especially hard by the economic impact of the pandemic. In March 2021, young people accounted for around two thirds of the total fall in employment since the start of the pandemic, and youth unemployment was almost four times higher than the rest of the working-age population”.
Sometimes these children who are seriously absent from school are referred to as “ghost children”. What a terrible expression—and what a terrible situation they find themselves in: they are basically lost to the system and no longer known.
The difficulties of these young people taking these problems into adolescence means that the number who are not in employment, education or training continues to increase to an alarming degree. That is despite the increase in job vacancies. To reinforce this situation, the recently published report by several childcare charities, entitled Children at the Table, makes it clear that:
“Babies, children and young people have been overlooked by policy makers for too long and the impact is clear: more children are living in poverty, they face a growing mental health crisis, and are waiting too long to receive urgently needed support.”
This is what this debate is about: among young people, we are facing a growing number who have mental health problems now but are waiting far too long for the help that they need to be delivered.
It is clear from the number of young people who are not in school, employment or training that they are vulnerable to exploitation from organisations such as county lines and other disturbing influences. We owe it to these children and young people to have them properly supported and protected at this critical stage in their development. This picture emerges at a time when children’s mental health services have never been so overwhelmed and ill-equipped to meet the needs of these children and young people. I recently heard that one family had been told that the gap between referral to those services and the beginning of assessment was longer than a year and could even be much longer in reality. Just imagine what it is like for the child with these problems: a year in this child’s life at a very formative stage is of immense importance. What is it like for their parents, because what can they do? I am told that they just said, “We are waiting. There is nothing that can be done.” That is a sad situation.
The charity Beat said that a report on the mental health of children and young people in England found large increases in the number suffering from eating disorders, which have already been mentioned. The Times reported:
“Between 2017 and this year … Among 11 to 16-year-olds, the prevalence had jumped from 0.5 per cent to 2.6 per cent, and among 17 to 19-year-olds from 0.8 per cent to 12.5 per cent”.
This clearly represents a huge increase. This is not about fads but recognised and serious eating problems.
Whatever standpoint we take to approach this serious subject, the evidence is starkly clear—and the evidence we have heard from each contributor to the debate so far is in one direction. There is no conflict about this. The number of children in need of the mental health services is seriously increasing, while the service is less able to respond. These children did not invite lockdown or the disruption to their education and their normal social development. They should not be left behind. If we do not respond to their needs now, they will take these problems into adulthood and society will be the poorer for it. So, let us do all we can together to ensure that these children and young people get the help that they need from the specialist mental health services when they need it. We will all be the better for that.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow on from the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Russell on securing and introducing this debate in such a moving and comprehensive way. It is such an important issue and is very dear to my heart. I also congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, on her excellent and highly entertaining maiden speech. I was a bit perplexed when I saw that it was her maiden speech, but now I understand. I also thank the many charities and others in the sector who have sent me excellent briefings.
It has been an excellent and very well-informed debate. I will pick up on some of the main themes covered. Quite rightly, we have heard a lot about the state of children’s mental health in this country, and many of the statistics are indeed bleak. To summarise a complex picture, an increasing number of young people are experiencing mental health problems for a wide range of reasons, which have been highlighted compellingly today. Yet far too many are unable to access the help that they desperately need, either through school or NHS services.
Without doubt, young people’s mental health services are struggling to meet demand. As a result, thresholds for treatment are very high, with many young people turned away because they are “not well enough”. Those who do get accepted into CAMHS are often left waiting many months, if not years, for treatment, during which time their mental health often deteriorates.
I will say a few more things about demand for, and access to, services. Mental health providers are concerned that they are seeing an increase in both the severity and complexity of the mental health needs of children and young people—exacerbated by both Covid and the cost of living crisis, which we have heard about today. The NHS Confederation estimates that demand has increased by 89% and that mental health services are treating double the number of children and young people with eating disorders who need urgent care than before the pandemic—which we just heard about. That is the equivalent of six children in a class of 30. The number of referrals to CAMHS reached a record number in May of this year and the number of urgent referrals of children to crisis teams has also reached a record high. Particularly worryingly, suicide rates among young females have been steadily increasing.
Looking ahead, it is pretty daunting. It has been estimated that 1.5 million children and teenagers will need new or additional support for their mental health over the next three to five years. That is going to take a very different approach. The unpalatable fact is that only around a third of children with a probable mental health problem are, at the moment, able to access treatment. I think that shows how far away from parity of esteem with physical health we really are.
I am particularly concerned about the huge regional inequalities and the lottery of what support is available depending on where you live. My noble friend Earl Russell referred to an FoI investigation by the journalist Justine Smith, published in the House magazine in April. It revealed a postcode lottery in child mental health care, with some desperate young people waiting up to four years for help. Results from the 58 trusts and boards that responded to the request showed that the position in England was considerably worse than in Scotland and particularly Wales. Almost three-quarters of the English trusts said that they currently had at least one young person who had been waiting at least a year, and two-fifths had someone waiting at least two years. Funding ranged from £35 per child under the former Doncaster clinical commissioning group—0.5% of its total budget—to £135 per child in Salford, or 2.2% of its budget. That is a huge difference. I think variations of this scale are simply unacceptable. This data needs to be tracked and published regularly to throw a spotlight on what is going on locally.
On funding, years of underfunding and neglect of children's mental health services have taken their toll, as we have heard loud and clear. They have been subject to what I call the “double Cinderella syndrome”, or indeed the “double-8 syndrome”—by which I mean that only 8% of mental health services spending was spent on children and young people's mental health in 2021-22, and in 2022-23 just over 8% of the NHS budget was spent on mental health generally. To meet increasing demand, it has been estimated that funding for mental health services would have to rise to as much as £27 billion by 2033-34. That is the backdrop against which the very welcome but, frankly, relatively modest increases in government funding since 2017 should be viewed.
The NHS Long Term Plan, published in January 2019, included a welcome commitment that funding for children and young people’s mental health services should grow faster than both overall NHS funding and total mental health spending. But it has become harder to track whether this has happened in the switch from CCGs to integrated care boards, and with the changes to how the mental health investment standard and the dashboard operate. So could the Minister say when the NHS mental health dashboard is next due to be updated and whether, and by how much, the commitment in the NHS Long Term Plan has been met? If he does not have those figures to hand, could he please write to me.
A point not covered so far in our debate relates to the fact that mental health is now part of a new major conditions strategy, rather than having its own stand-alone strategy. I know that many consider that a regressive step. This occurred following the cancellation of the previous long-term mental health and well-being plan that had been proposed by the Government. With the new major conditions strategy focusing on a range of conditions such as cancer, heart disease, musculoskeletal disorders, dementia and respiratory diseases, there is a clear risk that it will focus mainly on middle-aged and older people and that the mental health of infants, children and young people will be neglected.
So, what is needed? A lot of it has been covered in today’s debate and I support others who have been calling for a comprehensive cross-government strategy, looking at all aspects of mental health support. There are a number of things that need to be included.
I will start with prevention; any good strategy should start with prevention. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has recently published a report calling on the Government to prioritise the mental health of babies and children. It set out evidence showing that intervening very early on may help stop conditions arising or worsening, and prevent babies and young children developing mental health problems in later life. This might include support for mothers in pregnancy, working with parents to promote attachment to their children and recommending parenting programmes in the early stages—many of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, talked about. I very much hope that family hubs will develop such services so that they are available wherever people live. Could the Minister say whether this is the case? I fully endorse the calls today for the family to be supported as the primary source of emotional support and well-being.
I turn next to early intervention services. Again, we have heard today how crucial early intervention is to stop problems escalating. In other words, the earlier a young person can get support for their mental health, the more effective it is likely to be. That is why I have been a strong backer of the early drop-in support hubs for 11 to 25 year-olds. They are on a self-referral basis, which I think is exactly what is needed, and are embedded in the community. They have been championed by YoungMinds and many others. I very much welcome the £5 million announced by the Government last month for 10 existing hubs and I strongly support the call for a national network of hubs to support young people who do not meet the threshold for CAMHS support.
I move on to schools, which have an absolutely vital role to play, as my noble friend Lord Storey set out so eloquently. I have always supported the creation of mental health support teams in schools. I was struck by research evidence earlier this year from Barnardo’s, which delivers 12 such teams. The research found that the teams are effective at supporting children and young people with mild to moderate mental health problems. They improve their outcomes and, critically, are cost effective; they say that they save the Government £1.90 for every £1 invested. But, as we all know, the problem has been the frankly glacial rollout of this programme.
The high demand and long waiting lists for CAMHS that I talked about earlier place real pressure on these mental health support teams, which were not really set up to deal with the more severe issues. The Barnardo’s research identified a gap in the current model to address the needs of children with moderate or more complex needs, children with special educational needs and younger children. It recommended that the rollout should include school counsellors to fill this gap. I support this recommendation and am delighted that next Monday I will be introducing my Private Member’s Bill, which is designed to ensure that every school has access to a qualified mental health professional or school counsellor—a key Lib Dem policy, as we heard earlier. I hope that this will provide a much-needed boost to ensure that all schools are able to provide their pupils with the mental health support they need.
I turn briefly to CAMHS services. As the Children’s Commissioner pointed out in her annual report, the stark reality is that too many children still face high access thresholds, rejected referrals and long waiting times. Children’s mental health was looked at by the Lords Select Committee examining the implementation of the Children and Families Act 2014, which I had the honour to chair. We were shocked by the results of a survey we commissioned, which showed that in many places CAMHS had reached crisis point. I vividly remember one mother, who told us:
“Having had a seven-year-old son who was so dysregulated he was trying to throw himself out of windows and grabbing knives, there was no support for him (or us). The GP, after two failed CAMHS referrals as he ‘didn't meet the threshold’ told us, if we could at all afford it, even if it means borrowing money, to find support privately. That CAMHS will not accept a child unless they have made two viable attempts on their own life”.
I join my noble friend Lord Russell in asking the Minister what plans the Government have to implement the four-week clinical access standards for children and young people’s community health services, which have already been piloted? What have those pilots found? Will a fully funded plan be introduced to reach those standards?
In-patient care is another key area of concern that has come up today. It is estimated that some 3,500 children under the age of 18 are admitted to mental health in-patient facilities. As my noble friend Lord Allan said, despite the commitment to eliminate out-of-area placements, too often children are still being admitted to places far from home without a clear understanding of their rights and subject to restrictive interventions and inappropriate care. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans made that point compellingly.
The transition to adult mental health services is just not working for too many young people. The NHS long-term plan set out an ambition to move to a nought to 25 model for young people. I supported that, but it is not clear what progress has been made towards it. Is the Minister able to say more about this? There is significant variation across the country in the age at which young people are expected to move to adult services. This transition is often abrupt and based on a person’s age rather than their readiness. Differences in threshold also mean that young people getting support from CAMHS may not meet the threshold for support for adult services, so yet again they fall through gaps.
I finish with a number of questions for the Minister. I ask him to write to me if he is unable to answer them now. What plans do the Government have to expand access to mental health support teams to children and young people across all schools and colleges in the country as quickly as possible? How do the Government intend to tackle the major regional inequalities in spending and wait times for CAMHS? Given the Government’s regrettable decision to roll back on previous plans to publish a stand-alone 10-year mental health plan, can the Minister say how the Government will ensure that the inclusion of mental health in the forthcoming major conditions strategy will properly tackle the huge challenges in children and young people’s mental health? Given the recent funding for the 10 innovative early support hubs, can the Minister clarify when this programme will report, what the evaluation will entail, and whether Ministers will commit to a rollout if findings are favourable? Given the postponement, yet again, of the long overdue reforms to the Mental Health Act, what immediate action are the Government taking to improve the plight of under-18s admitted to in-patient care units to ensure they and their families are aware of their rights and receiving appropriate care?
Today’s debate has shown that there is a lot of consensus on what we need to do. I hope the policymakers will listen to us so that we can make real progress.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, with the knowledge and expertise we expect from across the House and from the very moving and comprehensive introduction from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in particular on the consequences of family poverty for children’s and young people’s mental health. I too I congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, on her powerful maiden speech. This is an appropriate debate for her to make her first Chamber contribution to the work of the House. We fully understand the reasons for the long wait to hear her.
As we have heard, this debate is taking place in the context of deep concern over the realities and consequences of the Government’s failure to provide for the genuinely “oven-ready” update of the Mental Health Act in their legislative programme for the rest of their time in office. We are also considering the mental health of children and young people, with the timely report from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on the impact of the long-term segregation of people with learning difficulties and autistic people in mental health settings and in assessment and treatment units in the forefront of our minds.
The updated Bill provides clear provisions for improving recognition of and information on the legal rights of detained children and adults in terms of treatment choices and information that must be provided to them, their parents, carers and families. Patients’ choices would have been given greater weight and it would have been easier for people with learning difficulties and autism to be discharged from hospital. As we have heard underlined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the discrimination and inequalities that leave black people four times more likely to be detained under the 1983 Act would have been addressed.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister how these and other steps can be implemented in the absence of the framework of the new Bill and within the continued constraints, approaches and outdated attitudes in the current 40 year-old Act. How will care and treatment of people detained under this Act be “improved” by the “‘non-legislative commitments” that Ministers promised in the King’s Speech and in response to the continuing concerns raised by noble Lords about the impact and consequences of the Government’s decision?
The noble Baroness’s report is the subject of the short debate following this one, so we will revisit this later. I welcomed the Minister’s promise last week during the Oral Question on mental health to meet with the noble Baroness, my noble friend Lord Touhig and others from these Benches, including me, on this very serious issue.
As the House will know, Labour, if it wins the next election, is firmly pledged to reform the Mental Health Act in its first Session of Parliament in the King’s Speech. We have had the expert pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee on the draft Bill that should have been laid before us—the result of a huge amount of valuable and informed cross-party work and wide consultation among stakeholders. The Government have run out of time on this, and we stand ready, if elected, to meet this pledge, to recruit the thousands more mental health professionals to cut waiting lists and ensure more people can access treatment, and to guarantee treatment inside four weeks for anyone who needs it. We will create an open access mental health hub for children and young people in every community and expand mental health support in schools.
Many noble Lords have rightly underlined the importance of the workforce and the need for more staff across the range of CAMHS, including nurses, psychologists, therapists, social workers and other professionals who specialise in working with children and families. The CQC’s recent annual State of Care report identifies that almost one in five mental health nursing posts is vacant, and that this contributes to an overuse of restrictive practices in mental health settings and ATUs, including restraint, seclusion and segregation.
We have heard how the Government’s failure to honour their pledge on the mental health Bill has caused widespread consternation among key stakeholders, parliamentarians and the wider public—all of us expecting, after such a long wait, the Bill to be a key part of the King’s Speech. As the mental health charity Mind summed it up, the Government have missed the chance to
“overhaul the way the system works when people are in a mental health crisis”
and to
“prevent people being stripped of their dignity, voice and independence when they are sectioned”.
What are the Government’s plans for their formal response to the Joint Committee, which is still awaited? Will they detail exactly how the Bill’s provisions will be taken forward and implemented without new legislation? How, for example, will the proposed new duties on ICBs, local authorities and commissioners to strengthen community provision and services, the new powers for mental health tribunals to direct services in the community, and access to independent mental capacity advocates to support people with autism and learning disabilities, be acted on and enforced?
Emphasising the very serious consequences of the delay is important because the Bill is essential to help reset the culture, tone and attitudes that are needed right across the provision of services in NHS mental health settings, ATUs and local authority education and social care. The CQC’s annual report is the latest of many acknowledging the depth of the crisis in mental health. The continuing impact of the pandemic on the mental health of children—highlighted by every speaker today—the record number of urgent referrals of children to crisis teams, and the NHS Confederation’s estimate that, in the next three to five years, 1.5 million children and young people will need new or additional support for their mental health, as the noble Earl underlined, all reinforce the CQC’s warning that services across the country face one of their most challenging years.
Access to mental health services and the quality of care remain a key area of concern for the CQC, with providers struggling to keep pace with surging demand, alongside staffing shortages and a lack of capacity in community and in-patient care. Long waits for services for children and young people, and children presenting with more complex or specialist needs, are particularly emphasised as worse than before the pandemic.
This impact has been reinforced by speeches today addressing what is behind the huge numbers, with a unique set of pressures for a generation growing up: the pandemic, the cost of living crisis and ongoing global instability. A wide range of emotional and behavioural problems—anxiety, depression, self-harm, eating disorders, bullying at school, and children embroiled in gambling, as the right reverend Prelate underlined—are all in play at a time of ever-increasing demand for mental health services across the NHS and local government. In the last two years, the number of children and young people being referred for urgent support for eating disorders has increased by nearly three-quarters. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, spoke very movingly about the experience of a teenager she is aware of, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, both referred to this issue.
Under the circumstances, the crucial importance of early intervention in an individual’s childhood and teenage years to avoid future mental health difficulties has been emphasised by all noble Lords. The report in June this year from the LGA and Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition called for community-based early support hubs, along with a full national rollout of mental health support teams in schools and colleges. The recent Children’s Commissioner’s mental health annual briefing on early intervention is also an important contribution to charting the way forward on this; the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, underlined that.
However, the LGA and the coalition warned that progress in expanding support provided to families, children and young people is at the risk of being undermined by
“a lack of coordinated vision and action both locally and nationally”.
Can the Minister tell the House what action, particularly cross-government, is being taken to address these concerns and to ensure that early intervention support will be provided?
Finally, earlier this year, the Government shelved their 10-year plan for mental health and well-being, with the focus instead on the major conditions strategy, wrapping up mental health with several physical health conditions. This was cited by the charity YoungMinds as having further delayed the Government’s action for young people’s mental health, which could have paved the way for reforms that support young people and reduce the prevalence of poor mental health. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned this important strategy, but the Government do not seem to fully understand the widespread concern across the mental health sector that abandoning the 10-year strategy has caused. Added to abandoning the mental health Bill, small wonder that they are questioning the Government’s commitment to mental health as a key priority.
We have had the interim report on the major conditions strategy, but it remains very unclear how the full strategy will address and reduce the highest number of open referrals to CAMHS of children and young people undergoing treatment or waiting to start care—as we have heard, a record 466,250 referrals in May. When will the full strategy be published? Can the Minister explain how it will address the issues that were expected to be outlined in the previous mental health and well-being plan?
Labour’s shadow Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, has stressed that Labour, if elected, intends to revolutionise mental health treatment in this country. We are determined to deliver on this and keep every promise we make. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this excellent debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Before replying, I add my congratulations to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, on her maiden speech. I am sorry that no one was able to add to the Yorkshire hat trick and, speaking as a Brighton boy, I cannot get much further away than that. I found the reasons for the delay fascinating; it was an education for me, as I did not quite realise her involvement in so many things. For me, it was well worth the wait, and it is a personal honour to be able to reply after such a distinguished and accomplished speaker. I invite her, along with all other speakers, to join—as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, mentioned—the round table that I have organised with the Minister, Maria Caulfield, where we can follow up some of the themes brought out today in more detail. I would be delighted if the noble and learned Baroness were able to add her experience to that round table.
I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for enabling us to have this debate. He has heartfelt and personal reasons for the debate; as many noble Lords will know, I have my own personal experience and reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said, it is normal. I had the misfortune of going to a funeral last week of one of my school friends, whose brother had mental health issues. As we were talking on the way down in the car, we were updating each other on all our families, and we realised that every single one of our families had one of their children or someone in the household with mental health issues.
Is the reason for that Covid, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, mentioned? Is it some of the online reasons, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Allan? Is it gambling? I have to say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans that the gambling aspect of it all was something that I had not probably thought through enough, but I found that fascinating as well. Is it the cost of living, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler? Is it the increase in the number of ghost children—I apologise for using that phrase, but it is the easiest way to sum it up—as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Laming? Is it eating disorders?
I always like these debates to result in substantive action rather than being a talking shop, so that really led me to take away an action point. I was proud to be titled the Minister of Follow-through by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, yesterday, so I will follow that up. I would like to see whether we have done any research, through the NIHR, to really understand what factors and causes are behind what is a massive increase in the number of young people requiring mental health support, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, says and we all acknowledge. I have seen various figures; the one I was cited was that it had gone from one in nine to one in six. Whichever way you look at it, it is a massive increase. We really need to understand those reasons, because it is often only when you understand the causes that you can look at how to address them. I will do some personal work, but if the research is not there I propose—and I will speak to people about this—that this is something that the NIHR should do, because it is vital that we understand those reasons. As all noble Lords have said, prevention is of course key to this.
Obviously, I hope that many of the reasons are transitory—maybe many were caused by Covid so we are seeing a big jump up now but will see a reduction afterwards. But the reason for needing to understand it is that it goes to the long-term funding we might need. If they are not just transitory reasons, and this is now the new normal, so to speak, then we need to do exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said, and think about a whole provision of child services in the mental health space, in the same way we do in the physical health space. I think we all agree that we need to do that to a degree regardless, but it is the level of that. That goes again to the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler and Lady Tyler, about the long-term workforce plan and understanding how many mental health staff we need to make sure we are training and equipping. Specifically, while I mention that, I will write to noble Lords on the mental health dashboard and when that is being updated.
I think we are absolutely united on the need for early detection in all this. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, gave the example of Emma, in the autism space, but we have all said it in various guises. We have made good progress on mental health provision and identification in schools, which has gone up from about a quarter to over a third of schools, with a target of over 50% in the next year to 18 months. However, I think we all agree that we need to go further and that it needs to be 100% of schools.
Also on early detection, I have been interested in some of the pilots in Bradford, which are starting to look at children’s school results and how they respond to the SATs and other things to see whether that could be an early indicator of some of the issues. I recently saw a fantastic example in the Boston children’s hospital, where they look at how children play online, digitally, on their iPads. With dyslexia, for example, the problem is often that it is only when children are five or six and have been taught to read that such things show up, but there they have started to see how children of two or three interact through pattern recognition, with blocks and other games devised for that. They look at their playing patterns to see whether those can be good early indicators.
I have personal experience of this. I am fortunate that my wife was an early years special needs schoolteacher, and she was able to identify very early on and make sure that our son had that early support. I firmly believe that that stood him in good stead in later life. So early detection starts with the parents. If I had not been so fortunate, 25 years ago, to have a wife who understood these sorts of things, I would not have known. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said, it starts with parenting programmes and making sure that the early support hubs are a good way into that. I echo and support our commitment to early detection.
You also need early support, as all speakers have said. The ICSs are the right place to do that because they look system-wide. As we know, schools are also a vital part of this, and the £2.3 billion of funding that we put into this space is designed specifically for 350,000 extra places for young people in the community—and I think we all agree that the community is the right place. Obviously, in the next debate, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, we will talk about some of the issues around in-patient treatment, but I think we all absolutely agree about the need for community treatment. My understanding is that these early support hubs are very much like mental health drop-in centres, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, mentioned, and that is what they are designed to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, the innovation programme looks promising, but we need to make sure that this is rolled out. ICB early support hubs are very much part of the first line of defence, for want of a better phrase. To me, the 350,000 extra spaces and the funding we are trying to put in are a very important part of that.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said, we have set up gambling clinics to try to address this from some of those angles. However—and this goes back to the research—we need to look at some of the wider angles. My noble friend Lord Evans was just saying that AFC Wimbledon has tried to get football clubs to remove the sponsorship of gambling companies, which a load of Premier League clubs have. Straightaway, that normalises gambling from a very young age. Those are some of the wider society solutions that we need to look at in all of this.
We have 70 eating disorder teams, and we need to look at whether we need to expand that, given what we know about the issues involved in a lot of eating disorders. This all comes back to the long-term workforce plan, which many Members mentioned, and making sure that we have the support there.
A couple of noble Lords mentioned the Major Conditions Strategy. My understanding is that it is not supposed to be seen as an either/or. It is about trying to understand that, because a lot of people have more than one major condition, instead of us approaching things as silos we have to look at a whole-person solution, and so we would look at their mental health as much as their physical health. I accept the perception that any major conditions strategy generally focuses more on the elderly, so I will take back that we need to make sure that it is not delivered in that way and does not prevent the sorts of things we need to do for young people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked about CAMHS. A lot of the funding I was speaking about and the 350,000 extra spaces are all about trying to make sure that we meet that four-week target. It is recognised that the sooner you can get people mental health support, the better; that is obviously even more important for a young person in that context. I will look into the points raised about support into adulthood, to make sure that that handover happens properly.
I hope I have given a flavour of what we are trying to do. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said right at the beginning, it starts with recognising that there has been a fundamental change. That needs to be reflected in our response. As I was saying earlier, I am attempting to try and understand what is behind that so we can get to some of the root causes.
I encourage all speakers to join the round table with the Minister, so I will invite people to that. I know I am never able to respond to all the points in my speech, so I will write to all the speakers, covering all the points raised in the questions. I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, for making her maiden speech, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in particular for his words, and all noble Lords for their contributions. I have learned a lot from the debate and thoroughly enjoyed it.
My understanding is that we are going straight into the next debate, so I hope noble Lords will excuse me for taking a quick bathroom break beforehand.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to bring the debate to the House today. I thank everyone who has spoken. It is an immense privilege and honour to have heard the wonderful maiden speech from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, on which I congratulate her.
I am new to this place, but I have been struck today by the uniformity of feeling and desire for change and to work together cross-party, in the interests of helping our children and young people and of getting a better understanding of the causes of this rapid increase so that we can plan budgets and provide help. I thank the Minister for his response. I recognise him to be a deeply thoughtful and caring Minister. I appreciate his talking about his family experiences in the issues of mental health. I welcome his offer of continuing this debate at the round table, and I welcome the fact that he will report back to us on the points raised today.
One thing that has not been mentioned that I would like to mention is the particular mental health concerns of LGBT+ people, and young LGBT+ people, of which there is increasing evidence.
It has been a privilege to introduce the debate. I hope that it helps to galvanise the Government into further action, and that some of that action results in further funding. I thank all those who have taken part.
Learning Disabilities and Autism: Solitary Confinement in Hospital
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollins
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to expedite implementing the recommendations in the report My heart breaks—solitary confinement in hospital has no therapeutic benefit for people with a learning disability and autistic people, published by the Department of Health and Social Care on 8 November.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have autistic family members and my son also has a learning disability. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have signed up to speak in this topical debate: all ideas on how to make progress are needed. I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet interested Members of your Lordships’ House after the debate. My gratitude is also due to the panel of experts by experience and professionals who contributed to the report we are discussing today. The report is called My Heart Breaks—Solitary Confinement in Hospital Has No Therapeutic Benefit for People With a Learning Disability and Autistic People.
It is four years since the Secretary of State asked me to review the effectiveness of a new Department of Health-run programme of independently chaired reviews called ICETRs. The aim was to speed up discharges of people detained under mental health legislation in long-term segregation, following a CQC report that highlighted serious concerns about its use. We designed the review process to include each person’s life story, the reason for their admission to hospital and to long-term segregation, any mental health diagnosis and the treatment plan.
People with learning disabilities and autistic people have a higher incidence of adverse childhood experiences, yet none of this information was routinely provided to admitting clinicians. Two phases of reviews took place, 191 in total, with 115 people found to be in long-term segregation at any one time. ICETRs ended in March this year. They were a good diagnostic tool but, disappointingly, the wider system initially failed to make the changes recommended in the reviews, so two additional interventions were introduced: senior intervenors and HOPE(S). I shall come back to HOPE(S).
There is no therapeutic benefit to isolating people in long-term segregation and we would like to rename it “solitary confinement”, which is considered internationally to be a human rights abuse. I welcome the plan for the CQC to offer an ICETR to everyone detained in long-term segregation, but will the Minister tell the House when the CQC will recommence this programme? Will he commit to fund these reviews for as long as long-term segregation is in use in mental health hospitals, not just for the two years currently announced?
Equally importantly, will he commit funding to expand and extend the culture change programme HOPE(S), which has been running alongside the reviews and has been endorsed by the CQC as outstanding? Forty-seven people receiving support from HOPE(S) have progressed out of long-term segregation, following an average stay in LTS in that hospital of 441 days. Some of these people will have been moved in LTS across a number of services, so the real duration in solitary confinement will have been longer, and eight of the 47 were children and young people.
Examples of the very real differences delivered by HOPE(S) include someone hugging a brother for the first time in two years, having their first haircut in five years, eating meals at a table rather than on the floor or leaving hospital and having a full life in the community. I was pleased to see, in His Majesty’s Government’s response to recommendation 4 in my report, a commitment to help patients and families become aware of their rights. I look forward to seeing how that is going to be done.
With no mental health Bill in the gracious Speech, the panel’s recommended changes to the code of practice need to be achieved by different means. Minimum standards are urgently needed for the accommodation and care provided for people in an LTS. The pipeline of admissions continues; discharge is only part of the story. We estimate that there are still more than 100 individuals detained in LTS. Some are alone in rooms without any natural light, with just a mattress on the floor and without toilet or washing facilities. In quite a number of reviews, serious safeguarding concerns were raised about the manner in which people were being held. If clinicians and managers know that it is causing harm to an individual, does not its continued use become a patient-safety incident? The planned use of LTS, which is currently lawful, might not itself constitute a patient-safety incident, but should not the accommodation and care provided at least meet the minimum standards proposed? How does the noble Lord suggest that minimum standards can be legislated for and providers held accountable? Could CQC’s fundamental standards be used more rigorously to regulate LTS accommodation?
I have another suggestion: would it be possible to require the Secretary of State’s approval for the use of LTS in psychiatric hospitals, without needing primary legislation? There is a precedent for such approval for under-10s entering secure welfare, because it can cause serious long-term outcomes for the child. The use of LTS in both children and adults has a similar potential to cause serious long-term outcomes. My proposal would introduce a limit of a few days for urgent use of LTS, and, after that limit was reached, an application to the Secretary of State would have to be made by the chief executives of the provider hospital and the commissioner. They would have to confirm that safeguarding referrals had been made and that commissioners had visited the detained person. This would be another way to make LTS notifiable and its use monitored. Seeing the reality of LTS for themselves would mean that commissioners knew what they were commissioning and hopefully would insist on compliance with minimum standards for the accommodation and care provided. I hope the Minister will consider this proposal very seriously.
Major concerns were the lack of accountability in the whole system for the outcomes for individuals, and a lack of project management and specialist advocacy. I suggest there is a strong case for a specialist central advocacy service for people with a learning disability and autistic people in mental health hospitals. This is something His Majesty’s Government could take forward in the absence of primary legislation, as they are doing in relation to culturally appropriate advocacy. It sometimes seems a bit like the old joke: there was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realised that Everybody would not do it.
Board-level oversight of the use of LTS should change the wrongful marketing of specialist provision when, in reality, a hospital has been offering little more than warehousing people who have been failed in the community. Discharging people is one thing. Preventing their admission in the first place is even more important, but this requires government commitments to deliver on the Building the Right Support action plan. There are examples of good practice. I do not have time to describe them, but internationally we could learn from what is happening in, for example, Trieste, and the START programme in the United States, which is now in 17 different states. They focus on working with people in the community and trying to prevent hospital admission, and keeping admissions short if they happen.
The point is that without reliable and respectful family-based and relational care in the community, we as a society are knowingly increasing the chances that autistic children and adults and those with learning disability will continue to be excluded, lonely and traumatised. We will increase the chances that they will become overwhelmed at moments of transition or crisis, such as a death in the family. They will be admitted to hospital as a so-called last resort, but often a first resort, because nothing else was provided. A number of them will then be detained in LTS in a downward spiral which could have been prevented.
It is too risky to expect wise local commissioning for minority groups with poorly understood needs without some decent minimum standards for care and support to hold commissioners to account. I will end by repeating the demands of one of the experts by experience on my panel, the mother of a young man who had been traumatised by his time in hospital, including in solitary confinement. She is clear about what is needed: accountability, accountability and accountability. She reminded me that the Chancellor showed great concern about poor care in some assessment and treatment units when the right honourable Member was chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. We need the money now. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my autism interests as listed in the register and to the fact that, as your Lordships know, I have a family interest in autism. I very much welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has brought her report to the Floor of the House today. We are very fortunate in this House to have her expertise that she shares with us on this and on many other occasions.
As the noble Baroness has said, the report describes statutory confinement as being used to “warehouse” adults and children with a learning disability and/or autism. If I may, I would like to set the scene a bit on autism. It is of course a spectrum—a communication disorder that covers a wide range of intelligence, but because of the complexity of the condition, the report we are discussing can capture any of them. Failure in the community to provide appropriate support raises the risk that any one of them may be admitted and subject to all the horrors that this report exposes, particularly solitary confinement, which in every other context would be regarded as a punishment.
For many adults and children, autism-related anxiety is common. It can often be helped with medication, but that is complex. There is no one quick-fix pill. The advance of personalised medication will certainly benefit this group, but we do not have it yet. We need it. The anxiety can cause meltdowns and challenging behaviour. It is usually triggered by a build-up of anxiety. Of course, it is difficult to deal with, but it is not a psychotic episode. The triggers that create these meltdowns in autistic adults and children need to be understood. They will vary from person to person, from changing environments and many quite obscure changes. It takes time and experience to manage and support somebody who is having a meltdown. I know that it is not a psychiatric term as such, but I think we all understand, know and have probably witnessed what that means. Whatever the cause of a meltdown, to be met with solitary confinement will compound the anxiety driver, and too often, the use of the chemical cosh on top just puts off a repeat event until the next time. For many autistic people, just being physically touched will trigger a challenging behaviour.
In over 31 years in Parliament, I have been involved with medical practitioners in order to extricate autistic people from mental institutions, and I can certainly relate to the title of the report that is the subject of today’s debate, which begins with the words, “My heart breaks”. My heart has broken many times over some of the cases I have personally observed. One would have hoped to have seen more progress. Over the years there have been high-profile cases, but the Government have made promises that have not been kept and targets have been widely missed.
In reading the response of the DHSC to the recommendations in the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, I would like to focus the Minister’s attention on the scale of the problem. In particular, their response to recommendation 6 says:
“Solitary confinement should become a notifiable event to CQC as well as to the ICB executive lead for learning disability and autism and the provider board. The notification should be made within 72 hours of a person entering solitary confinement”.
The Government’s response to recommendation 8 mentions the CQC. Although I support the training mentioned in that response, if there were notification of such confinement straightaway, or certainly within 48 hours, the CQC would not have to play “catch me if you can” in its ad hoc investigations of and attendances at these institutions. There is an urgent need for these cases to be identified when they happen and to explain why an action is taken. There is such a need for more action that the Government have a role to play here, rather than just saying, “Well, these are independent bodies who make day-to-day decisions”. That may be true, but what is behind this report is all the recommendation the Government need to make sure that the action in the field meets what we in this House would regard as humanitarian standards for this group of people.
I conclude by quoting a briefing that many of us have had from Mencap, which has great experience in this area. It says that the Government
“promised to reduce the number of people with a learning disability and/or autism in mental health hospitals by 50% by March 2024. Our analysis of latest NHS Digital Assuring figures … estimates that the Government won’t hit their own target until 2029”.
It says that, of the 5,025 reported cases, in August 2023—just three months ago—the use of restrictive interventions in this one month included 1,140 reported uses of restrictive interventions on children. I say to my noble friend the Minister: surely, this is urgent.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society. I join my noble friend in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, not only for securing this debate but for the commitment and dedication she and her colleagues have put into preparing the report; it is absolutely outstanding. It is a pleasure and an honour to follow my close collaborator on these matters, my noble friend Lady Browning.
“You must meet this young boy who has behavioural problems and is about to go to comprehensive school.” Those were the words of the head of a special school I visited a little while ago. The lad was autistic and, from time to time, had an emotional meltdown that could sometimes be violent and difficult to handle. His first words when I met him were, “You’ve heard I’ve got behavioural problems”. I said, “Yes, I know”. He said, “I’m, working hard to try and cope”. I said that was good. He added, “My brother is the same. He’s five and autistic. I’m helping my mum cope with him. You’ve heard I’m off to comprehensive school”. I wished him good luck. He said, “I’ve decided on my career. I’m going to become a High Court judge. If you come up before me, you’ll get a lenient sentence”.
The point is that the head told me later that this young lad and his family had worked very positively and hard to try to overcome the behavioural problems that he and they were enduring. With the right support and encouragement, that young man has a future. However, that is not so for many children and adults with autism who have been locked up in mental health hospitals, sometimes for years. More than 2,000 are being detained under existing mental health legislation. They are separated from their families, isolated and often held in locked rooms, with their human rights ignored. We in Britain should be ashamed of this injustice.
The Council of Europe is our bulwark in defending human rights across our continent, and I once had the honour of serving as a member of that body. The council has twice in recent years taken a strong stand against the detention of people in mental health institutions, and our Government endorsed that view. Some of us were encouraged when the Government pledged to reduce the number of people with learning disabilities and autism in mental health hospitals by 50% by March next year—my noble friend Lady Browning referred to what Mencap has said about that. That begs the question everyone is asking: why did the Government not include a new mental health Bill in the King’s Speech to put an end to this practice? Families of autistic people are devastated by that failure and are anguished for their children.
A young Japanese boy, Naoki Higashida, wrote a book, The Reason I Jump. In the book there are some 50-plus questions and answers from the point of view of someone who is autistic. Whenever I pick it up, I look at question 21, which was:
“Why don’t you do what you’re told to straight away?”.
This was his answer: “There are times when I can’t do what I want or what I have to. It doesn’t mean I don’t want to do it, I just can’t get it all together somehow. Even performing one straightforward task, I can’t get started as smoothly as you can, so I have to do three things. The first thing I do is I think about what I am going to do. Then I have to visualise how I’m going to do it. Thirdly, I have to encourage myself to get going. How smoothly I can do the job depends on how smoothly the process goes. There are bad times when I can’t even act as I want to. I act badly. And when my body is beyond control—I don’t mean I’m ill or anything like that—it is as if my body belongs to somebody else and I have zero control over it”.
That is an inside view from a young autistic boy. Imagine being autistic and going through this experience when being told to do something immediately, or being detained in solitary confinement in a mental health hospital and being told to do this by a person who perhaps does not understand how difficult it is for you to act to do something they have asked you to do immediately.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, speaks for all of us in the title of the report she wrote, My Heart Breaks—Solitary Confinement in Hospital has no Therapeutic Benefit for People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People. The Minister is highly regarded on all sides of the House—that is genuinely felt by everyone here. All I can say to him is that only His Majesty’s Government have the power to make this change. I can think of no greater act in what is perhaps the last year of this Parliament than to pass legislation that would put an end to this wicked and evil practice.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when you have been here a while and suddenly see a pairing of people coming up in front of you on a certain subject—and it is the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, on autism—the first thing you do is to listen hard. When you get a report that has been written with such authority, inspired by this subject, that is doubly the case.
Every time we hear about confinement and control—physical restraint, chemical coshes on groups—we are basically saying, “You have got a failure”. Why have we got to that? Often because in getting to that point, people have not understood this bit of their client base; the report refers to that. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, just put his finger on it but from what I know of autism, that would be one person’s experience of it. There will be a series of traits gathered together that are complicated and different—never the same twice, so it is not easy.
It is difficult to tell a health professional, or any professional in any sphere, “By the way, your training doesn’t cover this properly”. We all have a series of reflex reactions which we go back to. We have to make sure that people on the way up to this point—or down, depending on how you want to look at it—have ideas about where they should have better interventions, or know whether they should make them or back off. If, as a mental health professional, you are confronted with somebody in an institution or in that process, unless you know not to behave as normal you will go into a pattern of behaviour because everybody does. You have put a reflex or bureaucratic pattern in place, so why would you break it? The only answer will be from the information about what you are dealing with.
Lots of things can go wrong in this process of identification and self-identification. I remember that once I managed to get myself into a totally unnecessary row with somebody who was on the autistic spectrum, because they accused me of not doing something in very aggressive terms. They probably did not mean to. I said, “Wait a minute—this is public”, and started to defend myself. Then they had a minor meltdown and left. I know more about this than most people but still do not know anywhere near enough to understand what that person was going through. Everybody can make these series of mistakes.
My question to the Government is: what are you doing to ensure that everybody in that process better understands that normal responses will get negative results on many occasions? How can we get that idea into the system quickly? Long training programmes, the fact that we are making progress through them and the fact that we have targets: those will all come out because they will be in the Minister’s brief—they always are. However, we need to know that an awareness that something will not respond correctly is required here.
Every time I have dealt with anything to do with autism, there has been this pattern of behaviour in the criminal justice system. To put it bluntly, autism is one of the most over-represented groups in society within the prison system. It can go horribly wrong everywhere. I take the example of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, on the process of responding: when somebody is confronted with authority, suddenly there is a conflict there, without even trying.
How can people be trained and be made aware generally in society so that they can avoid getting as far as the medical facilities, and how can we make medical facilities aware that a different type of response will be required? I would like that big question to start to be answered. If we do not address that, we do not stand a chance of addressing it in the round because even if we train all the medical practitioners, they will still have a great flood of people coming to them—people who should not have been there.
The police in certain places have had a little more training, but usually after very bad episodes: some degree of conflict has taken place or somebody has been traumatised. We are asking the Government to give us a serious plan about building up a pattern of awareness within the institutions that people bump into. If there is a certain specialist pattern, you only get x number of people going into it. Somebody who is a high- functioning autistic or functions well with learning difficulties may bump into the system only occasionally. But if they do not have support and guidance, with somebody to say, “Yes, there is a different type of response required here”, those incidents will get bigger and more frequent, and we will have to deal with them at the acute level.
The same will apply to those who are discharged from hospital. There must be an entrance and a way down. Sometimes it will be specialist provision and sometimes it will be specially trained people, particularly when you are discharged having had some damage—let us face it, we have all had some damage. I would hope the Minister can give us some pattern for the first steps in making the institutions of government aware that a different way of responding is required. That is a necessary first step, meaning that people should at least ask others, “What do we do?”. If you have that, you will have a bit of hope, which is the least that we should take away from this debate.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a NED at NHS England and as a qualified nurse. I commend my noble friend Lady Hollins on her thorough report on the current use of solitary confinement for autistic people and people with learning disabilities using in-patient hospital services. I remind people that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has written a book, Health is Made at Home, which argues that hospital should be for therapeutic intervention for short periods. This report clearly shows that that is not so for this cohort of patients.
The report raises key issues around the use and overuse of solitary confinement methods and outlines important recommendations for the improvement of care. However, rather than making my heart break, this report made me angry in the same way that another report, Sans Everything—that report was about long-term care in mental hospitals—did 50 years ago. We need to turn the anger and broken hearts into positive action.
I wholeheartedly support the concept that there should be no long-term use of solitary confinement for autistic people and people with a learning disability. However, I wish to highlight the need for discussion to consider in more detail other patients’ safety and well-being when people are in relatively confined environments. In addition, nursing staff are sometimes put at risk in understaffed, outdated clinical environments when, due to an acute autistic episode or meltdown, an individual patient resorts to violence that is difficult to cope with, often because of the reasons just given about inappropriate responses. Such circumstances can be distressing for other patients and staff.
Additionally, this debate should acknowledge the challenges that staff face due to high patient-staff ratios, which make truly individualised, person-centred care difficult to deliver in many circumstances. Agency nursing is used because it pays better but such nurses often do not know the individuals well enough to know how best to respond.
I state my full support for recommendation 12 of the report. Funding is needed to deliver person-centred interventions in order to reduce the use of solitary confinement vastly. This needs to be accompanied by funding to support staff’s continued education, training and professional development.
Although I agree that it is necessary to have formal recording and notifying practices in instances where solitary confinement has been used, I question the feasibility and staff resource requirements in the details of recommendation 6, in particular reporting immediately to the CQC. An alternative proposal could be that notifications to ICBs should be made if solitary confinement measures have been used for an individual in two or more instances in a set period, for example for more than 12 hours on two occasions within 10 days. However, reports should also be made to the boards that are responsible for the delivery of care.
Recommendation 7, which recommends that clinical contracts be agreed before admission, may not always be achievable in a situation of acute crisis. Therefore, I suggest that it should be clinical policy that contracts are agreed within five days of admission as a maximum and that pre-admission contracts are always considered best practice.
Finally, with regard to recommendation 8, which aims to secure family visiting rights for autistic people in solitary confinement, we also need to secure the rights for the autistic person to refuse such visits. Family relations can be very complex and, in some situations, abusive; therefore, in extremely rare situations, unwanted visits can lead to increased distress among autistic people and people with a learning disability. However, I must stress that I am a firm advocate of the visiting options in recommendation 8, which would also require people being cared for much closer to home than many are at the moment in order to make regular contact achievable. Too many people are sent too far from home, often to private health facilities, with possibly 10 different contractors for just one or two patients. This makes it difficult to maintain good relationships between providers and purchasers and to oversee the quality of care that is being delivered.
I ask the Minister: do His Majesty’s Government acknowledge that, although some of the recommendations may not be achievable without changes to the Mental Health Act 1983, many of them could be with additional financial investment to pilot programmes based on the suggestions in the report and to provide training for staff in order to ensure that they can safely deal with de-escalating crisis situations to reduce significantly the use of solitary confinement? We owe autistic people and those with learning difficulties more rapid change to the situation so ably outlined in this report. We would not stand for delay in introducing contemporary practice for people suffering from cancer or diabetes.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, on a good day we learn in and through debates in this place, as we bring a mix of different experiences. I was struck by the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that there should be Secretary of State approval for certain forms of solitary confinement. That made me think of debates that we have had in a different context around warrants for the interception of communications, where critics will say, “What is the point of the Secretary of State warrant? They will just approve it, rubber-stamp it”. Of course, it is true that the Secretary of State is not sitting there thinking, “Does this particular drug dealer deserve to have their phone tapped?”
However, crucially, the instrumental part of it, the key functionality, is that the approval process then requires a group of officials to dig into the case, look at all the details and understand whether the warrant is justified. They do not want to send up to the Minister for approval something that is deficient. It made me think that if an official is willing to send to the Secretary of State a request to approve a confinement for 450 days in a windowless room on a mattress on the floor, then good luck to them, but if nobody is willing to put that forward, it should not be happening. This is a process that is well worth considering. Who ultimately signs off and takes ownership of this? Also, the process by which it is approved is critical. It should not be left to the decision of, as the noble Baroness said, a private provider somewhere who just has a problem to resolve and feels empowered, with no further external approval, to make such a fundamental decision that will have such an impact on an individual. That was interesting. I hope that the Minister will respond on it.
The other part of the report that I found helpful was the four-stage failure that is described in annexe B, which appeals to my analytical brain. There is a notion that the first failure is the community-based failure that leads to someone going into hospital, then the failure of the treatment in hospital, which then leads to solitary confinement being considered, the failure of the solitary confinement, then the failure properly to assign responsibility and ownership, which is wrapped around all this. This was really helpful from an analytical point of view.
I hope that the Minister can confirm that there will be published data on all those stages. There are certainly recommendations for there to be reporting on the use of the solitary confinement mechanism, but it is really important to understand how many people are being treated in the community and how many failures there are of that treatment which then lead to hospital treatment and how many failures there then are in the hospital, so that at each stage we understand the number and types of failures that are occurring. That will inform our ability to hold the right bodies to account and resolve that fourth failure, that of accountability. It is only through that relentless scrutiny that we can address the issue of accountability—and that relentless scrutiny depends on the data.
I want to ask the Minister about the federated data platform in this context, although today is not the day to talk about this. For noble Lords who are not following this closely, this is the new all-singing, all-dancing thing that will pull together all NHS data. It seems to me that is very much acute focused—which is a good thing—as it is very much about ensuring that we get the flow-through in in hospitals, but it seems to me that the same kinds of tools and disciplines are needed for what we are talking about here, for understanding where people are in the system including, crucially, across different providers. However, it is not clear whether the hundreds of millions of pounds that are being spent and all that effort will yield any benefits in this area where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, pointed out, you are dealing with multiple providers of services and multiple commissioners, and it seems that a lot of them have very un-joined-up systems. It may be that the federated data platform is not the answer, but the tools, practices and data models that are developed could potentially all read across very effectively to the world that we are describing today, in which we face similar challenges about understanding where people are, how they are moving through and, critically, whether those failures occurred at any point when they moved from setting A to setting B either between or within institutions.
I ask the Minister specifically: is there a group somewhere in NHS England that is working on this, looking at the data flows in mental health care, so that we can understand and benefit from all the investment that is going in, rather than potentially facing a scenario where acute medical healthcare gets the investment and mental health care is the also-ran, poor service which will only benefit at a later stage?
I am extraordinarily grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for the report and for analysing the problem so well and so effectively. It is a short report, which is great: there is no excuse for anybody not to understand the problem with a report that size. I am also grateful to her for providing this very clear set of recommendations, and I look forward to the Minister explaining how he will be accepting all of them without reservation.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on securing this debate, which is a welcome opportunity to listen to the detail of her excellent report, following on from this morning’s wider mental health discussions, and to the hear the Minister’s full response to the report itself. It is also a good opportunity to focus on the long-term segregation of autistic people and people with learning difficulties, with help from the usual important and insightful contributions from my noble friend Lord Touhig and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who are always such strong advocates for improved services for this vulnerable group of people.
It is worth noting that some of the speakers today, including myself, were all participants in the then Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill 2019, which replaced deprivation of liberty order with liberty protection orders, and along with it all expressing many concerns and reservations about how any new system would operate or could lead to substantial change. As we know, implementation of LPOs was subsequently deferred earlier this year, presumably because of the expectation that even the Government had then that a new mental health Act would be in place this year or next.
I welcome the Minister’s promise in last week’s Oral Question to meet on this matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others, including myself, from these Benches. An urgent meeting is certainly much needed. He mentioned in the earlier debate a round table on mental health. My understanding was that there would also be a separate, smaller meeting specifically on the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, so perhaps the Minister can clarify this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has spoken powerfully about how the 40 year-old Mental Health Act results in autistic people, with often misunderstood and challenging behaviour, remaining stuck in mental health settings and assessment treatment units for long periods of time, where approaches do not fit their individual needs for care and support, including their sensory and communications needs. Understanding and support for autism has thankfully changed substantially since 1983, especially on being clear about what an autism-friendly environment looks like and should be. It is certainly not one that is often found in the mental health settings that autistic people are mostly currently held in. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government’s decision to abandon the new mental health Bill in this Session of Parliament included an assessment of the impact this would have on patients and patient safety?
The report from the panel of experts led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, highlights deep concerns, including a lack of any therapeutic or rehabilitative benefit from the use of long-term segregation for autistic adults and those with learning difficulties. It calls for the introduction of rules which would radically reduce and place a time limit on the use of long-term segregation and to ban it for children and young people as a serious “never event” that prompts an investigation. These and other key changes are proposed to the existing Mental Health Act code of practice, which will now not be considered until the Bill is before us.
To repeat what I said in the previous debate, it is very hard to understand how the Government envisage that the care and treatment of people detained under the current Act is going to be improved by non-legislative commitments, as promised by Ministers in last week’s King’s Speech debate and ever since. I am not sure whether the Minister covered the issue in the previous debate, but can he explain exactly which significant changes can be implemented in the absence of the framework of the new Bill and with the continued constraints, approaches and outdated attitudes contained in the current Act and the code of practice that the Government have no plans to review, or how the real accountability that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has called for can actually happen?
The report’s description of long-term segregation as one part of a four-stage failure forcefully underlines this, as was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Allan. The first failure is a lack of community-based support, which prevents a person being taken out of school or away from their family and admitted to hospital. These are major failings in adult social care. The second is the hospital’s failure to provide the learning disability and autism-friendly support that is needed, meaning more trauma, disorientation and restrictions for the patient. The third is the use of restrictive practices, including solitary confinement, and the fourth is a lack of clarity about responsibilities for commissioning and funding the skilled support and case management needed in the community, which goes back to the accountability issue.
The treatment of people with autism and learning disabilities under the current outdated and discriminatory legislation disgraces our society. The need for mental health reform is why Labour, if elected, has pledged to reform the Mental Health Act in our first King’s Speech. It is an urgent priority for us. The current law is not fit for purpose and must change. We want to see the Act updated following the excellent work undertaken by the mental health Joint Committee. The code must also be updated to meet the aspirations outlined today and to reflect the learning and culture change we all want to see in how autistic people and those with learning difficulties are viewed.
I have a quick question, finally, on the timetable for the CQC to commence delivery of ICETRs on long-term segregation. When will the guidance on their role and responsibilities be available? The aim is noted—to make sure that, within 48 hours of a person being put into segregation, the CQC is ready to start an investigation of its suitability—but the process needs a great deal of thought and preparation, and the minimum standards criteria of the place need to be clear. How is Parliament going to be involved and what is the process to review the CQC’s role?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and other noble Lords for their moving, personal and passionate—especially in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig—contributions, from which I have learned a lot. When the timetable came out and I saw two mental health debates together, I must admit to thinking, “That’s going to be a long day. How wise is it to timetable them together?” Actually, having the debates back to back has worked really well, and there has been a real synergy of subjects. It worked and it has added to my education.
I understand the point raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler and Lady Watkins, and others, around the delay to reforming the Mental Health Act and their disappointment. I would like to respond to some of those points with things that I hope we can do. This will very much be a feature of the follow-up round table. To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, on how we design that, to be honest, it is up to us, and I will happily chat to her afterwards about how we want to use those forums. I definitely have a commitment from Minister Caulfield to part of that, so we can go into the detail afterwards.
I echo the point that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made on prevention. This struck a chord with me, as I learned early in my personal experience that a normal response often gets a negative reaction. If something happens, people generally respond in a certain way, but with autism we learn that we sometimes have to completely rewire the way that we respond. We know that what we think of as a normal response can have adverse consequences.
I will resist the temptation to trot out the statistics, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, but I will say that there is a recognition from the increase in the numbers of people trained in schools that it is vitally necessary. There has been a lot of growth in it, but I accept that there needs to be more and that it needs to be across the board, as the noble Lord said. A million people have taken the Oliver McGowan training, but there are next steps in that. It needs to be across health and other settings, such as education, as I mentioned, and the police.
We spoke about early support hubs in another debate, and there is a vital role for communities there. I was asked a Question last week about black and ethnic minority people being far more likely to find themselves in segregation or these sorts of circumstances. As it was explained to me, a lot of that is because they do not feel that the early support hubs are suitable for them. For whatever reason, they are not going to them. We need to do a lot of work, and in the community as well, to break down that resistance and some of the reasons that they do not go there, because those early support hubs are a key part of any prevention.
I will directly address the points about how, where there is that circumstance of solitary treatment, we can try to minimise it and really respond. The first thing that came to me, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others, is that we really need to increase the barriers to entry, for want of a better phrase, and make them as high as possible, so that it really is a last resort. I personally like the idea of the Secretary of State’s approval. There are some logistical issues there, such as if it is out of hours or whatever. The suggestion was made of the Secretary of State’s approval being needed if it is beyond 48 hours, at which point I can see practically and logistically that you could make that work a bit better. Having the Secretary of State’s approval before someone goes in could be hard logistically, but having it beyond 48 hours allows for that planning.
I was toing and froing with the team during the debate, and I think we can have a productive conversation around it, particularly on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Allan, made. I have had some personal experience of this: in the department, I sign off all consultancy agreements on the use of consultants, contractors and everything else. I normally sign nearly all of them off, but the main point is that a lot of them probably never come to my door, because the DGs and managers who are putting them up know that they must be absolutely watertight in their cases to do it. I believe that this would be a similar mechanism of prevention, so I will definitely take it away.
On the reviews and the CQC, we want to have it all up and running next year, obviously as early in the year as possible. I will come back to be more specific on that timing. The funding, as mentioned, is for two years, but I like the suggestion that we all know that, as long as solitary confinement is happening, we will need something like this. First, we need to increase the barriers to entry but, secondly, where solitary confinement is needed, we need to increase the review process. That is the role of the CQC and the ICETRs, but it is also about the use of the data, as suggested. I do not know how much the FDP can be used in this, but I saw an example this morning of it being used quite well in the discharge space, where it is linking in with social care and the local authorities. There are some good grounds there, and I will definitely pose the question.
There is acceptance that people sometimes need to be treated in solitary confinement. If they do, it is all about reviewing and accountability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said. On that, as my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, said, it is about making sure that the CQC is notified within 48 hours, so that it is on the case and reviewing it. That is another vital cog in accountability.
I was told that they plan to enter into a consultation on that as quickly as possible. I was told that they thought the timing for that was January 2025. Quite honestly, I have gone back and said two things: do we really need to consult and, if we do, does it really need to be as long as January 2025? Again, I will come back on both of those things and maybe these are some of the things we can talk some more about in the round table.
Thirdly, if we are in the circumstance whereby solitary confinement is deemed to be the right treatment method, obviously we come on to quality, and the point was made there about making sure that the quality is right, in that circumstance. Obviously, the CQC has a role in that and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, or HSSIB, clearly has a vital role to play in all of that. We do understand that there was a feeling that the Government were not acting quickly enough in our response to the paper written by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, so, again, we will come back further on that.
I hope that reassures noble Lords to some extent that there are things that we can do, and plan to do, in the meantime—absent the mental health Bill—and, again, I want to use the round table to talk about that, explore it and make sure it is as actionable as possible. As I said, as ever, I will write to make sure that I have picked up all the points made in detail. I would like to end by again thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and all other noble Lords for their contributions to what I found was another very good debate.
International Development White Paper
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement delivered in the other place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Development on Tuesday 21 November. It is as follows:
“Since my Statement to the House on 18 July, the Government have consulted extensively to secure evidence and ideas that will transform our world. We drew on the sharpest and most expert minds from NGOs, academia, business, Governments around the world, and all political parties in the UK. I take this opportunity to particularly thank colleagues across the House for their contributions in shaping this White Paper.
As the whole House knows, development has helped transform the lives of billions. 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 rethink 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 which is seeing rising poverty; 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 makes it clear that we will not achieve the SDGs 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 International Investment, 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, BII aims 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 already 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 SDGs’ $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 this 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.
The UK’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 and ending sexual violence are central to economic opportunity and growth. Those rights are universal and should be non-negotiable. The White Paper extends this 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 the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, 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 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. When I visited families in east Africa suffering from the worst drought in 40 years, it was clear that the current focus on immediate relief comes at the cost of early thinking and engaging on building back better. This 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 our world needs. The world has never been so intimately connected, nor our fates so closely entwined. While 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 face to achieve those goals.
We asked 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: this is what the White Paper will deliver”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I also thank Minister Andrew Mitchell for his efforts in bringing knowledge and focus to this country’s historic role in international development. To be frank, we would not be in a position to consider a new White Paper were he not in post.
As my honourable friend Lisa Nandy said in the other place, not only do we need
“to have an honest conversation about where we are heading”,
but we also
“need a frank assessment of where we have been”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/23; col.197.]
One of Labour’s lasting achievements was to forge a new political consensus around development. To their credit, David Cameron and George Osborne sustained that commitment, keeping Britain on the path to 0.7% that Labour had set this country on. However, under the direction of Rishi Sunak, this Government retreated from Britain’s commitments, cutting our development target from 0.7% to 0.5%, and stripped billions from vital aid programmes in that process. I have repeatedly said that it is not only the amount and size of those cuts but the speed of their implementation that caused so much damage to the people who most needed it, and to this country’s reputation. The Government then undermined delivery, overseeing a bungled merger between DfID and the Foreign Office, deprioritising development, sapping morale and pushing out expertise. As I said to Andrew Mitchell last night, much of the agenda in the White Paper will have our support; there are lots of good things in it. The question is whether he will have the support of his Prime Minister to implement it.
The White Paper mentions the importance of multilateralism, but the FCDO’s action does not reflect that rhetoric; multilateral aid is projected to fall to just 25% of aid spending by 2025. Andrew Mitchell said that
“We go with what works and what is best”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/23; col.199.]
Will the Minister tell us which of the funds is not working?
The 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 government chaos. Andrew Mitchell’s only defence for this in the other place was that
“every penny is spent within the rules laid down by the OECD Development Assistance Committee”.
He also mentioned the “ODA star chamber”, co-chaired by the Development Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which he said has resulted in
“ratcheting up the quality of ODA”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/23; col. 199.]
I hope the Minister can point to the evidence for this assertion, because that is not what is happening in the countries and continents where it is most needed. As I said, there is much to welcome in the White Paper, but access to finance for many of the most heavily indebted countries is ultimately unachievable. Andrew Mitchell appears to remain wedded to the existing ideas and strategies for debt restructuring options, despite acknowledging in the other place that we need to do “far more”.
The White Paper also refers to reform of the Security Council and specifically mentions permanent representation for Africa. Does the Minister agree that a broader review of the working methods of the Security Council, including looking at ways to amplify civil society voices, could also give the global south a greater voice?
As the Statement mentioned, and as my honourable friend Lisa Nandy pointed out, women and girls have been among the biggest losers from 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 gap. It should not be a few pages in a document; every single decision that comes across Andrew Mitchell’s desk must consider whether it does more to empower and enable women and girls to succeed, or less.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the White Paper, which has the style and energy you would expect from Andrew Mitchell. During the 10 years I had the privilege to chair the International Development Committee, I worked closely and constructively with Andrew in opposition and in government. That said, reading the document, you would think that the UK had delivered a seamless and uninterrupted ascent as a leading aid donor from the creation of DfID, through the achievement of 0.7% development spending to the present. But, in reality, as the Opposition spokesman pointed out, our reputation in this field was trashed by Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak when the ill thought-through merger of DfID and the FCO was pushed through and aid programmes were slashed.
The appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, as Foreign Secretary brings back together the team that, with quite a bit of help from the Liberal Democrats and those across the House, delivered 0.7% and raised the UK’s standing to global leadership in aid and development. The optimistic thrust of the White Paper gives some hope that there is a commitment to rebuild our reputation, but the loss of trust and influence will take years to recover.
At the time of the merger and the cuts, David Cameron said it would mean
“less respect for the UK overseas”,
and he has been proved right. Andrew Mitchell said:
“It’s not right morally. It’s not right politically. It’s against the law”.
He had previously said that the Government will not
“balance the books on the backs of the poorest in the world”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/10; col. 1019.]
The UK’s books have not been balanced, but the world’s poor have paid a high price.
There are some things in the White Paper in respect of which I have to declare an interest and which I welcome. As a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Aid Match, I welcome the commitment to give more support to matching funds raised by NGOs. As a participant in the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, I welcome the offer of additional support for its important and valuable work. As the chair of the charity Water Unite, I am glad to see recognition of the role that private sector funding can play in the delivery of aid and development projects. Through an agreement with the Co-op and other retail partners, we benefit from a levy on the sale of bottled water and soft drinks to support local businesses in poor communities across the world in delivering sustainable water, sanitation and plastic recycling.
But, while private finance can unlock funds for development, and the role of the reformed BII can and does make a difference, it is surely not the answer. I fear the White Paper may be relying too heavily on new financial instruments to deliver for the poorest communities. More to the point, after the damage of the last few years, the UK’s convening power may not be what it was. Having Cameron and Mitchell at the helm may help, but I suggest that it will take more for other donors and, more importantly, development partners whose programmes were summarily scrapped or drastically cut, to trust that the UK is really back as a serious and reliable player.
What proportion and volume of humanitarian aid will go to poorer countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa? Reducing poverty eases the pressure on population growth, migration and the climate, so what proportion and volume of the budget will go to sustainable, pro-poor development programmes in the poorest communities? I welcome the commitment to support for women’s and girls’ education and sexual health, including access to contraception and safe abortion and ending FGM and child marriage. Can the Minister provide an assurance that these programmes will be restored and strengthened?
Finally, the White Paper acknowledges the huge challenges the world faces to get the sustainable development goals and development back on track. If the UK had not abandoned the 0.7%, our development budget would be £17.5 billion this year. Instead, it is around £10 billion, and a big chunk of that is being spent by the Home Office in the UK on barges, hotels and the failed Rwanda project. If the rhetoric of the White Paper is serious—and I accept that it is real rhetoric—and if the Government really want to recover leadership of the field, they should restore 0.7% now. Or will the Government still consider cutting inheritance tax a priority over the needs of the world’s poorest people? Credibility requires delivery. The White Paper is a start, but delivery needs to follow.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the welcome from the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Bruce, for the White Paper. As someone who has consistently served under my noble friend Lord Cameron both when he was Prime Minister and now dutifully as one of his deputies, I, among many others, welcome his return in the light of his stature, insights and experience. As both noble Lords have acknowledged, he was himself very committed to the issue before us. I also join in the recognition of the role played by my right honourable friend Andrew Mitchell.
I share with noble Lords—I am sure I am not giving any secrets away—that one of the first things my noble friend Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, read upon his appointment was the White Paper, in order to ensure that it reflected some of his own thinking and perspectives. To the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I say it is good and right that we embrace the experience we have across our party on this important priority.
Reference was made to what has happened under my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s watch. It was he who appointed both the Development Minister and my noble friend Lord Cameron to their roles. That shows his conviction regarding the importance of these issues. On development and the Statement, I have already alluded to certain elements. For example, on the question whether we restore the 0.7%—as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, alluded to and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, called for—I have never hidden my own belief that 0.7% was the right way forward for the programmes we were leading on. Notwithstanding the decision taken, as I have seen myself over the years, we still provide access and innovation in ensuring that we continue to support the world’s poorest across education and health outcomes.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, talked about our convening power. Let me give one example which I know a great deal about, as the Prime Minister’s Special Representative On Preventing Sexual Violence In Conflict. When I launched the International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict in October, it was promising and heartening to see the number of countries and organisations that joined up very quickly. It was not just “west against the rest” or “north against the south”; other countries, including Jordan and the UAE, also joined.
I would also say that, as we look at innovation, which was an emphasis of the White Paper, we are looking at enhanced partnerships with some of our key partners across the world. We have been signing memorandums of understanding with, for example, partners in the Gulf, on supporting development outcomes on the ground. As my right honourable friend the Development Minister said in the other place, we must leverage private sector finance, which is going to be a crucial part of being able to deliver some of the SDG frameworks. All noble Lords who are seized of development know that, currently, only about 15% of the SDGs are on track. Yes, we must do more and we must do better.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked what the UK is doing to help heavily indebted countries. The White Paper sets out the continuous work of the UK Government to tackle unsustainable debt and make future debt more sustainable. It commits the UK to being a leading voice in the upcoming review of the World Bank and IMF debt sustainability framework for low-income countries. The Statement talked of the Bridgetown initiative, and making sure that the voices of vulnerable countries, whether they are impacted through poverty or directly by climate, are also heard. Again, I acknowledge the vital work being done among small and developing states. In practical terms, we have shown that, when it matters, the United Kingdom has stood by those countries being impacted. That is why, when the Covid pandemic struck, we looked at the issue of debt and at providing the kind of relief that was needed at that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also talked about funds not working and evidence for the OECD assertion on ODA. Of course, there is a wide range of modelling and information, and we looked at funds in the multilateral system vis-à-vis the bilateral system. We want to ensure that every penny spent is spent in the best possible way. I fully accept that, when it comes to issues of conflict and conflict zones around the world, as we are seeing currently in the Middle East, in Gaza, we need to embrace and leverage the equities of each country but also understand that the multilateral system and the agencies that work on the ground—in this case, UNRWA—need to be fully supported and strengthened so that they can deliver their vital work. We deal directly, at point, both with the senior individuals within those organisations and, importantly, those within country.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins—I nearly called him my noble friend, but as we are inside the Chamber I will not—called for UN Security Council reform and talked about the role of civil society. I agree with him. He knows that, within the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom has been among the leading countries calling for civil society representatives, so that we can hear directly from people involved with initiatives on the ground. It is not just us; there are others across the Security Council who want to hear those voices and, practically, their solutions to some of the issues we are facing. I have sat at the UN Security Council and chaired the meetings, and I have heard that directly.
That is why the importance of women and girls cannot be overstated. Frankly, we must do more, collectively. There has been much achieved but, when you look around the world today, you see that there is an underrepresentation of women—their talent and expertise is still not being implemented. Within the UN framework, we have the Women Mediator Networks of different countries, but we are not deploying those effectively enough. As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, I have been speaking directly to Dame Barbara Woodward, our ambassador—and it is great to see that our last two ambassadors at the UN were women—about how we insert within UN Security Council resolutions aspects which embrace directly and leverage women’s expertise and insights. The evidence suggests that, by doing this, conflicts can be prevented or stopped and that any peace agreements reached will be more sustainable. If conflict is led by many of the issues within the White Paper, that is one reason why we should focus on that.
On the issue of access to finance, again I totally agree with both noble Lords. We need to make access to finance easier, but that also means giving technical support where necessary. For climate-vulnerable states such as Vanuatu or Tuvalu—Commonwealth partners—it is not just the money; they need to know how to work the structures and systems, and we need to assist in that respect.
The issue of the “star chamber” was raised. It is valid that we have the Development Minister looking at ODA funding. The noble Lord alluded to domestic spend, but, while being within the rules, that spend is trying to help some of the most vulnerable who have come to the UK. Of course it has an impact on some of our programmes, but it also demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that those who come to the UK for protection are given the opportunities they need to build new lives.
Although it will not resolve in an instant some of the challenges we are facing around the world, I am confident that the White Paper presents a real example of inclusive engagement. That is why I said in the Statement, as my right honourable friend did in the other place, that it demonstrates this Government’s inclusive approach. I have always said to those within your Lordships’ House and beyond that we must leverage the expertise of all, and I fully recognise the expertise in your Lordships’ House when it comes to issues of development. I was therefore delighted when my right honourable friend the Development Minister told me about the direct input from many noble Lords in putting forward this White Paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, it is a paper; it is now important that, working together, with all insights and expertise, we provide the hope and vision that is intended by the White Paper to help the most vulnerable around the world.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I welcome very much the repeat of the Statement by the Minister. I return once again to the issue of educating girls in Afghanistan. Circumstances in Afghanistan at the moment require that we seek out unconventional methods of delivering education, and indeed unconventional partners. I wonder whether the Government would be able to commit to funding secret educational cluster classes, which are growing by the day in Afghanistan. At the moment, these exist as the only possible means in most parts of the country for girls above the age of 11 to receive an education which will enable them to go on to tertiary education in Afghanistan at a future date, we hope, or abroad.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the noble Baroness’s work in this area and I agree with her. The noble Baroness will know directly about my commitment, as the Minister responsible for the very objectives she has outlined. Notwithstanding the takeover by the Taliban, and even in advance of that when we had the Covid pandemic, the United Kingdom sustained important funding to teachers in Afghanistan, particularly those focused on girls’ education. We have also continued to work, albeit at times discreetly, to protect those agencies delivering girls’ education in certain regions of Afghanistan, through both funding and technical support. I agree with the noble Baroness about innovative ways of delivery. Ultimately, whether it is Afghanistan, the United Kingdom or any other country around the world, a country will succeed only when it harnesses the true potential of every one of its citizens. Ignoring 50% of the population is no way to achieve progress.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome a great deal about this White Paper, but there have been massive cuts to the development aid to advance women’s sexual and reproductive rights, as far as their health is concerned, since the aid budget plummeted from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income. I note that the White Paper is going extend work in this area, and the Minister has said a little about that. Can he say how and where this is going to happen, and how much extra funding is going to be available? Can he also say whether it is going to cover safe abortion, which he did not mention? Does the Minister think that funding from the private sector, which he and the White Paper emphasised, is going to provide any resources for this area?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On all the questions that the noble Baroness raises, what we have first of all done in terms of framework, without going into the specifics of country, is that for all posts and departments within the FCDO, the commitment is that UK ODA will ensure the delivery of 80% commitment by considering women and girls in every element of their different programmes. The Foreign Secretary recently wrote to heads of mission on this specific point to ensure that submissions that are put back to the centre on business plans reflect that every post is committed to that particular element.
The noble Baroness also talked about sexual and reproductive health within our women and girls strategy. That is a specific objective and priority, and is a key component, again, within my work on preventing sexual violence in conflict. I can give the assurance that we have instructed and have been looking at programmes with that framework. As for some of the programmes in specific countries, if the noble Baroness has particular countries she wants to follow up on, I will of course highlight where we are able to work in these areas.
I would go as far as to say that there has been, at times, regression in this area of women and girls’ rights all over the globe, including sometimes among people you would expect more from. Part of our job is not just to speak about it but to deliver some of these outcomes. Let us not forget also that some of these outcomes about safe abortion also have great barriers nationally, so we must find the right delivery partners to ensure that women who want to make choices of their own are able to do so in a safe environment. That is why it is important that we identify local partners who can deliver these outcomes, supported by UK financing and support.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my roles as chair of the Global TB Caucus, the Global Equality Caucus and the Prime Minister’s special envoy on LGBT Rights—all, I should say, unpaid. I very much welcome this White Paper and agree with those who have commended the work of my friend and colleague, Andrew Mitchell, in this area. I think it is an excellent White Paper.
The White Paper notes that progress on human rights around the world is now at risk, and that is certainly the case in relation to LGBT+ rights. Therefore, I welcome the Government’s announcement yesterday of a new £40 million programme over five years to support LGBT organisations. That will make a real difference to human rights defenders on the ground.
The White Paper also notes that the sustainable development goals are almost all off track. That applies also to tuberculosis. Sustainable development goal 3.3 says that TB, along with other major diseases, will be beaten in just six years’ time. At the current rate of progress, tuberculosis will be beaten in 100 years’ time. It is now, once again, the world’s deadliest infectious disease, which kills 1.5 million people a year. Some three out of five people with drug-resistant TB are still not being reached. Will the Government continue in their important work to beat this terrible disease, which is quite unnecessarily claiming so many lives?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I first acknowledge and thank my noble friend for his important work in this area. He mentioned the term “unpaid”; well, what more can I say?
My noble friend is also quite right to draw attention—I alluded to this in my response to the previous question—to the regressive nature of some of the challenges we are facing on the world stage, including in multilateral bodies. As the UK Minister for Human Rights, I can say that we have seen that taking place across the piece, whether on issues of women and girls, LGBT rights or access to fundamental services. It is therefore right that a country such as the United Kingdom, with other key countries, continues not only to advocate but to strengthen our resolve and support. Therefore, I am glad that my noble friend has also highlighted the new commitment we have made on the issue of supporting the LGBT community. I also recognise that, at times, that community comes under particular threat and challenge in different parts of the world, and that is why I feel that diplomacy and development—their joining together was alluded to, but I am not going to reflect on experience—are two arms that need to work very much together. Sometimes, it is the discreet diplomacy on quite sensitive issues, particularly across the human rights element, that allows us to unlock some support and indeed progress in these particular areas.
I assure my noble friend that we will remain very much committed on the issue of tuberculosis, which he mentioned, as well as malaria. We have world-class research, and we are working with key partners such as India, as I said at the Dispatch Box. We are delivering some of the essential vaccines which are needed, so that we do not see those diseases that used to spread as a plague on many parts of the world returning again. That needs resilience as well as ensuring support and innovation in research. The United Kingdom remains very much committed in that respect.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, those of us on these Benches also welcome the Statement and the renewal of the UK’s commitment to sustainable development set out in the White Paper. In particular, we welcome the proposal to permit pauses in scheduled debt repayments in situations of crisis due to conflict or extreme weather events. However, will the Government acknowledge that piecemeal pauses to debt repayments are bound to prove insufficient to enable the progress now urgently needed if we are to achieve the SDGs by 2030? Is not something more comprehensive now needed?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right. Quite often, the way out of a particular current crisis for countries in the developing world is further excess debt. Sometimes the leverage for that debt is eyewatering in terms of the indebtedness over the length of time. That is why, when working on initiatives such as the Bridgetown initiative and on reforms with the multilateral development banks, we need to look at both the current situation as it is and the medium and long term. As we look at innovative ways of financing, including leveraging the private sector, we must ensure that we do so for a debt that is sustainable and ultimately payable. That is also why I mentioned BII—the innovation of what was the CDC—and seeing how we can leverage private finance for long-term debt servicing in a way that is achievable and sustainable for the country in question.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I understand and welcome the White Paper, and I am very grateful to the Minister for continuing his enthusiasm for development. He will not be surprised that I will raise the issue of volunteering. We have lost so much ground by not having an effective volunteering programme that could be used as widely as it needs to be in the last few years, particularly having lost the youth international volunteering programme, so I welcome that the Government are now committed to doing one again. Does the Minister realise that the new volunteering programme now has to work with volunteers from the host countries? One of the joys of continuing to watch what VSO is doing in straitened circumstances with partners such as the AU is seeing the number of national volunteers working on precisely the programmes that the Government say are their priorities, including women and girls, and building resilience in local communities to climate change. This is urgent, and I hope that, within the next two weeks—before we come to International Volunteer Day on 5 December—the Government can be clear about what we will do, and how much money we will work with, to build up that sort of volunteer programme in those countries that need huge numbers of young people to develop skills and leadership in the future?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to harness the true potential, power, experience and insight of volunteers. Quite often, when we are dealing with humanitarian situations on the ground—and I am sure noble Lords across the House will join me in paying tribute on this—we need those people who bring their expertise, whether that is of educational or medical outcomes or of dealing with human-led or natural disasters, in a way that provides some degree of hope. I note what the noble Baroness said particularly about harnessing youth talents; if nothing else, they bring greater energy and are probably speedier on their feet than many of us in your Lordships’ House. But, equally, that youth energy needs to be delivered by investing in countries, and that is why I am pleased, for example, about the support that we will be providing in Africa—the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also alluded to this. We are already doubling our ODA in Africa, and that provides a huge opportunity to work with people there. That is going, I think, from £646 million-odd to over £1.3 billion on spend, including on vulnerable states such as the DRC and Ethiopia, where I have seen directly, through engagement with the youth, the importance of harnessing that talent.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will receive very warm commendation for Andrew Mitchell for his work in producing a much better focus, and a much better sense of overall policy-making in this area. He will from me, certainly. Having said that, the reality still is that it is a sadly diminished aid effort that we are making because of the cut from 0.7% to 0.5%. First, the Minister defended the diversion of large amounts of our aid budget to the Home Office to pay for Ukrainian refugees. Is the FCDO rigorously disciplining that so that the one-year cut-off, which is permissible, is applied strictly, so that this robbing of very poor Peters to pay Paul will go down to zero?
Secondly, I mention my pleasure at seeing a reference to remittances and to the Government’s desire to clamp down on the appalling rip-offs that occurs in them, with 35% being taken off by some of the operators. My heart lifted, because this House actually recommended this action five years ago in a report on sub-Saharan Africa, and absolutely nothing has been done since then. Alas, when I looked at the paper to see what was going to be done now, there were just generalities, frankly, with no specifics. Surely we have national means of clamping down on this practice through our competition policy. If firms are getting 35% of remittances, they are doing so by monopoly practices. Could the Minister say something about how we are going to deal with this in specifics?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
First, as my right honourable friend said in the other place about the spend in support of those who are seeking security in the UK, I repeat that we will work—and have done so—within the rules, but I recognise that the rules are quite specific on how that spend should operate domestically. The robustness of our approach is perhaps underlined by my right honourable friend himself, with one of the leading Treasury Ministers, overseeing the Star Chamber, as it has been termed, on issues of development.
I agree with the noble Lord’s second point, about remittances. I very much agree with the outcomes of that report on Western Sahara. It is an appalling state of affairs, where remittances provide important lifelines for many communities in different parts of the world, particularly vulnerable communities. The fact that over one-third is taken by operatives needs to be looked at. Yes, there are generalities in the White Paper and the specifics need to be looked at. I will take on board the noble Lord’s suggestion and perhaps talk to my Treasury colleagues to see what measures can be taken, because ultimately one would love for 100% to go back—I fear that commissions will not allow for that—but 35%, well over one-third, is frankly not acceptable.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor, a not-for-profit public/private partnership for that area of development. No one doubts that the Minister’s heart is in this document, or that Andrew Mitchell’s heart is in it too. What is clearly lacking is the specifics, the resources and a recognition that if we are to put girls’ education at the heart of international development, girls need safe toilets in schools. If they are to attend school, girls require to know that, when they are having their periods, there is somewhere where they can go and get the benefits of decent and safe sanitation. The only reference I can find to sanitation in this document relates to avoiding public spending on sanitation. There is no way that the private sector will be able to deliver safe toilets to girls in schools. Will the Minister at least commit to meeting with WSUP and other organisations in the sector to see how we can have some practical policies again to create safe, decent toilets for girls in schools?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The short answer to the noble Lord is yes, of course. Part of the intention of the White Paper is to lay out the thinking—the heart, as he alluded to. With the heart, however, comes both the soul and the mind. We want to be focused. The reality of the financing, according to our estimates, is something in the region of $98 billion—the stock of private institutional capital, which could also be leveraged in this respect. This is not about leaving the private sector to deliver; it is about government frameworks leveraging the financing that we have through ODA and working with the private sector to deliver the priorities not only in the White Paper but in our international development strategy, which is very much focused on girls and the issue of safe spaces for them. Frankly, speaking as a father of a daughter, you know what? I get it.
Ukrainian Holodomor
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Risby
That this House takes note of the case for recognising the Ukrainian Holodomor as a genocide.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, during the 20th century and indeed even more latterly, the world has witnessed grotesque acts against fellow human beings but, as one analyses the intentions of Stalin in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933, a common continuing theme emerges. In the eyes of Russia, then and now, the essential intention was and is the destruction of Ukraine as a separate sovereign entity. President Putin has openly declared his belief that Ukraine is an artificial construct and that the country is really an extension of Russia.
I have been to Ukraine, including Crimea, many times, as the former long-standing chairman of the British Ukrainian Society. Ukrainians have their own distinct history, and their own language, culture and identity, which they are today fighting passionately to defend. Absolutely ingrained in their collective consciousness is the Holodomor, with current events highlighting this horrific historic event more than ever. At the end of this month Ukraine will be commemorating the 90th anniversary of the Holodomor, and indeed tomorrow I shall attend a special commemorative service in Westminster Abbey.
In my view today, restoring historical justice and honouring the memory of millions of innocent victims is more pressing than ever. The Holodomor was a manmade famine implemented by the communist leadership in Ukraine, but initiated and engineered by Joseph Stalin—and indeed the word “Holodomor” is derived from the Ukrainian words “death by hunger”. Estimates suggests that up to 10 million Ukrainians died. Ukraine is agriculturally very fertile, but at that time the country’s self-sufficiency was deliberately wrecked by the confiscation of food. The food was then directed towards Soviet industrial centres and armed forces, to fill government grain reserves, and to be sold abroad. The rules were ruthlessly applied. A grain procurement quota for Ukraine was introduced at such a high level to make supply impossible—thus the deployment of brutal force, repression and total seizure of grain and grain reserves took place. There was specific targeting of district farms and communities, making it impossible for people to leave these areas, while implementing full confiscation of any foodstuffs and banning trading activities. Armed groups instituted constant searches to enforce all this. Family pets, dogs and cats were the first to suffer.
The depth of the dehumanisation reached grotesque levels. The ultimate goal of the resulting artificially induced famine was to break the spirits of independent Ukrainian farmers and force them into collectivisation. Not one single village could meet the impossible quota. Soviet law made it clear that no grain could be given to feed people until the quota was met. Of course people tried to hide food—driven overwhelmingly by the need to feed their starving children, above all—but Communist Party officials, aided by military troops and secret police, ruthlessly sought out all possible hiding places. The result was indeed mass starvation. Desperate people sought to stay alive by eating tree bark, insects, weeds and leaves.
In August 1932, the Communist Party of the USSR introduced a law mandating the death penalty for what was designated “social property”—food, in other words. Some confiscated grain was exported to western markets. There are estimates that more than 3 million children born in 1932 and 1933 died of starvation. Some individuals tried to make their way to find work in urban areas to survive, but internal passports were introduced which stopped that. The military guarded the grain silos; horrifically, much food rotted. The winter corpses lined the roads. Mass graves were dug. Suicide was common. I dwell on the systematic and ruthless way in which that mass starvation was brought about simply because any ignorance of the full scale of the atrocities needs to be dispelled. For many, there is an echo of what happened then in the denial and confiscation of grain for political purposes that we witnessed after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
I have tried to describe graphically the horrors of 1932-33 in Ukraine and the grotesque system put in place to effect the inevitable outcome. Surely “genocide” is the only word that can describe what happened. The genocide convention is an international treaty that criminalises genocide and that has been unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. Article II of that convention defines genocide as
“acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”—
specifically,
“killing members of the group … causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group … deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part … imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group … forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.
That aptly describes this unspeakable example of Soviet genocide, its longest and broadest experiment in Russification and, in so doing, the destruction of an independent nation.
It is worth noting that, for more than half a century, it was impossible to discuss this historic event openly. Indeed, under Stalin’s rule, even mentioning the famine carried the risk of execution or being sent to the gulag. Additionally, all evidence of the scale and true causes of the famine were hidden or fabricated. The statisticians who undertook the national census, which revealed the huge fall in the population, were killed. The Holodomor was written out of the Communist historical narrative; indeed, today, there is no specific recognition of this unique event in Russia.
In his book Proletarian Journey, Fred E Beal wrote:
“In 1933, I had occasion to call on Petrovsky, the President of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic … I said … ‘They say that five million people have died this year … What are we going to tell them?’ ‘Tell them nothing!’ answered President Petrovsky. ‘What they say is true. We know that millions are dying. That is unfortunate, but the glorious future of the Soviet Union will justify that. Tell them nothing!’”
A considerable number of other countries have recognised the Holodomor as genocide, as well as states in the United States, whose role in defending and protecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine in the current conflict is to be fulsomely applauded. I attended the Holodomor genocide memorial ceremony in Washington DC in November 2015. Since 2006, the Holodomor has been recognised as genocide, starting with Ukraine, 33 other UN member states and the European Parliament; indeed, the Pope supports it too.
The Holodomor was indeed a calculated act of terror. The question is clearly: why should our country recognise the Holodomor as genocide? Surely now is exactly the right time. It is a clear message that we do not tolerate such cruelty and injustice. It would be received with jubilation by the people of Ukraine, whose gratitude and admiration for us is heart-warming, as in many respects we have done more than any other European country in supporting Ukraine in its hour of need. Also, so endearingly, this would be so well received by all the Ukrainians who are permanently or temporarily living in this country.
During a debate in May in another place, the Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development office said that the Government’s policy was to ensure that genocide determination should remain above politics, lobbying and individual political and national interests. However, he made it clear that the Government recognise the horrific nature of the Holodomor saga. The Minister indicated that His Majesty’s Government would recognise the event as genocide only if it was recognised by a court—for example, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice or national criminal courts that meet international standards of due process. He confirmed the United Kingdom as part of the G7’s core group of nations looking at what additional mechanisms might be required to work alongside the International Criminal Court when it comes to countering crimes in Ukraine. He said that this was work in progress, so I hope that my noble friend the Minister can update us about that. In consequence, our Government have officially recognised only five instances where genocide has occurred: acts of genocide against the Yazidi people, acts of genocide in Srebrenica, Rwanda and Cambodia, and the Holocaust between 1933 and 1945.
I am grateful to have secured this debate. Although the rule is normally that debates cannot deal with issues from more than 30 years ago, it has been made possible by the clear relevance of the dramatic events in Ukraine today. Finding a way to accept the Holodomor as genocide would be a tribute to, and a remembrance of, all its millions of victims, underlying the terrible truth of this mass starvation. The time for recognition is now.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the whole House is deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for initiating today’s debate, for the way he introduced it and for the work that he has done for the people of Ukraine over so many years. In reinforcing his speech, I will divide my remarks into two parts—first, why the Holodomor matters in understanding events in Ukraine today and, secondly, why and how the determination of what is a genocide is an issue that still has to be resolved.
I first heard about the Holodomor when I visited Ukraine in 1989 with a small jubilee campaign delegation. I have never forgotten the sheer courage and determination of pro-democracy activists whom I met on the streets of Lviv as they risked their lives to throw off the shackles and chains of the Soviet Union. We met people whose family, in the preceding generation, had lost their lives in the Holodomor, Stalin’s mass starvation of Ukraine—the man-made famine that convulsed Ukraine in 1932 and 1933. As Stalin replaced Ukraine’s small farms with state-run collectives and punished independent-minded Ukrainians, the Holodomor—a combination of the Ukrainian words for “starvation” and “to inflict death”—led to millions of people dying. The writer Alex de Waal described the Holodomor as
“a hybrid … of a famine caused by calamitous social-economic policies and one aimed at a particular population for repression or punishment”.
In Ukraine, I visited Greek Catholic churches that Stalin had closed 40 years earlier and where, every day, fresh flowers were defiantly left at the doors to replace the ones removed earlier by Soviet soldiers. Religious belief was violently repressed. I met courageous people, such as Bishop Pavlo Vasylyk and Ivan Gel, a politician and dissident, a member of the Ukrainian Helsinki group and the Ukrainian Christian Democratic Party. Between them, they had spent 17 and 18 years in the Soviet death camp at Perm. I met a young priest who as a punishment had been sent three years earlier to Chernobyl, without any protective clothing, to clear radioactive waste.
Those people wanted this story known, and I was grateful to the BBC and the Independent newspaper for enabling us to do so. Stories matter, not least the story of the Holodomor, because we forget too easily the price that has been paid for our liberties. The stories matter because they illustrate why, even as we meet here at Westminster, Ukrainians are fighting to the bitter end to protect their hard-won freedoms, and why they will resist Putin’s attempts to resurrect a Russian empire, which ultimately means the death of their nation. They will resist his attempts to crush democratic rights and sovereignty, to roll the clock back and reverse the gains made across Europe with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Putin’s deluded idea that these brave people would line the streets with flowers, cheering the new imperial occupation and the reconquest of their country, simply beggars belief.
Since Putin instigated his illegal war, under the obscene pretext of protecting people from genocide, I have often thought about the people I met then and since, and about the courage and bravery of Ukraine’s anti-Soviet, faith-led, pro-democracy movement. I have often thought about the price of political progress and the illegal demonstrations I attended where Ukrainians, in their thousands, proudly held aloft their blue and yellow flags of defiance, and how religious freedom had been so violently repressed. As I have watched the consequences of Putin’s orders to destroy vast acres of arable land and their crops, to prevent grain reaching hungry people in the developing world, especially Africa, and to abduct and remove Ukrainian children, I have thought back to the conversations I had 35 years ago about Stalin’s Holodomor.
Stalin’s Holodomor, like Putin’s today, was an entirely manmade catastrophe, leading to anything from 3.5 million to 5 million deaths, or possibly the figure that the noble Lord, Lord Risby, gave the House: as many as 10 million. However, motive not numbers is the issue in determining genocide. I will come back to that later, but many historians regard this technically, formally and properly as a genocide. The Holodomor was methodically planned; it was executed by denying the producers of the food the sustenance necessary for survival. It seems especially cruel and perverse to have used food as a genocidal weapon in the breadbasket of Europe. As Ukrainians resorted to eating grass and acorns—even cats and dogs, as we have heard—Stalin banned any reference to famine. His “Five Stalks of Grain” decree stated that anyone, even a child, caught taking produce from a collective field could be shot or imprisoned for stealing socialist property. In 1933, 2,000 people were executed. While people were starving to death in the terror famine, the Soviet state stole over 4 million tonnes of Ukraine’s grain, enough to meet the needs of 12 million people in a year.
In 1997, I founded the Roscoe lectures, a public lecture series hosted by Liverpool John Moores University, and in 2009 I invited the writer, Anne Applebaum, to give one of those lectures. It was entitled Hitler and Stalin: the 20th Century’s Cruellest Tyrants. Subsequently, in 2018, she published her magnificent Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine. In it, she says the famine launched by the Soviet leadership was
“a disaster specifically targeted at Ukraine and Ukrainians.”
In harrowing testimonies, we hear from Tetiana Pavlychka, who remembered that her sister Tamara
“had a large, swollen stomach, and her neck was long and thin like a bird’s neck. People didn’t look like people— they were more like starving ghosts.”
Applebaum quotes another survivor who remembered that his mother
“looked like a glass jar, filled with clear spring water. All her body that could be seen . . . was see-through and filled with water, like a plastic bag.”
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Applebaum was able to access previously unseen archival material, which she says
“backs up the testimony of the survivors … Starvation was the result … of the forcible removal of food from people’s homes; the roadblocks that prevented peasants from seeking work or food; the harsh rules of the blacklists imposed on farms and villages; the restrictions on barter and trade; and the vicious propaganda campaign designed to persuade Ukrainians to watch, unmoved, as their neighbours died of hunger.”
She cites extraordinary statistics, which graphically illustrate the scale of the deaths and the lives cut short—the noble Lord, Lord Risby, referred to this. Applebaum says that females born in Ukraine in 1933
“lived, on average, to be eight years old. Males born in 1933 could expect to live to the age of five.”
Such terrible experiences were within the living memory of some of those I met in 1989. Others had been told the stories by parents and grandparents, who had vowed never to forget and to use every sinew to struggle for a free Ukraine. Lest anyone imagine that such shocking experiences can easily be expunged or erased, as the son of a native Irish speaker, I can say that my mother told me the stories of the Irish famine which had occurred 100 years earlier. The deaths and emigration of millions poisoned British-Irish relations for decades afterwards.
What memories are being made in Ukraine today? In addition to the daily bombing of civilians, the appropriation of Ukrainian territory and mass displacements, Putin is a mirror image of Stalin and he is committing food terrorism by purposefully destroying Ukraine’s agricultural infrastructure and stealing Ukrainian grain and agricultural machinery. I initiated the debate about this in your Lordships’ House on 21 July this year. Since then, we have seen vivid footage of his militias setting fire to fields, scorching the earth and reducing crops to ash. There have been reports from eastern Ukraine of people drinking water from radiators and puddles, and even killing and cooking stray dogs to avoid starvation, as we have heard.
It is clear why memories of the past are so relevant in the present, yet most people in Britain have never heard of the Holodomor and that should not be the case. That the crime was committed by a communist regime does not make it any less bad than a crime committed by a Nazi regime.
I commend James Bartholomew of the Foundation for the History of Totalitarianism, which has been working to make the Holodomor better known. It has created a school assembly plan and two lesson plans, all of which are free to download from its website. It has actively promoted these resources to schools. It also recently produced a booklet on the subject and metal lapel badges. It held a competition to design a candleholder with “Holodomor” clearly displayed, so that on the appropriate day people can place a candle in their front window and passers-by will know why. The Holodomor should find more of a place in the national curriculum or the exams set by the various exam boards. I hope the Minister will comment on that proposal when he replies.
The noble Lord, Lord Risby, alluded to a second matter, which I also want to raise. Last year, Dr Ewelina Ochab and I published State Responses to Crimes of Genocide. I gave a copy to the Minister, as it challenges the long-standing policy of the FCDO on the determination of what is and is not a genocide. It builds on the all-party amendments passed by this House with three-figure majorities, and Private Members’ Bills, the fifth and latest of which has just been selected again in this year’s ballot for new Bills. I am particularly pleased to see my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead in the Chamber, because his expertise and knowledge was enormously helpful in framing the amendments to the Trade Bill.
Two recent Prime Ministers agreed with us that the determination should be made by the High Court of England and Wales, not by politicians. The FCDO prevented that change, while trotting out the repeated line that only a court could decide, knowing that no court is in a position to do so. A former Minister and Member of this House told me that it is a deliberate sleight of hand.
In the case of the Holodomor, the Canadian Government, Australian Parliament, United States Congress and others listed in the excellent House of Lords note for this debate labelled the Holodomor as a genocide by Stalin’s Soviet regime. In November 2022, the German Federal Parliament passed a resolution put forward by the parties of its coalition Government declaring the Holodomor a genocide, as did the European Parliament in December 2022.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Risby, during a House of Commons debate in May, Leo Docherty MP, a Minister at the FCDO, said that the UK Government’s policy would ensure that genocide determinations remain
“above politics, above lobbying and above individual, political or national interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/05/23; col. 518.]
In reality, however, the refusal to allow the English courts to make this decision means that genocide determination remains entirely political and subject to all the things that Mr Docherty says he opposes. It is an illusionist’s conjuring trick worthy of Houdini. The new Foreign Secretary has the chance to put this right. Of course, the Chinese, who refuse even to allow a debate about reports concerning Uighurs at the UN, might not like it.
The Holodomor, like the Armenian genocide, which is also unrecognised by the FCDO, was about the targeting of a specific group of people. Ukrainians were subjected to mass starvation, exile and displacement, were sent to gulags and suffered grievously. This Soviet genocide was of a piece with other communist genocide in Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. As we watch the crime of starvation waged against the Ukrainians right now, we need to recollect that this is not the first time that this crime has been committed against them.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the following, from Dr Ochab:
“A newly published investigation of the Starvation Mobile Justice Team, a team of experts supporting the work of Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General, has revealed evidence of starvation tactics used by Russian soldiers. As they said, the techniques were ‘designed to break the Ukrainian people.’ Their findings, published on June 2, 2023, indicate that they collected credible evidence of numerous incidents recorded in Chernihiv that help to establish a track record of ‘repeated and/or coordinated attacks resulting in objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population being targeted’”.
Global Rights Compliance has called for the prosecution of the crime of starvation and says that it is crucial to explore the crime of starvation against the definition of genocide in Article II of the genocide convention. Is the Foreign Office involved in helping to do that? Global Rights Compliance says that
“mass starvation has long been described as a ‘societal torture’”
and that
“when directed against—in the case of Ukraine—a national group, the concerted attack on the very foundation and fabric of such groups can be indicative of genocidal intent”.
To end, recognising past and present genocides for what they are is a step to ensuring justice and accountability and a step towards deterring and preventing future genocides—a word which itself means the breaking of the human family, the crime above all crimes. That is why this initiative from the noble Lord, Lord Risby, is so important and so welcome.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for initiating this debate and for a brilliant, concise and clear statement of the case. It is always slightly difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton: as noble Lords know, he prepares extremely well, so you are always worried that he has used most of the arguments that could be thought of in a debate such as this. But I am very pleased to join him.
I carry with me the apologies of my noble friend Lord Purvis, who would have been here but is on a parliamentary delegation to the Falklands. I very much hope that he comes back with the rest of the delegation and that they are not the first line of defence against the new Argentinian President. I am not simply standing in for my noble friend: I have had a long-term interest in Russian economic history, which was one of the formative studies of my life that made me a social democrat—even before being a Liberal Democrat.
As we start this debate, it pays us all to think of the families in our country who have done so much over the last year to look after families from Ukraine. I know a number in Winchester and where I live. It is a remarkable tribute to those families that they have done that, and, if I may say so, to the Government for the firm support that they have given, consistently with the rest of the country, to the people of Ukraine.
The war has revived the names of Kyiv, Kharkiv and Odesa, which all featured so closely in the story of the famine of the 1930s. It is a fact that so much of the current situation in Ukraine stems from that experience of the 1930s and of Soviet colonialism. The noble Lord has already mentioned Anne Applebaum’s writing. She talked in her 2018 book about the consequences of that experience in Ukraine. It allowed or encouraged a tolerance of corruption; it caused a great wariness of state institutions, even democratic ones; and she even talked, slightly surprisingly, about what she called the “political passivity” of Ukraine as a result of that experience. If she were writing now, I would hope that she might have a slightly different view about that since February 2022.
The other quite interesting aspect of recent history is obviously Russia’s attempt to systematically eliminate diversity, language and culture in Ukraine in the 1930s. It is a sequitur of that that Russians still see Ukraine not as a separate state but as part of their own nation.
We have not mentioned this, but the inventor of the word genocide comes from the Polish-Jewish Ukrainian city of Lviv—Raphael Lemkin. I will have a little bit more to say about him in a moment, because I think it is relevant to the story.
First, I will make a few points about the famine. There is no doubt that it was the breakdown in the system of the mixed economy that the Soviet Union was experimenting with in the 1920s that led to the full state industrial policy of the late 1920s and the need for wheat exports to feed the growing urban population in the Soviet Union and also to provide revenue from exports for its industrialisation. Ukraine was probably the most advanced agricultural area in the Soviet Union at that time, but it was also the most difficult for Stalin. Modernisation and collectivism would stimulate, inevitably, resistance from peasant communities and stir national sentiments—which is exactly what happened. The remarkable thing is that, and I think this was mentioned in an earlier speech, there were sufficient exports of grain going out of the Soviet Union that could have fed 5 million—the noble Lord talked about 12 million—and would have been enough to stop the starvation of the 4 million or so people who are said to have died.
We must remember that the 1930s was not a world of mechanised, computerised combine harvesters and even fertilisers. Land was largely manually farmed. Livestock was important for providing transport and movement. The central planners in Moscow had little appreciation of the importance of climate for individual harvests, or that crop yields did not necessarily rise year on year. The skills, motivation and knowledge of the kulaks were not replicated, as they were deported and extinguished by the Communist Party purges. Once the rural rhythm of rotation of crops, providing fodder for livestock and fertilising the ground with animal manure was upset, poor harvests followed and famine was a result. Soviet planners became more frustrated and, with the peasantry alienated from the collectivisation system, the result was that the Soviet authorities sought to impose their will through unrealistic quotas, deportation, resettlement, travel restrictions and purges on farms and villages.
Paralleling this were the purges not just of rural areas but of party officials in Ukraine and of the energetic cultural leaders of the country who were questioning the policy of the Soviet state and were likely to cause trouble to Stalin. The crackdown on the so-called hoarding of grain by the peasantry diminished stocks for the human population and for the animals needed to provide movement, traction and transport. One of the saddest stories is the 200,000 registered arrests—there were probably more—for gleaning grain from the harvests in the fields. It is like the miners going through the coal tips in the General Strike.
The forcible removal of food from people’s homes followed the ill-fated decree by Molotov and Stalin in 1932. Those very names send a chill through one’s back. In the next 12 months, millions died. Some died even when the spring crops came—people starved because their bodies were overwhelmed by the availability of this food, just like the inmates initially experienced in the concentration camps at the end of the war.
Was it genocide? Here I return to Raphael Lemkin, because, by the narrow definition of genocide agreed by the UN after the war, under the Soviet influence, it is not strictly genocide. This is one of our problems. However, Lemkin himself, who coined the term genocide, said in an essay in 1953, Soviet Genocide in Ukraine, that the USSR attacked Ukrainian elites precisely because they were
“small and therefore easily eliminated, and so it is upon these groups particularly that the full force of the Soviet axe has fallen, with its familiar tools of mass murder, deportation and forced labour, exile and starvation”.
We know that, after the war, the Soviets wanted to have a narrow definition of genocide because of their own culpability. This came to mean the physical elimination of an entire ethnic group in a manner similar to the Holocaust. The definition that is used legally for genocide is quite narrow, and the Holodomor does not actually meet this interpretation: it did not eliminate every Ukrainian. Sadly, we also have to accept that some Ukrainians were complicit in the Soviet actions. It is not surprising that the Soviets stopped the wider definition that could have applied.
Anne Applebaum notes that, during this part of the century, since the opening up of Ukraine and Russia, there had been quite a push to get people to recognise the famine in Ukraine in the 1930s as genocide. In 2018, she said that she thought it had probably had its moment and that the attempts had not got very far. She would almost certainly think very differently now. The current war has revived the concept that we should refer to this as genocide. As speakers have already said, it is important to the Ukrainian narrative, and to avoid its assimilation back into Russia, that we revive this concept. Russia’s complicity at the end of the Second World War in its defining of the word genocide makes an even stronger case for us to look at this definition again. I ask the Minister: can the British Government provide a lead now? If they cannot recognise it immediately, can they start discussions so that we can look again at whether the term genocide can apply to the Ukraine famine, as so many other countries have started to do?
There are two other conclusions to draw from this history and the relevance of today. One is that state power has to be subject to democratic checks and balances. A democracy is very complex and it is not always a straight line, but it is incredibly important where state power can create these sorts of tragedies. Ukraine will need a huge amount of help, both economically and politically, to strengthen these checks and balances. That is one of the problems of its history. However, when we look back on that history I hope we will challenge ourselves to ensure that it never happens again.
I have one final thought. The incredible realisation from going through the story is the question of how Putin ever thought he could easily overcome Ukraine and then rule it. He might have been successful in the short term but in the long term it would have been impossible. With Ukraine’s history, culture, language and resilience, which it is now showing, it would have resisted, as it did in the 1930s and as it will in the future. We wish Ukraine well. I hope we can give an encouraging sign by seeking to move this debate onwards.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for initiating this debate. The consensus and resolve across this House, and the commitment of the United Kingdom more broadly to support Ukraine, is driving back Russia’s barbarous war machine. It has never been needed so much as today. The war in Ukraine is, of course, entering a critical stage. Freedom must win out over tyranny, and Putin’s aggression must fail. As Ukrainians continue to defend themselves and prepare for the critical offensives they have been launching, it is crucial that they know that nations around the world will support their fight without wavering. I know the Minister has heard me say this before, but the Opposition are at one with the Government in giving firm support to Ukraine for as long as it takes.
We will continue to support Ukraine’s brave defenders and its people in their quest for freedom, peace and justice. That is absolutely essential. In the light of this debate, we must also continue to reflect on the immense historical suffering that Ukraine has endured, as well as the remarkable courage and resilience of its people and the progress that has been made over the years, which has sadly been pushed back in so many areas by Russia’s barbarism. This debate has brought home the fact that today’s illegal and cruel war comes after a history of Ukraine being subjected to immense brutality, especially in the terrible events of the Holodomor: one of the most atrocious instances of man-made famine in European history and which, as we have heard from all noble Lords, culminated in the deaths of millions of people.
The National Museum of the Holodomor-Genocide in Kyiv contains evidence that is incredibly moving and shocking. Everybody should recognise the reality of what happened to the Ukrainian people. It is very sad that some of the exhibits in that museum have been removed for safety reasons because of the current conflict.
It is clear that Stalin’s role in catalysing enforced, man-made, widespread starvation, particularly in 1932 and 1933, understandably and rightly lives on in the Ukrainian national psyche and among Ukrainians worldwide. The barbarism we saw 90 years ago carries as much salience today as ever, particularly given what we have seen since. It is a tragedy that today we can again hear terrible stories of atrocities being committed. As with the war today, there was a clear perpetrator behind the famine. Stalin’s motivation to transform and mould the Ukrainian nation in his own image at any cost is mirrored in Putin’s warped, imperialist world view, the consequences of which continue to devastate the lives of Ukrainians.
A great deal of what we know about the Holodomor came to us thanks to the bravery of a Welshman called Gareth Jones. Certainly, I think many noble Lords in the Chamber will have heard of Gareth from the excellent and moving feature film from 2019 called “Mr Jones”. Of course, many noble Lords will be aware that it is suspected that he was murdered by the Soviet NKVD in 1935. So little changes, of course.
In a letter to David Lloyd George, the then British Prime Minister, Jones wrote:
“Dear Mr. Lloyd George, I have just arrived from Russia, where I found the situation disastrous. The Five Year Plan has been a complete disaster in that it has … brought famine to every part of the country. I tramped alone for several days through a part of the Ukraine, sleeping in peasants’ huts. I spoke with a large number of workers, among whom unemployment is rapidly growing. I discussed the situation with almost every British, German and American expert … The situation is so grave, so much worse than in 1921”.
Of course, Jones defied Soviet attempts to censor him and reported the truth of the Holodomor to millions. In another echo of history, the Kremlin continued to deny the existence of the famine and launched a mendacious campaign against Gareth Jones, trying to silence him. But it could not.
The parallels with today are striking. Journalists, correspondents and reporters from many countries, not least Ukraine itself, are putting themselves in danger to expose the true extent of Russia’s barbarism and war crimes. We have seen concerted attempts by Russia to lie about food supplies to the rest of the world and weaponise them. In a dreadful parallel of the way it used food as a weapon of war in the Holodomor, it is now doing so with the rest of the world. As I know the Minister has responded to, the impact on Africa in particular could be horrendous.
I hope the Minister will be able to update the House on the steps being taken to support the rebuilding of Ukraine, particularly its agricultural capacity and ability to thrive economically in the future. June’s reconstruction conference represented a critical moment in our support for Ukraine and the diplomatic coalition trying to achieve that. The Minister has heard me say this before, but I will repeat it: one area that was missing from the King’s Speech, given the Motion that was passed unanimously by the Commons, is legislation on the seizure of Russian state assets to repurpose them for reconstruction in Ukraine. The Commons Motion was for legislation to be passed in 90 days, and the King’s Speech would have been an apt opportunity, albeit a little late, to reassert the Government’s plans for that. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some positive news on what we will do to repurpose those state assets and to hold Russia’s Government and leader to account for what they have been doing.
Historically and today, the price that Ukrainians have had to pay for their freedom is immense. The events of 90 years ago are an anguishing and chilling reminder of the consequences when tyranny runs without constraint and imperialism without restriction. We are tragically unable to undo the horrors of 90 years ago, but we can and we must, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, so eloquently put, take resolute steps to prevent them happening again today.
Given the comments that have been made today, I have a fundamental question, and I suspect I know what the answer will be. It is clear that these were appalling historic atrocities in the Holodomor and that they deserve proper recognition. As we have heard, on 25 May, the Commons resolved:
“That this House believes that the Holodomor was a genocide against the Ukrainian people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/5/23; col. 520.]
I hope the Minister can tell us the Government’s response to the elected Chamber and this debate. I am sure that the Minister will repeat the legal defence that the department makes, but this is a political issue and something that we need to respond to. It is the wish of the House of Commons, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively this afternoon.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Risby for securing this debate and maintaining a spotlight on the horrors inflicted on the Ukrainian people during the Holodomor. As all noble Lords have alluded to, who would have thought that the tragedy from that time, death by hunger, would be a reality not just for people in Ukraine but—because of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the food basket of Europe, and the impact on food security—for half a billion people around the world today in 2023?
I recognise that this has been a short and limited debate in terms of contributions. That does not take away from the quality and depth of the contributions made. I of course welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, to his role. He said in his opening remarks that he would be more than just a stand-in for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and his contribution demonstrated just that. I recognised much of the insight and details he has brought to this debate. He mentioned that he followed the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who comes very well prepared. I agree, but the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not just well prepared; he knows the subject of human rights and issues of genocide inside out, if I could put it that way. I share the noble Lord’s comments and also recognise the experience the noble Lord, Lord Alton, brings, along with the expert way my noble friend Lord Risby introduced the debate.
I agree with noble Lords that we must never stop learning from those events, nor allow the millions who perished to be forgotten. Therefore, when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister visited Ukraine, he lit a candle in memory of those who lost their lives in that awful event. There is universal agreement that the Holodomor was one of the darkest chapters in Ukrainian and European history. As my noble friend Lord Risby said, it was a vast and horrific man-made disaster that killed millions of innocent women, children and men.
The calls that I have heard again today from my noble friend and all noble Lords on the issue of genocide determination are wholly understandable. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pre-empted, my response reflects the fact that the Government’s position on genocide determination has not changed: it remains legal rather than political. The Government’s long-standing position—indeed, the position of successive Governments—has been that any judgment on whether genocide has or has not occurred is a matter for a competent court, after consideration of all the evidence. The approach also ensures, I would add, that our genocide determinations are independent of politics and above perceived political or national interest. It is my belief that it also allows, importantly, for legal legitimacy and underpinning.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked various questions. Having done various debates in this respect, and particularly when we were looking at the Trade Bill, for example, I would say that progress has been made on this issue, at least on certain elements, though not in terms of this particular issue. Looking forward, some of the trade elements and the scrutiny of Parliament, which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, also spoke to, are important parts of holding a Government accountable as well.
I assure noble Lords that, notwithstanding what I have just said, it does not detract from our recognition of the appalling events of the Holodomor, nor from our recognition of the brutality, which the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, among others, talked about, of Stalin’s policies and regime. Nor does it in any way dilute our determination to remember the victims of the Holodomor, as my right honourable friend did in his visit. Our ambassador in Ukraine and other members of our diplomatic team regularly participate in events to commemorate those tragic events. Today, we stand firm in our support for Ukrainians, amid the current appalling atrocities committed against them by the regime in Moscow, as Mr Putin continues to wage his illegal war.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned various studies, including one, if I heard him correctly, to which he also contributed. If I may, I have not had a chance to look through all of that, but I promise I will write to the noble Lord on the specifics of that report. It is true—I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken—that in the current invasion of Ukraine, which, let us not forget, started back in 2014, Russian forces have now killed thousands of Ukrainians. My noble friend Lord Risby is right that, since the full-scale invasion, it has impacted the whole of Ukraine’s population: 50% of Ukraine’s pre-war population, a total of 21 million people, have needed humanitarian assistance, either inside or outside Ukraine. Russian forces have attacked Ukrainian hospitals, schools and energy supplies and turned towns and cities into ruins.
In the areas of Ukraine liberated from Russian forces, they have tragically, as has been discovered, left mass graves. There is also, as I am acutely aware from my responsibility in leading on the issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict, evidence of rape and torture on a quite unimaginable scale. Last week, we invited noble Lords to the FCDO to hear first-hand testimony from Ukrainian survivors of Russian atrocities. I put on record my thanks to the Ukrainian NGOs SaveUkraine and Human Rights Centre ZMINA for the support they gave to four witnesses who shared their experiences. That is what is guiding us in our current approach to this conflict. I acknowledge once again the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, which I know was appreciated by my noble friend Lord Cameron, about the full alignment of His Majesty’s Opposition on the issue of our support for Ukraine, be it military, humanitarian, political or diplomatic, and of course on accountability, which I will come on to.
I think we are all agreed—and we have seen the issuing of warrants to that effect from the ICC—that there is one person who is ultimately responsible for the suffering of millions of Ukrainian, and that is of course Vladimir Putin. Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion on 24 February 2022, there have been more than 250,000 casualties. As we speak, Russia is mounting its third wave of attacks on Avdiivka and again continues to flounder, at horrendous cost not just to Ukrainian lives but to Russian lives as well. It is very clear that Mr Putin has launched and started a war he cannot win. As winter approaches, I assure noble Lords that we continue to stand with the Ukrainian people as they resist this illegal invasion. In the last three months, they have pushed Russia back in the Black Sea and are opening vital sea trade routes for the Ukrainian economy and global food supplies.
I am sure noble Lords agree that Russia has faced a more united international response than it ever imagined. We will continue to work with our allies to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs in this war against Russian aggression, secure a lasting peace and, importantly, bring to justice those responsible for war crimes and atrocities, in accordance with international law. In this regard, the UK is at the forefront of international support for Ukraine. Our military, humanitarian and economic support now amounts to over £9.3 billion. Last week, it was right that my noble friend Lord Cameron travelled to Kyiv, in his first overseas visit as Foreign Secretary, to make clear to the people and the President of Ukraine, through the direct insights he gained, that the UK and our partners will support Ukraine and its people for as long as it takes. Again, we have seen that message resonate in this important debate today.
Last week, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary also launched the new Unity facility between the UK insurer Marsh McLennan and the Ukrainian Government. This will also provide further support to the Ukrainians and provide affordable shipping insurance for grain and other food supplies from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. Seeing how topical this issue of hunger is, from the abhorrent events we saw in Ukraine many years ago, it is right that we seek to use innovative tools to ensure that grain and other food supplies from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports can be assured. This past Monday we also hosted an international conference on alleviating global hunger, and I know that several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Collins, were present.
I will talk briefly about war crimes and genocide determination. While I have outlined once again the Government’s position, I also want to highlight what we are currently doing. We are looking to the future and delivering justice for the Ukrainian people. In this regard, as noble Lords will be aware, we are supporting the office of Ukraine’s prosecutor-general to help them investigate and prosecute alleged war crimes. Alongside the EU and the US, we have established the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group to co-ordinate international support to Ukraine’s war crimes investigations. As I have already mentioned, we welcome the step taken by the International Criminal Court to hold those at the top of the Russian regime to account, including Mr Putin. Noble Lords may be aware that in March we co-hosted, alongside the Netherlands, a Justice Ministers’ conference in London, which delivered enhanced financial, practical and technical support for the ICC’s investigations in Ukraine.
In May, the Prime Minister and other Council of Europe leaders signed an agreement in Iceland to create an international register of damage caused by Russian aggression against Ukraine. As part of that delegation, I saw again the strength of unity and support for Ukraine. The United Kingdom has now joined a core group of countries to explore options to investigate and prosecute the crimes of aggression committed in and against Ukraine, including a potential special tribunal.
We are also determined, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned, that Ukraine has all the resources it needs to get back on its feet. It is a proud nation, with people rich in their outlook. We hosted the Ukrainian Recovery Conference in June, raising over $60 billion towards Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction. This included £3 billion of UK guarantees to the World Bank’s lending, up to £250 million on new capital for British international investment, a £20 million UK investment to expand insurance for Ukraine and a new €50 billion EU facility. We are also helping to draw up more risk insurance schemes with European partners, which will provide the UK and other countries with the reassurance they need to play a full role in helping Ukraine to rebuild. The private sector has an important role and our summer conference reflected that.
To conclude, I thank my noble friend Lord Risby, who plays a very able role in supporting Ukraine—I regret that I was unable to join him recently for a dinner in this respect—not just for tabling this debate but in looking forward to focus on what can be done with Ukrainians on the ground, and businesses in particular. Turning to the key subject in front of us, the Holodomor and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine are two of the darkest chapters in Ukraine’s history. While our stance remains that any determination of genocide must be made by the courts, as I have mentioned, that does not detract from our recognition of the Holodomor as the most appalling chapter in the history of Ukraine, which resonates today—once again—in the shadow of Russia’s aggression.
The United Kingdom is at the forefront of an alliance that will help Ukraine prevail over Mr Putin’s forces. We are helping the Ukrainian and International Criminal Court investigators to bring those responsible for appalling acts of brutality to justice, and we share Ukraine’s determination that Russia’s illegal war there must fail and justice must be done. As President Zelensky said in May in the Hague:
“There can be no peace without justice”.
Our desire for Ukraine to prevail, and for justice to prevail, remains something that unites us across your Lordships’ House. I remain confident that it will continue to do so and that we will continue to stand up for what is right. Slava Ukraini.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. I start with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whose instinctive humanitarian feelings always resonate so incredibly powerfully in this Chamber. His experience of Ukraine and what he saw and understood was such a powerful message of support for the country, for all the right reasons.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, who brings a considerable understanding of the Soviet system and its history. I thought his contribution was excellent in so many ways, although I would just very gently and politely mention, if I may, that there is a genocide convention. There is something which has been incorporated into the United Nations, and of course many countries, in addition to the European Parliament, have accepted the definition of genocide. It is up and running and I am sure that other countries will pursue it.
As for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, it is just so gratifying that in our Parliament, we have exactly the same view about the horror story that has descended on the Ukrainian people, echoing the barbarity that happened in the 1930s. However, the question politely posed by the noble Lord, given the views that have been forcefully expressed in another place, has an echo which requires closer thought by our Government at this time. I say to my noble friend the Minister, who, I know, is just part of the incredible committal of our country towards helping Ukraine: it is so gratifying to hear all the measures that are being put in place to deal with what happens post-conflict, not only in restoring the economy but in taking action against those who brought this brutality about. It is very gratifying indeed.
I thank all of your Lordships for their very valuable contributions. This has been an excellent moment to reflect on the parallel between what is happening today and what happened in those dreadful years ago.