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
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
The CPTPP is one of the major benefits of Brexit. It has the potential to deliver billions of pounds to our economy and benefits small businesses across the UK. The deal delivers lower tariffs, reduced red tape, and cutting-edge digital provisions that directly support small businesses to trade more. It has an SME chapter committing all countries to make the agreement accessible for SMEs. I know that will be welcome news for my hon. Friend ahead of Small Business Saturday.
Martin Vickers
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. It is great news that we are progressing membership of CPTPP and I welcome what she says about SMEs. Many SMEs will be new to exporting and need expert advice. Will she outline what particular plans there are to help small businesses?
Kemi Badenoch
We will ensure that our support offer for SMEs will help firms build their capability to import and export under our free trade agreements. We have started preparing for CPTPP entering into force. We will be producing written guidance on gov.uk to ensure businesses are equipped with the knowledge they need to access those opportunities. Specifically, our export support service, network of international trade advisers, export academy, and in-market support services will also help businesses to access opportunities in CPTPP markets.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In my constituency of Strangford SMEs are an integral, core part of creating jobs, putting wages into pockets, and ensuring that people can progress and learn more trades. We want to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland pushing for the CPTPP. What can the Secretary of State do to help me and my businesses in Strangford to be a part of that and to move forward?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman will know that we had the Northern Ireland investment summit a few months ago. We met lots of businesses and investors who talked about how they want to take advantage of these markets. In fact, we have had one of the first big investors into a factory in Belfast. What I can do is help him with some of the materials we have around the export academy and the export support service, which he can hand out to businesses in his constituency who want to find out more.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
For UK businesses to benefit from agreements like the CPTPP, we must have a clear plan to boost small business exports. Labour has a plan to remove export barriers, with clear information and support. That is in stark contrast to the Government’s approach, which has been a catalogue of failures, including the recent fiasco with the Government’s export website, which was so deficient that firms were forced to seek essential information from foreign Government websites. What immediate steps will the Department take to provide some stability and ensure UK businesses can excel in exporting?
Kemi Badenoch
I think the hon. Gentleman might be talking about something that happened three years ago, which we fixed. He talks about the export support service website. Businesses have actually been praising it. [Interruption.] Businesses have been praising it; they very much have been. We have an expert toolkit, which has been developed by business and trade officials. What is interesting is that all he says is that Labour has a plan to remove export barriers. We have actually been removing export barriers. Labour talks about a plan with no detail. No one is taking it seriously at all. The Conservative party is the party that represents business in the House of Commons.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
We remain committed to reform. Significant reforms have already been delivered to the Financial Reporting Council to strengthen its capabilities and drive up audit quality.
Deidre Brock
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland has branded the Government’s decision to leave the audit and governance reform Bill out of the King’s Speech as a lost opportunity and a huge blow to the interests of UK businesses and the public. The Government have been promising the Bill since 2021. Will they reconsider that backward step and make the UK’s corporate regulatory framework fit for purpose in the 21st century?
Kevin Hollinrake
Time and again, Opposition parties seek to wrap businesses up in red tape, whereas Conservatives are keen to cut red tape. Consultation with businesses revealed concerns about imposing additional reporting requirements, while the Government are looking to simplify and streamline existing requirements.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
This week, the Business and Trade Committee took evidence from Wilko. Business collapses such as that of Wilko, Carillion, Thomas Cook and Patisserie Valerie have been a consequence of failures in the audit process, costing people their jobs and hurting investors and suppliers. Audit reform was recommended by the then Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in 2019, and the Government offered to bring forward a draft Bill. I know the Minister wants to reduce red tape, but does he agree that some form of action is now pretty urgent?
Kevin Hollinrake
I was delighted to give the Select Committee evidence on Wilko. The administration report on Wilko is continuing and clearly we need to see the findings, but investigations so far have not shown that director misconduct played an instrumental part in Wilko’s failure, although I think it is clear to all concerned that there were failures in management that led to the company’s demise.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
How strange the change from minor to major in that response. Financial transparency and accountability are essential components of economic stability. For three years now, the Government have been promising legislation and improved checks on company finances, but they have repeatedly failed to deliver. How can the Minister justify leaving the audit and governance Bill out of the King’s Speech, when it is supported by businesses, regulators and auditors alike?
Kevin Hollinrake
We work very closely with the Financial Reporting Council. No one can deny that the FRC has changed its approach completely and is now a much more effective regulator. Sir Jon Thompson did a fantastic job when he was there, and the current chief executive, Richard Moriarty, and chair, Jan du Plessis, are following his work. We are confident that the FRC can make sure that the UK’s corporate regime works effectively, without tying businesses up in red tape.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Government consulted on a draft statutory code of practice on fire and rehire earlier this year. The Government response and the final version of the code will be published in spring next year. The code sets out employers’ responsibilities when seeking to change contractual terms and conditions of employment, and is designed to ensure that dismissal and re-engagement is used only as the last resort.
Dame Nia Griffith
The very fact that only last week P&O Cruises felt able to say it would impose new contractual terms on workers through fire and rehire tactics shows that some employers still feel that they can use these tactics with impunity, in spite of the Government’s promise to clamp down on them. I thank the Minister for his answer, but is there any way he could bring in the legislation more urgently, so that we can protect our workers properly?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree with the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s question in terms of bringing legislation forward as quickly as possible. Of course, we have to get this right. I have to say that P&O was not a fire and rehire situation; it was a fire-only situation, which was strongly condemned by this Government and by many other stakeholders, and a civil investigation is ongoing into the matters surrounding that case. But yes, the hon. Lady is right, and we are keen to get the new statutory code of practice in place as soon as possible. We expect that to be in spring next year, and once it is in force, the employment tribunal can increase employees’ compensation by up to 25% when an employer fails unreasonably to comply with the code.
Mick Whitley
Last week, concerns were raised that the Carnival group was making provision to fire and rehire hundreds of staff working on P&O Cruises and Cunard Line, reviving memories of last year, when P&O Ferries sacked over 800 of its employees and replaced them with agency labour, while the Government sat back and let it happen. Does the Minister agree that the only way to provide workers with the security they deserve is by legislating to outlaw fire and rehire tactics once and for all? If not, it is time the Government came clean with the British public and admitted that they will always side with bad bosses.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is not the case at all. We take these matters very seriously, but we do not think that completely banning fire and rehire is the right thing to do because there are some situations in which companies need to restructure quickly. We think that employees’ proper consultation rights should be observed. Where they are not observed and where an employer does not follow the statutory code of practice, employment tribunals can impose a significant uplift on redundancy payments. We think that is the best way to deal with this, by striking a balance between companies and their workers.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Fire and rehire is rife in this country. Research published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that, between March 2020 and July 2021, 43,000 employers changed their employees’ contracts through fire and rehire techniques. The Government promised in March 2022 that they would take action following the P&O scandal, and we now learn that it will be a full two years since that time before anything actually changes. Given the propensity for using fire and rehire tactics, can the Minister tell us how many employees he estimates will have had their contract changed through fire and rehire in that two-year period?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not have that number to hand. We want to strike a balance between employers and their workforces. We condemn what P&O did. We need to bring in new measures on fire and rehire, and we have committed to do that. A consultation is clearly needed to make sure those provisions are fair on both businesses and workers. That is what we are doing right now, and we intend to bring those provisions before the House next spring.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
In addition to small business rate relief, under which businesses with a rateable value of less than £12,000 pay no business rates whatsoever, in his autumn statement the Chancellor announced a further business rate support package, worth £4.3 billion over the next five years, to support small businesses and the high street.
Alistair Strathern
My constituents in Flitwick have been dismayed over the past few years as their high street has been gradually hollowed out, losing much-loved businesses and, recently, both their post office and banking facilities. Sadly, that is far too familiar for people in towns and villages across my constituency, where businesses are weighed down by high cost pressures and a business rate system that no longer seems fit for purpose or fair. When will the Government commit to bringing forward the comprehensive business rates reform that my businesses are crying out for, so that we can get back to revitalised, much-loved high streets?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and welcome him to his place in the House.
Of course, we are very concerned about the high street. The pressures on the high street are largely caused by changing consumer habits, but the Government have stepped in to ease pressures, such as through the £20 billion energy bill support scheme and the £17 billion business rate package.
The hon. Gentleman talks about completely scrapping the current business rate system, which Labour has committed to do, but it is incumbent on Labour to set out how it will replace the £25 billion that business rates currently add to the Exchequer. What is the solution? It is not right for him or others simply to say they will scrap that £25 billion without setting out how they will replace it.
Dr Huq
The vanishing of Debenhams, Wilko and Paperchase has left huge holes in our town centres— I have lost a Wilko in both Ealing and Acton. Analysis shows that the incentivisation of out-of-town retail is the culprit. Labour has a five-point plan to revive our high streets, putting communities first. What are the Government doing about all this?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not accept that, although out- of-town shopping can put pressure on the high street. Local authorities have to be very careful when they give planning consent for out-of-town shopping centres that could put pressure on the high street. That is clearly an important part of the planning process, but it is not the responsibility of central Government, of course. I would be interested to see that five-point plan, but if it includes the scrapping of business rates, which raise £25 billion, I ask the Labour Front Bench team once again—I have yet to receive an answer—where is that money coming from?
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Labour-run Leeds City Council has decided that it wants to bring parking charges to my market town of Wetherby—it currently has no parking charges. Does my hon. Friend agree that the investments we are making are all very well, but if local authorities make it harder for shoppers by increasing their costs, that will choke off the high street rather than help it?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and he is absolutely right to say that some local authorities see parking charges as potential revenue raisers, but this is in effect a tax on business. Local authorities can, of course, make charges where appropriate, but they should only cover the cost of maintaining those car parks; they should not be a punitive tax on businesses.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
There are streets in the west end of this city, important to our economy, that would certainly benefit from the ability of tourists to reclaim VAT, aren’t there?
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend raises an important point that this Department has looked at carefully. We are concerned about the impact of the withdrawal of that tax concession on businesses, not just for these businesses themselves, but for the other businesses that rely on foreign visitors—I am talking about hoteliers, restauranteurs and so on. We are keen to look at this matter. The Chancellor committed in his autumn statement to review the evidence to see what impact this was having. We will look at that with great interest and make our views known strongly to the Exchequer.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Greg Hands)
The Government’s export support for SMEs includes the export support service; the export academy; more than 400 export champions; our network of nearly 200 trade advisers; and support provided around the world through the international market service. Just last week, my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for exports announced that UK Export Finance is introducing more flexible fast-track financing for SMEs, making it easier than ever for UK firms to sell into international markets.
Ashley Dalton
Last week, I welcomed the Duke of Gloucester to my constituency to award local SME GaraDry the King’s award for enterprise for its innovation in international trade. How can such businesses have confidence in the Government’s support for SMEs when Britain’s export growth is among the worst of the G7 economies and is forecast to be falling?
Greg Hands
I certainly welcome the royal visit that the hon. Lady had in her constituency; it is always fantastic to see that support, particularly for exporters. However, I think she is a bit off on the data. When we look at export data, we see that we had £877 billion-worth of exports in the 12 months to the end of September 2023. We are heading towards the £1 trillion export target, and that figure is up by almost £200 billion—or 29%—on the figure from five years ago, which was before Brexit.
Mohammad Yasin
In 2021, the Government launched a rebranded trade show programme pilot to great fanfare, but between November 2021 and March 2022 only two businesses in the UK were funded under the programme. We now hear that the scheme has been shelved. Will the Minister explain what has happened to that initiative, which has launched a number of household British fashion brands abroad and which served as a vital gateway under the last Labour Government for SMEs to access new markets?
Greg Hands
The last Labour Government were, of course, in office rather a long time ago. It is not always incumbent on successive Governments more than a decade later to keep previous Labour Government schemes going. The scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a pilot, which did not yield the successes that we might have hoped. However, I will take no criticism from him and the Labour party for the support we are giving to exporters. We are spending £200 million over this spending review period to support SMEs to grow and succeed internationally, and we have a record to be commended.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Kenya, may I welcome the fact that this week the Government held the successful global investment summit and are taking steps to help British businesses to export? I recently returned from Nairobi, where I visited some of the UK’s flagship investments, including in infrastructure and clean energy. Will the Minister provide an update on the Africa investment summit next year? I also ask that the UK continues to bang the drum for British businesses to export to Kenya, the gateway to east Africa.
Greg Hands
First, let me commend my hon. Friend for winning “Speech of the Year” at last night’s The Spectator parliamentary awards. She has continued her fine form today. She does an amazing job for the country as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Kenya, and her recent visit in September was a big success, particularly on the infrastructure side of things. She has already referred to railways and other infrastructure. She mentioned the UK-Africa investment summit, which will take place in London next year and will further our engagement with Kenya and other African countries, fostering modern partnerships in trade and investment in areas such as resilient infrastructure, clean technologies and renewable energy.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend back to his post. I pay tribute to him and to the Secretary of State for the international trade deals that they have struck during their period in office. The UK has strategic relationships with a number of Gulf nations. What progress is being made on a free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council? If it is more challenging to strike a deal across all nations, what bilateral trade agreements can we explore in order to exploit the opportunity for those nations to invest significantly in the UK?
Greg Hands
I am excited by the prospect of the deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council, with which the Secretary of State is very much engaged, and I am looking forward to being re-engaged with it. It is a huge opportunity for us, as the latest figures show that total trade between the UK and the Gulf is worth more than £60 billion. We are looking forward to moving the negotiation forward and getting a very good deal for the UK.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister back to the Department for Business and Trade, and I look forward to helping him hopefully to do better this time around. According to the International Monetary Fund, over the past decade British food and drink exports, including from SMEs, rose by just 3%, which was the lowest growth of any G7 country. The US, Canada, Italy and Japan all saw their exports grow by between 30% and 95%. Government Ministers will not negotiate a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would help, they have cut funding for trade missions, and now the Secretary of State has cut funding to go to trade shows too. Why will Ministers not share our ambitions for Britain to have the fastest export growth rate of any G7 country?
Greg Hands
Of course, the hon. Gentleman and I have been around in these jobs for a while. He was possibly the last Trade Minister under the last Labour Government, so I will not be taking any lectures from him on how to improve UK exports. We have been financing dozens of global trade missions and we are spending £200 million over the spending review period on exports in general. On the export figures, he neglected to mention services exports, which totalled £463 billion in the 12 months to September 2023. That is a huge increase of 42% on our performance in 2018, before Brexit.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Government are clear that violent and abusive behaviour towards any public-facing worker is never acceptable, and we recognise the implications that such incidents can have on businesses as well as victims. On 23 October, the Government launched a retail crime action plan, which includes a commitment to prioritise police attendance at the scene where violence has been used towards shop staff, where an offender has been detained by store security or where evidence needs to be secured by police personnel. The Government also launched Project Pegasus, a unique private-public partnership that will radically improve the way retailers are able to share intelligence with the police.
Daniel Zeichner
In recent weeks, I, like many colleagues, have visited shops in my constituency as part of USDAW’s—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—Freedom from Fear campaign. I have heard from staff about the daily levels of verbal and sometimes physical abuse they face, and the huge losses from theft. Will the Minister say more about what the Government are doing to stem that tide of lawlessness, particularly for independent retailers who may not be part of the Pegasus Project? Will she also say how much is being lost to theft, because that costs all of us as customers, as well as costing retailers?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This is not a victimless crime; it impacts shops, workers and customers. Credit is due to the hon. Gentleman for visiting the shops in his constituency. Overall crime is down by 54% since 2010, and down by 10% since last year. However, he is right that shoplifting is up, which is why the action plan is so important. The action plan works for our high streets because it is about ensuring that the police are determined to collect evidence and to go after repeat offenders and organised gangs.
Project Pegasus is key because it is a public-private partnership. We have created an extra offence, with a longer sentence, for those who are violent towards a shop worker. With those extra programmes of work and evidence collection, more people will be convicted, so those who are involved in crime against shops will spend some time in prison.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The CMA has a primary statutory duty to promote competition both inside and outside the UK for the benefit of consumers, which provides the CMA with a clear, strong focus on delivering for consumers. In our recent steer to the CMA, we did point out how very important it is that it focuses also on economic growth.
John Penrose
Regulators such as the CMA have huge powers, so Parliament must give clear instructions about how those powers should and should not be used. Does the Minister agree that the CMA’s instruction is a model of the kind of clear and strong legal duty that leaves no doubt in regulators’ minds about the job that Parliament has asked them to do. Will he join me in pushing for equally clear and focused duties for other economic regulators where, sadly, the same cannot currently be said?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his very important work in this area. I know that reducing the regulatory burden is a cause that is very close to his heart, and to the hearts of those in the Chamber today who supported his amendment in the recent Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill. That view is also shared by myself and by the Secretary of State. We are very keen to make sure that, as well as ensuring that sectors are well regulated, our economic regulators focus on competition and economic growth.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
I disagree. The Competition and Markets Authority is not only the dog that does not bark, but the dog that does not bite. We see multinational corporations and investment funds of such a size that they have more power than a sovereign Government. When will the Government give the CMA the powers and authority needed to tackle the corporate monopolies and cartels that have so much sway over our lives?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member raises an important matter. That is why the Government are legislating in this space, through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which gives the CMA huge new powers, particularly over some of our largest online platforms—platforms that have what we describe as strategic market status. This is world-leading legislation that will tackle many of the examples of detriment that he will be aware of and that he raises in his question today.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Government protect the post office branch network by setting access criteria and minimum service levels to be provided by branches across the country. More post offices have opened this year than have closed. The network is as large today as it has been for five years, with around 11,700 branches open, above the 11,500 target that we set for the Post Office.
Florence Eshalomi
The Minister mentioned that more post offices are opening. Actually, they are closing. The Clapham Common post office in my Vauxhall constituency has been earmarked for closure and there are no current plans to replace it. I am fighting this closure, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and local ward councillors in the Communications Workers Union. This is a pattern that we are seeing across the country. It has been identified that 260 postal shopfronts have closed across the country in the past 10 years. With those closures, we are seeing elderly and vulnerable people—people who need their post offices on the high street—having to travel further. Will the Minister tell me what more he and the Government are doing to protect these vital services?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise this issue. The Post Office has launched a public consultation regarding the Clapham Common post office. The Post Office maintains that locals will continue to have good access to services. There is a post office within a mile of the Clapham Road branch, and three further branches within two miles. Nevertheless, the Government support the post office network with a significant amount of financial support—£2.5 billion over the past 10 years—so we do continue to support post offices. We know how important they are to constituents and other colleagues in this House. I am very happy to meet her to discuss this particular case.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Greg Hands)
We are working at pace to ratify the CPTPP, which we hope to bring into force next year. We are the first European country to join the CPTPP, and I know how powerful it will be for British businesses and consumers, which is why this Government are progressing legislation as quickly as possible, with Second Reading of the Bill having taken place in the other place on 21 November. We are already playing our part as the second largest economy in the agreement. The Secretary of State met other CPTPP Ministers two weeks ago in San Francisco to discuss the blossoming future of the agreement.
John McDonnell
Across the House, over a period of time, Members working with organisations such as the Trade Justice Movement have expressed concern about the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement procedures within treaties, because they restrict our own country’s ability to regulate. I raised that issue in September and suggested that, as the Government have done with Australia and New Zealand, we agree in a separate letter that the settlement procedure will not be included in this treaty. I was then told—rather curtly—that it was too late. Actually, it is not too late. There is the potential to do a side letter, as we have with other countries, to exclude an investor-state dispute settlement procedure. In the light of the Government’s negotiating remit for the free trade agreement with Canada, the Government are specifically seeking to exclude that procedure. I wonder whether the Government might think again.
Greg Hands
It is good to be sparring with the right hon. Gentleman again from the Dispatch Box—we have both had a few ups and downs since we last went head to head. CPTPP does not compromise the UK’s right to regulate at all; it expressly preserves the rights of states to regulate proportionately, fairly and in the public interest. It is worth reminding the House that the UK has never lost an ISDS case. Such procedures actually help to protect UK investments abroad. British investments in Canada totalled £40.6 billion in 2020-21, which will be covered for the first time by these protections. As I say, if we cannot trust Canada in international affairs, who can we trust? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the deal cannot be ratified until the legislation has been approved by Parliament and the deal has completed the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Greg Hands)
The Government’s published export strategy focuses on addressing the challenges that UK businesses face when exporting. The Government continue to promote exporting, and to support companies through our network of international trade advisers, sector specialists, and the export support service. All our services can be accessed on great.gov.uk.
Andrew Selous
In my constituency I have companies such as EyeOL, Lindal Valve, Peli Biothermal, Friction Marketing, Signature Flatbreads and 198 smaller businesses, all of which export globally. The smaller businesses export through Amazon. That is fantastic, as there is evidence that businesses that export can pay their staff more, but what is the best way to get businesses that have not yet realised that the world is their marketplace exporting not just to Europe but around the whole world?
Greg Hands
I commend my hon. Friend for being a long-standing champion of his constituency exporters. As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to South Africa and Mauritius, he knows only too well the importance of exports. The Government’s export strategy is clear. We have a clear programme to assist small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly first-time exporters. All of our services can be accessed via great.gov.uk, and we have a network of international trade advisers locally for Bedfordshire who are able to help as well.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
As a fellow Essex MP, I can assure my right hon. Friend that this matter is close to my heart. Businesses can access support through great.gov.uk, including our self-serve digital offer, the export support service, international trade advisers and UK Export Finance. My Department is helping Essex companies such as Icon LifeSaver in Colchester to secure potential sales of over £10 million in the US, Colombia and Estonia. Kestrel Liner Agencies, which is headquartered in my constituency and last year received its third Queen’s Award for international trade, has also benefited. We are focused on priority trade barriers in particular, which could boost UK exports by around £20 billion over five years.
Priti Patel
The Secretary of State will know inside out what the wonderful county of Essex has to offer when it comes to business exports. We have companies such as Wilkin & Sons and Wicks Manor, and many other producers who will sell the produce that households across the country will enjoy this Christmas, at home and abroad. Will the Secretary of State highlight how she is working across Government with other Departments to reduce the barriers to export that cover, for example, produce, manufacturing costs, energy costs, and even the processing of animals?
Kemi Badenoch
Removing barriers to trade is one of this Government’s top priorities. My right hon. Friend will know many of the things that the Government have been doing, including subsidising energy bills, because we recognise the difficulties that manufacturers and processing plants face. At the moment I am particularly focused on resolving trade barriers. We have resolved 178 trade barriers worth more than £6.5 billion to businesses, including those in Essex, over the next five years. Food producers in her constituency specifically will be pleased to know that just last month, when I was in Japan for the G7, we resolved a barrier restricting exports of cooked poultry from the UK to Japan, which I think will provide a festive boost to UK exporters worth an estimated £10 million over five years.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
Since the barbaric terrorist acts by Hamas against Israel on 7 October and the subsequent conflict in the region, the Government have been monitoring the situation very closely. The UK supports Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself and take action against terrorism, provided that that is within the bounds of international humanitarian law. Export licences are kept under careful and continual review as standard, and we are able to amend licences or refuse new licence applications if they are inconsistent with the strategic export licensing criteria.
Joanna Cherry
No one is suggesting that Israel does not have the right to defend itself—but, as the Secretary of State says and we agree, within the bounds of international law. The mass killing of civilians in Gaza should concern us all. Without resorting to platitudes about the relative toughness of the UK’s arms export controls, could she please identify which arms export licences are currently in force, including open licences for end use by the Israeli defence and security forces, and provide details of them to the House?
Kemi Badenoch
I do not believe that is something that I am able to do or should do. I can tell the hon. and learned Lady that last year we granted 114 standard individual export licences for military goods valued at £42 million to Israel. If there is a specific issue that she would like to highlight, we are prepared to look at it, but she will know that security and defence exports are not necessarily best discussed on the Floor of the House or in public, for obvious reasons.
Steven Bonnar
A state that supplies military equipment that is used in the commission of violations of international humanitarian law is at risk of complicity in a humanitarian catastrophe. In continuing with those licences and supplying UK arms to Israel, what assessment does the Secretary of State make of the potential for UK Government complicity, if Israel is found to have committed war crimes in Gaza by the ongoing International Criminal Court investigation?
Kemi Badenoch
I am quite surprised that there is not a word of condemnation, and the implication that the UK is complicit is really not the sort of thing we would expect from a British Member of Parliament in this House. I completely disagree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government take our defence export responsibilities extremely seriously and operate some of the most robust and transparent export controls in the world.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Greg Hands)
I am pleased to confirm that advanced talks with India are ongoing. We are in round 13, with discussions currently focused on goods, market access, services and investment. We remain clear that we will not sign until we have a free trade agreement that fully benefits the UK people and economy. We are focused on the deal, not the date.
Mr Davis
Total trade in goods and services between the UK and India was £36.3 billion in the year to March 2023. An FTA with the fifth-largest economy in the world, and one of the fastest-growing, would be a massive boost to the UK economy and put UK businesses at the front of the queue to supply India’s growing middle class, which is expected to be a quarter of a billion consumers by 2050. This is an important exploitation of Brexit, so will the Minister do all he can to bring this deal over the line as soon as possible for Britain?
Greg Hands
My right hon. Friend of course has a lot of experience in complex negotiations and I can say that we, like him, will not be satisfied until we have the right deal. He is right that a deal with India would be a big step forward in the UK’s post-Brexit strategy to refocus UK trade on the Indo-Pacific region, which represents one third of global GDP. My negotiators and I continue to work at pace and we will negotiate until we have secured the right deal. I warmly welcome his interest in doing more trade with India.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Government recognise the vital role of the steel sector, and are working with the sector to achieve a sustainable future. We have announced £500 million of support towards a joint £1.25 billion investment with Tata Steel to achieve the transformation of Port Talbot, and we are also in talks with British Steel. We have provided the steel sector with £730 million in energy costs relief since 2013, and announced the British industry supercharger—decisive measures to reduce energy costs for energy-intensive industries.
Tonia Antoniazzi
In communities across the country—particularly in Wales through Port Talbot—steel has created high-paying, productive jobs for generations, but we are the only G7 country with a steel industry in decline. Thousands of jobs are being lost. What we need is a long-term plan that supports steelworkers and their communities to maintain those good jobs into the future and transition to net zero, so why is the Minister making short-term decisions instead of delivering on the long-term industrial strategy that communities such as mine, and our steel industry and workers, desperately need?
Ms Ghani
That is just not correct, especially the comparisons to the G7. The decisions over Port Talbot have been hanging around for quite some time, and we were able to work with Tata Steel to ensure that jobs were confirmed long into the future. Tata Steel employs more than 8,000 people, and that was under serious threat until the investment was secured. Now consultation is taking place with the unions, and the reality is, as the media have noted, that the unions themselves are not sure how they want to take this forward. We were absolutely sure that we wanted steelmaking in that area and that jobs should be secured. That is why we offered the support that we did.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I have written again to the Secretary of State to seek specific confirmation of the Government’s position on a virgin steelmaking sovereign capability in this country. Will she ensure that that specific question is addressed when I receive a response?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend is first and foremost an advocate for the steelworks and steelworkers in her constituency. Obviously that letter will be on its way, and I thank her so much for raising it.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
We are used to this Government flip-flopping all over the place. It would be funny if it were not so serious for business, exports and jobs. So when we heard the Treasury telling everyone who would listen that the Government’s response to the carbon border adjustment mechanism would be in the autumn statement, we were not surprised that it was not. The future of steel investment and growth relies on a clear and certain path from Government. We cannot have our business disadvantaged any more, so what is the decision on the CBAM? If this Government cannot decide, is it not time to make way for one who can?
Ms Ghani
Decisions have to be taken while responding to the consultations that take place. We have been absolutely determined to ensure that steelmaking will remain competitive in the UK, which is why we have been able to support the steel sector with high energy costs and put over £1 billion in place to deal with decarbonisation technology. When it comes to Tata, the support we have pledged involves an investment of over £1 billion to ensure that jobs remain secure in the future, and negotiations continue with British Steel as well. That is the support that we have provided and will continue to provide for steel in the UK.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
This week, I hosted more than 200 global CEOs and investors at the UK global investment summit, which was an extraordinary success. The Prime Minister set a £9.5 billion target to beat, and we tripled it, securing £29.5 billion of investment and more than 12,000 jobs. The success of the GIS is a vote of confidence in the UK. My Department’s work, supported by the £20 billion business tax cut in the autumn statement, is securing our country as a world-leading business and investment destination.
Matt Vickers
Many people are aware of the incredible story of the Redcar steelworks site being reborn as Teesworks, creating 20,000 jobs and unlocking £2 billion in private investment. Fewer people are aware that Stockton’s very own freeport business park is being built at the airport. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Teesside, as the home of the UK’s first and biggest freeport, offers a unique opportunity to those investing in the industries of the future?
Kemi Badenoch
I do agree, and my hon. Friend is quite right to praise the progress that has been made on delivering Teesside freeport. The freeport has already been successful in securing several landmark investments, including from SeAH Wind, which is investing £650 million in building an offshore wind manufacturing facility. That will create around 750 high-skilled jobs and builds on the measures announced in the autumn statement last week to further strengthen the offer of UK freeports. My Department will continue to work with freeports, in Teesside and elsewhere, on securing high-value investment.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
This is the Department in charge of growth, investment and exports. In the latest figures, following the autumn statement, growth has been downgraded. Business investment is still forecast to be the lowest in the G7, and goods exports have declined, both to the EU and to non-EU countries. Given that there are so many amazing businesses and sectors in the UK, how do the Government account for their poor performance?
Kemi Badenoch
I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to spin his way out of what is actually a very good news story for the Government. The fact is that the UK has overtaken France to become the world’s eighth-largest manufacturing nation. We are the world’s fifth-largest exporter. We are growing faster than Germany and France, and have received more investment than them combined. We are the top investment destination, certainly for financial services. We are doing well. Perhaps this is the moment for me to tell him what businesses told me at the global investment summit: that they were unimpressed by the Labour shadow Ministers they had met; that their offer was unimaginative; and that they were repetitive, and had no vision for the future of business in the UK.
Jonathan Reynolds
We follow the Secretary of State’s Twitter feed, and quite simply, we do not believe her.
I want to ask the Secretary of State about late payment. In the nine years that the Government have spent consulting on late payments, 450,000 businesses have gone under while waiting to be paid. Why do the Government’s new plans on late payment apply only to firms contracting with the Government? Why do they not rather follow our proposal to make sure that all public companies disclose their payment practices?
Kemi Badenoch
I have been working with the Federation of Small Businesses and others on late payments. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the measures announced in the autumn statement; this is an issue that the Government take very seriously. I disagree that we are implementing our plans in a partial way. We will resolve this issue, but I am afraid that I completely disagree with the Opposition: have done quite a lot on this, and many businesses have praised the measures that we announced in the autumn statement.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
We are ready to have a free trade agreement with the US, but it is not undertaking free trade agreements with any country. That is, of course, disappointing, but it knows that we stand ready. That is why we have the state MOU programme. The latest figures show that UK-US trade has reached £310 billion. We are the biggest investor in Florida. I was pleased to meet Governor DeSantis earlier this month, and I also met the California Governor, Gavin Newsom, who wanted to be even faster in signing an MOU with the UK. They believe that this country has a lot of opportunity, and they want to do business with us.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Import tariffs on egg products allow us to recognise the higher cost of UK egg production because of safety, welfare and environmental considerations. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that eggs and egg products will be afforded sensitive product status by the UK in future free trade agreement negotiations, and that import tariffs will remain in place on those products?
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Greg Hands)
It is difficult to comment on tariffs in live negotiations, but I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman: first, this country imports very few eggs from abroad, and secondly, anything that happens with imported eggs would not change our standards on food imports, food safety and animal welfare in this country.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I am not known for my coyness. My hon. Friend has done very important work in this space, and we share his ambition: I chair the Smart Data Council, and we are planning to open up databases right across our economy to allow for more competition in the worlds of energy, telecoms, and buying and selling houses. He has been a great champion of all those measures. I am very keen to bring forward the roadmap that my hon. Friend has referred to, hopefully as early as January next year.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Kemi Badenoch
We are aware of the situation, and are working on it—negotiations to resolve it are actively ongoing. UK cheese is in increasing demand in Canada, and exports of UK cheese benefit businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. The UK has made continued and repeated efforts to find a solution since negotiations began, including by seeking an extension to the current arrangements, and we are clear that the UK is rightly entitled to ongoing access to Canada’s World Trade Organisation cheese tariff quota under our rights and obligations at the WTO.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Brazil, I know that the best way of supporting exports from my Dudley businesses is to remove barriers to trade. That is why I was absolutely delighted when both our countries signed a double taxation agreement, in good faith and to the highest possible standards. There appear to be complications in Brazil at the moment with ratifying that agreement through Congress, as we have ratified it through our Parliament. What more can Ministers—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps—do to try to persuade Brazil that it is indeed a very good deal for itself as well?
Greg Hands
First, I praise my hon. Friend for the amazing job he does as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Brazil. Partly due to his efforts, UK-Brazil trade has increased by 33% in the past year alone, so we are doing a very good job there. The UK-Brazil double taxation agreement was passed into UK law in June, and is estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the UK. I hope that Brazil ratifies the agreement soon: it is very much in its own interests as well. As my hon. Friend knows, the Chancellor has made very strong representations to that effect, and we look forward to strengthening our trade relationship at the next UK-Brazil joint economic and trade committee next year.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is something we are looking at; we have been looking at it for some time, and are keen to bring forward the results of our deliberations very shortly.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
May I ask the Trade Minister, whom I welcome back to his position, what efforts the Government are making to raise awareness of the developing countries trading scheme, particularly among African countries? What encouragement is he giving those countries to take advantage of that scheme, which would benefit them and us?
Greg Hands
Again, we have almost a full turnout of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys in the House this morning, and I commend my hon. Friend for the work he does as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy not just to one country, but to three—Angola, Zambia and Ethiopia. He rightly takes a strong interest in the UK’s forward-leaning and exemplary developing countries trading scheme. The scheme was launched on 19 June by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and provides duty-free or nearly duty-free access to goods to 37 African countries. The scheme was launched to significant media attention in Ethiopia, and there was a series of events in more than 10 countries.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson): the onus is on all of us in this House to continue to extol the virtues and the benefits of the UK’s developing countries trade scheme. We have taken the EU scheme and gone significantly further, making it more generous for developing countries. We should all be united in extolling the virtues of the UK’s scheme, and of the brilliant job the UK is doing to promote goods access to developing countries.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Kemi Badenoch
I believe there is a quarterly register that may contain some of the information the hon. and learned Member is asking for, but I am not able or going to list every single export decision that has been made by the export control joint unit. I will see what I can do to get her a fuller answer, but she will know that this is a very sensitive issue. I have a quasi-judicial role, and I must be seen to be impartial at all times. I will do what I can to provide the information she wants, but I do not have a list to provide her with this morning, and certainly not on the Floor of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On Scunthorpe, what major economy does not have a blast furnace and the ability to make virgin steel?
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Almost all the G20 countries have operational blast furnaces, and a number of those are transitioning to electric arc furnaces as well. We know the importance of Scunthorpe, which is a key driver of economic growth. British Steel provides a third of all domestic production supplied to the construction and rail industries. We continue to be in negotiations to make sure that we secure the best deal, and one that is good value for taxpayers, when it comes to Scunthorpe.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
On Tuesday, we finally had answers from Lisa Wilkinson about the mistakes that led to the collapse of that much-loved firm, but Ms Wilkinson was not able to answer why 70% of the profits in the last four years were paid out in dividends to family trusts while the deficit in the pension fund amounted to now £50 million. Will the Secretary of State ensure that regulators explore every option to claw back those dividends so that Wilko pensioners are not short-changed?
Kevin Hollinrake
The right hon. Member raises a very important point. He has looked at this matter very carefully, including on the Business and Trade Committee, and I thank him for his work. I was pleased to give evidence to his Committee on Tuesday. Clearly, the Insolvency Service is looking at this. It is looking at the directors’ conduct report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, the administrator, which it needs to look at very carefully. It is clear from that report so far that there is no evidence of director misconduct, but further work is ongoing. The Insolvency Service is due to meet the administrator, PwC, in January, and we will look at the situation as it unfolds.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
One of the most effective ways we could strengthen both the public sector and the private sector is the creation of an office of the whistleblower, as long championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson). That would strengthen corporate governance, empower those who see wrongdoing to come forward and protect them from intimidation, and strengthen the UK as a place to do business. Given that this week is Whistleblowing Awareness Week, could I encourage Ministers to bring forward proposals to support this important initiative?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his work in this area, in which he has great expertise. I met my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) yesterday to discuss this very matter. She has set out some key proposals in this area. We are currently undertaking a review of whistleblowing, and we hope to report to the House very shortly.
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 forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 4 December will include:
Monday 4 December—Remaining stages of the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
Tuesday 5 December—Opposition day (1st allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 6 December—Second Reading of the Sentencing Bill.
Thursday 7 December—General debate on tackling Islamophobia, followed by a debate on a motion on the implementation of public registers of beneficial ownership in the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 8 December—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 11 December includes:
Monday 11 December—Second Reading of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill.
Lucy Powell
So it is another week, and another business statement, yet still no emergency legislation on Rwanda as promised. It has been another week of infighting, division and chaos on illegal and managed migration from the Conservative party. Apparently, some in the Cabinet—I do not know whether the Leader of the House is one of them—are holding that legislation back, while others clamour for it, with the Minister for Immigration going rogue. The Prime Minister is stranded between them, too weak to face down either side and too weak to act. Weeks after it was promised in days, when will we finally see the treaty and legislation?
As well as a treaty to negotiate, we have the ongoing situation between Israel and Gaza—I welcome the further extension in the temporary truce this morning—war still raging in Ukraine, a diplomatic row with Greece, visits to Kyiv and the middle east, a NATO summit, COP28 this week and a visit to Brussels next week, yet not a peep from the Foreign Secretary in this House, and no reporting back to Members. When I last raised this issue with the Leader of the House, she said that the House must be able to “hold him to account”. When? I welcome the Procedure Committee looking into the matter, but the Government could and should do more to ensure that we are able to raise issues directly and regularly, now. We have had no Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office statements this week or last, only an urgent question—yet again the Government are being dragged here instead of respecting the House of Commons, and it is just not good enough. The next questions to the Foreign Office will be on Tuesday 12 December. Will the Leader of the House ensure that some progress on holding the Foreign Secretary to account is made before then?
It is not just foreign policy decisions that Members are keen to ask Lord Cameron about. Questions about his dealings with Greensill Capital continue to rumble on. Thanks to diligent work by my deputy, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), the Insolvency Service has been asked whether Lord Cameron could be considered a “shadow director” of Greensill. If that is the case, he could be subject to the same duties and liabilities as a director. His tax affairs from the time are now under scrutiny for failing to provide details of his personal use of planes owned by Greensill Capital. My hon. Friend has written to the Chair of the Treasury Committee to ask her to consider whether Lord Cameron’s failure to declare that information to the Committee is potentially in contempt of the House. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Chair of the Committee to investigate that? Will she also ensure that Lord Cameron does not wriggle out of frequent appearances in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee?
It is not just his lordship who is dodging scrutiny, because that is the Government’s tried and tested tactic on every front. Day by day, they are eroding the conventions of this place with their cavalier approach to scrutiny and good government. On Monday, Members debated minimum service level regulations for rail without the opinion of the Government’s own independent assessors, because they did not give them enough time to look at them. Yesterday we had Report stage of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and the Government tabled 240 new amendments, some really substantial, at the last minute. It is outrageous.
Even the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg)—not someone I often agree with—thinks that the Government take a dictatorial approach to new legislation. It has also emerged that the Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill not only will not apply to new flats, but now will not even apply to the sale of new houses. We have a flagship Bill to ban lease- holds that does not even ban leaseholds. What a shambles. This is child’s play and no way to run a Government.
Finally, this week saw some serious questions about what can only be described as the possible bribery of sitting Members. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) was recorded revealing that he had been offered a lot of money to join the Reform party. The offer was five years of an MP’s salary as insurance for defecting. These allegations are incredibly serious and tantamount to bribery from a rival political party, potentially in breach of electoral law. It has subsequently emerged that the Government Chief Whip was made aware of these enticements being offered months ago and believed them to be serious and potentially criminal. Have these matters now been passed to the police? If so, when? If not, why not? Why has it taken a secret recording to bring these very serious matters, which go to the heart of our democracy, to the attention of this House?
Penny Mordaunt
First, may I wish everyone a happy St Andrew’s day? I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts are still with the hostages who are still in Gaza and their families. We hope that situation can be resolved quickly.
First, the hon. Lady raises the issue of the Foreign Secretary being answerable to this House. She will know that a senior Foreign Office Minister is available to lead on matters, and on very serious issues the Prime Minister would speak from this Dispatch Box. The Foreign Secretary has been forward-leaning and suggested a number of things that he thinks would be highly appropriate for how he could be held to account in this place and directly by Members of this House. No decisions have been taken yet, because we are waiting to hear from the Procedure Committee. It is right that matters for this House are dealt with by the Committees of this House.
The Foreign Secretary has been forward-leaning. I know that many Members have been concerned in particular about liaison with Members of this House who have hostage families living in their constituencies, whether they are British nationals or have a connection to Britain. The Foreign Secretary is meeting and has offered to meet all such families, and he is in touch with hon. Members who are in that situation. When the Procedure Committee brings forward measures—it is always sensible in its deliberations—I am sure those measures will be put in place.
The hon. Lady criticises us for not allowing scrutiny of legislation. Her point might have had more traction if in yesterday’s sitting we had not finished an hour early. Part of the reason for that was that only one Opposition Back Bencher spoke in the debate. I think we were having votes when Report should have been concluded.
The hon. Lady talks about the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. She will know that Bills can be amended during their passage through the House, and we have committed to including a ban on new leasehold houses during the Bill’s passage, despite what has been reported. That commitment has not changed.
The hon. Lady talks about migration and emergency legislation, and I will put that in context. It is slightly ironic that Labour is eagerly awaiting further legislation from us on these matters when Labour Members have opposed all the new powers that we have brought in to protect our border. They fought against us in ending free movement and deporting foreign criminals, they would wish to take an extra 110,000 people every year from Europe, and Labour in Wales is giving asylum seekers £1,600 a month. The legislation will be brought forward shortly, but I am not holding my breath on the Opposition supporting it. Further business will be announced in the usual way.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I welcome the news that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, which will bring in modern housing terms, will have its Second Reading in a week or so. Through my right hon. Friend, may I say to the Government that even if we have to add things to the Bill as it goes along, that is better than having to wait another year for this overdue opportunity to reform effectively the scandalous abuses within leasehold, which are loaded so much against 6 million home occupiers—the tenants of leasehold homes?
I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the named day question I tabled for the Foreign Office about the acid attack on Shahzad Akbar on Sunday in England. If Ministers think it is appropriate to make an oral statement, will she please encourage them to do so? It is just as shocking to have a Commonwealth country suspected of an acid attack on one of its nationals—a human rights lawyer—in this country as it was to have the Russian attack in Salisbury and the alleged Indian attack in Canada.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to draw to the Home Secretary’s attention the letter he will have received today from the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, asking whether the police force in the relevant area was right to assess the risk to this man as low when in fact it was high, and whether is it true that the local police had switched off the automatic number plate recognition system for some reason, when that might have helped to detect the culprits of this terrible acid attack?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his warm welcome for the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. I will certainly ensure that the Home Secretary is aware of his concerns with regard to that police force. He will know that the next Foreign Office questions are on 12 December, but I will certainly ensure that both the Foreign Secretary and his lead Minister in the Commons are aware of his concerns about that terrible attack.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I am sure that the hearts of all of us in the House go out to those innocents who have suffered in Gaza and Israel, and who continue to suffer.
I, too, wish the House a very happy St Andrew’s day —to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us all. On this special day, I have first a word of thanks. The Leader of the House has described me in this Chamber and on social media as “sanctimonious”, “delusional”, “treacherous” and “slopey-shouldered”. I cannot say how much that language from a Tory is a badge of honour for me in Scotland, so I am grateful. Even more, her comments last week about Scotland’s drug policies were literally front-page news. The Daily Record described them as “an odd rant” —one of the more positive responses. One correspondent asked:
“Why does Penny hate Scotland so much—was she scared by the bagpipes as a child?”
We certainly look forward to her reply to that.
I am afraid that that answer from the Leader of the House illustrated comprehensively the attitudes and contempt on the Government side of the House for the people of Scotland. Maybe she needs to refresh her Government’s growing army of scriptwriters in Edinburgh —paid for, of course, by taxpayers’ money. No more fat- free, out-of-date Trumpian rants, please.
The Leader of the House has claimed that she takes an interest in the welfare of Scotland’s children, so obviously she will have seen the remarkable new assessment of the Scottish child payment posted on the London School of Economics website by a number of academics expert in social policy and economics. It says that the Scottish Government’s payments are
“predicted to have a monumental impact on reducing child poverty rates”,
and that they will
“transform Scotland from being one of the most unequal places to live in Europe to being one of the most equal.”
I feel that this House should be given an opportunity to debate it, as child poverty in England rockets. Given her stated interest, will she please confirm that she has read that assessment? If not, would she like me to send her a copy? Or maybe it is really all about clickbait and social media reach, and she does not care at all.
Penny Mordaunt
Let me add some more adjectives to what the hon. Lady described. The SNP really has surpassed itself this week in being self-obsessed, self-pitying and self-delusional. I have hit on why it is losing the case for independence: if Scotland were to take the leap, surely it would want its leaders to be the sort of people to step up, take responsibility and work hard to improve their opportunities, but despite the Scottish Government being one of the most powerful devolved Administrations in the world, they cannot accept responsibility for anything.
Given that the SNP has been in power for 16 years and in every single year its budget has been 20% higher than in England, who does the hon. Lady think is responsible for Scotland’s declining A&E performance, increased waiting times, 70% hike in drug-related deaths and 10% increase in the attainment gap? What about the 10 years that the Scottish Government have missed their cancer and housing targets, the rising crime, the soaring violence in schools, the lowest police numbers since 2008 or the 1,700 fewer teachers? Who does she think is responsible for the fact that some police forces do not even investigate certain offences, and are warning that soon they will not be able to attend call-outs?
Who does the hon. Lady think is responsible for plummeting international rankings in maths, literacy and science? Who does she think has snaffled more than half the £1 billion in extra tax that Scottish residents have to pay, which never reaches public services? She talks about Scottish schoolchildren, but who has chosen to pay so much less to Scottish schools per pupil than anywhere else in the UK? The autumn statement has given the Scottish Government an additional £545 million. We are about to hear their budget, and it is a pretty safe bet that it will not be spent wisely. By all means, the hon. Lady can send me what she likes, but there is a trend here. Scottish SNP supporters will soon be outnumbered by the pandas in her local zoo.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I want to raise the brilliance of the Fromehall Mill team and to encourage everyone to look at the Stroud Times article and video as they try to raise share support to buy the mill. It is a multi-business powerhouse with everything from bikes and bakeries to artificial intelligence and social action. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when the next round of community ownership fund bids will be announced? Can we have a debate in the House about smaller companies around the country that are using, selling and teaching AI technology, because they are doing an incredible job?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work to champion that brilliant local community initiative. We expect to be able to inform applicants to the third round of the community ownership fund by the end of December. She will know that Levelling Up, Housing and Communities questions are on Monday, where she may wish to make the case again.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business debates for Thursday 7 December. Let me give her early notice that if we are awarded time on Thursday 14 December, the Committee will intend to schedule debates on knife crime and the potential merger of Vodafone and Three. Is the Leader of the House considering giving the Backbench Business Committee any time in the week beginning Monday 18 December? If she is, we would love to know as soon as possible so that we can allocate debates and let Members know. I am glad to say that the Committee was re-established this week and is up and running, but we already have a backlog of debates, with 13 on our waiting list. It is good that we have plenty of business to come.
The Go North East bus industrial action continues, with very few buses running for weeks and, on many routes, not at all. That is having a huge detrimental impact on our local economy and jobs, and on the learning of students who cannot get to their local further education colleges such as Gateshead College in my constituency. Students who struggled to make up the learning lost during covid are being hit again, since they are unable to attend at all without incurring massive additional expense. Can we have a debate in Government time about introducing a compensation scheme from public transport providers that are singularly failing in their service delivery obligations?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advert for forthcoming debates. It is good to know that the Backbench Business Committee is busy. I will certainly let him know as soon as possible about the week of 18 December. He will know that we always try to give as much notice as possible.
I am very sorry to hear about his ongoing constituency issue. That is why we believe minimum service standards in vital sectors—transport is one of them—are so important. I will make sure that the Transport Secretary has heard about that ongoing situation. It is very well understood that students from lower socioeconomic groups will be disproportionately affected by such action.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
May we have a debate on decisions by probation and prison services to release on licence? Last Friday, my constituent Levi Kent was stabbed to death. The man charged with his murder was sentenced to two years in prison for wounding with intent just in January this year and was released on licence in September. Will my right hon. Friend back my calls for a serious case review into the licensing decision and monitoring, which may have freed someone who should be in prison to murder?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say how appalled we are to hear of that situation. Our thoughts are with my hon. Friend’s constituents and all those affected by this appalling tragedy. The Lord Chancellor is aware of this case. I am sure it will need to be subject to a review into what happened in this instance, but I know the Lord Chancellor’s door is always open to her and I think he may have already contacted her. I thank her for all she is doing in her constituency in the aftermath of this appalling event.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Cases of rickets in children, which is associated with malnutrition, have risen by over 700% in the last two years. My Healthy Start Scheme (Take-Up) (No. 2) Bill would have prevented over 157,000 babies, children and pregnant mothers from missing out on essential food and vitamins, but the Government rejected it. Can we please have an urgent debate on why the Government have dragged our children into Victorian levels of poverty?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that there are over 500,000 fewer children living in absolute poverty under this Administration, and that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) has been doing incredible work, bringing together Government Departments to focus on the early years and to create much more effective pathways at a local level for children who are particularly vulnerable.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate in Government time on the effectiveness of the process of calling in? Although the mechanism technically exists to help in planning cases, such as the one I am dealing with in relation to proposals for two drive-through fast food outlets on a busy highways interchange near Risley in my constituency, I fear that in practice the process of calling in does not work as it should and needs urgent reform.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for all she is doing to make sure that the views of her constituents are heard in such matters. She will know that the next Levelling Up, Housing and Communities questions will be on 4 December. I invite her to raise it directly with the Secretary of State. I will also make sure that he has heard what she has said today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Jim Shannon. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”]
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You caught me off guard there, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much for bringing me in early.
In every one of our constituencies, across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we have girlguiding groups, which we greatly support as they do wonderful work with girls of all ages. It is therefore with much concern that I ask the Leader of the House, very kindly, whether we may have a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House on the proposed devastating decision by Girlguiding UK to sell off its UK activity centres and to stop direct delivery of girlguiding in British overseas territories and on UK military bases. It will have a catastrophic impact, not just here but across the seas, on young women in the British family, which we all want to preserve and retain.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his early question this week. I think that would be an excellent topic for a Backbench Business debate. Many Members were agreeing with him as he outlined the issues. I know that one of the problems is that the guiding community does not feel that it was properly consulted in advance of the decision being taken, and I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have written to the board to question it. I think an airing on the Floor of the House or in Westminster Hall would be welcomed.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I know my right hon. Friend is as shocked as I am by some of the working practices of SSE in providing power to commercial premises. My constituent Philip Liddell of ACE Liftaway has paid £73,000 on deposit to SSE, but because of SSE’s delays with SSE’s solicitors, it has now asked him for an additional £50,000 to move an electricity substation on his commercial premises—an increase of 69%. Mr Liddell did not cause the delay, but he has no choice but to pay up. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate in this Chamber to discuss SSE’s working practices and how it is holding people to ransom?
Penny Mordaunt
That is a shocking case. As I would normally do, I shall write to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, but I am sure that SSE’s diligent public affairs department is listening to business questions, is terribly shocked to hear about the situation, and will get in touch with my right hon. Friend or her constituent before 3 o’clock, when I put my letters in the postbox. I hope that she will keep me posted on progress.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Reading gaol has been empty for 10 years now, and there has been a strong local campaign to turn the historic prison into an arts and heritage hub. The campaign is supported by me and the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), by our local council and by many others. The Ministry of Justice promised us an update this autumn on this important project, but sadly, none has yet been forthcoming. Will the Leader of the House raise the matter with the Justice Secretary?
Penny Mordaunt
I fully understand why the local community wants that heritage building to be brought into use, and it has an arts connection through some of its former inmates. Given that the next MOJ questions is in the new year, I shall certainly raise it with the Lord Chancellor and his team, and ask them to update the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I recently visited the Falkland Islands, at the invitation of the Falkland Islands Government. A subject that arose while we were there is the complete lack of broadband and internet connectivity. I was unable to receive or reply to emails, or look at anything on the web. This is holding back individuals and, in particular, business opportunities in the Falklands. Will the Government arrange a debate to explore how we can improve broadband and internet connectivity in overseas territories?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and many Members who have visited the Falkland Islands will fully understand what she means. In addition to stifling economic opportunities, it is a particular problem for the spouses of our serving personnel out there, whose ability to remain economically active is very limited by this situation. I shall certainly make sure that all the relevant Departments hear what she has said, and we will see what they can do to rectify the situation.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The welfare of animals is hugely important to many of my constituents, and they were pleased to see the announcement of the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill in the King’s Speech, although they would have liked it to go further and cover issues such as puppy smuggling. When can we expect the Bill to be presented to the House and its Second Reading?
Penny Mordaunt
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s approval of that Bill. He will know that we are still committed to the other measures that were in our manifesto. We will just be doing them in other ways, such as fulfilling our commitment on primates through secondary legislation. He will not be surprised to hear me say that further business will be announced in the usual way, but it is good to know that he will be supporting the Government on these measures.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
When can we have a debate on the World Health Organisation’s pandemic preparedness treaty and the associated international health regulations? Does the Leader of the House realise that there is a lot of concern across the country that this treaty will result in a loss of personal liberty and a real challenge to our sovereignty as a Parliament?
Penny Mordaunt
I shall certainly make sure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has heard my hon. Friend’s concerns on this matter. I know that many Members have an interest in pandemics, which do not respect borders. International co-operation is needed, but there will be concerns about how the World Health Organisation has responded to particular situations. I know the House will want to scrutinise such measures in detail.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
My constituent, Mr Jones, had his car written off by a third-party insurer in December 2022. Due to an insurance loophole, Mr Jones has been forced to settle the car hire costs because his insurer, Admiral, booked the car hire in his name and not through Admiral. Nine months on, Admiral is still refusing to cover the costs and the third-party insurer says it has no liability, so Mr Jones is left thousands of pounds out of pocket because Admiral did not do its job properly. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers in the Department for Transport or the Department for Business and Trade to try to rectify this loophole, so that nobody else is left short-changed by insurance companies that simply dodge the rules?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about that case. I will raise it with the relevant Departments but, again, I hope the public affairs team at Admiral has heard his question. This is a competitive market, and we have legislated to improve competition on such matters. If it has not already, I hope the public affairs team will be in touch with the hon. Gentleman to discuss what recompense could be made.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The record 1,455 police officers in Bedfordshire are extremely welcome. Can the Home Office reassure the chief constable of Bedfordshire that apprehending illegal and dangerous motorcyclists who terrorise communities is what the Government and, indeed, the people of Bedfordshire want him to do? One young man has already lost his life and another has suffered life-changing injuries as a result of this behaviour. Roads and footpaths need to be kept safe for adults and children.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for all he is doing in the wake of these tragic incidents. I will make sure the Home Secretary has heard his concerns about the action that his local police may or may not be taking. This kind of antisocial behaviour causes misery for many people, which is why, through our antisocial behaviour action plan, we have committed £160 million to help local authorities make high streets, footpaths and so on much safer for their communities. The police have powers to deal with these situations, and we expect them to be used.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
This weekend marks small business Saturday, and I look forward to visiting our wonderful Christmas market in Bath, which brings in £50 million for the local area. Anyone who has not been to Bath at Christmas should please come. It is absolutely magical.
I am pleased that footfall in Bath is above pre-pandemic levels. However, many UK businesses are struggling to recover. This year has seen the most company insolvencies since 2009, and the autumn statement offered no energy support for businesses. Can we have a ministerial statement on what the Government will do to stop businesses closing this winter?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for the advert for small business Saturday; I am sure that all Members of this House will be involved in it, celebrating the incredible entrepreneurial organisations and individuals in their constituencies. A number of measures were set out in the autumn statement to help our high streets and, in particular, the hospitality, retail and leisure sectors. We recognise that they are the backbone of this economy and they are often the focal point for many other services and social interactions in our communities. They should be treasured and I hope that everyone does that this Saturday.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
One reason why the good people of Gedling voted to leave the European Union was to take back control of our borders. There have been several high-profile and complex challenges in doing that, be it dealing with the emergence of criminal gangs or complicated legal proceedings. So may we have a statement to set out the progress the Government have made on this issue since we left the EU?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He will know that progress is being made on this matter: boat crossings are down by 33%; the legacy backlog is down by 42%; asylum decision processing has increased by 250%; returns are up by 29%; and immigrants are 43% less likely to be in receipt of any form of state benefits. Since we left the EU, we have been working to change our systems. In December 2020, we ended free movement—that was opposed by the Labour party—and changed access to benefits. In April last year, we passed the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to deter entry into the UK and to help us to remove people who have no right to be here. In December last year, we signed the deal with Albania, reducing the number of people coming here by 90%. In May, we introduced measures to reduce the rise in the number of students bringing dependants and to stop students switching out of the student route. In July, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 became law, although, again, it was opposed by the Labour party—70 times. Again that legislation is helping us to remove people who should not be here and to speed up removals. In October, we opened a consultation on capping the numbers that we would take from safe and legal routes. More legislation will come to the Floor of this House imminently, particularly to enable the Rwanda plan to be put into full effect—no doubt, it will be opposed by the Labour party. Now that we have greater control, we should use those controls.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Government Chief Whip is a Minister but, by convention, does not make statements from the Dispatch Box. So will the Leader of the House please give confirmation on accusations made by the GB News presenter who also has a side hustle as the hon. Member for Ashfield about being effectively offered a bribe in his role as a Member of Parliament? I know this was reported to the Government Chief Whip, but have they reported that allegation to the police for proper investigation?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point; this is a serious matter. I am not aware of the situation that he refers to, but if these matters were being investigated by the police, it would probably not be wise to comment on them on the Floor of the House.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Before I ask my question, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me declare an interest, as a Cornish fishwife. The Cornish inshore fleets, particularly the under-10 metre fleet, are alarmed at proposals for a potential ban on the landing of pollock in the next round of negotiations for fisheries quota. The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation and the Cornish fishermen I know tell me that pollock is the staple for much of the inshore fleet, parts of which rely on it entirely. Sadly, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has so far not listened to the suggested compromises that have been tabled, which include keeping the fishery open for just line-caught pollock. Therefore, on behalf of all six Cornish MPs, including myself, may I ask for a debate in Government time on the potential impact that this ban is likely to have on the already precarious livelihoods of our Cornish fishermen?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point on a subject close to her heart. She will know that since we left the EU there have been good opportunities for our fishing communities. In one instance, a fishing port not far away from her has seen its annual sales go from £40 million to £70 million. This should be a success story and, of course, what benefits the fishing community benefits hospitality, leisure, retail and many other things. She will know that there will be an opportunity to raise this matter with the Secretary of State on 7 December and I urge her to do so.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Today is Fuel Poverty Awareness Day, and I thank National Energy Action for its work ensuring everyone can have a warm, safe and healthy home. I recently met with Friends of the Earth Luton, as part of its United for Warm Homes campaign, who told me that in my constituency there are 36 energy crisis hotspots, representing over 50% of neighbourhoods in Luton South, where below average incomes meet high fuel bills. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on an emergency home insulation programme to start in neighbourhoods hit hardest by the energy crisis?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and I shall ensure her suggestion is heard by the Secretary of State. She will know about the financial support that we have given households, as well as recent measures in the autumn statement, that mean over £100 billion in support has been provided. On average, low- income households have received £2,500 a year to enable them to cope with higher energy bills. Through her auspices, her constituents could make use of a number of insulation schemes, including those in the private and public sectors. I will ask the Department to ensure she is aware of all those schemes.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
We often have debates about parliamentary standards for MPs, which I have contributed to, but we rarely debate the standards adopted by political candidates. They are not elected, and most never will be, yet that large group of people has a significant effect on the public perception of our politics and politicians. If we want to improve standards in politics, that begins at the grassroots level of political activism. During my time as an MP, there have been far too many instances of behaviour by my political opponents that have failed any definition of acceptable standards, or even legal ones. Can we have a debate about how we raise the bar throughout our political system, including local party associations and candidates for office?
Penny Mordaunt
I hope what my hon. Friend says will be met by agreement from both sides of the House, particularly from party leaders. I happen to know that my hon. Friend has suffered appallingly at the hands of a particular individual and I urge him to raise that matter with the relevant party leader. We should take these things seriously. I know from my own party that our candidates are required to sign up to the Nolan principles of public life, which is matched with training. This week our sitting MPs and parliamentary candidates received training from the Antisemitism Policy Trust. This is an incredibly important point and I hope we will all hold our colleagues, whether they are MPs or prospective parliamentary candidates, to account on this matter. I hope that my hon. Friend’s particular situation is resolved swiftly.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
Last Sunday, I was proud to march against antisemitism, standing shoulder to shoulder with British Jews alongside my friends and constituents. I welcome the increase in funding to the Community Security Trust, as laid out in the autumn statement, and thank it for keeping my constituents safe. However, since the pogrom of October 7, we have seen a staggering 1,300% increase in antisemitism, with many Jews no longer feeling safe in Britain. With that in mind, can we have a debate in Government time on tackling antisemitism and hate speech, to ensure people of all communities feel safe?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members who joined that march or showed solidarity to the Jewish community on that day. We must all continue to do that when the headlines disappear when the situation is resolved, as I hope it will be soon. I met with the Jewish Leadership Council yesterday to look at what more we can do. As well as showing support to the Jewish community, we need to show support to other faith communities who want to do the right thing, stand in solidarity together, and continue to work at strengthening ties. We must support individuals who reach out to other faith groups in their communities, and ensure that they do not face intimidation.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
As we continue to celebrate Disability History Month, may I raise again the lack of any disabled lift at Chalkwell station in my constituency? It is an absolute disgrace. It is the main station giving access to our beaches, and with 40 steep steps it is completely inaccessible to anyone with a disability or with a pushchair. I have raised this matter in the House five times now. This year I have been promised twice that it will be sorted out. Given that rail companies have a duty under the Equality Act 2010, itself a consolidating Act, to make reasonable adjustments, please may we have a debate in Government time on when the provisions will be enforced in a timely manner?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is a diligent campaigner on this matter, rightly so, and her campaigning has yielded some results: I understand that the Department for Transport has said that Network Rail expects to award the construction contract early next month for that work. It is a very bad situation that needs to be rectified. In the meantime, disabled passengers, if they cannot use that station, can contact c2c, which will arrange alternative transport at no additional cost, but, of course, that is not optimum. With the hon. Lady’s campaigning, I hope that optimum is not far away.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Last week, I raised with the Leader of the House the case of Teagan Appleby, as did her Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke). We did, as a result, have a meeting with the Minister, so I thank the Leader of the House for that. However, both the hon. Lady and I asked for an emergency intervention by the Department. This is day 37 of seizures and, last night at 7.30, Teagan’s mum, Emma, was told that there is nothing else that can be done. A brain operation would not address Teagan’s seizures. She currently has access to an oil, which her parents must pay for while she is in an NHS hospital. She needs another oil. I passed Emma’s number to the officials on Monday. I have seen the Minister in these corridors, but nothing has happened. I have asked for an emergency intervention. It is now Thursday. We need one and I urge the Leader of the House to make that intervention on my behalf and on behalf of everybody who is supporting Teagan.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her ongoing work on what is a very difficult case. I shall ensure, immediately after these questions, that the new Secretary of State has heard what she has said. As she will know, I am not aware of what the healthcare professionals caring for her constituent are saying that she needs, but if it is something that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care can intervene and act on, I am sure that she would want to do so.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Colleagues will be aware of the brilliant Bluebell Wood Children’s Hospice in Rother Valley, and the work that it does supporting children and their families through some of the worst times imaginable. I wish to highlight the £25,000 raised for Bluebell Wood by eight of my constituents in Maltby—Conner Wesley, Rob Pryke, Craig Edwards, Matt Whitehead, Corey Mangham, Chris Daley, Danny Bearman and Caleb Wedge—in their coast-to-coast walk across England, raising two and a half times their target and making sure that Bluebell Wood has the resources that it needs to help those who need it the most in their time of need.
May we have a debate, in Government time, to discuss what this Government can do to help our charitable constituents support hospices such as Bluebell Wood?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for getting the names of his fantastic constituents on record, and I thank them for all the work that they have done to raise such a huge sum for this very important children’s hospice. We all know the incredible work that these organisations do and how valued they are by all who come into contact with them. Were my hon. Friend to apply for a debate on this, I am sure that it would be well attended.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
A few short years ago, my brother died by himself, at home and alone, having taken an overdose of drugs following a life of serious, harmful addiction. Last week, the Leader of the House stood at the Dispatch Box and dismissed the pilot in Scotland of drug consumption facilities. She dismissed them as somewhere safe and warm for heroin users—people like my brother—to take their heroin, but they are healthcare facilities designed to help people with addiction problems, and turn their lives around. She did it in the most ignorant and contemptuous way possible, so I invite her to my constituency to meet the families who are thankful that a pilot is finally taking place. Maybe she will then come back and make an apology at the Dispatch Box. Given her love of clicks, if she puts it on Twitter I will even share it.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman can go and look at last week’s Hansard, because that is not what I said. I was actually saying that that would be a legacy of the Scottish National party. What I criticised the Scottish National party for was having let down a generation of children by destroying an education system, reducing the number of teachers, starving schools of resources, widening the attainment gap and many other things. I am genuinely sorry for the hon. Gentleman’s loss, and I know a great deal about the particular pilot, which the Government support the Scottish Government’s doing, but his obligations to the children of Scotland are important, and the Scottish Government are failing them. I will not apologise for holding him and his party to account.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Levelling up round 3 resulted in over £1 billion of support for 55 projects around the country, yet not many of them were in the south-east. Gillingham high street in my constituency urgently needs that funding and regeneration. The autumn statement also included funding for town centres, not many of which were in the south-east. Levelling up is about levelling up the north, south, east and west. Will the Leader of the House clarify when we will have a statement regarding round 4 of levelling-up funding? Can we please ensure that that funding goes to all parts of the country, including areas such as Gillingham in the south-east, because we urgently need our fair share of resources, allocated on a merits basis?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for projects and funding going to his constituency. He will know that the levelling-up agenda has been at the heart of successive Conservative Administrations. The next Question Time will be on Monday, and I hope that my hon. Friend will attend to put those questions directly to the Secretary of State.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
December 9th marks the 75th anniversary of the signing of the genocide convention. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, and we will mark this time by calling for a strategy. I invite you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, and all Members present to come to a drop-in that we will hold next Wednesday in Portcullis House Room U from 12.30 pm to 2.30 pm, to talk to experts about how, as parliamentarians, when we say, “Never again,” we can really mean that. Will the Leader of the House support a debate on this issue?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for advertising her event. I shall certainly try to come along, subject to my duties in this House. It is incredibly important that hon. Members know what steps we can take, and what policies we can put forward, to ensure that these things never happen again, and to deepen our knowledge of such things as the international definitions and the appropriate terms to use for different situations. She is providing the House with a timely education session.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
At a recent football match in the Sheffield and Hallamshire women’s football league, a young woman was seriously injured following a collision with a male player—a trans woman—on the opposing team. As has been well publicised in the national media, a number of other teams in that local women’s league have withdrawn from fixtures against that particular team out of concern for the safety of their players. Unlike other sporting associations, the FA has not yet acted to ban biological males from playing in women’s football, which is threatening the safety and the fairness of the women’s game at a time when its popularity is rightly rising. Will my right hon. Friend give time for a debate on women’s football, and the role of the FA in ensuring the safety of female players?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. When I was Minister for Women and Equalities, I raised it with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in part because FIFA’s own rules do not allow biological men and biological women on the same pitch together. The FA has different rules for different levels and categories of the game. I know that there are local teams here who have trans women playing on them and they are very valued, so I think it depends on the level of the game—that is certainly the response that I received at the time from such sporting bodies. The issue is receiving new focus, however, and clearly the constituents she mentions are concerned about it, so I urge her to raise it both with the Equalities Minister and at CMS questions, which are on 11 January.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
I am delighted to hear that this is Whistleblowing Awareness Week, because some weeks ago I was given access to 5 million confidential New Zealand Government vaccination records by a whistleblower. The data was anonymised and passed to scientists and data analysts in the UK and other countries. I will share a fraction of that analysis: the mortality rate in New Zealand rose post vaccination for five months, regardless of what time of year the vaccine was taken. That rate of mortality increase rose with every subsequent booster that was taken. From the data, the chances of the excess deaths in New Zealand being random and not due to the experimental vaccines has been calculated at one in 100 billion. It is the vaccines that are causing excess deaths in New Zealand, just as it is the vaccines that are causing excess deaths in the UK and elsewhere. Can we please have a statement now from the Government, suspending these experimental mRNA vaccines before any more death and harm is done to our population?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this question. I think in New Zealand over 11 million doses of the covid-19 vaccine were administered. In England and Wales it was 150 million, and it is estimated that over 120,000 deaths were prevented by covid vaccines in England up to the end of September 2021. I disagree with what he says about the critical issue of vaccinations; I think they are life-saving. The report to which he refers has been debunked around the world, and he fails to mention the part that states that while an adverse event
“can occur after vaccination, that does not mean it was caused by vaccination.”
It is incredibly important that we look at the facts in this matter. We have the covid inquiry going on at the moment and, thanks to the work that our science base did in producing those vaccines, we were able to save millions of lives. It is incredibly important that we combat any misinformation about the vaccine.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Leader of the House is more than aware that Barry in my constituency has not only the best beach front, but the best coastline in the whole of the country. Barry is to be enhanced even further by a successful levelling-up bid of £20 million to deliver a marina for the town, following a long-standing campaign. May we have a debate in the Chamber on regeneration in general, not only to consider the benefits that a marina will bring but, more importantly, on attracting further investment and using the levelling-up fund successfully to create quality jobs and better facilities in Wales’s largest town?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing that very large sum for his constituency. He is right that, in addition to the immediate facilities that it will enable to be constructed, there will be immense business opportunities for hospitality, leisure, retail and many other things. I think all hon. Members who have heard him will be very interested in visiting and seeing the results.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
This Friday is Romania’s national day, a chance to celebrate the contribution of Romania to European efforts to support Ukraine and to acknowledge the huge contribution that the British Romanian community make here. I was pleased last night to host 150 members of Romanian churches in the UK, including some of the most senior figures in the Romanian Christian community. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the contribution of Romania to the efforts to support Ukraine, and take this opportunity to praise the contributions of British Romanians to our country?
Penny Mordaunt
I say “Multe mulţumesc” to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Romania has made a huge contribution to our efforts with Ukraine, and I join him wholeheartedly in paying tribute to everything Romanians have done, as well as to the many levels of partnership between our two nations. I thank him very much for the advert, and I am sure that all Members of the House will send their good wishes for Romania’s national day.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Yesterday, the BBC announced that it was reducing the time allocation for the “Newsnight” programme. [Interruption.] The reason given was that it wants to concentrate more on online coverage and have more serious debate. The airwaves are not exactly short of talking heads. Would it be appropriate, notwithstanding the fact that the Media Bill is currently in Committee, to have a debate about the BBC and its role as a national broadcaster?
Penny Mordaunt
Hansard may not have picked up that there were mixed views to that news across the Chamber. Obviously, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent—it is up to the BBC to determine how it delivers its services—but it must ensure that it continues to provide the news content required to deliver its remit, as set out in the charter and the agreement. The first purpose of that is:
“To provide impartial news and information to help people to understand and engage with the world around them.”
The Government expect Ofcom, as the BBC’s independent regulator, to ensure that the BBC is robustly held to account in delivering its public services. If there were to be a debate, I am sure that it would be a very lively one.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
There has been a 26% reduction in the number of free-to-use ATMs in my constituency since July 2018, alongside a 30% reduction in the number of free-to-use ATMs across the UK over the past five years. An increasing number of ATMs are switching to the pay-to-use model because the interchange fee fails to cover the cost of maintaining the machines. I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that it is important to halt the decline of free-to-use ATMs, so will she make a statement on the need for interchange fees to rise to a level that properly covers the cost of providing and managing the UK’s free-to-use ATM network, particularly in the light of interest rate increases and the rising cost of labour and distribution?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Of course, this issue has a disproportionate impact on rural communities, where there is less choice of available ATMs. I shall certainly ensure that the Secretary of State has heard her concerns. If she were to apply for a debate, I am sure that it would be well attended.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
For over 10 years, 100 of my constituents at the Mill development in Ipswich have been in limbo, unable to move on with their lives, re-mortgage or sell their properties, because the Mill has deep structural and cladding problems. The previous creditor-freeholder was the National Asset Management Agency—the Irish entity created to recoup losses to the Irish taxpayer after the banking crisis. Some £15 million received from a court case was meant to be spent on cladding remediation, but NAMA, before it washed its hand of the development, took the vast bulk of that money. What has happened to it? We do not know. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is a deeply immoral way for that entity to behave? It has caused immense anxiety and distress to my constituents, who, after 10 years, feel that the situation has moved backwards, not forwards. Will she advise me on what steps I should take and on whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might raise the matter with his counterpart in Ireland?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about the ongoing situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Questions to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be on Monday, and he may wish to raise it directly with the Secretary of State then. Given the international dimension to the matter, I shall certainly ensure that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is briefed. If my hon. Friend would like to give me further information, I will ensure that it is passed to the relevant Minister.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
May we have a debate on BBC impartiality? Surely we cannot have BBC presenters using their on-air status to espouse fake news about Israel, or to make scurrilous suggestions about the Prime Minister’s motivations, as has been described in The Daily Telegraph today. It published a well researched piece of journalism on the subject, having trawled through the social media of some BBC journalists and personnel. Anti-Israel bile and bias is there for all to see. What are we going to do about the BBC?
Penny Mordaunt
I think we all want our national broadcaster to be the best in the world, and we want its editorial standards and policies, and those who work for it, to be the best in the world. The BBC is operationally independent, but I hope it will reflect on what has happened over the past few weeks. I hope it will look at what it can do, perhaps through training, and at what is happening with its editorial teams and those who work for it in the field, so that the British public can rely on getting impartial, good advice, produced to the highest journalistic standards. The BBC is usually very good at these sorts of things, but there are certainly questions that I, as a licence fee payer, would want answered in this respect.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
This is National Tree Week, and it is also 50 years since Conservative MP Sydney Chapman suggested the “Plant a Tree in ’73” campaign. It is even more important now that we preserve our woodland and plant productive forests for sustainable manufacturing and construction. What conversations has my right hon. Friend had with Cabinet colleagues on the deforestation due diligence legislation that we committed to in the Environment Act 2021, and on its progression through the House, and what other steps can I take to assist on this issue?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Sydney Chapman and his campaign; it is nice to know of the legacy that Members of this place can leave. My hon. Friend will know that we are committed to implementing the provisions that she mentioned at the earliest opportunity through secondary legislation. We also recognise that businesses need clarity on their obligations, so that they can prepare to meet them. Questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are on 7 December, next week, so she may wish to raise her point directly with the Secretary of State then.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
Although the Government’s decision to reduce air passenger duty has boosted regional aviation, further reform of public service obligation routes is still required if we are to maximise the use of regional airports, such as Blackpool airport. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on reforming PSOs, and may we have a debate on how we can support regional airports and regional aviation?
Penny Mordaunt
Regional airports are absolutely vital to local economies, and they are one of the things that make us very attractive to inward investors. This is an important matter. The hon. Member will know that he can raise it directly with the Secretary of State for Transport on 14 December, and I encourage him to do so.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I know that my right hon. Friend will share my concerns about teenage suicide. This week, David Smith and Hilary Rabbett, the parents of 17-year-old George, came to Parliament to launch their new charity, I’m George’s Mate. It seeks to raise awareness of mental health issues and to provide suicide prevention courses in schools and colleges. George tragically attempted suicide in May this year. He has been supported by his mates, who are regularly visiting him as he regains consciousness. Will my right hon. Friend join me in raising awareness of this incredible new charity, which will be of interest to colleagues right across the House? May we have a debate on what more can be done for our young people on suicide prevention?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for giving us all the opportunity to welcome I’m George’s Mate—it sounds like a wonderful initiative, and all credit and praise are due to his constituents David and Hilary for the work they are doing on that. He will know that the new five-year suicide prevention strategy for England, which was published in September, sets out our ambition to reduce suicides within two and a half years, together with over 100 actions to make that happen. However, we will only be able to do so through the likes of David and Hilary and that grassroots action, providing the support that people need, including peer support. We have backed our plan with £10 million in a new grant fund, and it was precisely those sorts of community organisations and social enterprises that we were thinking of when we set it up.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Nineteen years ago today, at the age of nine years old, I woke up to the news that my beautiful mum had died. She had an illness —she was an alcoholic. My story of this loss through addiction is not an isolated case. While I welcome the Government’s harm to hope strategy and the funding for local authorities, more needs to be done to provide wraparound care and support for the families of those who have an addiction. Will my right hon. Friend support a debate in Government time to see what further actions can be taken to support people with addictions, so that we stop others losing loved ones far sooner than they should?
Penny Mordaunt
Can I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and say that we are all thinking of her today in particular? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] She will know better than anyone the impact that alcoholism and its health aspects can have on families, and on children in particular. I thank her for sharing her personal story today, which will help raise awareness and shine a spotlight on the importance of these services.
My hon. Friend rightly acknowledges that the Government have made additional investment in this area. I also salute the healthcare professionals around the country who are doing fantastic work, introducing alcohol screening services at accident and emergency and elsewhere in areas where there is high prevalence of these issues. We need to do more on that front: the Government are tackling a number of issues in our legislative programme, including smoking, but alcohol abuse remains a huge concern for many people in this nation, and we must continue to be vigilant and see what more we can do to help families in that situation.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
In Rugby, we are doing our part to build the homes that the country needs for the future, and as a consequence, my constituency is the fastest growing in the west midlands. We have seen new schools and roads—all delivered ahead of schedule—but we need our local health provision to expand as well. On recent visits to Rugby, Health Ministers have heard the case for enhanced urgent and emergency care provision at Rugby’s Hospital of St Cross in order to support that growing population. May we have a debate to consider how all aspects of infrastructure may be delivered in a timely fashion?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work he and his constituents have been doing to help the regeneration of his local area. It is vital that local health services and other services can keep pace with such growth. As my hon. Friend knows, his local integrated care board has seen its funding increase substantially—it is over £1.6 billion this year. That ICB is best placed to make decisions about where that money needs to be spent, but I will also make sure that my hon. Friend’s concerns have been heard by the Secretary of State for Health, so that she may be able to help him and ensure that the provision he wishes to see is there, particularly in accident and emergency.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I am delighted that the Government have listened to me and responded positively to my campaigning for funding for the rural enterprise hub in my constituency, with the Chancellor awarding us £7 million as part of the autumn statement. That is a real shot in the arm for our rural community, providing jobs and an economic boost: it is truly levelling up in action. Levelling up should be for the whole of the United Kingdom—towns, cities and rural areas; north, south, east and west—which is exactly what this Conservative Government are ensuring. Can we please find time for a debate on the impact and benefits of levelling up for both rural and urban areas?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in his campaign, and I congratulate everyone who has worked on the rural enterprise hub in his constituency. He articulates absolutely correctly the ambition that was set out in the levelling up White Paper. He will know that the second rural-proofing report, “Delivering for rural England”, which was published in September last year, showed a vision for what levelling up would look like in areas such as his, and we are determined to deliver that. He will also know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in particular has done some further work on unleashing rural opportunity, and through that we will continue to build on all the work we did in the original White Paper. I encourage him to speak to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on Monday to further the additional asks I know he has.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I recently met representatives of the Bishopton Villages Action Group, who are concerned about plans for a raft of separate solar farms that would collectively cover almost 2,500 acres of this small community, changing the character of this beautiful rural area and taking away prime agricultural land. Will my right hon. Friend grant a debate in Government time on how we can ensure that the community impact of multiple solar farms in close proximity is given proper consideration in the planning process?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter, and I know that other Members in this House have similar views, so it is a prime candidate for a debate, and I would encourage him to apply for one. I know that many Members want to support campaigns and further activity to ensure that we are making best use of agricultural land, growing more and supporting our farmers and food producers. He is running a very important campaign, and if there is anything I can do to support him in that, ask and it shall be so.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in this Chamber on policing? We have seen systemic failures in the Met police, as evidenced to the Home Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, and West Midlands police has now in fact been put into special measures. Could we revisit the effectiveness of police and crime commissioners and how they hold police leadership to account? The system is clearly not quite working well in the midlands and London, and probably elsewhere.
Penny Mordaunt
This is a very serious matter. I understand that, under the police and crime commissioner’s watch, knife crime in the west midlands has increased by almost a fifth in the last year, and the police are failing in many other areas as well. I know my hon. Friend, like many others, supports Andy Street taking ownership of the West Midlands police. His constituents and others deserve better, and I know that this matter is being looked at by the Home Secretary, who has described it as a total “failure of leadership” from Labour’s West Midlands police crime and commissioner.
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill: Allocation of Time
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill—
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (15)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(8) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(9) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(10) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(15) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(16) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(17) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(18) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(19) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Ruth Edwards.)
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill
Thursday 30th November 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023 View all National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 November 2023 - (30 Nov 2023)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a landmark moment: the economy has turned a corner. Having rightly supported people through covid with £400 billion of spend and then £100 billion over the winter to support people with energy costs, we on the Government side of the House know that we have to pay back what we have borrowed. The Labour party opposed every single measure to do that, and every difficult decision, but because of those difficult decisions, we are in the position we are in today. Because of those difficult decisions, the Chancellor can put forward an autumn statement that focuses on growing our economy, supporting businesses and, crucially, cutting taxes, and that is what we are here to talk about today.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tell the House, for the record, how many Labour Back Benchers are here for this milestone debate?
Laura Trott
I think by my count none, which is unfortunate and I think speaks to their lack of the commitment to cutting tax that we have on this side of the House. The Bill will cut taxes for 29 million working people. It has three measures: the reduction in national insurance contributions in class 1 primary main rate; the reduction of the NICs class 4 main rate; and the removal of the requirement to pay class 2 NICs. We are prioritising national insurance for two key reasons. First, we want to put more money in the pockets of working families, and NICs are the most targeted way to do that. Secondly, better reward for work makes working more appealing, and the more people work, the more there is a boost in growth.
Let me take the House briefly through the measures in the Bill. The first is the reduction in the employee class 1 NICs main rate, which the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement. By reducing the main rate by two percentage points, from 12% to 10%, on earnings between £12,570 and £50,270, we will cut taxes for more than 27 million employees. That will save the average worker more than £450 a year, and they will see the benefit in their payslips right at the start of the new year, as this legislation will come into effect on 6 January.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister, and the Government, for what they are bringing forward. The cut in national insurance in the autumn statement is a welcome step, and my constituents tell me that. Unfortunately, many are also saying that the average working-class family, including many in my constituency, will still be facing the highest taxation levels. I am not being churlish, not for one second—I want to make that clear—but can the Minister encourage me and my constituents that there is more to offer from the autumn statement and that those people have more to gain?
Laura Trott
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to talk about this, because it is important. Taxes for the average worker will have gone down by £1,000 since 2010. We have not hidden from the fact that we had to make some very difficult decisions to pay back our covid debts, and those have fallen on the highest paid, because that is the value that we espouse as a party. Because of those difficult decisions, which were opposed every step of the way by the Opposition, we are able to cut taxes for everybody—that is what the values of Conservative Members are all about.
We will cut and reform national insurance contributions for the self-employed by cutting the class 4 rate by one percentage point from 9% to 8% from April 2024. Finally, we will remove the requirement for self-employed people with annual profits above the national income tax personal allowance of £12,570 to pay class 2 NICs, also from April 2024. Those who pay voluntarily will still be able to do so, and I assure hon. Members that low-paid self-employed people who make voluntary class 2 contributions will not pay more.
The Bill simplifies the system for self-employed taxpayers, bringing it closer to the system for employees, and not only putting more money in their pockets but reducing the administrative burden. As a result of changes in the Bill, a self-employed person who is currently required to pay class 2 NICs every week will save at least £192 per year. Taken together with the cut to class 4 NICs, an average self-employed person on £28,200 will see a total saving of £350 in 2024-25. That will benefit around 2 million people. Importantly, those with profits under the small profits threshold of £6,725 and who pay class 2 NICs voluntarily to get access to contributory benefits, including the state pension, will continue to be able to do so.
The Government are committed to tax cuts that reward and incentivise work, and that grow the economy in a sustainable way. These measures do just that. The Office for Budget Responsibility states that the autumn statement package will reduce inflation next year, and measures in the Bill will be worth more than £9 billion a year, the largest ever cut to employee and self-employed national insurance.
A vote for these measures is a vote to give 29 million people an average yearly saving of more than £450. These reductions in tax will not only benefit those in work; according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, they will lead to the equivalent of almost 100,000 people entering work, because they will ensure that work pays and will drive more people to seek employment.
There is another point here, and that is about choices. I hope that the Opposition will support these measures today, if only for the reasons I have already set out. The public support them and business supports them. If the Opposition do not support them, it will represent a choice. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has often spoken of her fiscal rules that will have debt falling in the final year of the next Parliament. At the autumn statement last week, the OBR confirmed that public sector net debt is set to fall in that final year, with headroom of £30 billion. Implementing the permanent tax relief for business investment, plus the legislation before the House today, represents a choice to use around £20 billion of that £30 billion of headroom on these measures.
There is a path here, if the Opposition want it, to deliver the £28 billion a year. They could use up every penny of headroom, reject full expensing and reject today’s tax cuts, but what they cannot do—what the OBR, the financial markets and every secondary school maths textbook will not let them do—is vote for our policies today, borrow an extra £28 billion a year and still meet their own fiscal rules. The numbers simply do not add up. That is what I mean by choices.
The Opposition have to choose. Do they stick to their plan to borrow an extra £28 billion a year, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies says risks sending inflation, interest rates and mortgage rates up, or do they choose our plan to bring inflation down, taxes down and debt down? They cannot have it both ways. If the shadow Treasury team has no answer today, it will fall to the Leader of the Opposition to grasp the issue. Rather than anonymous briefings to the BBC over the weekend, he will have to make a choice. That is the difference between being the party of opposition and being the party of government: credibility with the public over credibility with their activists.
This Bill represents the choices made on this side of the House. I have spoken at length about why we have made them. I hope that the shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), can inform us honestly and straightforwardly on which side of those choices his party will land. If he cannot, we can all conclude, as Lord Mandelson himself said only a few months back, that Labour is not ready to be the party of government. I commend the Bill to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Whatever the Chancellor said last week and whatever the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said today, the truth is that the Conservatives cannot hide from the facts when it comes to the level of taxation in Britain today. The inescapable truth facing families across the UK, and the truth that the Government cannot hide from, is that under the Conservatives, the tax burden in Britain is on course to reach its highest level since the second world war. As the Resolution Foundation made clear in its blunt analysis of measures in the autumn statement, personal taxes are going up, not down.
Any cuts to personal taxation announced last week are more than eclipsed by hikes in tax that this Government had announced before; the freezing of national insurance and income tax thresholds for six years is now expected to cost taxpayers £45 billion. They are not just giving with one hand and taking with the other; it is worse than that. As I said last week, it is as if the Conservatives have nicked someone’s car but then expect them to be grateful when they pay for the bus fare home.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the context in which the autumn statement was made? Was he not a cheerleader for the furlough scheme and the financial support provided during covid and the energy price shock? Does he recognise that that needed to be recovered but, because of the difficult decisions we have taken, we are now in a position to reduce taxes?
James Murray
The context in which the autumn statement was made was 13 years of Conservative economic failure. There have been 25 tax rises in this Parliament alone and the tax burden is set to rise to its highest since the second world war. That is the context that the British people are facing, and that is the context in which the autumn statement was made.
The impact on people across Britain is brutal. As a result of the Conservatives’ decisions on personal taxation, households will be left facing an average tax rise of £1,200 from the Government. Looking across all taxes, we know that, by the end of the decade, taxes in the UK will have risen by the astonishing equivalent of £4,300 for every household in the country. That is the context in which we are debating the Bill’s Second Reading.
Let me make it clear for the benefit of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that Labour welcomes the cut in national insurance that the Bill includes. We believe that taxes on working people are too high, and we have long said that we want to see them come down when they can be cut in an economically and fiscally responsible way. We will support the Bill, but we believe that the Government need to be honest with people. The Conservatives need to be honest and admit that they are responsible for the biggest hit to living standards on record, and that this has been the biggest tax-raising Parliament that our country has ever seen.
This is not the first time we have debated national insurance rates in this Parliament. Just over two years ago, I stood here, opposite the Financial Secretary’s predecessor —more accurately, his predecessor’s predecessor’s predecessor’s predecessor—to debate Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Levy Bill. That Bill introduced, in 2022-23, a 1.25 percentage point increase in national insurance contributions for employees and employers—an increase that we rightly described at the time as
“a new tax on working people and their jobs.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 845.]
Hon. Members may recall that when the Government published that legislation, their own tax information and impact note on that tax rise confirmed:
“There may be an impact on family formation, stability or breakdown as individuals, who are currently just about managing financially, will see their disposable income reduce.”
We opposed that legislation, and it was clear to a wide coalition, including the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI and the TUC, that it was the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time.
As time went on, the then Chancellor—now the Prime Minister—realised that he had made a mistake. He tried to make a partial U-turn in last year’s spring statement by increasing national insurance thresholds, yet the Institute for Fiscal Studies quickly pointed out that that move would not undo damage already done. Its director, Paul Johnson, confirmed:
“Almost all workers will be paying more tax on their earnings in 2025 than they would have been paying without this parliament’s reforms to income tax and national insurance contributions, despite the tax-cutting measures announced today.”
Later last year, the 1.25 percentage point national insurance rise was finally reversed, yet, as we know only too well, any benefits that many families may have hoped to gain from that U-turn were rapidly eclipsed by the Tory mortgage penalty, following the Conservatives’ catastrophic mishandling of the economy. The impact of that recklessness is still with us today, as mortgage holders across the country face a hit of £220 a month when their current deals end.
The truth is that whatever the Conservatives do, they keep making working people worse off. That has been true over the 13 years that they have been in power, it has been true over the past two years of changes to national insurance, and it will be true after the Bill becomes law.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been trying desperately to paint today’s national insurance cuts as the answer to the cost of living crisis. Last week, she claimed that
“taxes for the average worker have gone down by £1,000”.—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 360.]
I believe she repeated that claim today, yet analysis by the House of Commons Library makes it clear that national insurance and income tax on the median earner will rise from £6,112 in 2010-11 to £7,364 in 2024-25. Will she confirm—or will the Financial Secretary confirm on her behalf—whether she stands by her earlier remarks and explain exactly how those figures were calculated? The experience of people across Britain is very different from the picture that she is trying to paint.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Perhaps the answer to the question of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury is that the income tax starting point has doubled from around £6,000 to more than £12,000. That provides the extra £1,000 take-home pay every year that he is puzzled about.
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman promoted me inadvertently, as I am the shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but I thank him for his vote of confidence. Our point is that today’s tax cut, which we support, must be seen in the context of 13 years of the Conservatives in power: 13 years of economic failure, with 25 tax rises in this Parliament alone and the tax burden on course to be the highest since the second world war. Whatever the Chief Secretary to the Treasury might say, people across Britain are experiencing life very differently from how she paints it.
However welcome the measures in the Bill may be, they come after 25 tax rises in this Parliament alone. The British people will not be fooled. No matter what statistics the Government contrive or the gloss they try to put on their record, people across Britain need ask themselves just one question: do they and their families feel better off now than they did 13 years ago? The answer is a resounding no. At last week’s autumn statement, we learned not only that the tax burden is still on track to be the highest since the war and that inflation has been revised upward across the entire forecast period, but that growth rates have been cut for next year, the year after, and the year after that.
It took some gall for the Chancellor to say that he was delivering an “autumn statement for growth”—comments repeated today by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—since the Office for Budget Responsibility reports that next year’s growth rate has been cut by more than half. Low growth has dogged our country for the past 13 years. The autumn statement makes it clear that the Conservatives still have no plan to get our economy growing as it should. Since 2010, under the Conservatives, GDP growth has been stuck at an average of 1.5% a year, down from 2% in the Labour years before. If the economy had continued to grow for the past 13 years at the rate it grew under Labour, it would be £150 billion larger—the equivalent of £5,000 per household every year.
As we all know, because of that low growth, the Conservatives have had to keep putting up taxes on working people. Low growth and high taxes have made people across Britain worse off. That is the reality of the past 13 years of the Conservatives in power. The Bill’s tax cuts cannot even remotely compensate for the damage they have done to our economy and the living standards of people across Britain.
Although we support today’s tax cut, we know that our country needs economic growth to make working people better off and to get our public services off the floor. That is the plan from Labour. We are the party of fiscal responsibility and of business, with a plan to make working people better off. Come the next election—it cannot come soon enough—people across Britain will look at the Conservatives’ record and the bleak achievements they will claim. In this Parliament, real disposable household incomes will have fallen the furthest, following 20 years of pay stagnation. Real average earnings are not forecast to return to their 2008 peak until 2028. Four million people have been dragged into paying tax, with 3 million more in the higher rate—the biggest hit to income on record. Next year, real-terms income will be 3.5% lower than it was before the pandemic. This the biggest tax-raising Parliament Britain has ever seen.
Whatever the Conservatives say or do, and whichever way they try to twist and turn, reality has caught up with them. We have been here before. We remember the Conservatives promising to cut income tax ahead of the 1997 election. Back then, people decided that it was too little, too late, coming as it did after 22 tax rises in that Parliament. As this Parliament approaches its end, today’s Conservative party is showing itself to be even more divided and desperate than in the late ’90s. As the next election draws nearer and the Conservatives try to cling on to power, the risk grows that they will get more desperate with their promises and more reckless with taxpayers’ money. Britain needs a plan to get the economy growing and make working people better off. That is what Labour is offering and why a general election cannot come soon enough.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I am not sure that I have ever heard a more grudging shadow Front Bench speech on measures that the Opposition support. They support them so wholeheartedly today that none of their Back Benchers has shown up to speak to them.
I endorse the measures in the legislation. The Chief Secretary is right to point to the turning point that the UK economy has reached this year, thanks to the steps taken a year ago to ensure that fiscal policy did not cut across the central bank’s aim to reduce inflation to its target. Thanks to that, inflation, which might have been as high as 13% last year, has fallen to 4.6%. That means that today, the earnings of the average UK worker are rising faster than the rate of inflation. We are seeing real earnings growth. That is the turning point that I am talking about.
The shadow Minister and the Chief Secretary both talked about the choices that the Chancellor could make on this occasion. In the evidence that the Treasury Committee took this week on the autumn statement, we saw the clear impact of the Chancellor’s choices on two long-standing challenges for the UK economy: slow productivity growth and the fact that not everyone has returned to work since the pandemic. When we get to the Finance Bill, I will expatiate further on the supply-side measures on the labour market and permanent full expensing, but today I will focus on the national insurance contributions element, which the Office for Budget Responsibility also considered to be a supply-side measure.
In the evidence that we took, we heard from the member of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Professor David Miles, that the choice to go for the national insurance contribution reduction in the autumn statement created a “definite positive” as an incentive to work. The OBR forecast that it will bring close to 100,000 full-time equivalent extra workers back into the workforce. That is so important. Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted in his evidence that, compared with a similar cut in income tax rates, a cut to national insurance is more progressive. It benefits people in work, but only on their earnings up to £50,000. That is important context for the choice that the Chancellor took.
I also welcome the simplification of taxes—a concept our Committee is committed to. Far too many things in our tax system act as disincentives to doing an extra hour of work. There are too many complicated withdrawal rates. The steps taken on class 2 and class 4 contributions represent a simplification of the tax system. Interestingly, we were told in our evidence session that the changes to class 2 and class 4 reduce
“the incentive for people to incorporate to gain a tax advantage.”
We should have a tax system that is broadly neutral on those two things.
Professor Miles told us that he thinks that the national insurance cuts are “unambiguously” a more positive incentive to work. The Office for Budget Responsibility does not see the measures as inflationary. He also said that
“some people at the margin who thought it perhaps was not worth working might now be persuaded to actively try to get a job”,
and that the measures will help retain people in the labour force.
To conclude my short remarks on the narrow measures in the Bill, I wanted to focus on the evidence that we have received on the choice that the Chancellor took on national insurance, and how that is very much focused on the structural challenges that the UK economy faces.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
We have heard an awful lot about choices at the start of this debate. What is abundantly clear for families in Scotland and across the nations of the UK is that the Government have chosen to ignore the burning cost of living crisis that they put in place for families.
Let me be unequivocally clear from the outset that the Chancellor’s attempt to masquerade the Bill as meaningful support for people is nothing short of a farce. I said to him at the statement that it would not bear scrutiny and it has not borne scrutiny. Families in Scotland already grappling with the harsh realities of the soaring cost of living are acutely aware of the UK Government’s role in their deteriorating financial situation. No amount of Tory spin can disguise the stark truth of their policies, or the fact that those families are faced with a future of perma-austerity under Westminster.
The autumn statement was a critical opportunity for meaningful intervention. It was, to say the least, a profound disappointment. It offered scant relief to households across Scotland—households already beleaguered by the catastrophic decisions of this UK Government. The audacity of the Chancellor in trying to package the reduction in national insurance rates as a major tax cut is an insult to the intelligence of the Scottish people. We are witnessing funding for public services pushed to breaking point due to years of real-terms cuts to the Scottish budget. The Scottish Government have sought to protect workers and services, and are having to do that with diminishing resources, yet the UK Government have shamefully neglected to prioritise investment in the NHS and other public services, which will, according to the OBR, see a cut of £19 billion in the coming years.
The Bill, in legislating for the changes to national insurance outlined in the autumn statement, is a glaring example of the Government’s disconnect from the realities on the ground. The changes announced by the Chancellor, some to take effect from January onwards, are a mere drop in the ocean of what is urgently needed now by families struggling with rampant food price increases, punishing increases in rents and mortgages, and the dreaded prospect of another winter with soaring energy bills. The Government could have listened to our pleas to provide a £400 energy bill rebate, to reduce the price cap and more. Instead, they will preside over a 5% increase in the energy price cap to land on 1 January—hardly a happy new year for those who cannot afford now to switch on the heating.
Let us dissect the facts. The main rate of NICs for employees is to be cut from 12% to 10%, a change affecting those earning between £12,571 and £50,271. For the self-employed, the rate drops from 9% to 8%, with the flat-rate NIC charge also being scrapped for some. On paper, those changes might appear beneficial, but in reality they are superficial. The Resolution Foundation’s Torsten Bell aptly noted that
“taxes are up not down”.
This is no generous gift to the public; it is a thinly veiled attempt at distraction. The Institute for Fiscal Studies highlighted a concerning trend: despite these nominal cuts, we are facing the most significant rise in taxes in recent memory. The tax threshold freezes since 2021 will largely, if not entirely, counteract any benefits of the Chancellor’s 2p cut to NICs next year. For someone with average full-time earnings, that means a saving of £449 in NI contributions, but an increase of £413 due to the unchanged tax thresholds. The Chancellor’s so-called giveaway then amounts to a paltry £36 for the average earner—a far cry from the over £450 boasted about today.
From the detrimental effects of austerity to the chaos of Brexit and now the mismanagement of the cost of living crisis, it is abundantly clear that the Westminster Government are a liability for the working people of Scotland. They are left to shoulder the burden of Westminster’s disastrous decisions. Our public services, the very foundation of our society, are under threat. The Chancellor’s spending plans, particularly his silence on them post March 2025, signal a disturbing turbo-boost of austerity. The OBR’s report rings alarm bells. The UK Government’s fiscal strategies are shrouded in uncertainty and wishful thinking.
The Scottish Government are handed a real-terms reduction in the block grant, yet are expected, miraculously, to maintain public services with, for example, a health budget increase of less than 0.01% for 2024-25. Inflation sits, even today, at 4.7%, so that NHS money equates to only £10.8 million blown away by inflation before it arrives, leaving only the cold sting of a sharp cut in reality.
The autumn statement and the Bill will serve as stark reminders that Westminster Governments are fundamentally misaligned with the values and needs of the people of Scotland. Our aspirations for a fair, just and prosperous society cannot be realised under such governance. Independence remains the only viable path to ensuring the wellbeing and prosperity of the Scottish people.
In conclusion, it is imperative that the Government acknowledge their failings, even at this late stage, and take decisive steps to truly support households and public services across the nations and in Scotland. Until such time, we in the SNP will remain unwavering in calling for real help for people struggling with rising rents and mortgages, struggling to pay for their shopping, and terrified of the cost of their energy bills this winter. Our values are to champion the interests of the Scottish people to safeguard our communities and the families who live in them. We will continue to call for the real power of independence to deliver on them.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak, very briefly, in this debate.
My starting point is the concern I felt, when I listened to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer making his autumn statement and highlighting this aspect of the measures he was taking, to hear cries of “not much” and “big deal” from some on the Opposition Benches. It is important to reflect that even if we were looking solely at the class 2 national insurance contributions element, the amount that adds to a household income equates to more than the cost of a child’s school uniform for a year. It is a quarter of what the average household in the UK spends on Christmas. These are significant amounts of money for a good many of our constituents. Indeed, for one of my constituents who is affected by the ultra low emission zone policy, it would even pay their ULEZ charge for a fortnight. Taken in concert with the rest of the measures, it will make a significant difference to many household budgets and ensure that people have more money in their pocket in the new year.
I represent a constituency that, according to the ONS, is very much a constituency of workers. We enjoy a very high level of employment and self-employment, a very low level of unemployment and, I am very pleased to say, higher household income on average than the rest of the UK. But within that, there are many, many workers—those who are beginning their careers, or who have faced unstable employment—for whom this will make a real and practical difference. For that reason alone, I enormously welcome the measures we will be voting on today.
I would like to offer the Chief Secretary and the Treasury team an issue for consideration, which arises out of something I see in my constituency. It has been the subject of a lot of debate in this House in the last week or so. In 2019, the Conservatives stood on a manifesto that set a target of an additional 600,000 foreign students coming into the UK. That manifesto commitment has been achieved. We know that it earns us, in foreign currency income, around £35 billion a year. It is a bigger earner for the United Kingdom than our oil and gas industry, so it is incredibly important to our economy. Part of the thinking behind it was that many of those workers would become longer-term residents of the UK, especially in areas of great need: our national health service, caring professions and the technology industry. I hear from a good many constituents about the challenges they still face recruiting those workers to ensure that my constituents who need an operation can get it on time and that businesses can grow.
Home Office figures show that a very large proportion of those people leave the United Kingdom at the conclusion of their studies, but that some stay. Concern has been expressed about whether those who transition into work after being foreign students or those who are here for a brief period on a working visa and subsequently move abroad pay a sufficient amount into the UK economy to cover the costs of the benefits they may well receive. Right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted those who come to the UK under care worker visas, but who bring with them dependants who have significant health and educational costs. Would the Treasury team, in due course, give consideration to setting a differential rate of national insurance contributions for those who come to the UK on those types of visa, in line with the measures already taken of charging those applying for those visas a significantly higher fee and the national health surcharge? It would then become absolutely clear to everyone in this country that people who are here for a short period will pay a contribution that reflects the potential benefits available to them, whereas those who are lifelong citizens, for whom those costs will be spread out across their entire working life, will enjoy the benefit of a lower rate?
Every country in the developed world has faced a similar set of challenges around interest rates and costs of living. We all know what the reasons are: the impact of covid and the impact of rising US interest rates, which set basic interest rates and mortgage rates across the whole of the developed world. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) said, the turning point has clearly been reached. Most of us can see and feel in our constituencies the signs of a return to growth and a sense of prosperity. The fact that wages are now rising ahead of inflation is hugely significant to the living standards of all people, but especially to those on lower incomes the measures I am here to support today are incredibly important. I commend the Treasury team for bringing them forward.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to join this debate, albeit one attended by literally zero Back Benchers of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
This debate and the changes to national insurance raise narrow issues of the amount of tax being paid by our constituents, wider issues relating to the question posed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray)—“Are you better off today than you were in 2010?”—and broader still questions about the value and purpose of life and what matters most to our constituents. I shall touch on all three in turn.
On the narrow issue, the national insurance payments mooted in the Bill, there is widespread agreement that they are good news for our constituents, because they mean lower tax. It is recognised that there is social justice in the measures, because they are not applicable to those earning more than £50,000 a year. We already know that no party in this House will oppose them. On the narrow issue, therefore, the Chancellor, the Treasury and those involved in creating the Bill have clearly got it right.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) pointed out, this can easily be seen to be one of the measures by which we judge a turning point in the wider economy. After all, only a few months ago there were widespread expectations that the economy would be in recession, unemployment would be rising, taxes would be increasing, and there was very little wiggle room for the public finances to be seen to improve. All those things have been turned around. None of us can say with certainty that we are in full summer, but the green shoots are evident and things are changing.
On the broader issue of what we measure to answer the question, “Are our constituents better off today than in 2010?” there are different aspects. I suspect the shadow Minister had most clearly in mind a simple calculation of whether salaries net of inflation were higher or lower, and if we take that on its own, it will be a challenge for many Government Members to demonstrate that the answer is yes. For my constituents in Gloucester, average take-home pay has risen from £25,000 to £31,000, but their salaries have not kept up with increases in inflation. That is only part of the equation though; we need to take into account all the different forms of taxation, which include council tax. It is a cliché but true that council tax rises faster and is higher in Labour-run councils, whereas the Conservative-run council in Gloucester has done a good job of keeping it as low as possible over the last 14 years. Then, there is the question of take-home pay. As I pointed out to the shadow Minister, because income tax now applies only at £12,500, rather than at just over £6,000, the take-home pay element has increased by £1,000.
Other than that relatively straightforward financial calculation, there are many measures on which I hope all of us would want to answer “Yes” to the question, “Are you better off today than you were in 2010? I shall pick out a few of these crucial indicators, because they are relevant to the wider context of the Bill.
The Centre for Cities report is an excellent source of data for those who live in cities, so let me highlight a few elements of what its latest report said about Gloucester. We are one of the 10 lowest cities for economic inactivity. In effect, we have low unemployment and high employment —in fact, ours is the third highest employment rate, having risen last year from 76% to 84%, a 7.5% increase. The regional average is 79%, so we are way ahead of the south-west’s average. That means that many more people have purpose in their lives—they have occupations they can thrive in; they are bread-earners at home and useful role models for their children—and the city as a whole has a strong sense of purpose.
It is often forgotten, but many people remember vividly that their jobs were kept by the £400 billion spent during by the pandemic. The furlough scheme ensured that during the pandemic people could shelter at home, confident that their job would still be there, and those who had their own business know that the vast majority of those businesses would undoubtedly have gone bankrupt during the pandemic. The small businessmen and women, the self-employed, the entrepreneurs, all came through that period intact, whereas under a different scheme that would have cost taxpayers’ less, they would have struggled. The question, “Are you better off today than in 2010?” needs to encapsulate other questions: “Was your business able to survive? Was your job kept? Were you still able to be self-employed during a period when so many people around the world were struggling horribly?”
We in Gloucester are extraordinary in that our city has one of the very lowest percentages of population with no formal qualifications. In fact, extraordinarily, Gloucester has fewer people with no formal qualifications than Cambridge, and we are only 1% behind Oxford. The skills of my constituents are different from many of those in Oxford or Cambridge. A large number of our people are highly skilled with higher apprenticeships working in industries like aerospace, nuclear and high-level engineering. Those occupations, apprenticeships and higher apprenticeships have increased hugely over the last 13 or 14 years and are seriously threatened by the prospect—any prospect—of a Labour Government.
Let me illustrate that statistically. Since 2010, there have been almost 15,000 new apprenticeship starts in Gloucester—15,000 in a population of about 100,000. The run rate of apprenticeships nationally—5.5 million new apprenticeships since 2010—would have been almost halved under the Labour run rate between 2005 and 2010. Were Labour’s current proposals on apprenticeship spending to go through, it has been suggested that 140,000 apprenticeships would no longer exist. Therefore, the skills that my constituents have, which are being valuably used in leading sectors that are being supported by the Treasury and this Government, would be at serious risk under a new Government who did not value apprenticeships so highly.
The question, “Are you better off today than you were in 2010?” could also be rephrased, “What will happen to your skills, your purpose, your job and your future earnings under the changes proposed by the Labour party, which is so sadly absent here today?”
There are different issues that we need to consider in answering the question, “Are you better off today?” Education is vital for all of us, and everyone in the country needs to be more aware that our PISA rankings have risen from 25th to fourth in reading and from 27th to 16th in mathematics. I might be one off on both, but it is a significant leap forward. Those skills are vital to all our young constituents getting the opportunities they deserve.
Within infrastructure, there is the whole question of public transport. Gloucester has additional train services to Bristol, Worcester and down to London. There is a wider range of services, sports, culture and leisure, and cultural regeneration and the role of heritage are incredibly important to any city. Gloucester’s more than 40 wins from the National Lottery Heritage Fund have brought alive our old buildings and rebuilt pride in the city. These things are all part of answering, “Are you better off today than you were in 2010? Is where you live a better place today than it was in 2010?”
National insurance contributions are coming down sharply, which will mean an average saving of around £350 to each of my constituents and £450 for those on salaries over £35,000. All of that will be appreciated, but it is about the wider context in which it happens: the gradual recovery and the sense of green shoots coming through after a difficult year. That is important, and then there is the wider context of what has been achieved over the last 13 to 14 years. We must all take that into careful consideration.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on his remarks. He provided a lot of sensible context for this debate and I will address some of his helpful points shortly.
It is very unusual to talk about fiscal matters, or fiscal legislation, to an almost empty Chamber. It is unheard of during my time in Parliament. As my hon. Friend will know, back in 2010, after the financial crisis, when we had to consider the long-term economic plan to build back our economy and to restore fiscal competence, there were many long, heated debates, and rightly so, in which proper scrutiny was given not just to Bills and legislation but to an exposition on the state we were in and how we needed to get ourselves back on to an even keel by growing the economy through Conservative policies.
That brings me to today’s theme. Conservative policies have, over the last decade, helped to restructure the economy, rebuild our country and create jobs and economic growth. They have made us stand tall in the world once again. I remember, in 2010, 2011 and 2012, looking at our financial ratings with a degree of despair. Thank goodness we are no longer in that state, which I think we all welcome.
I welcome this Bill and thank the Treasury and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for bringing it forward. Any measure that brings down the tax burden should be welcomed, because it represents a positive and constructive step in the right direction for our constituents. Our constituents are taxpayers and, ultimately, they want to keep more of the money they earn, and they want to know that the Government are spending their money responsibly.
Reducing the class 1 primary rate from 12% to 10% will put money into people’s pockets from 6 January—the sooner, the better. I commend the Government for bringing forward this vital fiscal measure. I am disappointed that there are not more colleagues here to debate it, but that is just how Parliament is right now.
The £450 benefit to a worker on the average salary will make an important difference to households. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) put it succinctly when he spoke about what it means for households at this time of year and for domestic budgets and spending.
I am particularly pleased to see the elimination of the class 2 rate and the reduction of the class 4 rate, which will help the self-employed from the start of the new financial year. I never tire of coming to this Chamber to say that I represent a constituency and a county of entrepreneurs. We are self-starters. We are self-made people. We are very proud of the contribution that the people of Essex make to our country. They are net contributors to His Majesty’s Treasury, which is all the more reason why they should get a tax cut.
As a Government who believe in enterprise, economic growth and letting people stand on their own two feet, we should do everything possible to support the self-employed and sole traders. It is hard work being a sole trader and being self-employed. We know about the regulatory burdens and pressure that HMRC puts on sole traders and the self-employed in particular, but they are the backbone and the engine of our economy; they are the lifeblood that creates jobs.
Some 80% of my constituents are employed by small and medium-sized enterprises—that is 20 percentage points higher than the national average—and we want them to continue to thrive and grow, as is right and proper. They are the embodiment of the entrepreneurial spirit that our country needs to create growth. I sometimes feel that we do not always give them the voice they need. It is easy for the big companies that can lobby central Government Departments to get their voices and representations heard. We are here for our constituents as their MPs. Even at business questions this morning, Members spoke about three family-run businesses. That is who we should be supporting.
We have seen a reduction in the number of self-employed people from around 5 million just before the pandemic to just over 4 million this year. That is why I believe we must back them, support them and encourage their growth. We should hold out that ladder of opportunity. Where they need help and support, we should back them as a Government and as a country.
I always come to this House to give a shameless plug for family-run and self-employed businesses in my constituency. It is also important that we buy British and support local firms in our country and in our constituencies. It is important to remember that the self-employed contribute an estimated £278 billion to the economy, and the fiscal and supply measures will make it easier for them to trade.
The ability to do business, to trade and to set up a business are so important. Lower taxes will mean that more people want to give it a go and set up a business. They are the ones taking a risk, so they are the people we should back and support. If we want to be healthy, competitive and drive growth, these are the very people who innovate and invest in new technology and do things that are edgy and somewhat different, while providing vital services to so many of our constituents and being pioneers in certain sectors. That is why keeping taxes down should be at the core of our mission in government.
As we have already aligned the class 1 and class 4 thresholds, to match the tax-free threshold on income tax, we all welcome that the burden of national insurance contributions has been reduced for the self-employed. That is why I am disappointed that there are not more Opposition Members present.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. I totally agree with her on the NICs paid by employees and the self-employed. In Esher and Walton, the average employee will receive a tax cut of £589 a year, benefiting 50,000 people. She is right that we are here to give a voice to the ambitions and aspirations of local people in our constituencies. Aside from the Labour Benches being totally empty, there is not a single Liberal Democrat Member here. Is it not churlish that, at this particular time, they are not doing more to support people on low and middle incomes?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is right about that; his observation is spot-on. He will recall that, as I said in my opening remarks, when we have been in this Chamber to discuss important fiscal and economic measures, it has more often than not been to a full House. It is appalling that when the Government are backing working people and doing the right thing for them by putting more money in their pockets, the Opposition are all hiding. They are failing to recognise something that their constituents will benefit from. The Opposition should be giving a positive voice and supporting it, because it means more jobs and growth in every constituency across the country. As parliamentarians, we should all welcome that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman was quite late in and did not hear the beginning of the right hon. Lady’s speech.
Priti Patel
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As has been mentioned, the alignment with the tax-free threshold should also help with the future plans to simplify the tax system. We had a bit of a discussion on this last week, but it is important in today’s debate again to raise the prospect of simplifying the tax system—more should be done in that area—by merging income tax and national insurance together. That is why I am disappointed that more Opposition Members are not here to discuss it. Last week, we had a semi-healthy discussion about it. It is out of the scope of this Bill to table an amendment to bring those two taxes together, but I urge those on the Treasury Bench—I would also be happy to work with other colleagues on this—to consider taking that up in advance of the spring Budget. Much more can be done here. Such a move would simplify taxes for the entrepreneurs and self-employed even further. As we know, when we come to the end of the tax year they are constantly having to do all sorts of things to satisfy His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
In 2012, I asked the Treasury a written question on integrating those taxes, and the then Exchequer Secretary replied by stating:
“Since Budget 2011, the Government have engaged extensively with stakeholders to develop options for operational integration of Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions. As many stakeholders have recognised, this is a complex issue with potentially significant implications for employers’ payroll operations. The Government will provide an update on this work later in the autumn. As we have already made clear, this is a long-term reform on which the Government will proceed carefully.”
That was a long time ago—it was 11 years ago. Although this is a complex issue, I maintain that such a move would help to simplify the tax system. I know that the Treasury Committee has looked at this area, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) touched on it today. Such a move would help to make payroll much easier for businesses, and allow them to co-ordinate income and revenue in a much more straightforward way.
Although this next issue may not be directly within the Bill’s scope, it does relate to NICs. I would therefore like to take the opportunity to restate for Treasury Ministers the position on fiscal drag. The OBR forecasts show that a freezing of the NICs thresholds and the income tax thresholds will, relative to consumer prices index inflation, and after taking into account the tax cuts here, bring in an estimated £27 billion in the next fiscal year, 2024-25, with this rising to nearly £45 billion more for the Exchequer in 2028-29. The OBR is clear on that. Ministers know my views: as we go into spring next year, and as the economy grows and more revenues come in, I urge them to look at this area all over again.
This Bill is welcome. It is a positive step in the right direction, along with the entire autumn statement. I commend my colleagues for the work they have done on it. The speed at which the Government are acting to bring forward the benefits of the NI changes and get them into pay packets as early as possible is right; it is commendable and should be supported, as I hope it will be by all colleagues in the House. The Government must continue to look at further steps. We want more economic growth. We are pioneers when it comes to innovation and small business. We need to find other ways to lower taxes so that people can keep more of their earnings and, importantly, we ensure that our economy is match-fit for the future so that it continues to grow.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Before I start, I want to say that we have heard during the debate that former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling has died at the age of 70. I am sure Members will agree, no matter which side of the House they sit on, that he was a man who cared deeply about people across the country, and that our thoughts are with him and his family today.
The Government may want our constituents to believe that they are easing the burden on their pay packets, but the reality is that households have not given the state this much of their earnings since the 1940s. Despite the warm words that we have heard today on tax cuts, households are now paying £4,000 more a year than they did under the previous Labour Government. This is a crippling tax burden for those struggling to make ends meet through the cost of living crisis. Despite today’s commitment to reduce NI, as a result of the Tories’ decisions on personal taxation, working people are left facing an average rise of £1,200 since 2010. So although Labour supports the measures put forward today to lighten the load that NICs are placing on our constituents, we should see this announcement for what it is: a cynical attempt to draw voters’ attention away from the fact that, under this Government, their living standards are going down and taxes are going up, while their wages continue to stagnate.
As the British people already knew, the promises made today cannot compensate for the damage that has been done. The measures announced today are equivalent to handing back £1 for every £8 of the Conservatives’ tax rises since 2019. The freeze in the personal allowance threshold means that a couple on an average wage will still be a staggering £350 worse off per year, regardless of cuts to personal taxation. The wider freezing of current thresholds has confirmed that an additional 4 million of the poorest in society will now pay income tax by 2029.
The scorecards for last week’s autumn statement are now in, and our leading independent economists do not seem that impressed. The OBR has confirmed, following the Chancellor’s announcement, that real household disposable incomes will drop by 7% next year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) noted, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has also given a damning verdict, stating that the NICs reductions that we have been debating today “pale into insignificance” compared with the threshold freezes announced by the Chancellor. According to the latest International Monetary Fund forecast, the UK will have the slowest growth in the G7 next year. The Bank of England has confirmed that there will likely be zero growth in the economy until 2025. Those are not figures that the Government should be proud of.
If that economic backdrop were not bad enough, our constituents are also left worrying about how to pay for their mortgage and avoid having to sell the family home due to the reckless actions of this Government. Working families will see an average increase of £220 a month in mortgage costs because of the Tory mortgage bombshell, and 1.5 million households are also set to suffer as they desperately try to re-fix their mortgage deals next year. The Chancellor and other Conservative Members may want us to believe that the economy has turned a corner and that the cost of living crisis is over, but millions of people are still struggling to make ends meet. So of course we welcome the tax cut being debated today, but it is a drop in the ocean for working families who are still bearing the brunt of this Government’s economic decisions.
Despite the desperate smoke and mirrors we have seen from the Chancellor, it is now clear that this Government do not know how to find the solutions to address the fundamental challenges facing this country right now—all the challenges that our constituents are facing day in, day out. After 13 years of failure, it is time that the Government got out of the way and let Labour deliver its plan for the economy and how to grow it again, get wages rising again and get Britain its future back. For all the warm words that we have heard today, if the Conservatives sincerely believe in their policies, they should ask the general public and call a general election as soon as possible.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
On behalf of the Government, I join the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and the whole House in expressing our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Alistair Darling. I know he had many personal friends in the House who knew him very well indeed. I never had the pleasure of interacting with him here, but what an incredibly calm and dignified gentleman he was. Perhaps that is something we can all reflect on.
Although the debate was somewhat one-sided, as most contributions came from the Government Benches, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. This important Bill delivers tax cuts and rewards and incentivises work, while growing the economy in a sustainable way. I will respond to many of the points raised.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly pointed out the importance of looking after the lowest paid and having a fair tax system, which we are delivering on. Over the last 13 years, we have lifted hundreds of thousands of families out of poverty, and we have a progressive tax system where the top 1% of taxpayers pay 28% of all income tax.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) highlighted the context in which the autumn statement was delivered and recognised the fact that we have faced not one but two global crises: the pandemic and the cost of living challenges. Those challenges are not unique to the United Kingdom and, despite the myths peddled by the Opposition, whoever was in Government would have faced those challenges. We do not remember the Opposition arguing against any of the intervention or support measures at the time—it is as if they have completely forgotten about that. Not recognising the context and the global circumstances speaks volumes about their inability to run the economy. We operate not in a vacuum but in a global system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester went on to highlight the remarkable progress made over the last 13 years, particularly in areas such as tax thresholds. Under Labour, the income tax threshold was £6,475, whereas it is now £12,570, and the NICs threshold was £5,715, whereas it is now £12,570. That is incredible progress. Together with the increases in the national living wage, that means people on the national living wage working full time are 30% better off in real terms than they would have been under Labour. That is a remarkable achievement and shows, despite the myths the Opposition peddle, that we look after the lowest paid in society. That will always be a priority of this Government.
My hon. Friend showed, yet again, his incredible insight, knowledge and commitment to his constituency by setting out a range of areas in which his constituents have benefited over the last 13 years, including by highlighting the importance of skills and apprenticeships. I could not agree with him more.
Rehman Chishti
The Minister is talking about apprenticeships, opportunities and skills, and in Gillingham and Rainham, we have seen over 8,000 apprenticeships. Does he agree that the concept of the Bill and the autumn statement is that if people work hard and do the right thing, they keep more of the money they earn? If they work hard and then retire, they get dignity through the pension triple lock—I know my residents from Darland, who are in the Gallery, very much appreciate that. If it were left to the Labour party, there would be more borrowing, spending and debt. We saw what happened before and we do not want to go back to that.
Nigel Huddleston
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. He has given me the opportunity to leap swathes of my speech, because he has put those important points incredibly well.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), who is my constituency neighbour and the Chair of the Treasury Committee, highlighted the importance of the autumn statement as a turning point, as articulated by the Chancellor, and the all-important supply-side measures in it that will help spur on business, create employment and generate incremental economic activity. As a result of the spring Budget and the autumn statement, the OBR has said that the economy is likely to be 0.5% larger. When we are talking about an economy of over £2 trillion, that is a huge incremental value to the UK economy.
Unfortunately, the spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), failed to recognise that we have addressed the cost of living to the tune of £100 billion in support. He also forgot that in the autumn statement we had an increase not only in the living wage but in benefits, aligned with inflation; in pensions; and in the local housing allowance rate, to the 30th percentile. That means 1.6 million families will be better off, gaining an average of £800 in support. It is not true to say that there were no cost of living support measures in the autumn statement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) recognised the considerable impact of those measures and the fact that they make a meaningful difference to his constituents. He raised issues about visas and students, which I am happy to discuss with him further.
As always, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) articulated core Conservative values incredibly well. The autumn statement recognised the importance of spending every penny of taxpayers’ money incredibly carefully and responsibly, as well as ensuring that we are there to support people through the tax system wherever we can. She is right to be passionate about small businesses and entrepreneurs. Small Business Saturday takes place this weekend and I am sure many of us will be out supporting small businesses, not only on Saturday but in the run-up to Christmas and beyond.
The Opposition spokespeople peddled so many myths and untruths, I do not know where to start. [Interruption.] We addressed many of them in previous debates, so I will not hear from them. The way they react speaks volumes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The Minister did not mean to say “untruths”, did he?
Nigel Huddleston
I take back that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker. There were some presumed facts that require challenge, as we saw earlier in the week. At one point, the shadow Chancellor claimed that the forecasts were going to be £40 billion smaller. The shadow spokes- people know full well, because it is stated by the OBR, that economic growth by the end of the forecast period is higher than it was in the spring forecast. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I have to explain that to Opposition Members—if a number is bigger than the previous one, then that means growth and not decline. We could possibly forgive that mistake if it were not made by the people trying to become the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is extraordinary incompetence—a £55 billion difference is not something we can easily ignore.
As my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury pointed out earlier, we are pleased that the Opposition are supporting the national insurance cuts, but to combine that with their commitments on spending, to the tune of £28 billion, and then claim that there will not be an increase in debt is farcical. It is not true; we know that will happen, and we are seeing the same old Labour. As Margaret Thatcher said:
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
That was true then, and it is true now.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The Bill delivers a tax cut for 29 million working people, and I am pleased that it will be getting support from across the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I join the two Front Benchers in saying how deeply sad it is to hear the news that Alistair Darling has died. He was an incredibly well-respected, thoughtful and kind man who was devoted to public service. I know all Members will want us to send their condolences to his family.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed (Order, this day).
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill: Money
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided that is attributable to:
(a) reducing the main primary percentage for Class 1 primary national insurance contributions to 10% (and reducing the percentage specified in regulation 131 of the Social Security Contributions Regulations 2001 to 3.85%),
(b) reducing the main Class 4 percentage for Class 4 national insurance contributions to 8% from tax year 2024-25, and
(c) removing the requirement to pay Class 2 national insurance contributions from that tax year.—(Mark Jenkinson.)
Question agreed to.
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill
Thursday 30th November 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023 View all National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 November 2023 - (30 Nov 2023)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair, Madam Chairman or Mr Chairman are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Reduction of Class 1 main primary percentage
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 2 to 5 stand part.
The schedule.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
Thank you, Dame Rosie, for that timely reminder. I shall briefly outline the clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which applies to Great Britain, and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to reduce the main primary percentage of class 1 national insurance contributions paid by employees from 12% to 10%. That is a tax cut worth an average of around £450 per annum for employees. Clause 2 amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which applies to Great Britain, and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to reduce the main class 4 NICs percentage paid by the self-employed from 9% to 8%. That is a tax cut worth an average of around £350 per annum for the self-employed.
Clause 3 amends the 1992 Acts that apply to Great Britain and to Northern Ireland to remove the obligation on persons to pay class 2 obligations when their earnings exceed the lower profit threshold of £12,570 per annum. The small profits threshold is retained, with the result that self-employed persons with profits from a trade, profession or vocation above that level will be treated as having paid class 2 NICs and will continue to gain entitlement to contributory benefits.
Clause 4 introduces the schedule, containing transitional and consequential provisions. The schedule to the Bill includes changes that are consequential on clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill. The principal changes are the introduction of a blended rate of primary class 1 national insurance contributions for directors for the 2022-23 tax year and consequential repeals arising from clause 3 that removes the requirement to pay class 2 NICs. Finally, clause 5 gives the short title as the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
As we made it clear on Second Reading, we will be supporting the measures that it includes, I thank the Minister for setting out the details of its clauses. As we heard, clauses 2 to 5 and the schedule to the Bill implement a reduction in the class 4 rate, a removal of the requirement to pay class 2 contributions and various transitional and consequential provisions.
I wish to ask the Minister some questions about how the measures in clause 1 will operate and what their overall impact will be. May I put it on record that, as ever, I am grateful to the Chartered Institute of Taxation for sharing its views with us on the clauses in this Bill?
Clause 1 makes it clear that the Bill’s measures will apply from 6 January 2024. Of course, we want people to benefit from these changes as quickly as possible given the pressures that families across Britain are facing right now. We recognise though that with the Government having left this policy change until late November to announce, there is not much time left for payroll software to get ready for 6 January. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether HMRC accepts that some employers’ payroll software will not be ready in time for 6 January. If so, how many employers does he anticipate being affected? In such cases, employers would have to pass on the benefit of any changes to employees in subsequent months. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm how many employees he expects will be affected by this delay, and how long he expects them to have to wait to receive the delayed benefits.
Furthermore, we understand that many operators in the retail sector have a moratorium on releasing new software updates in the November to January period, given what a busy time that is for them. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether he is aware of that. If so, what meetings has he already had with retailers to discuss this point and, if so, what has the outcome of those meetings been?
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Before I come to my point, may I add my own condolences and those of my party to the family and friends of the former Chancellor, Alistair Darling? Clearly, we were on very different sides of the fence, particularly on independence, which was heavily contested nine years ago, but he was a towering intellect and a very important figure in Scottish public life. As I say, we pass on our condolences to his family and friends.
My question is also on the operation of clause 1. HMRC has stated to the Treasury Committee that it is unable to cope with inquiries either in writing or by phone at the moment, and that it is under severe pressure. I, too, would like to know how the clause will be given effect by 6 January, and what measures the Government are taking to ensure that that happens.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank hon. Members for their questions. I can assure them that HMRC is engaging with industry and providing relevant guidance to support it to deliver the changes on time. We expect the majority of companies to be able to do so, particularly in this era, when many of the changes can be made on various systems. The Government are confident that the majority of software developers will be able to make changes to their payroll software in time for the 6 January deadline.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Review of effects of Act
“(1) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons on the day on which this Act is passed a report which sets out forecasts of—
(a) the changes to the amount of national insurance contributions deducted from the annual income of a full-time worker earning the national living wage as a result of the measures in this Act over the period 2023/24 to 2027/28, and
(b) a comparison with the changes to the amount of national insurance contributions deducted from the annual income of a full-time worker earning the national living wage as a result of the thresholds for payment of national insurance remaining frozen over the period 2023/24 to 2027/28, rather than rising in line with CPI.
(2) The report in subsection (1) should also set out the costs to (i) businesses, and (ii) government , of implementing the changes in this Act, and compare them to the costs of—
(a) implementing a 1.25% point increase in national insurance contributions in April 2022, and
(b) implementing the reversal of the increase in paragraph(a) in November 2022.”—(James Murray.)
This new clause would require a review of the effects of the Bill if enacted over the period 2023/24 to 2027/28, on someone earning the national living wage, compared with the effect of national insurance thresholds being frozen, and a comparison of the expected implementation costs of this Bill with those of implementing and repealing the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021.
Brought up, and read the First time.
James Murray
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Thank you, Dame Rosie, for the chance to address our new clause 1. Before I do so, may I ask whether the Minister would commit to writing to me with detailed responses to the questions that I raised in our debate on the previous group? We did not get them in his response just now, so perhaps he will commit to writing to me with them as soon as possible.
Our new clause would require the Government to be honest about the impact of the changes made by the Bill when considered not just in isolation but in the wider context. Subsection (1) would require the Treasury to explain how the taxpayer or someone earning the national living wage would be impacted by the combined effects of the changes in the Bill and the freezing of national insurance thresholds at their 2022-23 level over the period 2023-24 to 2027-28.
We asked for confirmation of that, because our analysis shows that a full-time worker on the national living wage will pay an estimated £70 more in national insurance next year, even with the cut in the Bill, as a result of the thresholds being frozen. What is more, the full impact of the Government’s freezing of national insurance thresholds will be that by 2027-28—again, even with the cut in the Bill—a full-time worker on the national living wage will pay £160 more a year in tax. Can the Minister confirm whether he accepts our calculation? If he does not, I assume that he will accept our new clause and publish the data; otherwise, people will rightly be left wondering what it is the Government have to hide.
Should the Government choose to accept our new clause, subsection (2) would require them to come clean on some of the implementation costs to businesses and the Government of what the Chartered Institute of Taxation described last week as the “national insurance roller-coaster” in recent years.
If the Government are not prepared to accept our new clause, perhaps the Minister will again commit to writing to me with details of the implementation costs of the changes made by the Bill, of the 1.25 percentage point increase in national insurance contributions in April 2022, and of the reversal of that increase in November 2022. If he will not, I would be grateful if he could explain why not, again to prevent people from wondering what it is the Government have to hide.
Nigel Huddleston
I hope that I can give the hon. Member some assurances. A worker on the national living wage will save £165 next year from the national insurance cut, and thanks to above-inflation increases in the NIC starting threshold since 2010, a full-time worker on the national living wage will pay £400 less in national insurance contributions next year than they otherwise would have. That includes the historical increase to the national insurance contributions starting thresholds in July 2022 by this Government—the largest ever increase to a personal tax starting threshold. The national minimum and living wage rates are set on advice from the independent Low Pay Commission. Rates for 2025-26 and beyond will be set in future years.
The cost to HMRC of implementing and reversing the health and social care levy was £5 million. The cost to implement this rate reduction is not yet known as the project to deliver the change is in delivery, though HMRC does not expect it to be significant. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s previous question, I will be delighted to write to him.
James Murray
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Nigel Huddleston
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a short and relatively straightforward Bill, but it is an important one, as it will make a meaningful difference to many households by putting money in the pockets of millions of people in every constituency in this country. I thank the Treasury officials, Clerks and everyone involved in getting the Bill to this point so speedily. I sense the enthusiasm in the House to pass it, and for us to get back to our constituencies and spread the good news. I will therefore end my comments there and commend the Bill to the House.
James Murray
As the Opposition have made clear throughout today’s proceedings and on many other occasions, we believe that taxes on working people are too high. We have long said that we want taxes on working people to come down when they can be cut in an economically and fiscally responsible way.
While we confirm our support for the Bill, we repeat our call for the Government to be honest with the British people. The Conservatives should be honest about the inescapable truth facing families across the UK: the tax burden in Britain is still on course to reach its highest level since the second world war. As a result of the Conservatives’ decisions on personal taxation in this Parliament, households will be left facing an average tax rise of £1,200. Looking across all taxes, we now know that, by the end of the decade, they will have risen by the equivalent of an astonishing £4,300 for every household in the country.
As we have set out today, a clear pattern runs through the Conservatives’ time in office: whatever they do, they keep making working people worse off. While we support the Bill, it is clear that the Conservatives are incapable of delivering what Britain truly needs: a plan to get the economy growing and make working people better off. That is what Labour is offering. In last week’s debate on the autumn statement, when discussing the general election, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that we should “bring it on”. On that point, we whole- heartedly agree.
Drew Hendry
As we have pointed out, the Bill does not go nearly far enough to help people facing a bitter cost of living crisis. We urge the Government, after introducing this tiny measure, to go back and consider those people who are suffering from high food costs, seeing their mortgages and rents increase, and—most tellingly, as temperatures plummet—facing a winter with higher energy bills than last year. This is a hard time for families across the nations of the UK, and in Scotland they deserve better. They should get that through the powers of independence being returned to Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
HM Prison Bedford
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on conditions at His Majesty’s Prison Bedford. I thank the Commons Library, the Howard League, the Prison Officers Association, the residents living by the prison, the Prison Reform Trust, the independent monitoring board, Victim Support and Charlie Taylor for their helpful information and data, which will inform the debate.
HMP Bedford, which is also a young offenders institution, was inspected on 9 November, and the findings by His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons are shocking—shocking, but not surprising. In 2018, I was granted an urgent question when Bedford Prison was last issued with an urgent notification. The same problems —inexperienced staff, extreme violence, overcrowding, drug use, mouldy and filthy conditions, self-harm, and rat and cockroach infestations—are cited in the last report and the recent report. It is as heartbreaking as it is deeply frustrating to see the degrading and totally unacceptable conditions in which prison officers, staff and residents are expected to live and work.
HMP Bedford continues to have the highest level of violent assaults against staff in adult male prisons in England and Wales. Self-harm and drug use is excessive. I am sorry to say that the amount of force used by staff was also found to be high. Inspectors saw examples of inappropriate and excessive force alongside unprofessional behaviour. Many prisoners are locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day, and even the minority who are in education or training find that it is often cancelled because there are no staff to cover those services.
I have been told that prisoners sleep with covers over their mouth to stop cockroaches crawling in while they sleep. The inhumane segregation unit, once described as a rat-infested dungeon, was supposed to be shut down years ago, but endless delays to the new unit mean that it is still in use. Will the Minister explain what he believes prisons are for? Locking people away in those conditions does not keep society safe. Where is the rehabilitation in the system?
Who can leave those conditions a better person, or less likely to reoffend? Overcrowded, squalid and unsafe prisons will never help or allow people to turn their lives around and move on from a life of crime and hurting others. According to the report, staff and leaders are doing their best, and the POA has told me that staff at Bedford feel safer now than they did when the last urgent notification was issued. However, while many problems, such as problems with staff retention, inadequate prison capacity, too few and inexperienced staff and too much staff churn at leadership level, are symptomatic of a wider crisis, questions must be asked about why HMP Bedford has not learned the lessons of the past or been able to implement sustainable changes.
As His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons said in his report, many of the issues found at Bedford
“reflect wider problems across the estate.”
HMP Bedford is the fifth prison in a year to receive an urgent notification and the third reception prison. That is a damning indictment of not just the prison system, but the whole British justice system. Prisoners on remand are waiting far too long for trials because of the court backlog, which means that victims are waiting too long and are not getting justice.
In an ideal world, Bedford Prison would have been shut down years ago. It is a Victorian jail in the middle of an urban area and totally unfit for purpose. Residents living by the prison have had to tolerate unacceptable disturbances for years, with intruders breaking and entering gardens to traffic drugs over the walls and regular drone flights delivering contraband. The noise and disturbance from prisoners in solitary confinement cells mean that nearby residential windows are kept closed and some constituents have reported hearing sexual assaults and violence left unchecked. However, because the prison estate is full to the brim, it looks as though a more modern appropriate prison to detain offenders is not an option, even though it should be.
Despite all that, the Government have not improved the conditions, because they cannot or will not tackle the root causes of the persistent issues at HMP Bedford. Currently, 377 male prisoners are on roll, although the “in use certified normal accommodation” number is 229. More than 45%, or 170 men, are awaiting trial. Some reports say that that figure is higher, so I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the number of men currently waiting to be put before a judge or magistrate and how long the average wait is for a trial date.
It is totally unacceptable that prisoners languish on remand for months and even years in an overcrowded prison, all because this Government have decimated the criminal justice system. The Crown court backlog has hit a new record high of more than 65,000 cases and the magistrates court backlog is also rising. Does the Minister agree that his Government’s target of reducing the backlog to 53,000 by March 2025 is very unlikely to be met?
Serious questions are being asked about whether Bedford can remain as a remand prison. Will the Minister consider a complete re-role of the prison? Our prisons are so overcrowded that judges are being asked to delay sentencing convicted criminals. In HMP Bedford, 46 men have been convicted but are awaiting sentencing. How is that delivering justice for victims or perpetrators?
We will no doubt hear about more plans, promises and initiatives to turn the place around, but I have heard them all before. We have had the 10 prisons project and the prison performance support programme, just two years ago, where Bedford Prison was supposedly going to
“benefit from a new intensive support programme to help challenging jails to improve safety and rehabilitation.”
All have failed.
Will the Minister explain why, after years and years of action plans and interventions, the problems at the prison persist? What will his Government do differently this time to resolve the distinctive and systemic failures at HMP Bedford and across the wider prison estate? What will he do to support the governor to manage an overcrowded prison, to implement basic levels of cleanliness and to tackle a toxic culture, where prisoners are locked up for too long in squalor and do not seem to bother trying to keep their surroundings clean?
In 2017, when HMP Liverpool was described as having the “worst living conditions” ever seen by inspectors, the prison was successfully turned around through a significant population reduction. Huge investment and resources were channelled towards the prison. Bedford needs that level of sustainable investment now. In the context of the current capacity crisis, however, will the Minister confirm whether such a decanting measure is even possible? There is absolutely no excuse for any prison not to meet basic standards of decency.
The quality of leadership is vital. Governor Ali Barker has not yet been there a year, and I hope she gets all the resources she requires to achieve the higher standards needed at HMP Bedford. Meanwhile, nearly half of the prison officers working at the prison have less than two years’ experience. Being a prison officer is one of the most challenging of the uniformed professions. What plans do the Government have to support prison officers and tackle the huge lack of experience in the profession? Leadership and experience are key to improving the outcome at HMP Bedford, but leadership in Government also matters. Since the last urgent notification five years ago, there have been 10 changes in Prisons Minister. Amid such chaos and churn, there cannot be a serious plan for reforming the penal system and delivering justice for victims.
The decision to privatise the estates maintenance contracts has had a particularly detrimental impact on older establishments such as Bedford, where the maintenance needs are substantial. Those contracts were poorly funded and understaffed, and basic routine repair and maintenance work has suffered. What plans has the Minister to improve that and, at the very least, demand a better service from those contracts?
Full use of the recently announced measures, including the emergency release scheme and provision to delay the sentencing of individuals on bail, should be made in the Government’s response to the urgent notification. A presumption to suspend short sentences would also relieve pressures on reception prisons once the relevant legislation has been passed and enacted. Those measures are not about being tough on crime, but about implementing a justice system that works for victims—because today, the justice system is failing victims.
As Bedford Prison serves a number of courts, including in Bedford, Luton and London, there is a lot of intake churn. Because Beford hosts a prison, my constituents are too often the victims of reoffending criminals in the area, and many are understandably losing faith in the justice system’s ability to deliver justice to victims of crime, including violent crime.
The thorny question of what sentencing is for was tackled by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which codified for the first time the principles and purposes of sentencing: the punishment of offenders; the reduction of crime, including reduction by deterrence; the reform and rehabilitation of offenders; and the protection of the public. Apart from punishing prisoners—remember that many Bedford inmates have not yet been convicted of a crime—no other remedies in that list are being met.
A report by Victim Support cites a study conducted for the probation service that reveals that 94% of victims of crime said that the most important thing to them was that the offender did not commit the crime again. The same study found that 81% would prefer an offender to receive an effective sentence rather than a harsh one. The first recommendation of the report is:
“Effective rehabilitation has to be at the heart of the prison system.”
The second recommendation says:
“Though victims accept that any reforms have to be cost-effective, if individual sentencing decisions are seen to be motivated by concern for cost more than justice, they will not inspire the support of victims or the general public.”
Victim Support backs the reduction in short-term prison sentences, but wants evidence-based alternatives to stop reoffending put in place before they are abolished. It wants robustly enforced community sentencing to be applied as a meaningful and effective alternative to custodial sentences. It says that if alternatives such as drug or alcohol treatment programmes, or treatment for mental health problems, are ordered, they need to be adequately funded and proven to prevent reoffending.
The conditions at HMP Bedford, and indeed across the prison estate, are not conducive to the rehabilitation of prisoners—far from it. In fact, the recent urgent notification found that the preparation for release was “Not sufficiently good”. What will the Minister propose in his response to His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons that will finally turn Bedford Prison around, so that I am not standing here again next year asking the same questions? Will he find a solution that finally puts victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, a big part of which is to ensure that prisons rehabilitate offenders, rather than create reoffenders and more victims of crime?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
If I may briefly crave your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to put on the record my tribute to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, on the news of his sad passing. He was a man of intellect, integrity and ability, and had a deep commitment to public service. He will be missed by all in this House. We send our condolences and sympathies to his family.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) for securing this important debate. As he knows, I am deeply concerned by the recent findings of HM inspectorate of prisons at HMP Bedford, particularly in regard to safety and living conditions, and I have been clear that the situation needs to improve quickly. This is, as he set out clearly, the second time that an urgent notification has been invoked at HMP Bedford. I agree that the circumstances leading to it are not acceptable. Before I turn to the specifics that he raised about the situation at Bedford, I hope that he will allow me a moment to remind the House of the context—his speech rightly ranged more widely than Bedford alone—and of the steps that we are taking to improve prisons and justice across the country, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor set out in his statement of 16 October.
On prison capacity, the House will be aware that we are building six new prisons as we create an additional 20,000 places to deliver the biggest prison expansion in over a century. We have already delivered just shy of 6,000 of these additional places, and the brand-new category C resettlement prison, HMP Fosse Way, opened its doors in May this year and will house up to 1,715 prisoners. At the same time, we are creating thousands of places through the expansion of prisons with additional house blocks and major refurbishments at existing prisons, and by rolling out rapid deployment cells across the estate—the first 380 or so have already been delivered at six sites.
The hon. Gentleman raised a specific point about Bedford. There are no plans to re-roll Bedford Prison at this point. I appreciate that he may be disappointed by that, but it is important that I am open with him, as I will seek to be throughout my speech. I would gently say, in respect of prison capacity, that we are getting on with delivering that increase in modern, effective rehabilitative prison places through those six new prisons. By regrettable contrast, the plans under Jack Straw in the last Labour Government were to build 7,500 places in three Titan prisons, and, to the best of my recollection, they never got built at all.
In respect of staffing, I join the hon. Gentleman in rightly paying tribute to all those who work in our prisons—prison officers and all the staff in a range of capacities—for their work. Since March 2017, we have also increased the number of prison officers in public sector prisons by 4,655, and we made a commitment in 2021 to hire up to 5,000 prison officers across public and private prisons by the mid-2020s. As he alluded to, the increase in numbers means that, as we grow the workforce, which is a positive thing, we are also bringing new joiners and staff to the prison service, who will, by logic, have fewer years of service under their belt. It is important that we continue doing what we are doing to retain experienced officers alongside them as part of their mentoring and the development of their skills.
We have improved starting salaries for officers, which have risen from £22,000 to £31,000 since 2019. The staffing picture is improving in prisons across the country: in the 12 months from last September—the latest figures I have—the number of officers has increased by 1,441 full-time equivalents. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight that we are also improving the retention of staff: the resignation rate among frontline prison officers is down by almost three percentage points compared with last year. There is more to do, but that is progress, and it is important that we continue on that trajectory.
The hon. Gentleman also rightly highlighted prison safety, which I will address in a broader context before I turn to his local prison. We continue to take the necessary action to make our prisons safe both for frontline staff and for prisoners. The overall rate of assaults is 26% lower than prior to the pandemic. Of course, every assault is one too many, and we continue to work to improve the security of our prisons and reduce violence and the number of assaults within them, but I highlight that degree of positive progress to him.
The measures that we are putting in place to reduce violence in our prisons estate include our £100 million security investment to clamp down on the weapons, drugs and mobile phones that fuel violence and crime behind bars, and the continued rollout of PAVA—a synthetic pepper spray—in the adult male estate to protect staff and prisoners from incidents of serious violence, alongside de-escalation training for officers, which is also playing an important part.
Before I turn specifically to Bedford, let me address some of the broad-brush points that the hon. Gentleman made. He was right to highlight the five key purposes of sentencing. I highlight to him—although I am doing so from memory, so I will write to him to correct myself if I am incorrect—that reoffending is down by 9%, so again, that is working, but there is always more to do. He is right about the importance of substance misuse treatment programmes in getting people off substances that may drive their criminal behaviour. Their importance extends beyond prison, to when people are on release. My recollection is that there is a 54% reduction in reoffending if those programmes are continued in the community, the treatment is sustained, and the NHS, local authorities and prison authorities work together to make sure that it is in place. We are seeing positive outcomes there.
The hon. Gentleman quite rightly talked about the approach to sentencing at headline level, and the challenges of short sentences. They are often so short that we cannot get to grips with the underlying challenges that an individual faces, but long enough to break fragile ties and affect relationships, jobs and accommodation. I am very pleased that, on this issue, he appears to be following the approach set out by the Lord Chancellor, who suggests tougher sentences for those who commit the most heinous crimes, and tough community sentences as an alternative to short custodial sentences, though obviously discretion will rest with the sentencer. Also, while there should be a clear focus in the custodial estate on people paying their debt to society, they should also be able to make positive life choices about what they intend to do when they come out of prison, so that they can make a positive contribution and live life on the straight and narrow.
I turn to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about his local prison, HMP Bedford. As he set out, His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons has highlighted significant concerns about the condition of cells and overcrowding at Bedford. I reassure him that I am treating that with the utmost seriousness. He asked a number of questions about measures that we will put in place in response to the urgent notification. In accordance with our usual protocol on responding to the inspectorate, the Lord Chancellor will publish his response to the urgent notification, and the action plan, no later than 15 December; there is 28 days in which to do that. That will be the detailed response. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the time he spared me earlier this week for a conversation, in which he set out and amplified his key concerns. I hope that I can engage with him as we finalise the action plan. I also highlight my gratitude to the governor for giving me her time when we spoke last week.
The findings are, as the hon. Gentleman said, deeply concerning. Notwithstanding the fact that there will be a formal response within 28 days, I can update him—and indeed you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House—on a number of immediate actions that we have taken to drive improvement. These include providing additional resourcing support to the prison, equivalent to 15 additional prison officers, to improve the prison’s safety and security, and to improve the regime; I think the hon. Gentleman asked for additional support for the governor. We are undertaking a cell cleaning and painting programme to improve the physical environment, and completing a joint audit with our maintenance contractor to identify works and key priority areas, so that we can ensure that the work is done. We are introducing a cell conditions agreement to ensure that all cells are in good condition before they can be occupied. Decency checks to address concerns about cleanliness will be overseen by the governor; that will help directly with improving living conditions.
A working group has been set up, led by the governor, to understand issues regarding fair treatment. The hon. Gentleman raised that point when we spoke. The group will particularly focus on allegations of racism and other inappropriate behaviours. He has highlighted his concerns on that issue to me. We have made a number of new senior appointments at the prison; they include a new head of violence reduction, a new head of reducing reoffending, and a new head of education, skills and work.
His Majesty’s chief inspector noted in his letter to the Lord Chancellor that Bedford has
“consistently failed to provide good outcomes for prisoners”
since the inspection in 2016. The series of concerning inspections at Bedford is, of course, deeply troubling, and it may be useful if I briefly set out the improvements that we have made in response to previous inspection reports. Of course, they clearly have not resolved all the underlying issues, hence the hon. Gentleman’s securing this debate, but it is important that we highlight what has been done.
In response to His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons’ first urgent notification about HMP Bedford in 2018, a comprehensive safety strategy was implemented to support violence reduction, and a dedicated young adult unit was introduced to provide targeted support for prisoners and upskilling for staff. That resulted in lower levels of violence for that demographic group. We also provided additional staffing, including a safety hub manager, and a dedicated use of force co-ordinator in the safety team. In addition, we upgraded the head of safety post from a band 7 to a more senior band 8. Refurbishments also took place to improve decency and living conditions; they included improvements to showers and flooring.
HMP Bedford has also received support from the prison performance support programme, which offers tailored support for a maximum period of 18 months to prisons that face numerous complex challenges. The support for Bedford included over £1 million of additional funding focused on improving security and living conditions. Following the taking of those steps, the inspectorate undertook an independent review of progress in 2019 and found that although there had been some progress since 2018, progress on many of the inspectorate’s recommendations was insufficient. Inspectors found that despite the pandemic, improvements in living conditions had been made, including extensive, good-quality refurbishment of the communal shower rooms. However, previous concerns about violence and safety persisted.
In early 2022, the inspectorate visited Bedford to undertake a full inspection. It noted improvements at the prison, including strong leadership and an improved prison culture. Further improvements had also been made, such as investment in new windows and flooring and the installation of enhanced gate security. Alongside this, the capacity of the prison had been reduced by 76 spaces to allow residential accommodation to be refurbished. The inspection recognised that challenges remained, but it acknowledged that the prison was heading in a positive direction, and the oversight that followed the urgent notification of 2018 was removed from Bedford in October last year.
Even after the removal of urgent notification oversight, Bedford continued to receive support, for example through an ongoing compliance project, in which management checking systems were built to ensure that rules and regulations were fully followed by both staff and prisoners. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the latest inspection concluded that standards had slipped back at the prison, as the hon. Gentleman said, and a second UN was issued. It is also worrying that the contents of that urgent notification, which I considered very carefully, were, to my mind, similar to those of the 2018 notification. As I say, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for discussing these matters with me earlier this week, and I hope that he will feel free to come to me with any specifics that he would like considered in the next few weeks, as we put together our response—and, indeed, if he would like more regular engagement as we work through what needs to be done to improve the prison in his constituency.
When we met, the hon. Gentleman raised a couple of points that I would like to address. He raised his concern about the impact on constituents who live near the prison; he mentioned people entering the gardens of properties that neighbour the prison in an attempt to throw things over the prison wall, and broader impacts. Speaking as a constituency MP, I entirely understand his concern when constituents bring him those issues. It is right that he makes those points to me as the Minister, and to the House more broadly. The prison has worked to enhance partnerships with both the local council and the police, so that it can tackle such behaviour; as part of that, the prison checks directly, on a weekly basis, on any complaints from residents, and follows up on them, if they have not been raised with Bedfordshire police. If it is helpful to him, he may wish to raise specific issues with me outwith this Chamber, in confidence.
The hon. Gentleman touched on his concerns about the inexperience of some staff at Bedford. Notwithstanding the benefits of increasing the number of staff in prison officer roles, we recognise the need to continue training rigorously. There is now a learning and capability manager in place to directly support all new staff at HMP Bedford. We have also provided for a full-time welfare post for HMP Bedford staff, so that they have that support, independent of local care team arrangements, should they need it. Having previously deployed standards coaching teams at the prison, I intend to redeploy them in the new year, to again help drive progress.
The HMIP findings are of course deeply concerning, and we are committed to improving the conditions at Bedford and at the other prisons where UNs have been triggered over the past year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will be monitoring the situation at Bedford very closely in the coming weeks and months to ensure there is sustained improvement. Although I have had this specific brief for only about two and a half to three weeks, the hon. Member for Bedford will have had experience of dealing with me in other ministerial roles, and I hope he will recognise that just as I did in those roles, I will seek to work collaboratively with him where I can. We share the desired outcome of making improvements.
I also confirm on the record that the Lord Chancellor’s response to the urgent notification will be published by 15 December, as required. The hon. Gentleman will be able to obtain it, but I will make sure that a copy is sent to him for his records. A wider-ranging full action plan will also be developed in the longer term to address all HMIP recommendations and hopefully tackle some of the long-term underlying challenges that he has highlighted. I anticipate that that will be published in March 2024, but I will inform him when we have a more precise timing for that. I am grateful to him for bringing this important issue to this Chamber for debate, and look forward to working with him and the prison in the coming months to address the issues that have been highlighted.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Following the Minister’s opening remarks, I place on record my own sadness on learning of the death of Alistair Darling. He was a distinguished Member of this House, and one who I regarded from the Opposition Benches as a friend. The political landscape of the United Kingdom will be the bleaker because of his loss.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes A, B, C, D and H and New Code I) Order 2023
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes A, B, C, D and H and New Code I) Order 2023.
The order was laid before the House on 16 October. It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Today’s debate follows yesterday’s on three instruments related to the National Security Act 2023, which were also laid on 16 October. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security participated in that debate.
Section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires the Home Secretary to issue codes of practice governing the use of police powers. The revised and new codes of practice in the draft order ensure that codes are updated to reflect the provisions of the National Security Act 2023 and the Public Order Act 2023, which were passed by both Houses of Parliament earlier this year. As per section 67(4) of PACE, two separate consultations on the changes were carried out over the summer, one in relation to each of those Acts. The responses to the proposed changes to the PACE codes were generally positive, and the Government considered and incorporated suggestions for further amendments following the consultations. Full details are on the Government website.
Let me briefly outline the changes made by the draft order. The changes to PACE code A are required as a result of amendments to stop-and-search powers made in the Public Order Act 2023 and the Government’s commitment to streamlining stop-and-search guidance. Modifications to PACE code A are required to emphasise that the suspicion-led stop-and-search powers introduced in section 10 of the Public Order Act are also afforded the safeguards contained in code A. The suspicionless powers in section 11 of that Act authorise the police to stop and search individuals and vehicles to find objects made, adapted or intended to be used in connection with protest-related offences.
We are also changing PACE code A to include provisions to improve community relations and data collection, as currently found in the “best use of stop and search scheme” guidance. Communicating the use of suspicionless search powers, such as those in section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and section 11 of the Public Order Act 2023, where it is operationally beneficial to do so, and embedding a data collection requirement in the code will build on the existing trust and confidence measures taken between the police and the communities they serve. The changes proposed to PACE code A will include an updated start date for the serious violence reduction order pilot, which commenced in April this year, and update the ethnicity list found in annex B to reflect the latest categories in the 2021 census.
I turn to the other PACE codes that are amended or introduced in relation to the National Security Act. Amendments to PACE code A are required to govern how searches of individuals who are subject to prevention and investigation measures under part 2 of the Act should be carried out, and those changes mirror the existing provisions in code A for the equivalent terrorism measures. Amendments to code B, which cover search, seizure and retention powers, are required to account for the new search and seizure powers introduced by schedule 2 to the National Security Act. Again, those largely replicate the powers already contained in code B.
The changes to codes C and D make it clear that those codes do not apply to relevant provisions in the National Security Act or schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, such as detention provisions. That is because separate codes, including the new PACE code I, deal with those provisions. PACE codes A and D are amended to exempt an officer from having to give their name in the case of inquiries linked to national security, for obvious reasons. That extends the approach currently taken towards terrorism investigations and provides a crucial change to protect the identities of police officers from hostile state actors who may seek to do them harm.
The changes to code H implement recommendations made by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation—to whom I record my thanks—that the Government have accepted. They largely reflect amendments to section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 made through the recently passed National Security Act —for example, making it clear that time spent in detention under certain other detention powers will be accounted for when calculating the maximum period of detention.
Finally—always everyone’s favourite word in a speech I give—the order brings into operation a new PACE code I to govern the detention, treatment and questioning of individuals arrested under section 27 of the National Security Act. The code contains various operational procedural matters, such as how to arrange for an interpreter for the suspect if required, what information must be documented in the custody record, how to provide cautions and what to do with the detainee’s property on arrest. The code is based very closely on the existing PACE code H, which provides guidance for the detention and treatment of persons arrested under terrorism legislation.
It is worth noting that the changes to these codes are supported by counter-terrorism police and by the Crown Prosecution Service. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has also specifically supported the changes to code H. I hope I have made it clear from my remarks that the changes made by the order support and essentially implement primary legislation that has been agreed by Parliament. These revised codes promote the fundamental principles to be observed by the police, and help to preserve the effectiveness of, and public confidence in, the use of the police’s legislative powers. I hope that members of the Committee will therefore support these revisions to the PACE codes of practice. I commend the order to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. As we heard from the Minister, the order concerns numerous changes to the codes of practice contained in PACE. We accept that these changes are required as a result of the passage of the National Security Act and the Public Order Act. In a similar vein to the comment about welcome words in debates, I can say that those measures were debated at great length and I do not intend to rehearse or rehash those arguments. I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for his correspondence ahead of this Committee sitting and for being clear about what the Government are and are not doing with the statutory instrument. That was much appreciated.
I will just highlight a couple of the changes compelled by the National Security Act. On code A, the most notable changes relate to and govern searches of individuals subject to a state threats prevention and investigation measures notice and the exempting of police officers from having to provide their names in inquiries relating to national security. The Opposition of course support those very sensible provisions.
On code B, the changes reflect the search-and-seizure powers in schedule 2 to the National Security Act. Again, during the passage of that Act, we broadly supported these measures, and we continue to do so. On code C, there is a clarification that individuals arrested under section 27 of the National Security Act will be subject to the new code I, rather than code C. That also is the case in code D. I will cover code I at the end, because that is probably the bit that is of interest, but again we support the approach being taken there. On code H, I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the independent reviewer. We, too, are grateful for the work that has been done there. We think the Government have taken a sensible approach in implementing those recommendations.
As I said, I think the action and the interest, perhaps, are in code I. First, under section 27 of the National Security Act, a constable can
“arrest without a warrant anyone who the constable…suspects is, or has been, involved in foreign power threat activity.”
This code will govern the detention, treatment and questioning of individuals arrested under that power. Again, we recognise and agree on the importance of granting law enforcement officers such powers and we welcome the changes. We think that this gives the police a good window in which to work in order to undertake the investigations needed to confirm whether an act of espionage or sabotage has been committed. It also gives the public some confidence that there is a regime that governs this process and that there is a power that provides control, oversight and accountability, which strikes the right balance between individual liberty and collective security. That covers the elements relating to the National Security Act.
There are changes in code A relating to the suspicionless stop-and-search powers introduced by the Public Order Act. Again, that is possibly where there will be greater interest. Stop and search has been debated significantly in this place, not least in the discussion of that Act. We have made clear our concerns on the record, so I will not recommence that debate. We are concerned about disproportionalities and about the impact on public trust. However, that is an ongoing conversation that I know the Minister and I will engage in, because it is really at the heart of public confidence in policing.
The Minister made a welcome statement at the beginning about the consultation that the Government have undertaken. Can he tell us a bit about what was said in relation to stop-and-search powers? I and my colleagues would be grateful for assurances about how that matter has been handled with the appropriate sensitivity.
I will bring my remarks to a close. We do not intend to oppose the measures. We have had primary legislation; we have had our chance to discuss them. It is now vital that our hard-working police officers have clear guidance on the powers, so that they can be used fairly and proportionately.
Chris Philp
I am not sure there is a great deal to add. I thank the shadow Minister for his constructive attitude towards these measures, which, as he said, are sensible and proportionate. I share his view that we do not want to repeat the debates we have had on the wider principles of stop and search, but, as he said, no doubt we will have further such debates in the future.
The shadow Minister asked about the consultation on the stop-and-search powers. Generally speaking, the consultation response was positive on the reference to communication about suspicionless stop and search—for example, under section 60. Clearly, the more that the police communicate, the better it is. The provisions strengthen the presumption in favour of public communication around the reasons for stop and search, although we are stopping short of compelling the police to communicate, because, on occasion, there may be sensitive operational reasons why they may not want to.
The codes were changed after the consultation to make sure that the language was consistent with the rest of the code, and that is important. Broadly speaking, as I said, the consultation responses were positive. Although these are not really germane to the codes, there are wider debates about disproportionality and so on. We will no doubt discuss that on a separate occasion, but I think the Chair may find me out of order if I engage in that debate this morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Wilby Way roundabout
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
Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme
(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
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the work of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I am here today because the reputation of Parliament matters, and how we conduct ourselves here matters. Like many workplaces, we are grappling with issues around bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, and we are looking for ways to not only give people routes to redress but change the culture of our organisation to ensure that such issues do not find any solace in our midst.
I stand here today representing a number of colleagues who, through the establishment of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, have become Ministers but still have very strong opinions on this issue and want to see it dealt with in the right way. I refer in particular to the pivotal role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who introduced the ICGS in July 2018. She has recently taken up a ministerial position and is unable to take part in the debate, but I note that she is here in body as well as in spirit.
I also note that I was a member of the recent Speaker’s Conference on the employment conditions of Members’ staff, and the excellent report which came from that underlines the importance of the changes recommended for the ICGS, some of which have not yet been carried through in full but were part of the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference.
This is a timely debate, because there is an independent review under way into how the ICGS has developed over the last five years. The review issued a call for evidence on 22 November, and I know that a number of colleagues will want to provide feedback through that. Because we are midway through a review, the Minister responding to the debate will inevitably be somewhat curtailed in what she is able to say. I hope that this debate gives some individuals the opportunity to recognise that they can contribute through the review and to hear from the Minister the Government’s support for this important programme of work within Parliament.
The vision of the ICGS, introduced in the wake of the #MeToo scandal, was to ensure that everybody who works in or visits Parliament is treated with dignity and respect and to underline that there is absolutely no place for bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct in any workplace, including Parliament. The scheme is there for all current and former members of the parliamentary community, not just MPs, and it is the first of its kind anywhere in the world.
The initial working group, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire, was made up of Members of all parties in this place, noble peers from the other place, members of staff of both Houses and trade union representation for House staff. It was a thorough piece of work, embracing a huge range of views, and it demonstrated the importance of not only enshrining those views in the process that was developed but getting their support for the recommendations.
The research into the problem and the possible solutions was incredibly detailed, taking advice from legal experts and employment advisers. A number of hearings were held, to hear the sometimes shocking stories of colleagues who work here. The result was widely consulted on with Members right across the House and was agreed on the nod; there was no dissent to what was put forward. It is important to note that the House chose to vote on the specific processes to be followed because of the possible serious sanctions involved and the nature of the allegations. When we come to review this, it is important that we also look at the fact that the process needs to closely echo what this House agreed to and ensure that there has not been any mission creep along the way.
The ICGS proposals took a holistic view, looking at change processes, and, importantly, changing the culture of the organisation—as I say, as many other organisations are doing across the country. The key features of the scheme as it was originally envisaged were: the development of a behaviour code that would apply to everyone; the development of new training to support continuous professional development; the maintenance of respectful behaviour, proper induction courses and exit interviews to identify bad practice wherever it occurs; and, of course, the independent scheme itself. Again, that is very much what other organisations are doing to try to address these sorts of problems.
The scheme was designed to enable any complainant to call a strictly confidential helpline with their grievance and have it assessed in a timely fashion by an independent case examiner, who would also invite the complainant and respondent to give their sides of the case, with witnesses if necessary, and provide for the appropriate mental health support for all parties. The issues are difficult.
Should the independent case examiner find that there was no case to answer, the matter would be dropped with no publicity or consequences. Should, however, the case be upheld, the findings would be escalated to the employer or manager of the person accused and the ICGS would identify appropriate sanctions, which would include written or oral apologies, training, a requirement to prohibit contact, and, in serious cases, dismissal of the respondent.
In instances where an MP was the respondent, an escalation through the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to the Committee on Standards, which could recommend perhaps a suspension, including potentially allowing for a recall vote if that was triggered. The House had to agree the scheme and the process to be followed because of the implications of the sanctions. More recently, for sanctions against MPs the Independent Expert Panel was introduced as an extra layer in the process. That was not originally considered necessary by the working group, but has been put in place subsequently.
Were the complainant to report an issue that could break the law, the ICGS case examiner offers support and guidance to the complainant to go to the appropriate police force. Should the complainant not wish to do that, the ICGS has a protocol with the Met police to enable anonymised reporting to take place to ensure safeguarding of the wider public.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The right hon. Lady has put forward a very detailed and constructive case that needs to be looked at. Over the years, lots of constituents have come to tell me about issues to do with workforce bullying in the constituency. They tell me that their biggest concern is the time it takes for things to happen. Frustratingly, it means that sometimes they almost give up. Can the right hon. Lady confirm for all of us here, but for me especially, that the timescale will be sufficiently fast to ensure that the complaint, if upheld, can be dealt with within a 28-day timescale? Is that possible?
Dame Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his timely intervention. I will come to the specifics of that point later in my remarks. One reason for calling the debate today is that there is not that surety. The cases go on for months, not weeks, because of the number of cases that are being referred to the ICGS. There needs to be a review of how the organisation operates to address the very remarks that the hon. Gentleman has made. He is absolutely right to say that if there are allegations of serious bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct, they need to be dealt with in a timely manner. Delay helps no one—not the accused or the victim.
One working group recommendation was that Members’ staff should have access to proper human resources support and advice, which is not routinely available in Parliament at the moment. That recommendation has not been implemented, despite it being one of the important recommendations from the working group. That means that Members’ staff with a complaint have nowhere to go other than the ICGS, which is unsuitable if their complaint does not relate to harassment, bullying or sexual misconduct.
The report from the recent Speaker’s Conference has also highlighted that issue. Its recommendations recognise that if staff have concerns about their employment or if their relationship with their Member of Parliament starts to break down, there are few routes through which they can seek support. The ICGS may be the only route they are aware of, even though it may not be appropriate for their complaint. Unfortunately, that means that a significantly higher number of general complaints on issues such as working conditions or contractual disputes are being reported to the ICGS helpline, because staff have nowhere else to go.
The fifth annual report of the ICGS was published last month. It stated that only 31 of the 479 contacts to the helpline—under 10%—were about bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. Any complaints are distressing and unacceptable in a modern workplace, but the ICGS helpline is getting clogged up by the many complaints that are outside the remit of the ICGS.
With that in mind, the Speaker’s Conference recommended that the budget of the Members’ Services Team be expanded to hire more HR professionals to deliver an HR service to Members’ staff. The ICGS was set up to deal with bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. The lack of a clear pathway for issues that would normally be dealt with by an HR department has inundated the ICGS throughout its life so far. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, that means that the grievances of many complainants are not tackled swiftly enough, which results in further distress.
The 31 serious cases in the ICGS report show that the average time taken for a serious case to conclude is not a matter of weeks, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned in his intervention, but 184 working days. That is far too long for someone who has been subject to bullying or sexual harassment in the workplace. For the benefit of both sides, these things need to be dealt with swiftly.
The new director of the ICGS, Thea Walton, is committed to reducing that time, but the system has been working in that way for the past few years. We should fully implement the initial proposals that Parliament agreed when it established the ICGS. The Speaker’s Conference supported many of those recommendations, particularly the creation of an HR department for Members’ staff. That will provide a swift and timely service, and lead to the sort of culture change we all want to see—whereby people who work in this place feel valued, heard and supported if need be.
First, the review must prioritise the improvement of the timeliness of investigations through ensuring that cases are dealt with in the appropriate way and that the ICGS is not inundated; secondly, we must set up the HR department; and, thirdly, we must implement the other elements of the ICGS programme that was agreed in this place, including the establishment of induction courses for new joiners. To reiterate, I am not talking only about Members of Parliament, but the whole parliamentary community. There should also be exit interviews for those who leave abruptly, and we should promote the take-up of training courses to upskill team managers and staff more generally.
The review must consider the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in the ICGS. The commissioner was specifically identified as the individual to whom MPs could appeal should they be subject to allegations and the case find against them. That was to ensure the possibility of an independent review of the case, and therefore to take into account the level of public of scrutiny when an accusation of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct by an MP is made public. That appeal process meant that there was an additional check, which was capable of ensuring that decisions had been taken fairly and correctly, and had been based on evidence not bias. Should the PCS uphold a case against an MP, the process is now that the case is sent to the Independent Expert Panel, which investigates the findings and makes a recommendation. That then goes to the Committee on Standards, which will bring a recommendation to the House. That process is different from other investigations by the PCS—such as those in relation to the misuse of stationery or other more day-to-day matters—and reflects the sensitivity of these complaints about bullying and sexual harassment.
The nature of the sanctions also needs to be considered, particularly given the possibility of further appeals and the complexity of what we are talking about. The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme deals with some of the most difficult complaints. It does matter not only to those complainants who are reporting abuse, but also to the reputation of Parliament, that we have an effective system by which to deal with those sorts of allegations. In having an effective system, we do not only have sanctions in place; we create an environment that will enable the culture of our organisation to evolve. Too often, the ICGS is seen as being there just to punish MPs, but it is actually there for the whole parliamentary community, and there are around 14,000 non-MPs working in and around Parliament and across the country who rightly want an effective process by which to tackle bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct when it occurs.
I urge hon. Members and right hon. Members to have a look at and take part in the review, because it matters not only to our staff and ourselves that we get it right; it matters for the way that our Parliament is perceived across the country and the world.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. The SNP welcomes the progress made on the work of the ICGS. We support all efforts to improve the system and to stamp out all bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, in this place and beyond. Everyone has a right to a safe workplace and to live their lives without fear or intimidation. All employers have a duty of care to protect the health, safety and welfare of their workers, and that means having robust processes for reporting and dealing with harassment, bullying and sexual misconduct. At a time when trust in politicians is, unfortunately, at an all-time low, it is more important than ever that we treat those who work in this place with dignity, courtesy and respect, and that we ensure that those who do not treat people in that way are held to account.
The SNP very much appreciates the work of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme team in providing confidential guidance, advice and support to anyone who has experienced bullying, harassment and/or sexual misconduct. We welcome the ICGS’s fifth annual report and pay tribute to all those who have helped to drive improvements across the work of the ICGS.
I very much appreciate the comments made by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), who I know is standing in, extremely capably, for another Member, and I know that that Member— the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom)—has a particular and very close interest in the debate. The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire will also be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is very sorry that he could not make it today, but I am sure that he will be watching closely.
The report found that the ICGS team has responded to criticisms and made improvements that have—it must be acknowledged—reduced the time taken to carry out investigations. That improvement was due in part to the welcome addition of extra investigators to the team. It has been a big source of concern for many in this place that some of these investigations have taken so long, and I certainly look forward to further improvement in the time taken.
The team has also provided extra guidance resources for service users to support them through the process, and it has implemented 32 out of 33 of Alison Stanley’s 18-month review’s recommendations. We welcome the fact that the remaining recommendation, on governance, will be considered in the upcoming review and that an interim governance arrangement has been established.
However, there are still shortcomings in the system that need to be addressed. It is vital that complaints are dealt with confidentially, but through a transparent process. The scheme was set up to shed a light on matters that had been shrouded in darkness previously and that reflected badly on the House and its Members. It is important that we are clear about the processes the different complaints go through, while of course making every effort to make those processes confidential for the individuals involved. It is also important that we do things in a timely manner, as I mentioned, and that we improve the process so that complainants feel listened to and receive the support they need.
The report highlights key trends, including a
“power imbalance between the complainant and the respondent…In a number of cases, the blurring of personal and professional boundaries”
and
“the presence of alcohol and the culture of drinking in Westminster.”
We agree with the ICGS director, Thea Walton, that the organisation should escalate action against individuals if they are the subject of three allegations of bullying and harassment—the current trigger is five—even if those fall short of a formal complaint. Although the ICGS is well placed to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying, it is incumbent on all of us in this place to improve the working culture and to ensure that everyone who works here feels safe and is treated with dignity and respect.
We are very much in favour of the proposed expansion of the Members’ Services Team, which has come to provide a really invaluable and professional service over such a short time, as I am sure other Members will appreciate. The recommendation that the team should evolve into a Members’ and Members’ staff service is commendable. As small employers, MPs should have access to better human resources support, but staff should also have access to guidance and advice independent of their employing MP.
The Speaker’s Conference report, published a couple of weeks ago, describes Members’ staff as “uniquely vulnerable” and found the current Members’ support service to be “under-resourced”. It recommended creating a new “restorative practice” for workplace dispute resolution. That welcome recommendation would help to create uniform procedures for MPs’ staff across the House. Inadequate provision of employee support, employer guidance and qualified HR experts directly impacts on the experience of staff. We are highly supportive of recommendations to improve those and the great work of the current Members’ Services Team.
In closing, I acknowledge the cross-party group of MPs—the initial working group—who worked so diligently in the initial stages to arrive at various recommendations, which were acted on. In particular, I acknowledge my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire, who was the SNP shadow Leader of the House at the time, and the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire. They made what some might say was an unlikely couple, but they were able to put aside political differences to take that important work forward—with the assistance, of course, of other members of that working group, and I pay tribute to them.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the debate, Sir Robert. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for providing leadership on this key issue, and I acknowledge the work of the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) in helping develop the ICGS in the first instance.
This topic is important, and I touched on it recently in the Speaker’s Conference debate. Although it is by no means an issue for every MP—or indeed everyone who works in Parliament—there have been too many instances where MPs, or sometimes staff members, have abused their power. The issue goes to the heart of our culture and working conditions in Parliament. The past few years have been damaging to the reputation of the Houses of Parliament, with serious allegations against, and sometimes convictions of, Members. It is essential that we get our own house in order and ensure that we have an inclusive and respectful working environment.
We welcome the role of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme in dealing with instances of poor behaviour by Members. The ICGS is a hard-won system, its origins rooted in too many reviews of Parliament’s failures. We fully support this new way of working. Investigations of misconduct are independent and impartial, with victims’ anonymity respected—that is important.
The ICGS has proved an effective method for MPs’ staff to raise incidents of poor conduct. After concerns that the process can be lengthy, timescales for completing cases are coming down. The most recent report published by the ICGS, in October, said that the time taken to resolve complaints had fallen by 26 working days. It used to take up to a year to resolve cases, but they are now completed, on average, within six months. That is an important step in the right direction, but the time taken is still too long.
It is welcome that the ICGS has held roadshow events across the country. Constituency office staff and those working remotely should be aware of the advice and support open to them. I also welcome the new HR system proposed by the Members’ Services Team. Earlier intervention can prevent the escalation of problems in the long term. The MST, acting as a mediator where appropriate, could help to prevent incidents from escalating and to ensure that we have proper inductions, training and ongoing welfare checks, as others have said. Early intervention by the human resources team will reduce complaints to the ICGS. As covered in the Speaker’s Conference debate, it is essential that such important HR issues are introduced as soon as possible.
At the coming general election, there might be a high turnover of Members, and it would be good to see the measures ready to go at that point. Importantly, the implementation of a risk-based exclusion process is urgently needed. There are safeguarding issues if an MP who is arrested for a serious violent or sexual offence is allowed to continue attending their workplace and going on parliamentary visits. Labour has been working with Mr Speaker and the Leader of the House on the issue, and we want the exclusion process to be brought forward as quickly as possible.
I therefore have some questions for the Minister. Can the ICGS investigation process please be speeded up still further? Will the proposed action on exclusions be introduced before Christmas of this year? How will the ICGS work with the new Members’ Services Team? It is vital that we continue to make progress on this important issue. Parliament should be a safe and respectful workplace.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Dame Amanda Milling)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) on securing the debate and on her excellent speech, which set out the details around the ICGS and how it was set up.
The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme was a fundamental step towards safeguarding everyone on the parliamentary estate, in the wake of disturbing allegations of bullying and harassment in Westminster back in 2017. As Members have mentioned, it was set up at pace and on a cross-party basis, and I too pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for all her work when she was Leader of the House, as well as for her work over the past few years in ensuring that the House authorities continue to look at this important issue.
The ICGS now provides a dedicated independent mechanism for handling complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct in both Houses, and it forms an important part of the parliamentary standards system and of efforts to effect culture change in Westminster. To pick up on some of the words mentioned in each of the speeches this afternoon, reputation matters, trust in politics matters and culture matters. That is why it is so important to have this system in place, and I will come on to talk about the review and its importance. The safety of the parliamentary community is paramount, and the Government have made it clear that there is no place for bullying, harassment or sexual harassment in Parliament. By working cross-party, we can ensure that everyone who works in Parliament is treated with dignity and respect.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke outlined in her excellent opening speech, an independent review of the ICGS was launched on 23 October to assess the performance of the ICGS and identify areas for further improvement. This is something that has been evolving over time, and there was a previous review, which I will touch on in a moment. The current review is an important piece of work, and I remember having a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire last year. It is five years since the ICGS was first developed and launched, so it is an ideal time to review how it is working. The review will look at the operation of the ICGS, as well as at understanding the investigatory process and the complexities involved.
Dame Maria Miller
The Minister said a phrase a few moments ago that I think is important: the ICGS is a system. It is not a thing, but a system; it is a number of different elements. The concern that I expressed, and that has come from elsewhere, is that although we may be having this review at the moment, not all of the system has actually been implemented—many elements of it were never implemented. Will she join me in urging the review to particularly focus on that point?
Dame Amanda Milling
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her intervention. The terms of reference have been set for this review, but there are a number of different mechanisms relating to standards in the House. The Standards Committee is actually undertaking an inquiry itself, and I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend has put evidence to that inquiry, but I would urge her to look at that as well.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned in her opening remarks, the independent reviewer will soon launch a call for written evidence, and I encourage members of the parliamentary community to submit evidence. The review is expected to conclude and to be published in early 2024. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will continue to champion improvements to the ICGS as a member of the House of Commons Commission—indeed, many Members present are members of the Commission, including the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). One of the Commission’s recommendations from earlier in the year was the need for a new resolution service to support Members and staff to resolve issues and repair relationships.
I will turn now to the terms of reference of the current review. There have been a number of mentions of timeliness today, and quality and timeliness is one of seven points in the review’s terms of reference. The review will be an opportunity to address concerns about timeliness and the quality of investigations. Fundamentally, we need to ensure that people have confidence in the ICGS. I know that the Leader of the House and Commission members look forward to working with the director, the chair of the Independent Expert Panel and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to ensure that the system operates as effectively as possible. All colleagues mentioned timeliness in their speeches, and Alison Stanley’s 18-month review of the ICGS, which was published in February 2021, stated:
“Its operation and processes have become over complex and there is a perception amongst the Parliamentary community that it is a stressful, isolated and lengthy process.”
I very much welcome the fact that timeliness is part of the current review, because it is one of the things that cause concern.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) mentioned risk-based exclusion, and the Commission continues to consider the matter—as hon. Members will appreciate, there is a need to treat it with due care and attention. On 12 June, there was a debate about the proposals for risk-based exclusion that the Commission published in late May. It was a general debate because the commissioners were conscious that the publication of the report was the first opportunity for hon. Members to consider the Commission’s final proposals. It was an important opportunity for Members to express their views—ultimately, this is House business. The Commission has reiterated its strong commitment to proceed with this matter while taking on board the useful practical suggestions that emerged from that debate. It is of course paramount that everyone working on the estate feels safe. We all have a responsibility to improve the culture and working environment across Parliament.
The ICGS has been an integral part of efforts to change the culture in Parliament. We must remember that we probably would not be having this debate if it were not for the bravery of those men and women who chose to speak about their personal experiences. We thank them for taking that step on behalf of everyone. It is vital that we continue to take steps in the right direction and to listen to feedback. The review is under way, and I am sure the independent reviewer will listen to this debate. I will ensure that a copy of Hansard is provided with the points that have been made this afternoon.
It is important that the system has the confidence of all those involved. Our Parliament must lead by example in how it tackles these issues. The Government and the Leader of the House look forward to seeing the review’s recommendations. I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke for securing the debate, as well as all those who have worked so hard in this area.
Dame Maria Miller
I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate, and I hope our comments will be listened to carefully. The ICGS is a system of well thought-through procedures and processes that provide an avenue for redress and for changing culture and behaviour in this place. Not all the original proposals have been implemented or adhered to, so I urge the review to consider how many of the current issues could have been avoided if they had been put in place as designed. There is a list of things, including training and HR, that have not yet come to fruition. Let us get the full package in place and give the ICGS the opportunity to work as originally envisaged.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the work of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.
School Pupils with Allergies
(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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered pupils with allergies in schools.
I sincerely thank hon. Members for making time for this afternoon’s debate. I am ever mindful that the reason why people are here is that they want to be here. The House has risen—even the Adjournment debate is over—and those of us here today are here with a purpose, which is to put forward our request.
We are very pleased to see family members of allergy sufferers in the Public Gallery, and we are here to fight for them. I thank them for the books they have made available to us. I read Helen’s story about her wee boy in today’s paper. I know that she sent the story of her child to all MPs and explained why this debate is so important.
May I say what a pleasure it is to see the Minister in his place? I do not believe I have had the opportunity to address him in his current capacity, even though I am a regular in Westminster Hall. I am really pleased, as always, to see my good friends the shadow Ministers from Labour and the SNP in their places, and other colleagues who have made an effort to be here.
What are we doing today? We are raising the important issue of allergies in our local schools. I am the Member for Strangford in Northern Ireland, where education and health are devolved, but I will make a case for Helen, her family and her wee boy Benedict. The debate is important not just for those of us present, but for people across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Food allergy affects around 7% to 8% of children worldwide, or about two children in an average-sized classroom of 25, which gives a perspective on what the impact can be. It highlights the sheer volume of young people and parents on whom allergies impact. It is so important that we address this issue in the right way. I understand that the Minister has a copy of my contribution and the four requests at the end of it—the four requests that Helen and others in the Public Gallery have also made.
I am the DUP’s health spokesperson, and I am grateful to be able to make the case on behalf of all representatives and those who could not attend but wish to be here. Our schools are safe places for our children—somewhere to grow and learn—which is the way we want it and the way it should be. If we want that to be the case in our schools, we need to make sure that it is safe for that to happen. Children spend at least 20% of their waking hours in school, and further data shows that 18% of food allergy reactions, and approximately 25% of first-time anaphylactic reactions, occur at school. Collectively, we are asking for action on behalf of parents who have lost loved ones and those who are concerned for the future, because the figures highlight the need for better strategies to tackle allergies in schools. Anaphylaxis due to food allergy occurs more in schools than in any other setting. The very nature of schools is that they are places where kids socialise, chat and eat food. Schools are our focus for this debate, and it is important that we get things right.
Around 30% of allergic reactions in schools occur in children previously not known to have a food allergy. With that being the case, we really need this debate to highlight the issue. There is no doubt that we all have some experience of allergies and intolerances—there is probably not a family that does not—and maybe some Members in this Chamber have an intolerance. One of my sons had some allergies when he was smaller. The lady I was speaking to before the start of this debate was talking about airborne allergies and how this triggers asthma. My second son had asthma; he was born with it. We were told that although he had psoriasis when he was first born, when the psoriasis left him the asthma would come—there was a combination. I am not medically qualified to say that; it is what the nurses and doctors told me. We were always very cautious about the things he ate, and ensured that anti-allergen tablets were taken.
One of my staff members has a son who has a severe allergy to egg whites. That is another example. He has spent numerous nights in hospital over the last 20 years of his life, and his mother has had to be especially vigilant when he has been offered certain vaccines because the vaccines themselves can complicate the issue. We are able, over the years, to build an understanding of how to cope with these allergies, but for younger children, who are being exposed to new foods and new surroundings, it is not always that easy, especially in schools.
Every debate I do, I learn something; I have clearly learned today that there are probably airborne allergens in this room at this moment and, if we have an allergy, we could react to one of those. However, what is responsible for my being here today and for making this debate happen is the story of Benedict Blythe and engaging with his mother, Helen. I understand that she sent an email to every MP. I got it, and the issue caught my attention, as it did for other hon. Members here today and those who unfortunately cannot be here but wish that they could be. Helen is utterly fantastic and a devoted voice for this cause. It was her energy, commitment and dedication that ensured that we all found out about this issue.
Benedict, Helen’s son, was allergic to milk, eggs, nuts, sesame, soya, chickpeas and kiwi. He also had asthma. In 2021, he collapsed at school and died in hospital. I am ever mindful that Helen has fought this campaign through the Benedict Blythe Foundation. She wants every school to have an allergies policy and tailored healthcare plans for all pupils with allergies, so if I could ask for just one thing at the end of this debate, on behalf of Helen and others, that would be the request. The Minister already knows what my requests are, and I am very confident that he will be interested and dedicated and committed to making those changes.
The relevant petition garnered some 13,000 signatures, so it is not a small petition by any means. It galvanised the opinion of many across this great United Kingdom, and that is also part of the story. If people have not heard the story, or read the story in the paper today, I encourage them to do so, please.
I know that Helen has raised the case of her son, Benedict, with many Members across this House, and not just that—there are thousands of people across the United Kingdom, including me and my constituents in Strangford in Northern Ireland, who support her wholeheartedly in doing this. I will just give some background to Benedict’s story, if I may.
This debate is taking place on the eve of the second anniversary of Benedict Blythe’s death. Benedict was only five years old at the time. He was a lovely young boy with so much to live for. The Benedict Blythe Learning Foundation was established in 2021 in memory of five-year-old Benedict following his collapse at school and subsequent death from anaphylaxis. He was an enthusiastic learner—as children are at that age. Children are almost like a sponge because they want to learn it all and they want to learn it right now. And that was what Benedict did. He loved to “play numbers” and learn about the natural world. Inspired by his passion for knowledge, exploration and play, the Benedict Blythe Foundation seeks to support other children to have the same positive relationship with learning and education, regardless of their ability, and to remove barriers to education. If young Benedict had survived, he could well have gone on to become an MP in this House, such was his interest in making things change and making things happen.
Benedict was allergic to dairy, eggs, peanuts, sesame and chickpeas. Helen and her husband, Pete, are still waiting for the inquest to shed light on how and why their son died, but they say the horrifying speed with which he became ill—I understand that there is an inquest to be heard—demonstrates the need for pupils with allergies to be better protected at school. That is one of the requests of this debate.
Helen and her husband, all of us here and all those in the Gallery today are calling for new legislation to make that happen, including mandatory allergy and anaphylaxis training, statutory allergy policies, individual healthcare plans for all children with allergies and spare adrenalin pens in every school. We have many requests, but that is our core request. That would allow children with allergies to have a fantastic experience of school and enjoy all the fun of learning and social interaction with their friends, despite their allergies. It is about having a normal life and yet, at the same time, having an agreement to deal with the problems of allergies.
There is a need for schools to be better prepared to manage the increasing number of children with allergies entering a classroom. In September 2017, the UK Department for Education published guidance on the use of adrenalin auto-injectors in schools. It states that from 1 October 2017 schools may purchase AAI devices without a prescription for emergency use in children who are at risk of anaphylaxis. Schools may administer their spare AAIs to children in emergencies but only to a pupil at risk of anaphylaxis, where both medical authorisation and written parental consent for use of the spare AAI has been approved.
To parallel the UK’s guidance, Northern Ireland’s version issued by the local Department of Education back home, updated in October 2018, essentially reflects the DFE document. In Northern Ireland, while schools are expected to develop policies to support pupils with medical needs, including allergies, and review them regularly, there is no statutory requirement for them to do so. It is a guideline that schools will follow. Today, we are trying to underline the need for legislation that can make that compulsory. While everyone says, “Yes, we will do that,” we need to make sure there is enforcement to do that. That is not about being critical of anybody and it is not about pointing the finger; we are just saying, “Let’s get it right.”
I can speak for the schools in my constituency that go above and beyond to cater for pupils with medical needs. The extent of the allergies that children have can vary, but ensuring that teachers are aware of the correct protocol, no matter how severe the allergy, is the core of the solution. Support for children with allergies can vary significantly across the country. Examples of best practice exist and include some in my constituency of Strangford and across Northern Ireland where schools find ways to be inclusive and keep children safe.
Whenever a mum or dad leaves a child in school, they are fairly confident that their child is safe. We need to make sure that the child is safe. That often depends on teachers going above and beyond that guidance. For every instance of good practice, there are many cases of severe allergic reactions and, unfortunately, sometimes death. The lack of universal standardisation of school allergy policies is a concern given that around a quarter of allergic reactions to food in children occur at school, some of which result in fatalities from anaphylaxis.
I am conscious of time so I will briefly make some comparisons. There are international jurisdictions that have schemes in place that could provide us as a collective with inspiration. I mention some, such as Canada and Sabrina’s law, the first of its kind ever, which requires Canadian public schools to create and execute anaphylaxis plans to reduce allergen exposure and communicate with parents, students and staff about allergies. It is about getting the communication thing right. That has to be done so that everyone understands, and people know what to look out for and what to stop the children from taking. It also requires allergy and AAI training for educators and for individual plans to be created for high-risk students. US states such as Colorado, Michigan and Ohio have laws to ensure students have access to AAIs and that schools keep adequate stocks. Again, that is precautionary but it is important that it is done. Schools must also have individual health plans in place to keep students safe.
The Benedict Blythe Foundation has already achieved some important milestones. Just last week, on 23 November 2023, the foundation launched a schools allergy code, co-created by parents, educators, clinicians, the Benedict Blythe Foundation, the Independent Schools’ Bursars Association and The Allergy Team. The foundation is to the fore in leading on that, and we congratulate it. The code is a guide to best practice in achieving a whole-school approach to allergy safety and inclusion. If you wanted a guide or legislative framework, hang it on this, because it will make the difference. It has been made available as a free resource to all schools to ensure good allergy management in their settings, and it is based around four key principles.
First, take a whole-school approach. Every member of the school community should understand allergy and their responsibility for reducing risk, from pupils and parents to staff members. Allergy management is not just the responsibility of the catering and medical teams; it is everybody’s responsibility. I know the Minister understands that and will respond to that point when he speaks. Secondly, information about the school’s approach to allergy must be communicated and given to people clearly and frequently. Thirdly, there must be clear governance and risk management—create an awareness of allergy risk across all activities and processes. Fourthly, be ready to respond. Have systems, processes and medication in place for emergencies.
Earlier this year, the foundation launched a petition, which as I said has garnered some 13,000 signatures. It called for the current voluntary guidance to be replaced by a funded, mandatory requirement for all schools. The petition has four asks—the Minister has access to them, and I am hoping that others have as well. They are that we need to have an allergy policy in place; to co-create an individual healthcare plan for all pupils with allergy and anaphylaxis; to hold spare adrenaline auto-injector pens in schools; and to train school staff and teachers in allergy awareness and allergy first aid.
The wonderful thing about the request I am making today is that it will not cost the earth. The Minister knows the figure, because I have mentioned it already. To be fair, he already knew it; he did not need me to tell him. As a gentle reminder, the steps would cost less than £5 million per year to implement in England. That is a modest sum to save a life. It would ensure that current best practice is implemented nationally, making a significant difference to keeping children safe while providing peace of mind for parents, who send their children off to school and have every intention and hope of seeing them at the end of the day. What we have here is value for money in these trying financial times.
As Members may be aware, I have worked very closely with the Oliver King Foundation to campaign for public access to defibrillators, especially in schools. I always put it on the record if somebody does something right, so I am grateful that the Government took forward my recommendations. I am no better than anybody else—far from it—but the Bill that I presented on this issue was taken up by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). Along with Ministers with responsibility for health and education at that time, she encouraged me to take this on board. The Minister here today and the Minister who preceded him made sure that defibrillators were available in schools and took steps to fund that.
Once again I make a plea to the Government, and it is about a cause similar to the one they endorsed before, which undoubtedly saved lives. We can stop severe illness and death from allergies among young people in schools if we have the correct provisions in place. I do not care who does it, as long as somebody does it. I am not worried about whether it is a ten-minute rule Bill that I introduce or somebody else introduces. Just do the job—that is the most important thing—and take the credit.
As I always state, there is an understanding that education is devolved and that it is not the sole responsibility of the Education Secretary to introduce law in Northern Ireland, but I believe we can—indeed, we must—initiate a joint approach to ensuring that the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a strategy in place to protect young people with allergies.
Dr Adam Fox, professor of paediatric allergy at Guy’s and St Thomas’s Hospital—not too far from here—has stated:
“There is a clear need for a change in culture around how food allergies are managed in schools. The UK”—
unfortunately—
“lags behind other countries and children are suffering and even dying as a result. By really educating the whole school community about food allergy we can turn things around.”
That is my request to the Minister in this debate. It is a request that all of us, including those in the Gallery, will make collectively, and we look forward to a positive response from the Minister.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind Members who wish to catch my eye that they should bob.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and it is lovely to swap roles, given the other jobs we hold. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. He is truly such a good man, as I think everyone in this place would say. It speaks so much to the kind of man he is that, having received an email from someone far away from his isles—although only 10 minutes from my home—he put this subject forward for debate. I thank him on behalf of the entire House for doing so, because it goes to the heart of the kind of man that he is.
I also, once again, welcome Helen and her husband, who are here from Stamford. I thank them for all their work with the Benedict Blythe Foundation; it works not only to raise awareness of the risks facing children with allergies, but to support children with unique brains and approaches to learning. I will touch on that briefly, because it matters so much that we remember the children for whom we are here fighting.
Helen’s son, Benedict, had an incredible talent for maths, which I wish I had. In fact, I often say: who do I look up to most in the world? People who can do maths. At the age of one, he could complete a 24-piece puzzle independently; by 18 months, he was doing pie charts; and by the age of four, he was reading books with diagrams of the central nervous system with a maths ability equivalent to that of a 10-year-old.
Benedict was clearly blessed with incredible intelligence, but he also had asthma and allergies. His first allergic reactions were identified when he was just four months old, and I cannot imagine how scary that must have been at the time for his parents. However, with careful planning and prevention, they were able to keep him safe. When our children grow up and go to nursery and school, it means that trust has to be put in those around them. That was not easy and, as the hon. Member said, when he was aged just two, Benedict’s nursery worker gave him cow’s milk, which caused him to immediately throw up. They only admitted that they had given him something that he was allergic to after his lips and tongue had swollen so severely that he needed urgent medical treatment.
Two years ago today, on 1 December 2021, Benedict woke up and went to school. There he ate a snack that caused him to collapse shortly afterwards, and he died later that day in hospital, aged just five. That changed the lives of his family and friends forever. I want to place on record the condolences of this entire House. As parents, we all struggle with this, and my child is just five, so I struggle in particular to do this. But I am so pleased that, after a year of fighting, his family finally get their debate—a year later—and also that it comes on the eve, suggesting to me that this is fate and it was meant to be as a tribute to Benedict.
Benedict’s story, however, is not unique. Although we as parents do everything we can to keep our children safe, more support is needed, particularly in the education system, where children spend so much of their time. Worryingly, 18% of food allergy reactions and 25% of first-time anaphylactic reactions occur in school, and that will only rise. Between 1998 and 2018, 66 schoolchildren died from allergic reactions.
A really important point was made about behaviour change and understanding change. I do not remember discussions about allergies when I was growing up. I think they are on the rise—I am not an expert, so I will not pretend to give a medical diagnosis—but I think it is very difficult for those in a position of authority, when they did not grow up having to worry about allergies, to suddenly run an institution where this issue has to be of fundamental importance. As we heard, at least two children in every school classroom have an allergy.
What this means is that, every day, thousands of children walk into schools uncertain whether they will get the support they need that could mean the difference between life and death. I have seen the impact and what it means for a young child to be nervous when they sit down with their peers at lunch, not knowing what will happen if some milk were to be poured on to their skin. For some children, including one in my family, that is how severe their allergies are. The vigilance needed and the pressures that it puts on the shoulders of these children is significant. That is partly why what we are talking about today is so important. If we can lessen the stress and the vigilance that these children are living with, we would be doing them a good turn—not to mention the lives we would save.
We know that every education professional goes into the profession because they love it and want to support children. Nobody would want to see a child exposed to life-threatening allergens in their school. The problem, however, is that the current system allows risk, which I believe could be tackled. As we have heard, the current Department for Education guidance is voluntary, which results in vastly different standards in schools, and even between different teachers and classrooms.
I think we are all very united in our list of asks today, but I will go through them. We should replace the voluntary advice with mandatory regulations—that is at the basis of ending disparity. We should require every school to implement and maintain an allergy policy. Let us make talking about what allergies are a standard part of the school conversations that children have, from the youngest age. Let us talk to our children about what it is to be a responsible classmate. Let us make it as egregious to mock a child who has an allergy as it is to be racist. When we read the allergy stories in this booklet and hear children talk about having their allergy weaponised against them in the playground, we see we can deal with that by making that abhorrent from the moment children start school—they have those conversations in their classrooms.
In addition, we should require every school to work with pupils’ parents or guardians to create individual risk assessments for pupils with allergies. A child’s allergy and the support they receive has to be reviewed by a GP every single year. It should be a requirement for the school to sit down every year and go through that GP assessment with the family. That would create additional work, but this is about saving lives. The reality is that the type of things that a child will do changes every year—they might start going on foreign trips, for example. I remember that being a real cause for concern for the parent of the child in my family, who said, “Well, I don’t know what will happen when he goes on a school trip. That is not the same as a school canteen, where we know it is dealt with and there is a plan.” We have to make sure that the yearly review happens, because the circumstances and the way in which children are taught changes.
We also need to keep spare adrenaline auto-injector pens available to treat emergency cases. The good news is that the lifetime of those pens is getting longer. We need to make sure that staff are EpiPen-trained—not necessarily every member of staff, but a significant number—just as they are trained in CPR. We need to end the distinction drawn by some within education between minor and severe allergies: according to clinicians, there is no such thing. The factors in place on a day where a child has an allergic reaction determine whether or not that is minor or severe, so we need to overcome that.
Finally, we should ask for all school staff and teachers to be fully trained in allergy awareness and first aid response, because, as we heard, many children do not know that they have allergies. As part of that, in every single staff room—this can be done; I know schools that do it—there should be posters of children’s faces with the allergies that they have, and the three-point plan for what has to be done if they have an allergic reaction, so that teachers get used to knowing that. On an average day, the teacher who identifies a child having an allergic reaction in the playground or the canteen might not be their standard teacher.
As we heard, taken together, those measures would cost less than £5 million a year to implement, and they would mean that more children go to school in safety. For my part, I will write to every school in my constituency and ask them to adopt the schools allergy code. I will ask them to come back to me and we will offer whatever support they need to go through that.
Once again, I want to thank Helen and Pete; I am so proud that it is someone from our communities in and around Stamford who is going to change lives. I am confident that Benedict’s legacy will change and save lives. Some 13,000 people around this country felt strongly enough to sign the petition: 282 were in Stamford and Grantham, and 81 were in Rutland and Melton. Each one of them will be a member of a family who has been touched by this.
Allergic reactions and deaths are avoidable. I urge the Government to take these few simple steps. I know that there are many demands on the Education Minister’s time. Some people want to raise other conditions—asthma, for example, which Benedict also had—but allergies are the most likely to result in death and are therefore far more of a priority. There is an urgent need to support teachers. so that they can feel confident, take the pressure off children and make sure that parents know their children are safe. I urge the Government to take these steps to honour Benedict Blythe’s legacy and take what the House believes is a meaningful step that would save lives and ensure that we do not continue to see the heartbreaking reports of children dying in our schools for what could, with the right measures put in place, be as preventable as possible.
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns); that was an excellent contribution and I associate myself with everything she said.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate, as is customary in these proceedings. In this instance, my congratulations are about more than simply adhering to the parliamentary protocols, because this stuff really matters. Hopefully, actions that might follow from this debate could save the lives of scores of young people in this country, so the stakes are high. I therefore thank him both for securing this debate and for his detailed contribution. During my comments, I will echo many of the things that have been said. As the chair of the all-party group on allergy, I can say with some confidence that the allergy community, countless young people suffering from allergic diseases and their extended families will be grateful for his intervention.
This is our third or fourth debate on allergy over the past year or so, and that is great, because it marks real progress. For years, it has been difficult to get the scale of the allergic epidemic registered in Parliament and by Government policymakers. It is so frustrating that over the past couple of decades, a series of detailed, authoritative reports has consistently demonstrated the prevalence of allergic disease, patient needs and the lack of UK service provision, yet their policy recommendations have generally been ignored. Hopefully that is now changing, as is reflected in not just the number of debates we are having, but the changing dialogue secured over the past two years with Government.
A previous care and mental health Minister, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan)—now the Secretary of State for Education—demonstrated real commitment in this area and began to grip questions of allergy, primarily from a public health perspective. Consequently, since 2021, we have established a work programme and an ongoing dialogue between civil servants and representatives from the National Allergy Strategy Group to support the development of a national plan. From a public health perspective, we are beginning to see real and, quite possibly, sustained progress. Hopefully, following today’s debate, we might complement those positive recent developments with progress for those suffering from allergic disease in our schools.
It is worth remembering what we are talking about. Allergy is a hypersensitivity reaction to substances or allergens that are normally tolerated. Examples include peanuts, milk, shellfish, cats, medicines and grass pollens. They can trigger harmful antibodies and the release of inflammatory chemicals, causing symptoms such as sneezing, itching, rashes and falls in blood pressure. However, they may also cause airway narrowing, shortness of breath, wheezing and swelling that, if in the mouth, throat or airway, cause severe difficulty in breathing and can be life-threatening.
About one in three people—more than 20 million people—in the UK have an allergic-related disorder, 5 million of whom have conditions severe enough to require specialist care. Fatal and near-fatal reactions occur regularly due to foods, drugs and insect stings, and they have been increasing over recent years. For example, hospital admissions due to allergy rose by 52% in the six years to 2017-18. Admissions from anaphylaxis, which is a rapid onset of life-threatening reactions, rose by 29%.
Prevalence rates for allergy in the UK are among the highest in the world, especially among young people. Each year’s new births add some 43,000 cases of child allergy to the population in need. This is not just happening here in the UK: the prevalence, severity and complexity of allergies have increased on a global scale over the last 60 years. Allergy UK has described allergy as
“the most common chronic disease in Europe.”
More and more children struggle with allergic conditions. Some 50% of British children may have an allergy, and those numbers are rising. However, this goes beyond the statistics: for the growing number of people living with allergic disease in the UK, their condition can have a significant and negative impact on their lives and those of their families.
As I mentioned, the lack of interest in allergy at national level has been frustrating. Over the past two decades, there has been a series of specialist reports recommending action. They have highlighted the poor management of allergy in the NHS and specialist services, as well as in primary care, and they have identified the negative impact of an allergic condition on a person’s life and the lives of their family members. It is frightening and restrictive to live with a condition that can cause a severe or life-threatening reaction at any time.
However, there has been no wide-scale change in how we protect people with allergic conditions and respond to anaphylactic reactions, and a change is therefore needed. I think we can all appreciate how parents of children with allergic conditions suffer. A child unexpectedly vomiting, struggling for breath or breaking out in a rash is terrifying. That is why this debate about allergy in schools is so important.
At least a fifth of a child’s life is spent away from parents at school. More anaphylactic reactions occur in school than anywhere else, yet in a third of anaphylactic cases, teachers and staff did not know that the child had an allergic condition in the first place. That is a horrifying statistic: in a third of cases, they did not know that the child had an anaphylactic condition. It is against that backdrop that parents rightly worry that schools and teachers have inconsistent and vague guidelines on planning for anaphylactic reactions.
Although there are awkward gaps in the guidance, there is mandatory guidance on supporting children with medical conditions, but that does not provide details on specific conditions such as allergy. There is specific guidance on using adrenaline auto-injectors, but that is not mandatory. Teachers are often unaware of which pupils in their class have an allergic condition so strong that it might induce an anaphylactic reaction and may need an EpiPen response. Quite correctly, parents are therefore nervous about how schools manage their children’s allergic conditions. Moreover, pupils might forget what they are allergic to and need teachers to remember, but teachers may not know or may be unprepared to respond to a severe allergic reaction.
Things can go wrong because of no one’s fault. Let us take the case of Karanbir Cheema. When this 13-year-old boy was eating lunch at school in west London, a classmate flicked cheese at his face—the sort of behaviour that is common on most school dinner tables across the country—but Karanbir was allergic to milk. He had a severe anaphylactic reaction and was taken to hospital. Tragically, two weeks later, he died. Schools might well respond to tragic occasions such as that by introducing no-nut bans or creating special zones in dining halls for milk allergies. Those are well intentioned, but they tend to isolate children from their friends, so they might inadvertently increase the vulnerability of children to social exclusion and the type of teasing that we heard about.
The best response to improve the immediate reactions of staff is to improve their knowledge and capacity to act. The key point is that changing schools’ management of allergies is not complicated or expensive. Many countries and governments around the world have simple legislation. New York state, for example, requires daycare employees to recognise anaphylaxis and administer EpiPens properly. Virginia requires schools to stock auto-injectors, which teachers are trained on. That also protects the schools from liability. As we heard, almost 20 years ago, Canada required its state schools to create anaphylaxis plans reducing exposure to allergens and to communicate with parents and students about allergies, and it required individual plans to be made for all high-risk students. That approach seems sensible and pragmatic. It would not be expensive or complicated to develop a similar set of requirements for British schools.
I will repeat the request that has been made this afternoon. The Benedict Blythe Foundation suggests four mandatory requirements for all schools, which seem entirely sensible to me. First, it suggests that every school must have an allergy policy in place, and secondly, that parents and schools must co-create an individual healthcare plan for every pupil with allergy and anaphylaxis —similar special educational needs plans are currently created for students with disabilities. Thirdly, it suggests that schools must hold spare adrenaline auto-injector pens, and fourthly, that school staff and teachers must be trained in allergy awareness and allergy first aid. It is straightforward to learn how to use an EpiPen. As we have heard, those combined recommendations would cost less than £5 million a year to implement in England. They would end patchwork guidance and provide peace of mind for both parents and teachers.
One final point I would make is that it is important that we use such debates to put on record our appreciation for all the practitioners and healthcare professionals dealing with allergy—including Allergy UK, members of the National Allergy Strategy Group, Anaphylaxis UK, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and all the researchers seeking new remedies—and for the insights of all the families and campaigners fighting on behalf of those with allergic conditions. These people do a fantastic job, but they need help, because lives depend on it.
It should be the right of every allergy sufferer to receive a quality standard of care. Every sufferer should be able to feel confident about the food they consume, and every young person should remain safe at school. Allergy conditions are becoming more prevalent and commonplace, which makes it extremely important that we make schools safe and protect children with allergic conditions.
I urge the Government to respond favourably to the debate and the recommendations that have been outlined this afternoon by Members from parties on both sides of this House, because the lives of many of our young people may well depend on it.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I also commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this very important debate and agree with the tributes from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who also gave a very powerful and moving speech. I also welcome Benedict’s parents and others who are with us today; as hard as it was for the hon. Lady to talk about Benedict—and she did so really well—I can imagine how hard it is for them to be here and to listen to the debate. I just want to place on record our thanks to you for everything you have done and for being here today.
We are all here today to discuss the incredibly urgent need for school-wide, mandatory, standardised allergy policies—not just guidelines—that would standardise provision and protection in all schools across the country and end the postcode lottery of provision that so tragically results in up to six children—I think that is the figure the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton gave—dying in their schools each year, with many more children experiencing horrific anaphylactic reactions. In the case of coeliacs, I think the term is “being glutened”, which leads to long-term damage to the gut, as well as to short-term, painful symptoms. At the very least, we need to discuss the need for schools to have strict and standardised anaphylaxis plans and in-date and accessible EpiPens.
In 2022, it was found that around 30% of allergy reactions in schools occur in children previously not known to have had a food allergy, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) in his excellent speech, or in children with an allergy that had not been communicated to school staff. That is why it is so unfair to rely on parents of children with allergies to have to be the only experts in the room, left to self-advocate and protect their children from afar. That is also why we cannot limit EpiPen administration to children with recorded allergies.
I want to take the opportunity of today’s debate to focus on a specific issue relating to allergies in schools. Food allergies in schools come to a crucial flashpoint of risk at lunchtime. Over the last few months, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on school food, I have spoken to and been lobbied by more and more key charities and stakeholders on the allergy safety campaign, including organisations like the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Coeliac UK and the Benedict Blythe Foundation. They have shared with me what are, frankly, horror stories of children being served allergen-contaminated food at school; contamination from other children’s packed lunches; children being made to eat alone in classrooms away from their peers; and children missing out on lunchtime activities, Christmas lunches and teddy bears’ picnics—all because allergy-safe provision was never prioritised. Their children’s needs meant that they were excluded and forgotten—to keep them safe, I suppose.
At the launch of the Food Foundation’s fantastic report on better school food just yesterday, knowing that this debate was coming up today, I spoke to several young people who received free school meals about their experiences of food in their schools. I asked them about how allergies complicate their lunchtimes and the lunchtimes of their friends. I heard from them that their friends with allergies end up limited, from all the choices on offer, often to just a jacket potato or the same food every single mealtime. I heard of young people who have had to move schools to access school food that would be safe for them. The lack of access to allergy-friendly food is compounded exponentially when a child is in receipt of free school meals and often limited to just £2.50 per meal. The level of provision is just not there. Caterers need additional support, funding and training to make varied and nutritious allergy-friendly meals.
My son-in-law is coeliac. One day, God willing, I may have grandchildren, but I am well aware that those grandchildren may have coeliac disease, so this fear is very real for me. I am also aware, therefore, how much more expensive gluten-free food is and how important it is not to have any cross-contamination in food preparation or serving areas. You only have to cook with my daughter, when she knows we are cooking for the wider family, including her husband, to realise how careful you have to be. She screams at me, “Don’t use that spoon!”—because it is a wooden spoon that I have stirred a pan of pasta with. It really, really does matter, but it takes extra space and money, none of which schools receive for this issue. I am also aware how hard school chefs and catering teams work to try to meet all the needs of their pupils with allergies, but the Government need to help them with proper, standardised policies, and the appropriate funding and training to enable them to do this properly.
Rightly, if we had a young person with, say, a religious food requirement, like kosher or halal food, we would facilitate their provision on the grounds of equality and inclusion. Similarly, access to suitable food for a young person with, say, a special educational need or disability, who had a feeding and food need, would be recognised as part of the reasonable adjustments that they require under the law. If we can recognise how important it is for schools to adhere to equality and inclusion laws for food for a variety of pupils, surely for allergies, many of which may be damaging to health or life-threatening, as we have heard, it is as—if not more—important to do the same.
I have long fought for school food for all children, and I have long fought for high-quality, nutritious school food. As the prevalence of food allergies continues to rise at the rapid rate of about 5% each year—we could have a whole debate on why that is the case, because it is interesting in and of itself—the gulf of inequality of access will continue to grow, unless we do something about it.
Children should not lose their ability to be well fed at school because of something that could be recognised as an additional need. I am not suggesting that allergies need to come under education, health and care plans or be labelled as a disability. But the point stands that the health and wellbeing—and sometimes survival—needs of these children are causing them to be excluded. That is discrimination, and that is at best; at worst, it can cause their death. That is why I implore the Minister to urgently implement the schools allergy code that we have heard about in detail today, and I look forward to his response.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has given us an insight into allergies in schools and how they should be treated. His remarks were personal and well thought-out. Other Members who contributed to the debate teased out the issues a bit further. My contribution will be from a Scottish perspective—I do not think anyone here would expect me to do anything else.
I thank those from the Benedict Blythe Foundation who have come here this afternoon. These debates are important because, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, we all learn new things. It must have taken great courage to come here. Speaking as a granny, I know that it is not easy for you, so I appreciate you coming.
Education, as Members know, is devolved in Scotland, and it is therefore up to the Scottish Government how they do things. Across the UK, as we might already have heard, 41 million people and between 5% and 8% of children live with a food allergy. The UK has some of the highest prevalences of allergic conditions in the world, with 20% of the population affected by one or more allergic disorder. Allergies are very common in children, and although some go away, many do not—we have heard about the awful consequences of that today.
New legislation for food businesses in Scotland and the rest of the UK came into force on 1 October 2021. Known as Natasha’s law, it requires businesses to label all food that is pre-packed for direct sale with a full list of ingredients, with the 14 major allergens emphasised. Such information can help parents and students to know what they are buying and whether it is safe for them to eat and to take into school. Food Standards Scotland chief executive Geoff Ogle said:
“This is a huge step in helping improve the quality of life for around two million people living with food allergies in the UK—with 200,000 of those living…in Scotland. If these changes drive down the number of hospital admissions caused by food allergies, which has increased threefold over the past 20 years, and prevent further tragic deaths such as Natasha’s, that can only be a positive thing.”
I mention that because we are looking for more than just guidance from all Governments in relation to allergies in school.
The Scottish Government have published guidance for NHS boards, education authorities and schools on supporting children and young people with healthcare needs, including allergies, in school. Education authorities are required to work collaboratively with NHS boards and to ensure that there is adequate and effective provision in place in the schools in their areas to support the healthcare needs of young people.
As noted in the guidance, the rights, wellbeing, needs and circumstances of the individual child or young person should at all times be at the centre of the decision-making process. Under article 24 of the UN convention on the rights of the child, all children have a right to the highest attainable standard of health and to healthcare services that help them attain that.
Any child or young person at school in Scotland may require healthcare support or the administration of medication. Healthcare support or medication for the management of long or short-term conditions is therefore really important and must be available. Schools must arrange specialist anaphylaxis training for staff where a pupil in the school has been diagnosed as being at risk of anaphylaxis. The specialist training should include practical instruction in how to use the different adrenalin auto-injector devices available.
As part of the medical conditions policy, the school should have agreed arrangements in place for all members of staff to summon the assistance of a designated member of staff to help administer an AAI, as well as for collecting the spare AAI in the emergency kit. Wherever possible, children and young people should be empowered and supported to manage their own healthcare needs and work in collaboration with the school health team, school staff, and their parents and carers to reach an understanding about how their health affects them and how their healthcare needs will be met. That option is not always possible but, when practicable, it should be exercised.
Children with allergies are often excluded from social or fundraising activities in school. That has an impact on them, and it should not happen in any school in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Marion Fellows
I think I got it right that time—as the hon. Member for Strangford indicated. We play that game occasionally here.
Social or fundraising activities, including charity bakes, can be really dangerous for children with severe food allergies. When teachers are buying food—as they often do—for things such as Christmas parties, they should be aware of these things, so that they can eliminate the risk of children coming into contact with food they are allergic to.
If this debate encourages the Minister to bring in not just guidelines but regulations, everyone in this Chamber will be extremely happy, and I know that the Benedict Blythe Foundation will be too. I therefore encourage the Minister to look at the four asks and to see what he can do to help everyone involved.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I call Catherine McKinnell to speak on behalf of the Labour party.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under you as Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate on pupils with allergies in schools. I absolutely agree with the comments the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) made about the hon. Member for Strangford—he is the reason we are here debating this incredibly important topic—and I congratulate her on her incredibly powerful and heartfelt speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who have campaigned on this issue for many years in this place.
School should be a place where every child can learn and enjoy themselves—a place where parents can have confidence that their children will be safe and comfortable. Unfortunately, as we have heard at length today, when a child has a serious allergy, school can be a cause of great stress and anxiety for them and their parents. Many charities and campaigners, such as Allergy UK, the Benedict Blythe Foundation and the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, work incredibly hard to raise awareness of allergies and to support important research on them. Much of that work is driven by very difficult circumstances, and I pay tribute to Helen Blythe and her husband, who are here today and who have campaigned tirelessly in the face of their incredibly painful loss.
I regularly make the point that the challenges faced by children and young people do not just disappear at the school gate. Increasingly, schools are places where a whole range of issues that children and young people faces impact their learning and development. However, this debate is specifically about allergies and their impact in schools. Allergy UK research highlights that more than 20% of the UK population is affected by one or more allergic disorder and that 2 million people have been diagnosed with a food allergy. Young children are most commonly affected, with 6% to 8% of children suffering from food allergies.
According to the British Medical Journal, hospital admissions for food-induced anaphylaxis have tripled over the past 20 years, with the largest increase among children under the age of 15. Twenty per cent of allergic reactions among young people happen in a school setting, and 30% of allergic reactions in schools occur in children not previously known to have had a food allergy, where schools are unaware of the allergy. As we have heard, stress and anxiety around allergies can lead to some children skipping meals or missing out on social events because of concerns about the capacity to accommodate them and manage the danger they may be in.
There is some fantastic practice happening in schools, including significant planning and consideration to support children with allergies, but it is vital that best practice is applied across the board and that guidance is kept up to date with the latest developments. Why would we settle for anything less?
In response to a petition earlier this year, the Government pointed to the statutory guidance for schools, “Supporting pupils at school with medical conditions”, which makes it clear that schools should be aware of any pupils with allergies and have processes to ensure they are well managed. They also pointed to guidance to school caterers on displaying allergen information on products. I understand that the Department of Health and Social Care also issues guidance to schools on the use of adrenaline auto-injectors and emergency asthma inhalers.
The Department for Education clearly has a role to play alongside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Health and Social Care, so I have a few questions for the Minister. I understand that the Department for Education recently declined the invitation to sit on the expert advisory group on allergy. I would be grateful if he can confirm whether that is the case and explain the Department’s reasoning, given the statistics that have been outlined today. Will he also set out how the Department for Education monitors the effectiveness of the guidance on allergen management and ensures that it is up to date and in line with best practice? What action is he aware of across Government to support forward-looking research into potentially life-saving treatments and approaches to allergies?
We know about the scale of the challenges in our schools—the workforce crisis means that far too many teachers and support staff are overworked and undervalued —but the safety of children is paramount. The upmost priority for school leaders, teachers and staff is their responsibility to keep the children in their care safe.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope he will reflect on the points that have been raised and respond to the asks from charities, schools and experts in this area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. It is typical of him to bring to Parliament incredibly important issues that do not get the attention they should. He does so consistently in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber, and we all admire and appreciate that.
I start by offering my deepest condolences to the family of Benedict Blythe, who died two years ago tomorrow. No parent should experience what Helen has gone through. I was deeply saddened to learn of the story before I came here and to hear more detail today; the colourful picture that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) painted of what Benedict was like moved us all. My heart goes out to any family experiencing that sort of loss. I just wanted to say that at the outset to Helen and her husband. As she knows, the coroner’s inquest into Benedict’s death is ongoing, so I am unable to comment on the details of his case, but officials from the Department met her in May to hear about the excellent work she has been doing through the Benedict Blythe Foundation to raise awareness of how best to protect children.
I can, of course, address the more general points that hon. Members made about allergies and our policies. I understand how worrying allergies can be for parents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said in her moving speech, when parents send their children to school, it is only right and natural that they expect them to be kept safe. If their child has an allergy, that adds a particular level of concern about what is happening in the school day.
Allergies are complex conditions that can range enormously in severity. Not all allergens are foods either, as hon. Members know, which makes it more complicated to manage them. I welcome the schools allergy code that the foundation launched this week, which will provide helpful guidance to schools on how to implement allergies policies; we would be keen to encourage schools to look at that code.
Alicia Kearns
I know that the Minister cannot commit to anything at this moment, but I would very much appreciate it if I could pick up that point about the code with him, maybe in a few weeks’ time; we could see whether that resource could be put on the Department for Education’s website or look at the best way to ensure that all schools around the country are aware of it, not just through the foundation but through the Department. That would be a meaningful way to spread that code across the country. I know that he cannot commit to that now, but would he be happy to pick that up with me in a few weeks?
David Johnston
I am very happy to have that conversation with my hon. Friend.
Turning to the statutory duties on schools, hon. Members have called for voluntary guidance to be replaced with a funded mandatory requirement. We have heard from each Member who has spoken in this debate about the four things that they would like to see: an allergy policy in place; the co-creation of an individual healthcare plan with all pupils with allergies and anaphylaxis; spare adrenaline auto-injector pens in schools; and the training of school staff and teachers in allergy awareness and allergy first aid.
Let me start with the first of those points. Section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014 places a legal duty on schools to make arrangements to support pupils at their school with medical conditions. The accompanying statutory guidance from 2015—“Supporting pupils at school with medical conditions”—is not voluntary; governing bodies must have regard to that guidance when carrying out their section 100 duty. The guidance makes it clear that schools should ensure that they are aware of any pupils with medical conditions and have policies and processes in place to ensure that those conditions, including allergies, can be well managed. The guidance is clear that policy should also include how the processes will be implemented, what should happen in an emergency situation and the role of individual healthcare plans in supporting pupils. It says that
“The school, healthcare professional and parent should agree, based on evidence, when a healthcare plan would be inappropriate or disproportionate”
and that the policy should also set out
“how staff will be supported in carrying out their role to support pupils”
including
“how training needs are assessed, and how…training will be commissioned and provided.”
It states that
“any member of school staff providing support to a pupil with medical needs should have received suitable training.”
Members also raised the important issue of adrenaline auto-injectors. The regulations already allow schools to obtain and hold injectors and, in an emergency, they can be administered to pupils the school knows have a risk of anaphylaxis but whose own devices are not available or not working, perhaps because they are broken or out of date. To support schools to meet the needs of pupils with allergies, the Department of Health and Social Care has produced guidance on the use of adrenaline auto-injectors and emergency inhalers in schools, including the purchase of spare adrenaline auto-injectors.
Alicia Kearns
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point before he moves on?
Alicia Kearns
We have a little more time. On that point, would the Minister accept that there is a real problem that, while the auto-injectors are stored in schools, not many staff go through any form of training on how to use them? We have to be honest, in this day and age when we see Americanism being imported to our country, teachers are scared that they will end up in law courts. The Department has a responsibility to support staff so that they are confident enough to provide that life-saving aid. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that there should be funding or a process in place? Does he agree that training should be provided in some way, even if it is just a YouTube video that every single teacher must watch, so that teachers have the confidence to administer auto-injectors? That is a concern that we hear repeatedly, and there is currently no provision.
David Johnston
Staff should have training in it—that is absolutely right. That is part of what we are requiring. We continually review the policies in this area, and if we feel that there are deficiencies, or indeed inconsistencies, which I suspect is the biggest problem, we will do whatever we can to ensure that they no longer occur.
Jim Shannon
I wonder if I am following you correctly—you will confirm whether that is true or not. We have asked for this provision to be not just voluntary, but mandatory. In other words, we are seeking for it to be put down in legislation—given the cost factor is so small—to make it happen and change lives. I suppose the core question that we are asking, Minister, with great respect, is whether you can confirm that that is something you are prepared to look at. It is really important.
David Johnston
We have a difference of opinion about the requirement on schools. The Department’s view is that what is set out in the statutory guidance should require schools to do most of what is being described, and the question then is whether that is happening in every place or not. If what we expect to be happening under the Children and Families Act and so on is not happening, then we definitely want to ensure that it does happen.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for that response; I think that gives us some clarity. From what we have all said in our contributions so far, there are cases where that is not happening—wee Benedict is an example of a case where, with respect, it did not seem to happen. And if it did not happen, then we wish to see it happen.
David Johnston
Yes. The question with these things is always whether the laws are already there. Do you need new laws, or are the laws already there but not being enforced? I have heard from Members today that we are clearly not seeing in every case the practice that we want to see. I will discuss with officials what more we can do on that, including in promoting the code.
Alicia Kearns
Can I ask the Minister one very last question? It will be the last one, I promise—that is not something I have ever said before in this room. [Laughter.]
Alicia Kearns
If the point is around the Department believing that this is being done rightly, does the Minister know whether Ofsted, when it reviews schools, takes into account whether or not the allergy guidance and section 100 is being upheld adequately? I am aware that this falls between two briefs; it is not just the Minister’s brief. If that is not the case, could he write to me? That may actually be the solution: we say that when Ofsted inspects schools, because the loss of life is so high—66 children—this should be part of its reviews. That way, it can say it is meeting its requirements and commitments to children—to keep them safe and ensure it is doing everything to look after them in every single way it can, as we would all wish it to be doing. That may be the solution that fixes this gap that, between us, we seem to be coming to.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. This has been a good and important debate, but I must remind hon. Members that interventions should be short. I did not want to intervene previously, but I also remind Members that I am not involved in the debate—you should not refer to other Members as “you”.
David Johnston
I will write to my hon. Friend to clarify that particular point. Ofsted has a role in inspecting safeguarding, which incorporates a wide range of vulnerabilities that children may have. I do not know the answer to her specific question about section 100, so I will write to her on that afterwards.
I have no idea where I was in my speech at this point, so I will turn back to the code. On the points in the code on taking a whole-school approach and having clear governance and risk management, the statutory guidance makes it clear that all state-funded schools should have a policy for supporting children with medical conditions. This should be reviewed regularly and be accessible to parents and school staff.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) talked about school catering policies. Schools are expected to make reasonable efforts to cater for pupils with particular requirements—for example, as she touched on, to reflect medical, dietary and cultural needs.
In deciding what is reasonable, schools and their caterers are expected to take into account factors such as the type of diet required by the child with allergies, the number of children in a similar position and the cost of making suitable food available. In exceptional circumstances it may be considered reasonable for the school not to make special provision for particular children—for example, where this would be very difficult and costly to achieve.
Turning specifically to younger children, the early years foundation stage framework sets the standards that all registered early years providers must meet for the learning, development and care of children from birth to age five. It states:
“Before a child is admitted to the setting the provider must also obtain information about any special dietary requirements, preferences and food allergies that the child has, and any special health requirements.”
Providers must have
“a policy, and procedures, for administering medicines”
and
“systems for obtaining information about a child’s needs for medicines, and for keeping this information up-to-date. Training must be provided for staff where the administration of medicine requires medical or technical knowledge.”
Within all early years settings there is a requirement for at least one person who has a current paediatric first aid certificate to be on the premises and available at all times when children are present, and who must accompany all children on outings. The PFA criteria is clear that the training should include being able to
“help a baby or child who is suffering from anaphylactic shock.”
In September, we changed the adequate supervision requirement within EYFS to be explicit that adequate supervision while children are eating means that children must always be within “sight and hearing” of an adult; not within sight or hearing, as was the case previously. This will help practitioners to be able to notice the signs of an allergic reaction as soon as they present themselves, and allow them to act quickly. The new early years educator level 3 qualification will come into force next September. That will ensure that early years practitioners have an understanding of allergies and anaphylaxis.
I will have to write to the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), about the expert advisory group on allergy—this is the first time I have heard of that. Likewise, I will write to her about monitoring the effectiveness of the allergens policy. I think her question on research into life-saving treatments is probably better directed to the Department of Health and Social Care, but I will obtain for her the information about what that Department is doing in that regard.
Having outlined the various legislation and guidance that covers allergies in schools, the Government’s overall position, given the complexity and individual nature of allergies—which was set out very clearly by the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), who chairs the APPG—is that the legislation we have in place is proportionate, and allows schools to respond to individual circumstances and the specific needs of their pupils, but, as I said earlier, we keep these policies under review. We welcome feedback on how we can better support schools’ implementation and awareness of these polices, particularly to try to remedy any inconsistencies between what we require from them and what is happening.
I will write to hon. Members about those points, and will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford again for securing this important debate.
Jim Shannon
First, I am so very pleased that we have had what I would refer to as a united front across the political parties. I think we all recognise the importance of this debate. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) set the scene well from a personal point of view. We all owe the family and all the supporters here a great debt. Today—probably in our own hesitant but very sincere ways—we put the case forward for a family who have grieved, and for those we all wish to make a change for.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said that the voluntary must become mandatory—how true that is—and be made part of the school conversation. Allergy assessment by GPs should be alongside and in conjunction with the school. There should be adrenalin pens training at every school as well. I apologise to the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), because I was not aware of the extent of his knowledge until today; he has brought his vast experience to this debate, and we thank him so much for that. There was that positive response from the school, but the allergy numbers are up and the stats are quite shocking, as he illustrated so well. That allergies happen so often at schools underlines the depth of this debate and why it is so important.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) always brings personal input to a debate. By her very nature, she sums up the compassion we all have—that is what I have always thought about her and I think others see that too. She spoke of the incredibly urgent need for equal access to EpiPens, of other allergies and of safety in schools. These can be life-changing matters for children, as can nutritional food and people’s diets. All such things need to be more than normal; we need to make them mandatory. We thank her for that contribution.
We are regularly in debates with the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), and I was pleased to have her Scottish input. Is something safe to eat? Is it safe to bring to school? Allergies are up threefold, and children should be at the centre for allergies and food safety, clearly.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), brought her knowledge and interest to this subject matter, and we thank her for that. School staff need to be skilled in keeping children safe and with their requests. She also reminded us that the reason why we are here today is that we are inspired by the painful loss of others. How true that is.
I thank the Minister very much for his response. Being the positive person I am, I suggest that I am correct in assuming that the Minister will take what we have said in this debate to the relevant Minister and that, where his remit falls within our debate matter, he will look much more towards the mandatory than the voluntary. I think that is our request; that is what we are seeking and asking for. If that happens, I believe that today this debate will have been won. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton suggested that Ofsted might have a role to play, and I think that is true. The Minister needs to act on that. He mentioned what happens voluntarily in schools, but we want to take that to a different stage.
Today, this House has done the family and all those in the Public Gallery proud. We have put forward viewpoints on their behalf. I think that the Minister has grasped that we are seeking the change from voluntary to mandatory—from voluntarily to legislatively making the changes. We owe a great debt to the family for all that they have done in educating us on what is necessary, and to all those in the Public Gallery. Let us make a change for wee Benedict.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered pupils with allergies in schools.
Written Statements
Online Advertising Taskforce: Action Plan
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
I am pleased to inform the House that today we are publishing the Online Advertising Taskforce’s action plan.
The Online Advertising Taskforce brings together representatives from Government and the online advertising sector to work in collaboration to address illegal harms and the protection of children in relation to online advertising. Its creation was announced in the Government’s response to the online advertising programme consultation, published in July, and the taskforce held its first meeting later that month. It committed to agreeing upon and delivering a programme of work to help address illegal advertising and minimise children being served advertising for products and services illegal to sell to them (“in-scope harms”), in anticipation of regulation being introduced in due course.
The action plan we are publishing today brings together commitments from Government and industry that seek to drive progress against two objectives: improving the evidence about the in-scope harms, and expanding voluntary industry initiatives that seek or have the capacity to address them. This has been a collaborative and ambitious piece of work and we are grateful for the invaluable contribution of taskforce members since the summer.
The Government have also been working with technology companies as part of their online fraud charter, which will further drive action against fraud, including that which is perpetuated through online advertising, and which is also being published today. Through both programmes of work, the Government and online advertising companies will implement significant protections from fraud for everyone engaging in business and recreation online.
The action plan will be published on the Online Advertising Taskforce gov.uk page: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/online-advertising-taskforce.
[HCWS81]
UK Priorities for COP28
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
The UK is committed to tackling climate change and restoring nature. We have reduced our emissions by more than any other major economy since 1990 and, going forward, have one of the most ambitious targets for 2030. Our emissions are down 48% compared to 1990 and we have grown the economy by 70% over the same period.
We brought the world together at the COP26 Glasgow summit to speed up the global net zero transition, as well as brokering a historic deal to end deforestation and kickstart new green finance markets. However, limiting global temperature increases to 1.5° will only be possible if countries around the world commit to join the UK on a net zero pathway. The science is clear that global emissions need to peak by 2025 and must be reduced by 43% in 2030 compared to 2019 in order to achieve this.
The upcoming 28th conference of the parties under the UNFCCC (COP28), to be hosted by the UAE in Dubai from 30 November to 12 December, will mark an important moment to get to net zero. Amid record global temperatures, the first global stocktake of progress against the Paris agreement will show that the world is currently off track and urgent action is needed to keep the 1.5° goal within reach. The world needs to take a hard look at what is working and where we are failing to deliver, focusing our resources on practical, deliverable solutions. This COP must deliver the framework and targets already agreed, including in Glasgow, and set out the long-term decisions that are needed to bring everyone with us, from rural communities to the countries most impacted by climate change.
The context is challenging, given the current geopolitical tension, conflict and macroeconomic environment where countries are battling inflation and debt. At the same time, the widespread impacts from increasing global temperatures have never been felt more, underscoring the need to deliver on our climate commitments and reduce emissions.
His Majesty the King will attend the opening ceremony of the world climate action summit at COP28 at the invitation of the UAE and at the request of HMG, and will deliver an opening address. The Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Environment Secretary and other Ministers will attend the summit. I will lead the negotiations for the UK.
The Prime Minister’s focus will be on forests, finance and net zero transitions. These are areas where the UK can lead global progress, building on our track record, and working with the UAE presidency, other countries, business and civil society.
Overall at COP28 the UK wants to see progress in five priority areas:
New commitments and action to keep 1.5 alive. Coming out of the global stocktake, we need renewed leader-level political consensus and increased ambition to keep 1.5 in reach. We need commitment to peak global emissions by 2025 and clear guidance for the next round of NDCs. And we need a clear, forward-looking road map with global targets in key sectors and commitment to action including through the breakthrough agenda, on forests, and through the phasing out of hydrofluorocarbons. Since 2010 the UK has seen nearly £200 billion of public and private finance investment in low carbon energy sectors. We will use this domestic experience to spearhead efforts to accelerate decarbonisation of key sectors of the global economy.
A clean energy package with clear commitments to transition away from fossil fuels. This includes commitments to triple global renewables and double energy efficiency by 2030, to phase out unabated fossil fuels—in line with the G7 commitment the UK helped to deliver earlier this year—and to end new unabated coal power and phase out coal power globally.
An outcome on finance that helps deliver the trillions needed to accelerate the transition. This includes reform of international financial institutions, delivery this year of the collective goal of $100 billion climate finance per year for developing economies, and progress on the post-2025 climate finance goal with contributions from a broader range of donors. Based on preliminary data, the OECD has stated that it is likely that the $100 billion goal was met in 2022. The UK will play its part. We are fully committed to delivering on our £11.6 billion of international climate finance and we are a world leader in green finance. We will work with partners to realign financial flows with the Paris agreement and global biodiversity framework.
Progress on building resilience to climate impacts—demonstrating progress on the Glasgow commitment to double adaptation finance by 2025 and establishing an effective loss and damage fund to support countries that are particularly vulnerable. We are pleased that the loss and damage transitional committee, mandated by COP27, has put forward a recommendation on the fund. The UK was instrumental in securing that recommendation and we hope it will be agreed at COP28. We will continue to advocate for the priorities of the most vulnerable. I co-chaired a third climate and development ministerial alongside the UAE, Malawi and Vanuatu at pre-COP last month. This focused on enhancing access and delivery of adaptation finance, the equitable delivery of high-quality grant-based finance and concessional finance.
Real progress towards protecting, restoring and sustainably managing nature, on land and in the ocean, which is crucial to delivering on net zero and building resilience. We need COP28 to maintain momentum on the implementation of the global biodiversity framework agreed at CBD COP15 last year, to make concrete progress on the historic agreement to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. We want to see forests prioritised in the global stocktake and to use the Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership as the vehicle to drive accelerated delivery of the Glasgow leaders declaration on forests and land use. To date UK International Climate Finance has avoided over 410,000 hectares of ecosystem loss.
We will continue to deliver ambitious reductions, embracing innovation and green finance opportunities. The UK will go into COP28 with a strong record at home and internationally. We recently committed $2 billion to the green climate fund second replenishment, the biggest single international funding commitment the UK has made to help tackle climate change, making us the top contributor cumulatively to the world’s most prominent international climate fund.
In his recent net zero speech, the Prime Minister set out the long-term decisions to enable a just transition to net zero while maintaining public support. We are absolutely clear that net zero is the right thing to do for our long- term national security, economic prosperity and the future of our children.
All countries around the world need to do more to keep 1.5 alive. The UK is delivering significant progress, and following the clear framework and targets agreed at Glasgow COP, we saw 90% of global GDP committed to net zero. We must now drive progress and support other nations constituting 99% of emissions to grasp the benefits of green growth.
We will update the House in the usual way once negotiations have concluded.
[HCWS80]
Sudan Update
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I would like to update the House on the situation in Sudan since the outbreak of conflict on 15 April this year between the Sudanese armed forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and the UK’s efforts in support of the Sudanese people.
Violence continues across the country. The lack of humanitarian access and a disregard for civilian life is resulting in terrible suffering. The conflict has caused destruction on a massive scale as a result of the indiscriminate use of force by both sides, including shelling and airstrikes in urban areas. Since 15 April, more than 6.3 million people have been displaced, including over 1.3 million people who have fled to neighbouring countries, seeking safety, protection and assistance. Twenty-five million people are in urgent need but constraints on humanitarian access mean insufficient aid is reaching them.
There is mounting evidence of abhorrent atrocities against civilians, in particular in Darfur. Women and girls are subject to rape and sexual violence. Houses are being burnt to the ground. People’s livelihoods are being destroyed. These attacks have all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and may amount to crimes against humanity.
Following the conclusion of the first round of Jeddah talks that resumed on 26 October, the UK is continuing to support the mediation efforts of the US, Saudi Arabia, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the African Union. I urge both warring parties to engage constructively with these talks to secure short-term ceasefires and improvements in humanitarian access.
But in the meantime, the suffering of the Sudanese people continues. There have been increasing reports from El Geneina and Ardamata in West Darfur of potentially ethnically-targeted violence against men and boys and alleged executions, including the murder of Masalit community leader, Al-Farsha Muhamed Arbab. These atrocities must end immediately, and those responsible must be held to account.
We are supporting the Centre for Information Resilience (CIR). CIR works to monitor atrocities in Sudan using satellite imagery to investigate attacks against civilians and infrastructure, and also to monitor hate speech and incitement of violence. This financial year, the UK has provided £600,000 to CIR for this project. Our partnership on this innovative work is vital in documenting the ongoing atrocities, and preserving and sharing evidence, so that those committing these heinous crimes can be brought to justice.
In July, I announced a package of sanctions, freezing the assets of three commercial entities linked to both SAF and RSF. We stand ready to take additional measures.
In the UN Security Council (UNSC), UN General Assembly and at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), we have consistently condemned the violence across Sudan. On 11 October, the HRC adopted the UK-led “Sudan Core Group” (US, Germany, Norway, UK) resolution, which creates an independent and international fact-finding mission to investigate atrocities in Sudan and support future accountability efforts.
As part of our commitment to humanitarian assistance, I announced £21.7 million in humanitarian funding in May for those in need in Sudan, in addition to £5 million to help meet the urgent needs of refugees and returnees in South Sudan and Chad. UK Aid is providing nutrition, safe drinking water, medical care and shelter, as well as supporting protection services including for those affected by gender-based violence. In November, the UK confirmed a further £14.3 million in humanitarian aid, bringing the total to £36 million for 2023-24.
The UK, alongside Norway, jointly funded the Sudan humanitarian conference that took place in Cairo on 18 to 20 November; an event that brought together Sudanese grassroots organisations, NGOs and the international humanitarian system to develop co-ordination mechanisms to give a greater voice to Sudanese organisations in the humanitarian response.
We have also established a new British Office Sudan in Addis Ababa, until a British embassy can be re-established in Sudan. This makes us the first western nation to set up an operational office for Sudan in the region. The staff of the British Office Sudan in Ethiopia will continue to work to support our diplomatic and humanitarian aims to bring peace and stability to the people of Sudan, as well as continuing to assist in providing limited remote consular support to British nationals in Sudan. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Government of Ethiopia for enabling the setting up of this office.
The UK remains committed to supporting Sudanese civilians to chart their own future for their country. Neither of the warring parties should have any future role in power in a future democratic Sudan. I therefore warmly welcome the gathering of Sudanese civilian actors and stakeholders in Addis Ababa on 23 October as an important step towards the formation of an inclusive and representative pro-democracy civilian front.
The UK will continue to advocate for a ceasefire, safe and unfettered humanitarian access, an end to atrocities and a return to a civilian-led Government that can deliver the peace and stability the Sudanese people deserve.
[HCWS84]
Online Fraud Charter
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
Today, I am pleased to inform the House that we are publishing the online fraud charter.
A key deliverable in the Government’s fraud strategy—https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fraud-strategy
—the online fraud charter contains a series of ambitious commitments from several of the largest tech companies in the world. These commitments reflect a landmark moment in our fight against fraud and will target some of the most harmful and pervasive frauds that occur online. This includes stronger action to make sure people are who they say they are on marketplaces and on dating apps. It will ensure that signatory companies make fraud easier to report online. When content or users are found to be fraudulent, immediate and decisive enforcement action will be taken.
Further detail will be published online but the charter will contain actions focusing on:
Blocking frauds from occurring in the first place
Improved reporting structures and faster takedowns of harmful content and users
Making sure advertisers are who they say they are
Greater collaboration with law enforcement and other partners to drive further intelligence sharing, transparency, public communications and horizon scanning.
Tech companies have made strong progress in the last several years in combating fraud and, with the Online Safety Act 2023 in the process of coming fully into operation, change will be a statutory responsibility. However, those that have signed this charter have shown their willingness to work faster and in a more targeted fashion than regulation will require. I commend their constructive engagement and their ambition in agreeing to these commitments. I am pleased to see them taking responsibility to protect their users from fraud.
We are taking the fight to the fraudsters, targeting the criminals that try to exploit us when we are online. Today, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries has also announced the publication of the Online Advertising Taskforce action plan, which brings together initiatives from industry and Government to tackle illegal online advertising and increase protections for children. Through both of today’s announcements, the Government and industry will implement significant steps to make sure that the British public are protected online. The online fraud charter will be published on the Joint Fraud Taskforce gov.uk page— https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/joint-fraud-taskforce.
[HCWS82]
Elections Act 2022 and Boundary Review
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
I wish to make a statement.
Evaluation of the Elections Act 2022
The Government are committed to ensuring UK elections remain secure, fair, modern and transparent. As part of this commitment, the Elections Act 2022 introduced new measures designed to increase the security and integrity of UK elections. Two of these measures, voter identification in Great Britain and enhanced support for disabled voters in polling stations, were delivered for the first time in polling stations at the May 2023 local council elections.
The Government are pleased with the introduction of voter identification in Great Britain, with data gathered in polling stations showing that 99.75% of voters were able to cast their vote successfully under the new measures. This smooth roll-out is a testament to the skill and careful planning of local authorities and electoral administrators, without whom the realisation of these measures would not be possible. We thank them.
However, the Government are committed to understanding fully the impact of the Elections Act and to improving its implementation where necessary. They are committed in legislation to undertake an evaluation of the voter identification policy after its first implementation. To this end, the Government appointed external research agency IFF Research to evaluate the implementation of the Act, examining the impact of the voter identification and accessibility measures at the May 2023 local elections. The Government are also committed in legislation to conducting further evaluations at the next two UK parliamentary general elections.
Today, I am pleased to share IFF Research’s first evaluation report. This independent evaluation has used data gathered at polling stations, supplemented by public opinion survey results, the Electoral Commission’s data and report on the May elections, surveys with the electoral sector and qualitative research to provide a full picture of the impact and implementation of the voter identification and accessibility measures. While providing further evidence of successful delivery, the report also makes a number of recommendations for both the Government and others including the Electoral Commission for ongoing improvements.
In addition to the Government evaluation, I have today published the Government response to the Electoral Commission’s report on the May 2023 polls. The Government welcome the views of the commission and have considered its recommendations carefully.
Implementing the Elections Act requires close partnership working between the Government, the commission, the electoral sector, and their representative bodies. We look forward to continuing close engagement with all our partners as we implement the remaining measures from the Act and take forward any necessary adjustments in response to this evaluation.
Responding to the evaluation
The IFF evaluation makes an assessment of where adjustments may be made to delivery of the voter identification and accessibility measures that would improve the experience of both voters and electoral administrators. The Government are keen to support the diligent work of the Electoral Commission and other partners and we look forward to discussing these recommendations further.
These recommendations include: action that may be taken on training and guidance for polling station staff and electoral administrators on the reasoning behind which photographic identification documents are accepted in the polling station; how to apply the Electoral Commission’s guidance for returning officers on supporting disabled voters to enable or make it easier for them to vote in polling stations; activity and communications to address any gaps in awareness or understanding across the whole electorate of the voter identification requirements; the availability of the voter authority certificate; and the additional support and equipment available to disabled voters and more specifically to address this among groups where awareness is low; supporting electors who may struggle with the online application process to apply for a voter authority certificate; and increasing the time available for processing voter authority certificates ahead of a UK parliamentary general election.
Many of these recommendations are, of course, in areas where the Government recognise they should and do not have a direct role, but in these and other aspects of delivery we remain keen to support the brilliant work of returning officers, electoral registration officers, their electoral services teams, the Electoral Commission, and all our other partners.
Other recommendations in the report are specific to supporting and strengthening future evaluations, for example by gathering more evidence from specific groups of interest, and these will be taken forward in future plans.
Ongoing evaluation
The Government are committed to maintaining the integrity of the ballot and ensuring that UK elections remain accessible to all. While the evaluation published today demonstrates the significant steps we are taking in achieving these aims, the Government will continue to learn from this and future evaluations and other sources of data. We look forward to further assessments that will be published in the future and the ongoing successful implementation of the Elections Act, ensuring the integrity and accessibility of our democracy now and into the future.
Copies of the “Electoral Integrity Programme Evaluation Report: Year 1” and the Government’s response to the Electoral Commission’s report on the May 2023 polls will be placed in the House Libraries.
Implementation of the Boundary Review
The Government’s 2019 manifesto committed to ensuring updated and more equal parliamentary boundaries. These help to make sure that votes carry more equal weight in Parliament, across the whole United Kingdom. To this end, Parliament passed the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020, which provided for the number of constituencies in the UK to remain at 650 and for a boundary review to take place on the basis of this number of constituencies and to report before 1 July 2023.
The 2020 Act also provides for regular boundary reviews, which will ensure that the boundaries remain up to date and involve less change at each cycle by not having such a long period between reviews. The boundary commissions will likely commence their next review in 2029 and complete it by October 2031.
The four independent boundary commissions commenced their review shortly after the Act came into force. Having completed the review, the boundary commissions submitted their final reports to the Speaker of the House of Commons on 27 June 2023. The Speaker laid the reports before Parliament on 28 June 2023. We thank the Boundary Commission for its work.
At the Privy Council meeting on 15 November 2023, His Majesty the King made the Order in Council to enact the changes recommended by the boundary commissions. The order came into force on 29 November 2023 and the new parliamentary constituencies and boundaries will take effect at the next UK parliamentary general election. Until that time, any UK parliamentary by-elections will continue to use the pre-existing constituencies and boundaries.
[HCWS83]
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill
Battery and Hydrogen-powered Aircraft
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards achieving their aspiration to have battery and hydrogen-powered aircraft connecting different parts of the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, zero-emission flight is one measure in the Government’s jet zero strategy to deliver net-zero UK aviation by 2050. The development of hydrogen and battery electric aircraft is technically challenging, and the Government are supporting the necessary innovation in the UK to overcome these barriers. Between 2013 and 2030, industry and government will invest over £5 billion to develop transformational aircraft technology and will continue to collaborate closely to drive progress through the Jet Zero Council.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Are the Government giving any consideration to using public service obligation flights as a test bed for these new technologies, given that they are essential services that are also short and domestic?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The DfT has published a jet zero strategy setting out the Government’s approach to delivering net-zero UK aviation by 2050. The strategy anticipates that a range of measures, including sustainable aviation fuels, zero-emission flights, carbon market measures and greater efficiencies in aircraft, airports and airspace will be require in tandem to achieve net zero by 2050.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister believe that the principle of the polluter pays should apply to aviation, as it does across much of government policy, so that the cost of the emissions trading scheme, as well as the guaranteed prices for producers of sustainable fuels and the cost of an SAF mandate, should be paid by the airlines and, in turn, by the consumers who take the flights? This will not make flights exorbitantly expensive; it will ensure that the people who benefit from such transport bear the costs of it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. In fairness to the airlines, a number of industry projects within the UK seek to bring hydrogen-propelled aircraft, for example, into commercial service. Airbus has its ZEROe project, through which it intends to bring into commercial service the world’s first zero-emission commercial aircraft by 2035. Launched in 2022, its ZEROe demonstrator project will explore how hydrogen propulsion technology can be configured, and there are many other projects within the industry.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, although hydrogen can be a green fuel, it is important that we focus more on green hydrogen, which is created by electrolysis using renewable energy, rather than blue or grey hydrogen. Can my noble friend tell us about the emphasis on green hydrogen as opposed to other hydrogens in order to meet the net-zero targets?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The UK Hydrogen Capability Network Phase 0 Project is a 12-month study funded by the Department for Business and Trade and led by the Aerospace Technology Institute, which builds on the ATI’s FlyZero study key recommendations. It will define the operating model for a group of open-access facilities designed to accelerate the development of liquid hydrogen propulsion aircraft technologies, capabilities and skills in the UK.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, would not this development have lots of incidental advantages? For example, it would make it easier for Peers from all parts of the United Kingdom to get down to Westminster, thus ending the outrage that over half the Members of a House that purports to represent the whole of the United Kingdom are from the south-east of England.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s wisdom, and, as someone who travels from Wales, I appreciate his comments.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s Jet Zero strategy set a target for domestic flights to reach net zero by 2040, but instead there has been a big increase in internal flights taken by private planes and helicopters, and many of those journeys could have been made more quickly by train. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to discourage the use of private internal flights? Perhaps he can also have a word with his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to suggest that he might favour other forms of transport rather than private jets and helicopters.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
There are security issues for the Prime Minister, which I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate. It is still a free world and people can choose how they want to travel, and we must remember that although we are anti-emissions, we are not anti-flying. We must reduce emissions from aviation while retaining our ability to fly.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, may I suggest to the Minister that we build a high-speed rail connection to Manchester and then on to Sheffield, which might reduce the number of flights that are needed?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
A very popular suggestion from the noble Lord, and his point is made.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, to help the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in the attainment of his admirable objectives, can my noble friend the Minister confirm to what extent his department is liaising with the Ministry of Defence, which, through the RAF and Project Monet, is making excellent progress in the pursuit of sustainable fuels?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Civil aviation and the Royal Air Force are making combined efforts to reduce emissions with technology.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the Hydrogen in Aviation alliance has indicated that Britain is well placed to become a global hydrogen aviation leader, stimulating the economy and providing 100,000 jobs. The alliance announced that this would require a 10-year funding commitment. History shows that the level of continuity required to achieve an entirely new fuel requires state funding as part of any alliance. How much real government money is being put into this project?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The Department for Business and Trade supports research and development in UK aerospace manufacturing through the Aerospace Technology Institute. It is a competitive process through which industry can access match funding from government to develop technologies. The programme is set to run until at least 2030, and as part of the advanced manufacturing plan announcement on 17 November, His Majesty’s Treasury confirmed that £975 million of government funding will be provided as part of a £4.5 billion total package for manufacturing between 2025 and 2030. That is in addition to the £685 million from the Government between 2022 and 2025.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend made a very good point that I do not think was fully covered by the Minister, regarding the ideal nature of battery-powered planes for internal domestic flights. For that to happen, we need not just the planes but the infrastructure in the airport. What plans are there in the jet zero strategy to ensure that all domestic airports have the infrastructure, such as power and charging facilities, to make this happen?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
First, the use of battery electric has been proven in small, manned aircraft. However, the weight, plus lack of power density of batteries currently on the market, limits the range and payload of electric aircraft. To support adoption of new aircraft such as hydrogen and battery-powered, the Government have supported research into airport preparedness for handling aircraft through £4.2 million of funding for the zero-emission flight infrastructure project. The findings will be published in March.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, the House might be getting used to my personal interest in electric mobility, and I want to build on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about landing pads. I am aware of two major international organisations that are progressing and quite advanced in their development of electric aeroplanes to be used for personal mobility—as in air taxis—to help people travel easily and in a sustainable way. It is not airports they are looking for, it is landing pads, which will be less invasive in our environment. Is that something we are looking into? I know that across Europe, sites are being searched for landing areas to be trialled in the testing of these planes.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My noble friend makes a very interesting point. I do not have the information in front of me, but I will certainly look at that and write to him.
Child Labour and Artisanal Cobalt Mining in the DRC
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to support international efforts to end the use of child labour from artisanal cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to exclude cobalt from this source from the global supply chain.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the use of child labour in the Democratic Republic of the Congo remains concerning. We regularly raise the issue of child labour in DRC’s artisanal cobalt mining sector both with the DRC Government and through multilateral fora such as the Human Rights Council.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he initiate an urgent investigation into reports of children standing knee-deep with their bare skin in toxic pools mining for cobalt, study the research of Professor Siddharth Kara published in Cobalt Red and challenge the absurdity of companies relying on assurances from state-run Chinese companies in the Congo that human rights norms are met? Under the terms of the Modern Slavery Act, will he consider, for offences committed within supply chains, making offending companies subject to company disqualification, as with GDPR violations, and meet me and other noble Lords who are concerned about these issues to discuss kite-marking and how products can be labelled in a way that demonstrates they come from places where slave labour and child labour is being used, so consumers can make up their own mind about whether they want to be complicit in buying such products?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I would be happy to meet the noble Lord, and perhaps he could bring with him people who could help us to move forward. We are a world leader in this. We passed the Modern Slavery Act. We now have requirements on companies with a turnover greater than £36 million to define their supply chains very accurately to make sure that the awful images the noble Lord describes have no part in the supply of cobalt. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has 70% of the world’s cobalt. We want to make sure that it comes to the world market in a way that is complicit with the standards we require.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, can I just pick up on the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and by the Minister? The fact is that the Modern Slavery Act provides for those companies to make a statement, but that is it. There is no other requirement—no mechanism for enforcement where there is a breach. This is a really serious matter, not only in the DRC but in other countries where we are importing goods made by slaves and children. Will the Government act? There has been criticism of this for many years, since the first debate on the Act, so will we act to make sure compliance is compulsory?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Following a public consultation, the Government committed to taking forward an ambitious package of measures to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act’s transparency legislation, including extending reporting requirements to public bodies with a budget of £36 million or more, mandating the specific reporting of topic statements and what they must cover, requiring organisations to publish a modern slavery statement on the online registry and introducing financial penalties for organisations that fail to publish annual statements. This requires primary legislation, but in time we want to see it on the statute book.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is not one means of reducing our cobalt reliance on dangerous and thoroughly undesirable resources to work on the Washington agreement we have made on critical minerals, which has been agreed between the two Governments, whereby, if we dig out more cobalt in this country—apparently we have some—and use it in our motor cars or use American cobalt, we will get a 15% subsidy on all cars sold into the American market? Can the Minister tell us how that is getting on?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. He will understand that my relative newness in this role means that my learning curve is steep. I will do some research and discuss it with him when we next meet.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, when I was in Lubumbashi in September, I saw for myself the extent of the Chinese concessions for cobalt mining. With regard to east DRC, in June I raised in the Chamber a report from the US State Department that singled out Rwanda’s human rights record with its support of the M23 group, which, as it said, has committed multiple violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses. There is concern that the FCDO has been silent while it is discussing a migration agreement with Rwanda. Can the Minister allay those concerns at the Dispatch Box today and condemn Rwanda’s human rights record in this regard?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I can absolutely reassure the noble Lord. We regularly raise the conflict in eastern DRC with the Governments of DRC, Rwanda and elsewhere in the region. We judge doing this privately to have more impact. In these conversations, we urge all parties to deliver on their commitments agreed through the Nairobi and Luanda processes. This includes the withdrawal of armed groups, including M23, and the ceasing of all external support to armed groups operating in the DRC.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on modern slavery and the vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. Have the Government looked at the way in which the Americans deal with supply chains, by having hot goods that are not entitled to enter the country? If they have not looked at that, would they do so?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will certainly take that back. I thank the noble and learned Baroness for her work in this area. It is vital that we are able to define accurately and have complete transparency through supply chains. As a previous questioner identified, cobalt is vital for technologies that we want to see that will help lower emissions, and it is used in a whole variety of daily products. We must make sure that it is not mined using child labour or slavery and that we are requiring companies to be transparent in their supply chains.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, may I press the Minister further on that point regarding the specific steps that the Government are now taking to identify whether cobalt-containing products imported into the UK are produced by child labour in the DRC?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Through our modern slavery legislation and through the work we are doing in a variety of multilateral fora, we are trying to make sure that, with international companies mining not just cobalt but a whole range of other things—for diamonds, for example, using the Kimberley process, or for conflict minerals—we are doing work in-country, leading on partnerships that have seen great benefit, with children going into school as opposed to working in mines. UK taxpayers’ money is doing that, and we are working really hard on this. We want to make sure that companies are playing their part, too, and that their supply chains are transparent.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
The Minister has asserted that we are a world leader in modern slavery work. That may have been the case, but can he explain, then, why there was such a hiatus between the departure of the previous modern slavery commissioner and the appointment of a new one? I believe that the new one has not yet taken up her post. Secondly, if we are to lead on these issues, what are we doing to make sure that we are more resilient in terms of minerals such as cobalt?
Lord Benyon (Con)
On the first point, I will write to the noble Lord about the appointment of the new commissioner. On the second point, there is a market imperative to use less of certain products because they are expensive to obtain and transport across the world, so there is a market mechanism. But there is also a driver for the Government through innovation, particularly in areas such as battery manufacture, to reduce both the weight of batteries and, therefore, the quantity of minerals such as cobalt that are used. The Government are providing funding for innovation in a whole range of ways.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I have also had the chance to visit most parts of the DRC and have seen for myself the scourge of child labour. The Minister mentioned that we must get these children out of mines, where they are being persecuted and exploited, and into schools and education. Can he tell us what we are doing to tilt our aid in that direction? Does he have any figures on these children going into school?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The UK’s Partnership Against Child Exploitation programme, which ended in September, was a consortium of six partners that worked to combat the worst forms of child labour in the Central African Republic, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; the United Kingdom was a key supporter of that partnership. The programme delivered key achievements: 8,430 children are going back to school following a consortium intervention, while 2,583 children have completed training in rights and skills because of PACE support. The point from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is absolutely right—there is still a serious problem—but we are having some success and we want to see more of it.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, this Question highlights an important part of a much wider issue. Can the Minister say what progress the Government have made towards developing a strategic plan to ensure the supply of crucial resources in the round in order to enhance national security and resilience while, at the same time, supporting the values that we rightly espouse?
Lord Benyon (Con)
This is a massive issue, and I thank the noble and gallant Lord for raising it. The integrated review refresh looked at this. We must make sure that our economy can get what it needs in order to provide for our own needs and so that we can benefit the rest of the world. We cannot look at the security of this nation without looking at supply chains. With a country such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as I said, having 70% of the world’s cobalt, which is a mineral that we need, we want to be at the forefront of making sure both that we have high-integrity supply chains for such minerals and that they are integrated into our whole security policy.
English Flood Defences
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following widespread flood damage caused by both storm Babet and Ciarán, what action they are taking to ensure all English flood defences are fit for purpose.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are working closely with the Environment Agency and other relevant authorities to ensure that flood defences impacted by recent flooding are repaired. Following Storm Babet and Storm Ciarán, more than 14,000 inspections of flood protection assets have been conducted, with action taken wherever performance was compromised. We have allocated more than £200 million a year for the maintenance of flood defences and aim to achieve getting 94% to 95% of flood-risk assets to their target condition.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, extreme weather is now the new normal. When it comes to flood events, I am not certain that we are ready for the future. Although I recognise that the Government have doubled capital funding, information from the National Audit Office just two weeks ago revealed that the number of properties to be protected from flooding by 2027 has been cut by 40%. In addition, Unearthed has shown that 40,000 of England’s vital flood defences are so damaged as to be almost useless. Why are there no longer-term plans or concrete targets for flood defences beyond 2026-27? Is it time for a full review of our flood defences?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We constantly look over the horizon to make sure that we factor in important phenomena such as climate change and the extreme weather events we are seeing. The National Audit Office has reduced that figure principally because of the inflationary effect on the cost of building concrete and steel defences. Of course, that is only part of it; nature-based solutions are now becoming a key part of our defences. I really question the Unearthed data. The Environment Agency puts all defences in a category from 1 to 5. If it is a category 4, meaning that it is not where you want it to be, it still functions in the main. When we know that a flood is coming, a minor change can be made. That was an unfair description by Unearthed; the figure of 94% to 95% of our assets being in good condition is worthy of comment.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, more than half of Britain’s best farmland is on flood plains. Farmers are providing a public service by protecting towns and cities from flooding, but this means that they incur costs. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that farmers are adequately recompensed for this public service that they provide for our nation?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is correct. Farmers can enter into some agri-environment schemes, which, as we know, are now targeted on public goods. One of those is protecting the public from flooding so, if farmers are holding flood-water on their land, they should be rewarded for it. They can also access the farming recovery fund, which provides assistance to farmers whose agricultural land has been damaged by flooding and declared a natural disaster by the Government. We provide financial assistance up to 100%, with a minimum grant level of £500 and a maximum of £25,000; that has been accessed in some extreme flooding conditions.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, thousands of homes are eligible for protection in the UK under the Flood Re protection scheme, which is an insurance scheme. With these two serious storms, can the Minister tell us a bit about how the scheme has performed during this period and whether there are any plans both to look at the scheme again and to examine, in particular, the eligibility criteria and rating levels within it?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I was involved in the setting up of Flood Re more than a decade ago. It has undoubtedly brought peace of mind to a huge number of households that could not get flood insurance or could get it only for an exorbitant amount. It needs looking at every so often, as building costs and our understanding of flood risk increase. The Government are working with the Flood Re in a variety of ways to ensure that we are making it fit not for just today but, as I said earlier, recognising that we could soon see houses we did not previously think were a flood risk become a flood risk. We want to make sure that this scheme covers them too.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, for Flood Re to work effectively, surely there should be no building on functional flood plains. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that there is a vital role for maintenance and recognise the work of the drainage authorities? I have the honour of being the vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. Will he also ensure that, where the Environment Agency fails to do the work, farmers and others can do it through the drainage boards and maintain these flood-banks?
Lord Benyon (Con)
This is going to come as a shock to my noble friend but I am not going to agree with her first point. If we say that we will not build on flood plains, that means no new houses in Leeds, London and many of our other major cities. What matters is not whether you build on flood plains but how you build. I was in the Netherlands last week, hearing about houses that are actually flood defences. There is so much successful building on flood plains around the world. There are also some fantastic examples in this country from the last 50 years of how not to do it. I urge caution when saying that we should not build on flood plains. We have increased the funding for maintenance of defences by £22 million per year, and are supporting farmers and others in their work to keep our homes from flooding.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, despite the Government doubling their capital funding in England to combat flooding, we know that a quarter of new flood defence projects will not be going ahead. The Environment Agency has blamed inflation for these cuts, as the Minister acknowledged earlier. A shortfall in the agency’s finances means that it cannot keep flood protections to the required condition to protect homes. Due to this inflation, the EA is now £34 million short of its expected budget. How will the Government make up this shortfall?
Lord Benyon (Con)
As the noble Baroness says, we have put record amounts into flood protection through the Environment Agency—£5.2 billion from 2021-27, which is a doubling of the investment. Additionally, there is an extra £200 million on maintenance, a £22 million increase in the maintenance fund this year and the Environment Agency is conducting a review, expecting around 69,200 high-consequence assets, of which 63,700 are at the required condition. We are not complacent. We recognise that there is an increased threat from flooding, as there is from a variety of extreme weather conditions. We have made this a priority for government and will continue to support the Environment Agency with what it needs to keep our homes safe from flooding.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will follow on the Minister’s answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Given that we already have houses built on flood plains and that there will probably be more, what are the Government doing to mandate resilient design—he hinted that other countries have done that—and to retrofit houses that have already been built there? Things can be done, such as laying concrete flooring and raising the level of the electricity circuits. Will the Government ensure that this sort of design is built in when it becomes necessary to build new houses on flood plains?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I totally agree. Through our conversations on housing design and the incentives and financial support that we give to householders to retrofit, we are seeing those householders protect their houses themselves. In flood-risk areas, where you put the plug sockets can make a difference if a house floods, so recovery funding must also drive that. We must listen to the Environment Agency when it says that developments should not take place, but if the developer, working with the local authority, and the Environment Agency, says that these mitigation measures have been put in place, we will copy what goes on in places such as the Mississippi basin and the Netherlands, where there is intelligent building in flood-risk areas.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the public are sufficiently aware of flood risk when they buy a house, aside from what needs to be done legally in terms of a flood-risk report?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the purchaser of a house to look at all the risks. There comes a point where government cannot be involved in every transaction and action of a human life. However, it is key that data on flood risk, of which there can now be an enormous amount, is accessible through the Environment Agency’s website and through local authorities. That should be accessed by people buying a house and those advising them.
Residential Leasehold for Flats
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to abolish residential leasehold for flats.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennedy and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a leaseholder.
The Government are extending the benefits of freehold ownership to more home owners. Reforms in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill will help leaseholders to buy their freeholds and will end the sale of new leasehold houses so that, other than in exceptional circumstances, all new houses will be freehold from the outset. For flats, the Government remain committed to reinvigorating commonhold to give developers and home owners a viable alternative to leasehold should they choose it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Of course, we welcome the reform of leasehold, but with 5 million leasehold properties in England, 70% of which are flats, there is disappointment that they are not included in the Bill. Also, it does not appear that the Bill bans the sale of leasehold houses, either. The Times is reporting that the Minister’s department did not have time to include the leasehold ban before the Bill was introduced this week. Can she please clarify whether it is the Government’s clear intention to ban leasehold? If so, when will we see the relevant clauses?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I can reassure noble Lords that it is the Government’s intention to bring forward clauses to ban the sale of new leasehold houses within this Bill. We intend to bring forward those clauses during the Commons stages. When it comes to flats, on the other hand, reform is more complicated. They have shared fabric and infrastructure and therefore require some form of arrangement to facilitate management. This has traditionally been facilitated by a lease. Therefore, banning leasehold flats is inherently more complicated. We will be taking forward, at a later date, reforms to the commonhold system to allow that to replace the leasehold system.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
Does the absence of these clauses lead the Minister to draw a conclusion which has general application—that Parliament is asked to consider far too much legislation, to be proceeded with at far too great a pace?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I do not draw that conclusion. Leasehold reform is complex. We have consulted widely and are taking time to get things right. I understand the desirability of bringing forward these clauses as soon as possible for Parliament’s scrutiny and that is what the Government intend to do.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the provisions of the leasehold Bill, which provide a better balance between the interests of freeholders and leaseholders. However, the Bill does not do what Michael Gove said it would. He said:
“I don’t believe leasehold is fair in any way. It is an outdated feudal system that needs to go. And we need to move to a better system and to liberate people from it”.
He wanted to replace leasehold with commonhold, but the Bill does not even mention commonhold. So will my noble friend be surprised if some of us seek to amend the Bill to deliver what her Secretary of State actually wants?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I have tried to learn not to be surprised by any amendments tabled to government Bills by your Lordships’ House, but I would like to reassure my noble friend that this Bill is focused on helping leaseholders now by making existing leases fairer and more affordable. We have focused on legislating where we can make a genuine improvement to leaseholders’ daily lives right away. For example, we are making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to purchase the freehold of their building or a 999-year lease on their property and take control of their building’s management from the freeholder. When it comes to reforms to commonhold, we continue to consider the Law Commission’s report in detail to find the best way forward and we are committed to taking forward that additional work.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, one of the most expensive consequences of being a leaseholder, especially in flats, is the service charges that freeholders can level against you. They are completely unregulated and can be totally exorbitant. Does the Minister agree that we need to abolish service charges, especially for flats, and replace them with a commonhold system, which would be much fairer for leaseholders and would stop unscrupulous freeholders from ripping off hard-working families?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I can reassure the noble Lord that the Bill does contain provisions to bring greater transparency around how service charges are brought for leaseholders, so that there is greater accountability for what those charges go to and leaseholders have a greater ability to challenge them if they think they are unfair.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the Minister will know, the most frustrating thing for those of us who are leaseholders is the lack of control. There is a tried and tested formula for residents’ control, which is recognised in the Bill, and that is freehold. At the very least, will the Government consider a really simple, cost-free change to the Bill, which would be a mandated share of freehold for all new flats? That would at least prove that they are really committed to tackling the issue of getting rid of toxic leasehold for ever.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, we believe that commonhold provides a potential way forward to move away from leasehold for flats, but there is reform of commonhold that needs to take place so that it will be fit for purpose. I reassure the noble Baroness, as I have others, that there are significant measures in this Bill that do exactly what she pointed towards, which is giving leaseholders greater control over the properties that they own and live in.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the wider problem, of course, is that there are far too few new homes, either leasehold or freehold. Is the noble Baroness aware that France, with a population of about the same size as ours, now has 12 million more homes than Britain, and has built more than twice as many new homes as we have over the last 13 years? There has been a net addition of 2 million homes, a high proportion for social lease. I know that Ministers are not talking to their European counterparts at the moment, but does she not think that learning something from our European partners could be valuable in tackling the housing crisis?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are absolutely committed to increasing supply. The noble Lord is right that that is part of the solution, particularly when we have in place the provisions to ban new leaseholds in new houses. But the Government are delivering on that promise. We are on track to deliver our commitment to 1 million new homes during this Parliament. We are investing £10 billion in increasing the supply of homes, and in the last few years we have seen some of the highest rates of home delivery in decades.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend convey to Mr Gove the most generous offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on behalf of the House, which was apparent from the reaction to his question? Why does she not tell him that this House can put right what he has not yet got right?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am sure that this House will communicate its views to the department as we progress the Bill throughout the scrutiny. It will go through the Commons first and I look forward to debating the provisions in detail when it reaches the Lords.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, commonhold is used widely across the world, so why has it taken the Government so long to consider what works so successfully across the rest of the world?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this Bill, and the other reforms that we have made in this space, are comprehensive and complex. We have taken time to look, consult and bring forward the proposals that will have the biggest impact on leaseholders today, while also committing to ongoing reform in the future.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the Autumn Statement contained a commitment to take forward reforms to residential estate investment trusts. Will my noble friend take forward the support the House has for leveraging significant private sector funding into much-needed residential accommodation via REITs?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Yes, the Autumn Statement set out the way forward we are going to take on that issue. We need proper financing to support our ambitions for more homebuilding. Some of that comes through government support, but the private sector is a key partner here and we need to do everything that we can to unlock investment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend mentioned there were complications in extending freehold to leaseholders in flats. She does not have to answer everything right now, but I wonder whether she could write to me, and deposit a copy in the Library, about some of those complications, so noble Lords can better understand those barriers to extending freehold?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I would be very happy to write to my noble friend but, as I said, in looking at the distinction between houses and flats, the majority of houses have always been provided as freehold, and there are few justifications for building leasehold houses. We have seen, in recent years, this practice being exploited by developers to levy unfair charges on home owners. Flats, on the other hand, have shared fabric and infrastructure and therefore require some form of arrangement to facilitate management. Traditionally, this has been facilitated by a lease, but, as we discussed, commonhold is an alternative way to do this.
Ecocide Bill [HL]
Thursday 30th November 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Ecocide Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Ecocide Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-chair of Peers for the Planet.
Protection of Care Recipients and Carers Bill [HL]
Thursday 30th November 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Protection of Care Recipients and Carers Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Protection of Care Recipients and Carers Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
National Health Service: 75th Anniversary
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That this House takes note of the 75th anniversary of the National Health Service and its performance in waiting times.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my membership of the GMC council. I was privileged to lead a debate 25 years ago in your Lordships’ House to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the NHS. My noble friends Lord Brooke and Lady Pitkeathley spoke in that debate, and I am delighted that they are speaking today—they are great survivors.
In 1997, the Labour Government inherited an NHS in crisis, with low morale and long waiting times. I was privileged as a Minister to contribute to a complete revival of the service’s fortunes. I pay tribute to my colleagues, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who played a pivotal role as Chief Nursing Officer, and to my noble friend Lord Prentis, who took up the post of general secretary of UNISON at a very important time in the turnaround in the service’s fortunes.
The NHS plan of 2000 was a programme of huge vision: 100 new hospitals built; major investment in the workforce and an agenda for change; new services such as NHS Direct and walk-in centres; maximum 18-week waits for elective treatments; maximum four-hour waits for A&E; patients were actually able to see their GP. In 2010, the British Social Attitudes survey showed satisfaction with the NHS at over 70%, the highest rate it has ever recorded. Today, satisfaction has plummeted to 29%—the lowest figure ever recorded. The main reasons for this dramatic drop are waiting times for GPs and hospitals, staff shortages and lack of government spending.
How did the coalition and then the Conservative Governments throw away such a brilliant inheritance? The evidence is very clear: austerity was to blame, based on a small-state ideology and introduced just as the economy was recovering to a 2.2% growth rate in 2010. Growth was killed off by the coalition Government, who devastated public investment. The huge social cost of this self-imposed harm is plain to see. By 2020, poverty in working families had reached a record high. Life expectancy increases stalled for the first time in this country in 100 years. In 1952, the UK had the seventh-highest life expectancy at birth in the world. OECD data shows that, by 2020, it had fallen to 36th.
Austerity targeted local government the worst. It had a huge impact on adult social care and, today, has left half a million people waiting just for an assessment, let alone any support. We now have the prospect of the Home Office wanting to restrict care workers coming from abroad by increasing the salary requirement and restricting dependants. The obvious solution—to pay care staff more—is not viable because, as Juliet Samuel wrote in the Times this morning, the same Government are the care sector’s main customer and will not pay up. You could not make it up.
The NHS has been through the longest financial squeeze in its history. Its annual growth from 1948 to 2019-20 was 3.6%, but under the coalition Government dropped to a miserly 1.1%. Any increased funding that came post Covid has been eroded in real terms due to high inflation, resulting in a very stretched NHS. It is no wonder waiting lists are now a record 7.8 million people. In 2022-23, only 56% of those attending A&E were admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours, compared to 98% in 2010.
What has the Government’s response been to all this? First, we had the costly disaster of the Health and Social Care Act 2102, which enforced a wasteful market on all clinical services, disrupted collaboration and the integration of services, and cost millions of pounds. Earlier this week, the Minister was here bringing in a regulation to get rid of the whole wretched thing. We also had a former Prime Minister’s pledge on 40 new hospitals, which was exposed as a deceit early on. Even the current Prime Minister some time ago, in one of his many pledges, promised to cut NHS waiting lists, but that has been downgraded because NHS leaders have been told to prioritise controlling costs. Up and down the country, the NHS is stopping schemes to cut waiting times because it cannot get the funds; for instance, for new equipment to increase productivity.
The NHS has faced two major periods of crisis in its history. The first was in the early 1990s and the second is now. The common cause is a long period of Conservative government. We fixed it last time and we can do it again, but it will be tough. As Paul Johnson from the IFS commented after the Autumn Statement,
“a combination of high spending on debt interest, low growth, and the demands of an ageing population mean that there is little scope to increase spending on hard-pressed public services … growth is the only way out of this”.
But this Government’s dismal performance offers little hope of that. Interest rates are set to remain high according to the Governor of the Bank of England who, two days ago, said that the UK economy’s potential to grow is
“lower than it has been in much of my working life”.
How do we go forward from here? We need a Government who will drive through a huge modernisation programme. Inescapably, funding will have to keep pace with demography and technical advances, but we also clearly need to get the most out of every pound we spend.
Data from the Office for National Statistics reveals that more working-age people are self-reporting long-term health conditions, with 36% saying that they have at least one. The case for investing health resources to get those people back to work is convincing and ought to appeal to the Treasury. Wes Streeting has suggested that we also need cultural change which gives local services much greater freedom to reform and to try new and different ways of providing healthcare while embracing the latest technology. This is really important: productivity will not be improved by beating a big stick so, please, we do not need any restructuring, crony contracts, wasted payments on management consultants, rip-off outsourcing or agency bills—all characteristic of the current Government’s approach.
The NHS needs to plan with multiyear revenue settlements, and it needs investment in capital. We are years behind other countries in investing in capital. The result, as the NHS Confederation reported this week, is a less productive service, still hampered by
“Victorian estates, too few diagnostic machines and outdated IT systems”.
We need system reform. Primary care is overstretched, with too many patients ending up inappropriately in A&E. Planned treatments get cancelled as a result. Patients’ conditions deteriorate and hospitals then find it difficult to discharge them, owing to pressures on adult social and community care. Add in mental health demands and it is no wonder the system is falling over, but we need a whole-system solution to deal with that problem.
Ministers are fond of talking about integration but, for patients, the experience of seamless care between primary, secondary, tertiary and social care is a distant dream. We also need to take advantage of our fantastic science base, and our pharma and medical technology sectors. The problem is that investment in R&D and clinical trials has dipped. We must get that back and ensure that the NHS adopts the innovations being made in this country to get the advantage to patients and improve productivity. This is key to what we have to do in the future.
Our workforce is all important. The Institute for Government was absolutely right in arguing that an improved approach to setting pay, workforce planning and enhancing working conditions would help to reset the relationship with our staff and start to resolve recruitment and retention problems. We will have to pay particular attention to the lowest-paid staff and try to align social care staff more to NHS terms and conditions.
We know that there is a huge demand for healthcare professionals globally. It is very unlikely that countries’ demands will totally be met, so we have to look at the smart use of AI and technology to liberate clinicians from the clunky and frustrating IT systems found littered across the NHS.
We need a stronger preventative process to reduce health inequalities and improve life expectancy. We need social care to be given a fundamental boost. Do your Lordships remember that Prime Minister Johnson promised to fix social care? That went well. As a minimum, every vulnerable person should expect an assessment and some form of care and support. In the long term, we have to end the lottery of care which leaves many people who are above the means-tested level none the less struggling hugely to pay care home fees.
Primary care also needs a reset. I commend Sir John Oldham who, under the last Labour Government, did fantastic work in helping GPs to improve their effectiveness. Primary care has to become a place again where GPs want to work and where if patients want direct access to their GP, they can get it.
There must be no delay in bringing legislation to reform the Mental Health Act 1983. The failure of the Government to bring the Bill before us because it is not a measure that would show a gap between them and us is deplorable. That Bill has consensus support and was produced by an expert. We know the way forward, but it has been delayed yet again. I commend a report, A Mentally Healthier Nation, which was recently signed by dozens of organisations with an interest in mental health. It sets out a fantastic programme for better prevention, quality and support.
Finally, I will mention the people who I represented for a lot of my earlier life, when I did proper jobs—NHS managers and leaders. If we are serious about an improvement agenda, can we stop disparaging those people? Can we stop false economies by restricting the number we invest in and start to invest properly in their training, support and development? Amanda Pritchard, the chief executive of NHS England, gave evidence to the Health and Social Care Select Committee only a couple of weeks ago in which she talked about the patchiness of giving those crucial people the kind of support they need to do the jobs that need to be done.
I am grateful to so many noble Lords for taking part in our debate. I am convinced that, with drive and determination, we can turn the NHS around. Wes Streeting has described his reform programme as having three aims: hospital to community, analogue to digital, and sickness to prevention. They sound about right to me. Despite the Government’s dismal record, austerity funding and attacks from the right, the NHS’s founding principles—being comprehensive, free at the point of use and tax-funded—remain in place.
In ending, I think it is appropriate to give the last word to Nye Bevan, founder of the NHS. He said:
“The NHS will last as long as there’s folk with faith left to fight for it”.
There are plenty of people prepared to do that. I beg to move.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, following the splendid introductory speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which ended with a quotation from Nye Bevan, I will make a little historical contribution to this important debate, if I may. Other speakers will be dealing with the present and looking forward to the future; I hope a historian may be forgiven for looking back to the origins of the NHS, the 75th anniversary of which we are celebrating.
Cinemagoers in the 1940s learned much about public affairs from the widely admired Pathé News, which was shown before the main film. In March 1944, audiences who saw that month’s Pathé News heard the following words from the Minister of Health about the formation of a National Health Service:
“Whatever your income, if you want to use this service—nobody is going to try to make you unless you want to—there will be no charge for treatment. The National Health Service will include family doctors who you choose for yourselves and who will attend you in your own homes when this is necessary”.
The clipped, kindly, authoritative voice continued:
“It will cover any medicines you may need, specialist advice and, of course, hospital treatment, whatever the illness, special care for mothers and children and a lot of other things besides. In fact, every kind of advice and treatment you may need … We are out to improve the health of every family and the whole nation. If we cut out the money worries which illness brings, then there would be no reason to put off getting advice and treatment”.
That is how the nation heard that it could look forward to the provision of comprehensive health services, free at the point of use, from which it was to benefit so profoundly in the years that lay ahead.
The voice from which it heard about these radical reform plans was that of Sir Henry Willink, the Conservative Health Minister in Churchill’s wartime coalition. It fell to Willink to work out how to achieve this promised transformation of healthcare in Britain. He set about the task in a spirit of consensus, telling Pathé News viewers:
“It is not a cut and dried scheme. These proposals are for discussion in Parliament, and we want them talked about by everyone concerned, and you, everyone in this audience, are very much concerned”.
The nearer the scheme came to fruition, the more concerned the British Medical Association grew about the effect it would have on their members’ private practice. Willink made a number of concessions to the BMA, agreeing that doctors would not, as had originally been envisaged, be grouped as salaried employees into health centres under local authority control. This concession had far-reaching results, which the Labour Party had to accept when it found itself in charge of the legislation that created the NHS after 1945.
Today, Sir Henry Willink is almost entirely forgotten, his contribution to building our National Health Service unsung. Willink was a calm, modest, intellectual figure, later master of a Cambridge college, who had no taste for rough party politics, totally unlike the brilliant, flamboyant, combative Nye Bevan, who denounced the Tories as “lower than vermin” when the NHS was officially launched in July 1948. By the way, younger elements in the Conservative Party responded by forming Vermin Clubs, with little membership badges featuring ugly creatures. Miss Margaret Roberts, later Mrs Margaret Thatcher, had quite a collection of these badges.
Since Bevan carried the legislation through Parliament, it would be absurd to question his central role. But neither he nor the Labour Party deserve to monopolise the credit for the building of the NHS. Bevan’s biographer, Dr John Campbell, refers to
“the long and cumulative process by which the Service came into existence in 1948 … There can be no doubt that some form of National Health Service would have come into being after 1945 whoever had won the General Election”.
The Tories, who made a firm commitment to finish Willink’s work in their 1945 manifesto, made a cardinal political error as Bevan’s great NHS Bill was going through the Commons: Willink moved a hostile amendment, opposing the nationalisation of all hospitals, voluntary and municipal. This enabled Labour, in the rough and tumble of party politics, to portray the Conservatives as opposed in principle to the NHS, which was of course totally untrue.
Perhaps on the 75th anniversary of the NHS this year, it might be appropriate to remember Henry Willink as well as Nye Bevan. Willink stood for consensus; Bevan for conflict. Could it be that, over the last 75 years, the NHS would have benefited from a little more of Willink’s consensus and a little less of Bevan’s party strife? Would progress have been easier to achieve if politicians of all parties had worked together, in full partnership with health professionals, in that spirit of national unity, embodied in Churchill’s wartime coalition, from which our NHS emanates?
I will make just one point about the provision of health services today. I do so with sadness, disappointment and a little anger. In the debate on the King’s Speech, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I drew the attention of the House to the compelling case that the Royal Osteoporosis Society, supported by parliamentarians of all parties, had made for government funding of fracture liaison services. A commitment appeared to have been given in this House in a ministerial reply to a debate on these services in September. It contained the following words:
“We are proposing to announce, in the forthcoming Autumn Statement, a package of prioritised measures to expand the provision of fracture liaison services and improve their current quality”.—[Official Report, 14/9/23; col. GC 241.]
The Autumn Statement last week contained no such announcement. Commenting on the U-turn, my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, who introduced September’s debate but cannot be in his place today, deplored the Government’s unwillingness to make what is, in reality, a tiny investment of some £27 million per annum in fracture liaison services. This callous decision will blight the lives of tens of thousands of people with pain and disability and put many people at risk of premature death. This was a deplorable position indeed in the year of the 75th anniversary of our NHS.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on his excellent introductory speech. He hit all the nails very firmly on the head.
As the NHS reaches its 75th year, it is a very different and much larger beast than when it started out. The challenges are not just greater but different. On the upside, to a great extent we have conquered infectious diseases through vaccination and sanitation. Because of the success of medical science, our population is ageing, leading to greater demand for healthcare. On the other hand, we have a high level of health inequality and poverty, and a food system that does not provide a healthy diet for many people. Preventable diseases are now the greatest cause of illness and death. In 1948, people walked everywhere; many did manual labour, so obesity was rare; they ate seasonally and cooked their meals at home, and ultra-processed foods did not exist. But the air was not necessarily cleaner, because we burned coal to heat our homes. Today, we lead a very different life.
So, post-Covid, the NHS has five major challenges. There is the state of social care, causing too many people to enter hospital and stay there for too long. Linked to that, there is a crisis in ambulance service response times and A&E waiting times, causing excess deaths and harm. Many diseases, including cancer, are being diagnosed far later than they could be, leading to poor outcomes. Long waiting lists for urgent and elective care are leading to damage to the economy as people cannot work while they wait. There is too little preventive work to help people lead healthier lives.
The Government’s response is a focus on increasing the front-line workforce while ignoring the poor communication and system planning in the service. While we certainly need to train and retain more health professionals, especially in deprived areas, they are not the only people the workforce plan should be focusing on. We need system planners and communications experts. The money available for the NHS to tackle these problems is not infinite, which means we need greater productivity.
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman said:
“Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run, it is almost everything”.
A crude definition of productivity is the ratio of inputs to outputs. Some think this is all about individuals working harder, but NHS staff are all already working extremely hard. It is not about working harder but working smarter. It is about improving outcomes. It is also not just about national initiatives. There is bound to be poor buy-in for national initiatives when staff on the ground often have a better idea of what could be done better. That is not to say there is no room for national initiatives, but they do not need to be designed by McKinsey.
There are problems with measuring real productivity in the NHS: how to adjust for the mix and quality of outputs and recognising the difference between outputs and outcomes. The NHS produces a wide variety of outputs. GP appointments are not the same as hip replacements, but the service has quite sophisticated statistical ways of dealing with this. It is harder to adjust for quality. Doing two knee replacements rather than one looks productive, but not if the second was needed only because the first was botched; and especially, as in the case of a lady I know, if the patient has to see the consultant three times before he will accept that there is something wrong. Then we must ask, is the outcome better as a result of the NHS having done something? The lesson here is that it is productive to listen to patients. Unfortunately, the NHS has cut back on patient-reported outcome measures, which are a valuable way to assess outcomes. My first question to the Minister is: are there plans to reinstate or replace PROMs?
A recent internal paper about productivity said that NHSE is
“very good at generating ideas”
for efficiency initiatives but does not have clear processes to evaluate them. It added:
“The overall volume of initiatives means it is very likely that the system is overwhelmed, which means that initiatives are not as effective as they could be. Moreover, a lot of the initiatives we are taking forward lack the buy-in from front-line staff that is needed to make changes stick”.
The system and infrastructures that support waiting list management include IT and tools for proactive patient tracking, as well as the processes that staff follow to efficiently and accurately co-ordinate pathways for patients on waiting lists. Millions of hours of clinicians’ time are wasted due to inadequate IT systems. A recent BMA report found that four in five doctors believe that improving IT infrastructure and digital technology would help to tackle backlogs. Can the Minister therefore say whether systems analysts and IT and AI specialists are included in the workforce plan, as well as medical professionals? We did not just win the Battle of Britain using pilots.
Sadly, there are too many examples of the skills of our health professionals being wasted because of inefficient systems planning and poor communications. A recent example concerns former BBC journalist Rory Cellan-Jones, who suffered a broken elbow and facial bruising following a fall. He spent two unnecessary days in hospital and calculated that 90% of the staff time spent on his case could have been avoided with better planning and communications. It was eight days after his accident before he received appropriate treatment. It was not just a question of communication between staff, but communication with him. He says in his blog:
“Getting information about one’s treatment seems like an obstacle race where the system is always one step ahead. … But communication between medical staff within and between hospitals also appears hopelessly inadequate, with the gulf between doctors and nurses particularly acute. I also sense that, in some cases, new computer systems are slowing not speeding information through the system. On Saturday morning, as we waited in the surgical assessment unit, four nurses gathered around a computer screen while a fifth explained … all the steps needed to check-in a patient and get them into a bed. It took about 20 minutes and appeared to be akin to mastering some complex video game”.
It also took four hours to get the paperwork for his discharge.
My Lords, I have experienced a similar situation and it grieves me to see our skilled professionals not being used in the most cost-effective way. What are the Government planning to do about this?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on securing this debate and on outlining not just current problems but potential ways forward, which is what we should be concentrating on. This is an important debate, because few issues are more significant for us as individuals and indeed as society. Our individual and collective health and well-being very much depend upon a robust NHS. The figures my noble friend gave, including the 7.8 million on the waiting list, showed very clearly that we do not have that today, I am afraid.
Time is always limited in these debates, and there are certainly many aspects of the current state of the NHS that warrant mentioning—alas, far too many to mention. However, unusually, I want to start by mentioning some of the briefings we have probably all received in the last few days since this debate was announced. I was particularly struck by the briefing paper from the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. It highlighted that in August, more than 470,000 people were waiting for a care and support assessment to begin, up 8% on March of this year. It highlighted the almost universal view that increased pressures on the NHS will put even more pressure on adult social care—a significant and growing problem.
We also had an interesting paper from a well-known opticians, pointing out that greater use of the glaucoma referral system, with optometrists working with the NHS, can significantly benefit patients and the whole of the NHS service; a similar situation arises with audiology services. The Royal College of Psychiatrists told us in its detailed paper about the contribution that early support hubs can make. The Bowel Cancer UK group gave us striking figures that nine in 10 people will survive bowel cancer if diagnosed early, but only four out of 10 are actually being diagnosed early. The most significant point about all these examples is that they highlight issues that are not simply about asking for more funds. They are pointing out and giving examples of how early invention can not only benefit patients and individuals but reduce long-term costs.
All of those examples and that theme link up with what we were told by Universities UK, which has outlined the problems we are seeing with applications from students for positions in critical areas of nursing and the whole range of medical specialties. Even if we did get the increase in the number of students, we are also short of clinical academics and people to do the teaching to get the placements they need in our hospitals. This area is particularly critical to the way forward. Although the Government sometimes boast about increasing student numbers, there is still a very long way to go before we recover from the cuts made from 2010. That is one of the reasons why we are in such a serious situation.
I want also to mention one other issue that particularly alarms me. In October, just a month ago, the Care Quality Commission rated 65% of maternity services in England as inadequate or requiring improvement. Its report says, having inspected 73% of all maternity units:
“The overarching picture is one of a service and staff under huge pressure”.
Despite the efforts of staff, who are often praised because of their efforts by people on the receiving end, many women are still not receiving the safe, high-quality care they deserve. The CQC went on to say that this was particularly a problem for ethnic-minority women, for whom the service was particularly poor. Its overall assessment was that we have a deteriorating position in maternity services. All of us who have children know that the moment a child is born is one of the most important times of your life. It really is alarming that, in 2023, 75 years after the establishment of the health service, which was partly formed to improve maternity services, we have that situation.
I must just mention a related issue from my local area. Last week, it was reported that no babies have been born in Kirklees for around 18 months. Kirklees is one of the largest metropolitan council areas, covering Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Batley and lots of other smaller towns, yet there are no facilities for childbirth there. The units in Huddersfield and Dewsbury have been closed. Just imagine being a pregnant woman going into childbirth and having to travel potentially for an hour in those circumstances. The reason given is staffing issues. There are plans for the future, but in some cases it will take nearly two years before that service becomes available.
I have the figures for the increasing number of doctors, midwives and consultants under a Labour Government, but I end by echoing what my noble friend said: we fixed it last time; we are going to have to fix it again.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for introducing this debate in his typically tub-thumping and inspiring manner.
I owe my life to the NHS—quite literally. Without the NHS’s resources and the commitment and skill of those who work in it, I would not be standing here making yet another speech on health in your Lordships’ House to join the many I have made since I became a Member at same time as my noble friend. It is no exaggeration to say that it causes me emotional distress to hear the phrases that people are now using about our beloved NHS—“The NHS is not what it was”, or, “You can’t rely on the NHS now”—or to see friends in my village spending their life savings on paying for surgery in the private sector because they are no longer able to tolerate the pain in their knee, or cope with being off work for a year or even two because they cannot get their hip done. That is what 7 million on the waiting list means.
I will not repeat what other noble Lords have said about the length of the waiting lists. They must be fixed, but we cannot fix them without fixing what causes them. Is it any wonder that you have to wait at the front door of the hospital when you have a traffic jam at the back? The NHS and social care are inextricably bound together—how many times have we said that in your Lordships’ House—yet we are no nearer to solving the problem than we were 25 years ago. In fact, it has only got worse. As we know, people are living longer with more comorbidities. We should rejoice in that because it is an NHS success story, but, as we know, local authority budgets, which have been so constricted for so many years, are unable to provide the services we need. The problems in social care are just the same as they have always been: not enough money, too little integration and fragmented services. That is what a previous Prime Minister promised to fix. As my noble friend said, “That went well, didn’t it?”
I know that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will give us statistics on how much more money this Government have put in, but it is spent on the wrong thing: on hospitals instead of primary, community and social care, which are the services that keep people out of hospital. As the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services reminded us:
“National policy and investment has predominantly focused on addressing issues relating to discharge from hospital”—
there we go with hospitals dominating again. Consequently, people are sicker and have a higher level of need, so more resources are needed. ADASS says that we can fix this system only
“by shifting policy and investment towards early intervention and prevention”.
Hurrah for that, but preventive work—the stuff that keeps people out of hospital—is always the Cinderella when money is being dished out because it is long-term policy.
I have just had the privilege of chairing a special inquiry into integration between community and primary care services. Our report will be published shortly, and I hope it will not only give a useful insight into what the problems are due to a lack of integration are but draw conclusions about how they could be addressed.
Our focus on hospitals as the embodiment of the NHS blinds us to the other services, which are much more important to the patient and much more effective in sorting out the waiting list problem. Primary and community care services are what most people have contact with in the NHS. If we are really serious about improving NHS performance, then that should be our focus. Your community physiotherapist can prevent the need for a knee replacement, and your community occupational therapist can prevent the fall that results in hospital admission. I hope the Minister will assure the House that the Government understand the great importance of prevention in tackling any problems in the NHS.
I will mention two more elements in the NHS that we ignore at our peril when it comes to performance. The first is the voluntary and community sector, which provides so many services that contribute to good health, both mental and physical: the plethora of disease-specific organisations, support groups and information services, which are vital and make such an important contribution in healthcare, as we saw during the pandemic, that are now under threat because of a lack of funding from local authorities and pressure on their volunteers. Only one-third of directors of adult social services were able to invest in community and voluntary services.
Secondly, your Lordships would expect me to flag up the vital contribution of families to health care—those millions of unpaid carers. I quote from the State of Caring 2023 report from Carers UK on carers’ health and well-being. The report shows that
“carers’ mental and physical health is getting worse, and for some it’s at rock bottom”.
It says that
“42% of carers said they needed more support from the NHS or healthcare professionals, and …better recognition from the NHS of their needs as a carer”.
The report also says:
“35% of carers said they were waiting for specialist treatment or assessment, either for themselves or the person they care for”,
and that they were therefore worried about their ability to go on providing that vital amount of care. One carer, talking about the challenges with their mental health, said:
“I know I could ask for counselling, which I’ve had several times over the years through my GP and other organisations. But the waiting lists are very long”—
too long for me.
The Government’s vision should be that we have an NHS which is the most carer-friendly health service in the world, both for the unpaid carers and for the one in three staff who work in the NHS and are juggling caring responsibilities themselves. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will reiterate the Government’s commitment to having a clear and deliverable strategic approach to improving carers’ health and well-being, and the structures which enable carers to get the support that they so much need.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for having secured it. We are so very lucky to live in a country that has a health service, and we should celebrate the NHS on its 75th anniversary. I pay great tribute to the many dedicated doctors, nurses and health professionals who have worked in the NHS over the past 75 years, many of whom really are true heroes.
However, we are having this debate at a difficult time, as we have heard, with the NHS facing unprecedented challenges and the fallout of the pandemic still significantly impacting the system. There is also, perhaps, a generational change of attitude. I do not think we have ever before had doctors and nurses going on strike. On top of that, a number of very difficult situations have come to light, with maternity scandals, as we have heard, in hospitals such as Shrewsbury and Telford, Nottingham, Mid and South Essex, Morecambe Bay and East Kent—to name some of them—revealing huge failings in safety, as well as the realisation that hundreds of avoidable deaths occur in our hospitals. No longer can we say that the UK has the best survival rates for many cancers. All this paints a picture that the NHS is somewhat in crisis. As we have heard, a recent IPSOS survey noted that public satisfaction with the running of the NHS as a whole is at its lowest level for 25 years.
Time is short in this debate and it is such a huge subject, so I thought I would concentrate my remarks on the GP system and primary care. We had the most wonderful system, but since the early 2000s this too seems to have dramatically declined, starting with the change to the GP contracts. The British Social Attitudes survey found that the proportion of patients who were satisfied with GP services, in particular, has plummeted from 68% to 38% since 2019, with people often struggling to get the care that they need. Anecdotally, we consistently hear about the crisis of patients not being able to access their doctors. Many GP practices have taken on the system of triaging patients, but if you are really feeling unwell, you do not feel like fighting with the receptionist to see a doctor—the result being that people give up and go straight to A&E, which naturally has a knock-on effect on waiting times there and on the ambulance service, which cannot discharge its patients.
It is clear that GPs too are feeling under pressure. A report published by the Health Foundation charity paints a picture of high stress and low satisfaction with workload. Just one in four UK GPs are satisfied with the time they are able to spend with their patients and appointment times are among the shortest of 11 countries surveyed. I gather that the average doctor now has to deal with 41 to 50 patients a day. When asked, GPs feel that the right number is somewhere around 30, maximum, and this situation is leading to burnout. Only one in four GPs in England is now working full time; most work three days or fewer each week. A third of GPs are considering leaving within five years, with the Royal College of GPs claiming that it is “no longer feasible” to be just a GP, despite an average salary of over £100,000 a year.
Many doctors now do not know their patients. Talking to older GPs, I learned that the job satisfaction came from knowing whole families and caring for them throughout their lives. While not knowing your doctor may not be a problem for the young and healthy, if those with small children or the elderly know their GP that makes it much easier for the GP to treat them, without having to read through all their notes each time, thus cutting their time down. I have cited in previous debates the Norwegian study published in the British Journal of General Practice, which clearly demonstrated the benefits and stated that it can be lifesaving to be treated by a doctor who knows you.
Yet in the UK, GP practices are becoming bigger and the relationship between doctors and patients less constant. While patients over 75 in the UK are given a named GP, it would appear that some doctors interpret this as just having to look at patient records. I understand that patients who wish to be seen urgently cannot always see the same GP that day, but how can a doctor deliver appropriate and responsible care to a patient without ever meeting them?
What can we do, going forward? I believe we need to redesign the whole system so that it works for doctors and health professionals, and, most importantly, for patients. Training more GPs is one easy answer. I know that there was an increase of 25% in funded medical school places in the three years up to 2020, but clearly we need more. We must cut down the number of patients who doctors are being asked to see each day. We must make it advantageous for doctors to work in a practice, rather than being a locum. Smaller practices used to work better. Most importantly, we need to encourage doctors to know their patients again; this will lead to better outcomes, as shown by the Norwegian study, and help ease pressure on the whole system.
However, we need to do more to encourage people to take responsibility for their own health. Prevention is key: good diet and exercise are vital; health checks are important and should go on until an older age. We should also include mobility checks, as people who cannot exercise will put on weight, leading to diabetes, heart problems et cetera. That would help to prevent hip and knee problems. We need to encourage practice nurses to deal with more conditions and get qualified pharmacists to be able to give a wider selection of medication without a prescription. Community nurses are such an asset, and we need to ensure that doctors work closely with them. Those dealing with patients on the phone need to be trained to be kind and caring.
Mental health takes up more and more time. Are there better ways of dealing with this, rather than endless medication? Should we encourage people with certain conditions not to go first to their GP? For example, could those with back pain go first to an osteopath or a physio or a sports therapist, who can often sort them out? Good IT can really help with the whole system.
We must make sure that primary healthcare works better for patients, as well as being a job that is once again enjoyed and valued by doctors. This is so important, as, if we can once again restore good primary healthcare, that will ease the whole health system.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, 2023 is the year we celebrate 75 years of our National Health Service, and what is crystal clear, above anything, is the continuing strength of people’s attachment to our NHS. The vast majority of people—nine out of 10—believe that the NHS should remain free at the point of delivery, while eight out of 10 continue to believe that the NHS should be funded through taxation. This support extends across all political parties, across leave and remain voters, and across all age groups—and for me, personally. Twenty years ago, like millions before and after me, our NHS saved my life, and for that I will always be grateful. The health service is still there for all of us, 75 years on, from cradle to grave.
How did it come to be that the waiting list for treatment will exceed 8 million by December 2024? How did it come to be that the number of patients waiting for treatment and suffering real harm could double in three years to 7,900? We need to look no further than the recent OECD Health at a Glance 2023 report, whose international comparisons showed that the UK has among the lowest average growth in per capita health expenditure. We need look no further than the Care Quality Commission’s own works warning of the dangers of longer waits and reduced access, especially in maternity, ambulance and mental health, as already referred to.
We need look no further than this House’s own investigation earlier this year. The report was called Emergency Healthcare: a National Emergency. Emergency healthcare is facing a crisis. To quote from our report:
“Patients are delayed at every stage of trying to access emergency healthcare … Stories of ambulances being stuck outside of hospitals”,
which is “posing an unacceptable risk”. The impact on the workforce, according to the same report, is that there are
“significant challenges, including shortages, low job satisfaction and retention rates, and poor health”.
Ambulance staff were described as “overwhelmed … fatigued and depleted”. Our NHS is under unprecedented strain and our own House of Lords report drew attention to the 133,000 vacant posts in the NHS and the 91,000 vacancies in acute social care.
Anyone who uses NHS services knows that they are only as good as the staff who are treating them. These are workers who were on the front line during the long months of the Covid crisis. Many left—exhausted and shell-shocked by what they went through. If our NHS is struggling with the huge gaps in staffing and is struggling to motivate those who remain, our NHS will always struggle to deliver the quality of care that it wants to.
However, there is some good news on the horizon. The NHS Long Term Workforce Plan has finally, after many years, been published. Much of the plan is positive, particularly the focus on boosting the use of apprenticeships. But even this plan was massively delayed. Now, the challenge of providing a thriving and sustainable NHS workforce for the future has become even greater.
The biggest problem with the plan, as with so much of healthcare policy, is a continuing failure to provide any solution to the deteriorating situation in social care. The state of social care is appalling, with the number of vacancies now reaching 152,000 in England alone. It is a service kept alive by the use of migrant labourers, who legally can be paid 20% less than the existing workforce. There is now growing evidence of widespread exploitation of migrant staff in the social care sector. There is growing evidence of care workers from overseas having money deducted from their wages to cover dubious fees, facing demands to repay thousands of pounds when they try to move jobs and being forced to pay extortionate rents for sub-standard accommodation. It is an adult social care service that is not fit for purpose and is causing gridlock at the interface with the National Health Service.
As the Government have prevaricated and delayed, so the sector has moved further into crisis. There are questions that must be answered. We have a long-term workforce plan for the NHS, but why is there no corresponding social care strategy? We have a successful NHS social partnership forum, but why is there not one for adult social care? Why are the Government willing to participate in the NHS forum but stand aloof—conspicuous by their absence—from a social care forum?
What is needed more than anything is ambition and a proper overhaul of the adult social care system. In short, we need the introduction of the national care service that we on this side of the House are calling for. The vision that led to the creation of our NHS is as valid today as it was in 1948. Today, it treats 1.3 million people per day. It is productive, despite little investment in capital works. It gives value for money, but, as demand increases, so do the pressures. Innovation is vital—that goes without saying—but so is the NHS long-term workforce plan. NHS England believes it could mean an extra 60,000 doctors, 170,000 nurses and 71,000 more allied health professionals by 2036.
Such a transformation will be achieved only if the Government of the day have the ambition to see the plan as their priority and provide the resources needed. The vision that underpinned our NHS has stood the test of time. We have all benefited from the courage of those involved in 1948. It is our duty now to ensure that our NHS continues to evolve so that it is there for future generations. Like everybody, I would like to quote from Aneurin Bevan. My favourite quote has nothing at all to do with the NHS, but Nye Bevan said this, and I have always used it as a way forward: “If you walk down the middle of the road, you get run over”.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for his—as expected—truly amazing speech. He is a man with great experience of the health service, both before he came into this House and, in particular, while he was serving here as a Minister. He is a man of great value; he is one of the few politicians around who resigned on principle on an issue. He resigned over Iraq. I was one of those who was on the wrong side and I admire him greatly for the work he has done and what he continues to do.
As he mentioned—as did the Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley—I also spoke on this way back in 2003. I also spoke in 2018, when we were celebrating 70 years. What particularly interested me then was that the standing of the NHS in the eyes of the public was very high. I thought it was a great opportunity for us to try to take this jewel. The NHS is something which binds us together. As the previous speaker just said, it is important that we go back to that and find ways in which the public attitude, as it presently stands, is reversed.
I suggested in 2018 that we ought to think about creating a national charity for people to participate in and leave gifts in their wills to, and so on. The Government said no, because some trusts already have their charities and that would undermine them. Well, some trusts do have them and they are very successful, but, if you examine it, you will find that the ones getting great amounts of money are in wealthy areas. In the dispossessed areas, where we have the worst health and growing rates of ill health, you will find that charities either do not exist or, if they do, not much money is going in. I would be prepared to put something in my will—not for Chelsea and Westminster, which I am close to, but for the NHS. The money would then be redirected to the areas of poverty where we need to be making the greatest changes.
If we look at what is happening, as my noble friend Lord Hunt pointed out, we are starting to see for the first time in near history that life expectancy is halting and going in the other direction. If you live in Westminster, your life expectancy is going to be of the order of 86 years, but if you are in Manchester it is down to 77 or 78—and this is happening against a background of general decline in many areas of the health service.
I hope the Minister might still give some thought to the idea that we should try to find ways of having far greater involvement of the public. The charity approach was one idea. When Alan Milburn was Secretary of State, he tried to find ways to get more people involved. They even explored the idea of shares in the NHS, so that people were making a personal commitment to it. I still believe there is merit in going back to some of those issues.
Covid has of course made a difference, and we should not deny that—the Minister will, without a doubt, labour this point in defending the state we are in. When we came into power in 1997, the health service was in a mess and, as was said, it is in a mess again. We have to find our way forward. Care in particular has to be addressed, and we have a plan there, but I believe that the way forward will be to try to involve more people in building a base for revising our approach to it. I appeal to the Minister: the Government made promises in 2019 but have not delivered on anything, so would they be prepared to consider working closely with the new Government, if Labour comes to power, to try to take care out of the Punch and Judy that we have had so much in the past—to come together and to shift care away from political disputes between the parties? I hope the Lib Dems might be willing to give their support to that entirely different approach to care, because it is so desperately needed.
I wonder why this review of Covid is going on until 2026. How much money will be spent on it before it is completed? Would it not be better spent on trying to address some of our current problems in the health service? With Covid, some underlying causes needed addressing. The first was age—and care is the way we start to address that properly. The second was the underlying cause of weight: 50% of the deaths attributed were attached, for a variety of reasons, to people being overweight. The Government have a number of proposals for change, but have fallen well short. They made a grave mistake in winding up Public Health England—at least it was seen as a focal point for campaigning, and it was coming out with strategies that were noticed. We have completely lost focus on where we go in campaigning on obesity, and I hope that, when my party comes to power, it will address that more than it has been addressed in the past. The third area that was identified in the Covid review was the disproportionate number of people of colour who suffered badly. As was mentioned, a recent report says that people of colour are still gravely disadvantaged in health terms compared with the white population. We need to find new policies to address that difficulty and to turn it around so that people start to feel that they are a better part of the community than they are now.
My appeal overall is to try to take certain areas where we are failing to make progress out of the Punch and Judy of politics, to develop new relationships that would move us forward on issues that we have all had policies on for years but have not made progress on. I hope the Minister spends some time, in responding, on the need to get the public more involved than they have been and to get some unity of purpose between the parties in the areas where we have still not made any movement but should have.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. It is a privilege to participate in this debate about one of our most valued institutions and to follow some excellent contributions. One of the focuses of my work in this House has been reducing health inequalities. The NHS was founded in the face of extreme inequality, in the hope that financial means would not be the sole determinant of health. The universal service that is free at the point of use is something we can be extremely proud of.
The 75th anniversary of the NHS is very close to the 75th anniversary of the Windrush generation, which I will celebrate today. As we know, many of the passengers on HMT “Empire Windrush” took up roles in the NHS, which launched just two weeks later. When experiencing workforce shortages from 1948 onwards, British politicians visited the Caribbean as part of a recruitment programme that had 16 agencies in the British colonies by 1955. By 1977, 66% of overseas student nurses and midwives originated from the Caribbean. In the face of overt racism and unequal opportunities for professional development, their contribution has been truly extraordinary. Without it, the health service would not be what it is today.
I am sure much of our nation would say that the true treasure of the NHS is its workforce, whose example should be a great encouragement to all of us. In this House, I have not held back from highlighting the challenges that the workforce currently face: significant vacancies, sometimes poor working conditions and enormous pressure. The industrial action we have seen is a product of the erosion of trust between the front line and this Government. Since the passing of the minimum service levels Act in the last Session, what ongoing work is being done to build relationships of trust with the unions and other bodies to ensure that the concerns and needs of the workforce are truly listened to?
As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, the global majority heritage staff continue to face troubling challenges. The Care Quality Commission’s State of Care report highlights instances of tolerated discrimination and a lower chance of being represented in leadership and managerial roles. There are over 256,000 black and minority-ethnic nurses and midwives, but they are overrepresented in bands 1 to 5. When I was the Government’s Chief Nursing Officer for England, I commissioned the government Chief Nursing Officer’s black and minority-ethnic advisory group, which it was a joy meet with on its 22nd anniversary. The most recent race equality standard report from the NHS shows that there is progress heading in the right direction; although it is slow, it should celebrated.
Amid the celebration of this great institution, many challenges remain. The strain placed on the service is clear in key areas, including the number of people waiting for care and the significant workforce challenges. But there are also challenges with our health, distinct from our healthcare. Some 50% of people in the most deprived areas report poor health by the ages of 55 to 59, which is over two decades earlier than in the least deprived areas. It remains an injustice that where exactly you live can change the length of your healthy life in such a serious way. In light of this, what consultation has taken place with other departments to seize the opportunity of the Major Conditions Strategy to give new focus on health inequalities?
It is good to see the new integrated care systems becoming more established. I hope that we will see real progress in place-based and community-focused preventive care. Research published recently by the NHS Confederation shows that every £1 invested in community and primary care brings back £14 to the economy, compared to £11 per £1 for acute services. It is through working for a healthier population that the pressure will be lifted off the NHS and the opportunity to address health inequalities will be realised. I commend the small-scale projects happening in London, where I am. The community health and well-being worker model, which is being rolled out in Westminster, is already encouraging the uptake of health screenings that would otherwise not happen, management of low-level health conditions and promoting well-being. There is much to celebrate about the NHS but, as we have heard, there remains work to be done if we are to press ahead in the same spirit as the architects of the NHS 75 years ago.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, particularly given her experience in the NHS—and, may I say, her recent intervention in Synod on the issue of same-sex unions. It is also good to look around the House and see Members wearing the red AIDS ribbon, a powerful reminder that tomorrow is World AIDS Day and of what research, awareness-raising and the saving of lives can bring about when we work together. I particularly congratulate the Government on the Secretary of State’s announcement yesterday on increasing opt-out testing for HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C. That brings me to my first point, which is that it is vital that we do not forget the lessons learned from the recent Covid pandemic and the importance of simple but effective preventive public health measures in helping to protect the NHS against the financial and logistical burden of seasonal and other infectious diseases.
Ministers will recall that a targeted hygiene approach was applied to control transmission of Covid-19 and other infections in public areas, at COP 26 in Glasgow, and at the 2022 Commonwealth Games in Birmingham. The approach was extremely successful. If the Government were actively to promote targeted hygiene among the public and with owners and operators of public spaces, it could deliver a threefold benefit: building public confidence in using communal spaces and, by preventing illness, reducing pressure on the NHS and boosting productivity in the workforce.
This brings me to my second concern: the complications following aesthetic surgery procedures abroad, a service now widely advertised in the United Kingdom. Demand for cosmetic surgery is increasing year on year. Recently in the United Kingdom, the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, or BAAPS, in its 2022 national audit, reported a 102% increase in cosmetic procedures performed nationally, accompanied by a growing trend in patients seeking cosmetic surgery abroad, resulting in an increase in complications on their return. The BAAPS 2022 audit found a 44% increase in complications following cosmetic surgery abroad, including life-threatening concerns necessitating emergency surgical debridement and intensive care admission for sepsis.
This national concern is twofold: first, the increased burden placed on the NHS; and secondly, the physical and psychological burden placed on the patient. The true burden on a young working female demographic has seen increased incidence of lost workdays, significant side-effects of renal impairment, hearing loss from antibiotics, repeat theatre visits to valuable emergency theatres, and A&E visits. There is also a real concern about the true cost to the nation and the NHS arising from multi-resistant bacteria. This is in addition to cosmetic deformity and psychological issues from permanent scarring.
There are many factors influencing patients’ choosing cosmetic surgery abroad, but there is little public awareness of the incidence of complications following such surgery abroad and the additional financial burden incurred on seeking treatment and corrective procedures, both privately and in the NHS. Study proposals are being drawn up by the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. The aim of this service evaluation, as the Minister may know, is to obtain retrospective and prospective data from all plastic surgery units in the United Kingdom relating to recent NHS and private clinic admissions for complications following cosmetic surgery abroad, the management of surgical and non-surgical treatment, and the country in which the primary surgery was performed. Therefore, I urge the Minister and his department to engage with BAPRAS on that proposal, and I look forward to his response.
Finally, I end with a quote from a senior aesthetic consultant:
“Problems remain: bad days, loss of workdays, side effects of drugs to hearing, kidney and liver function, loss of life and scarring and psychological effects of cosmetic surgery that has gone wrong. The real worry will be the introduction of multi-resistant bacteria to many specialist parts of our NHS, A&E, infectious diseases, plastic surgery, ENT and general medical longer-term needs. Our NHS lacks direction and leadership, due to the political football that is the NHS and the transient nature of the managers who run it and who are responsible for the spend in it”.
That is as damning as it is concerning, and it is clearly time for urgent intervention—and I have not even touched on the deeply worrying proposal for physician assistants. Yes, let us celebrate this amazing 75th anniversary. I have much to thank the NHS for, not least the love and care of my late husband in his 50th year, at the end of his life. But while congratulating the NHS, let us also take the necessary action and decisions to assure its continuation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Cashman and pay tribute on this special day to all the work he has done on AIDS awareness. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for introducing such an important debate to the House today, with a tour de force of a speech on the opportunities for and challenges facing our NHS.
We recently held an event in Stevenage to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the NHS, and we were privileged to be joined by my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. During that occasion, we looked back to days before the NHS existed and the insecurity that working-class communities experienced when their health failed. Ill health could bring about disastrous consequences for families not able to afford treatment, and home treatments and remedies often made matters worse—a situation, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that existed hundreds of years before a Labour Government introduced the NHS. We reflected on the current situation the NHS faces: the marvellous and heroic dedication of the staff being tested daily by increasing demands; an epidemic of mental health issues; digital and pharmaceutical treatments that are incredibly effective but extraordinarily expensive; and an ageing population. Then we considered what the future of the NHS might be with the development of AI technology, robotic surgery, and the aspect I would like to concentrate on for the purpose of this debate—a much clearer focus on prevention. But that will require considerably more partnership working, especially, but not exclusively, with local government, which is what prompted me to take part in this debate.
Local government has always played its part. The first Public Health Act was passed as far back as 1848, and much of the drive to local governance in Victorian times was exactly to tackle the public health issues arising in the overcrowded and squalid living conditions of Britain’s working cities. As recently as 2013, those responsibilities came to the fore again when public health commissioning was transferred from the NHS to local authorities, which took on responsibility for improving health in their local populations, including services to reduce drug and alcohol misuse, social prescribing, promotion of health and well-being through their leisure facilities, and direct intervention to tackle prevention priorities such as smoking and obesity.
An excellent report co-produced by the District Councils’ Network and the University of East Anglia showed that the engagement of just over 1 million of the inactive population of England in prescribed leisure services could provide significant outcomes over a 10-year period, such as 45,000 diseases avoided, giving a direct saving to the NHS of £314 million; 70,000 additional years of life in good health, with an economic value of £4.2 billion; and a reduction of 3.7 years in the healthy life expectancy gap.
In my own area, we set up a healthy hub to deliver rehabilitation programmes following strokes, cardiac episodes and cancer treatment. More recently, we instigated a young persons’ healthy hub to support our young residents, especially with their mental health issues. These services now sit alongside the adult and social care services which we have heard so much about in this debate and which are so key to keeping our vulnerable residents healthy and our hospital beds available to the most acutely sick. I hope no one here would deny the enormous role played during the Covid pandemic, as local government developed our relationship with our health partners even further to support our communities through the worst healthcare crisis for generations.
All this work in partnership with health colleagues is very much part of the NHS aim to deliver healthy communities. The figures are clear: it is set out in a report from the Public Accounts Committee that community sport and physical activity, such as social prescribing, brought an estimated contribution of £85.5 billion in social and economic benefits, including £9.5 billion from improved physical and mental health. The part played by local councils in saving costs to the NHS can hardly be disputed, but we have had cuts to local government funding, which has seen a 27% real-terms cut in core spending power since 2010, and the LGA predicts that councils will face an eye-watering £3.5 billion funding shortfall over just the next two years to keep services standing still. Councils’ role in preventive healthcare, public health, and adult and children’s social care, both of which face extreme pressures, is in jeopardy.
Much of healthcare, such as social prescribing, rehabilitation and preventive programmes, is delivered through council leisure functions but—it is a big “but”—most are funded as discretionary spend. The Public Accounts Committee warns that 70% of councils are considering scaling back their leisure services, not least because their energy bills have seen an increase from £500 million in 2019 to £1.2 billion last year. This comes on top of over £71 million already cut from leisure budgets since 2010, a 14% cut. Most sporting facilities in our towns and cities have an average age of over 30 years, with no funding available to improve or replace them.
Councils and councillors want to go on playing their part in supporting our NHS to keep our communities healthy and to tackle health inequalities. Indeed, the King’s Fund recently said that councils have a fundamental role in determining the health of their communities. But while relationships with the NHS are strong and the political will is there, the funding model is incredibly fragile and, should it come tumbling down, the consequences in additional costs and demands, both short and long-term, to our NHS are extremely serious. I hope that the Minister will persuade the Chancellor to consider this as he finalises the local government funding settlement in the next couple of weeks, and to invest to save in local government, in prevention and in a healthy future. As Nye Bevan said:
“There is no test for progress other than its impact on the individual”.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords I start by expressing my heartfelt thanks to all NHS staff for the tremendously difficult and important job they do. I particularly pay tribute to the memory of close to 1,000 NHS and care workers who died while working to save others during the terrible Covid pandemic. We owe them a debt of immense gratitude. Like other noble Lords who have spoken today, I know that I and other family members owe our lives to the NHS, and that is why it holds such a central place in our country’s social fabric and in our hearts.
It is against that backdrop that I want to talk about the need for reform. As we mark the NHS’s 75th anniversary, it is right that we should reflect on its performance and what could and should be done to improve and renew it. We have already heard a lot of statistics about waiting times and numbers treated; I want to concentrate on the wider context for health and then look specifically at the thorny question of productivity.
It has been estimated that some 80% of the health needs of people across the country are not within the direct control of the NHS. We also see large inequalities in health outcomes between different groups and communities. The terms “NHS policy” and “health policy” are too often used interchangeably, but they are not interchangeable. Most policy which impacts the health of the nation—housing, transport, employment and so on—is made outside the NHS, which is why we need to focus on the wider determinants of health and devise cross-government strategies to improve health and well-being. It is also why it is so important to ensure that more money goes into prevention and public health rather than just into the NHS, a point just made so compellingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Looking at health and well-being in the round, rather than simply at how we prop up the NHS in its current form, must be at the forefront of our thinking. We have already heard, and it is very concerning, that public satisfaction with the running of the NHS is at its lowest level in 25 years.
What is going on? In July this year, the chief executives of three health think tanks, the Health Foundation, the Nuffield Trust and the King’s Fund, wrote a letter to the three party leaders calling for an end to “short-termism in NHS policy-making”, warning that promising unachievable, unrealistically fast improvements without a long-term plan to address the underlying causes of the current crisis is a strategy “doomed to failure”. We would do well to heed that. The letter outlined four key areas to focus on: investing in physical resources; reforming adult social care; committing to a long-term workforce plan; and cross-government working on the underlying economic and social conditions affecting health.
Specifically, the letter pointed out three things. First, due to a decade of underinvestment compared to the historic average, and capital spending well below comparable countries, the health service has fewer hospital beds than almost all similar countries, outdated equipment, dilapidated buildings and failing IT. Secondly, despite long-term objectives to reduce reliance on acute hospitals and move care closer to the community, which I very much support, spending continues to flow in the opposite direction. Thirdly, while the NHS long-term workforce plan is to be welcomed, ambitious steps to increase the number of staff, through training, apprenticeships and international recruitment, et cetera, risk being frittered away if trainees continue to drop out and poor morale and sickness continue to drive staff to leave and retire early. In short, sustained action is needed to make the NHS a better place to work.
Finally, as we have said so many times in this Chamber, we cannot reduce pressures and improve the performance of the NHS without addressing the challenges faced by adult social care. I join the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, and ask, once again, what plans the Government have to provide a social care workforce plan to complement the NHS plan?
It is also worth comparing the NHS to the healthcare systems of other countries. The King’s Fund did this recently and concluded that, first, the NHS is neither a leader nor a laggard when compared to the health systems of 18 similar countries. Secondly, the UK has below-average health spending per person compared to those countries. Thirdly, the UK lags behind other countries in its capital investment and has substantially fewer key physical resources than many of its peers, including CT and MRI scanners and hospital beds. Finally, the UK has strikingly low levels of clinical staff, including doctors and nurses, and is heavily reliant on foreign-trained staff. All that is critical to productivity, which I want to turn to finally.
Respected commentators such as the IFS, the Institute for Government and the Health Foundation have been looking at what has been called the productivity conundrum. The Institute for Government report The NHS Productivity Puzzle found that despite increased spending, particularly since 2019, much of which has gone on increasing staff numbers, there has not been a resultant rise in productivity if measured against metrics such as the number of patients treated. It draws three conclusions. First and foremost, hospitals are running at above full capacity, they do not have enough beds, and too many of the beds they do have are full of people who should not be there. There is a lack of capital investment, low diagnostic equipment stocks, et cetera. Secondly, despite notable increases in the headline number of staff, the NHS is losing too many experienced employees, and they are being replaced with more junior people who are naturally less experienced and who need more support. Staff burnout, low morale and pay concerns are cited as key reasons. Thirdly, it says, the NHS is badly managed and all the changes over the last decade have made managers’ jobs a lot harder.
Finally, a recent IFS report came to similar conclusions about the reasons for the low productivity. It acknowledged it was difficult to measure productivity, and that point came out clearly when Amanda Pritchard was before the Health and Social Care Committee recently. She argued that it is hard to measure productivity, but what plans do the Minister and NHS England have to publish their own analysis of NHS productivity and ways to improve it?
There is much that we could and should be doing. My points and the IFS statement should not be interpreted as NHS staff working less hard. It is the other points that are most important. I expect they are many reasons, but the need to make the NHS an attractive place to work is critical and should be central to the NHS workforce plan.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for introducing this debate. Few are more qualified to discuss the significance of the 75th anniversary of the NHS than he is.
It was a sometime Conservative Chancellor who once described the NHS as a “national religion”. It must pain some of my colleagues on the Government Benches to see the extent to which the Government appear to have lost faith in that service and that religion. Anyone who read the recent Autumn Statement could reach no other conclusion. What is the old lyric? “They are only putting in a nickel, but they want a dollar song”.
Let us deal with the realities. As we have heard from noble friends and others in this debate, according to the BMA, some 7.8 million people are currently on NHS waiting lists. Over 3 million of these patients are waiting over 18 weeks. People who can ill afford it are pursuing private health provision instead of risking the long wait, as we saw last weeks in the figures that came out from the eye care sector. There are millions of people living in constant pain and worry, with no immediate alleviation to hand, including older people and their families waiting in bewilderment for dementia diagnosis and support. As a Dementia Friends ambassador, I know that support is so ad hoc and threadbare across different health authorities that the national infrastructure is just not there to implement any future medical advances in Alzheimer’s and dementia. Young people who cannot find peace of mind wait far, far too long for mental health services.
What does the Chancellor say to all this in the Autumn Statement? He says:
“That is why I want the public sector to increase productivity growth by at least half a percent a year—the level at which the size of our state starts to reduce as a proportion of GDP”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/23; col. 328.]
What is he saying? “Let’s not worry about the industrial action of recent times. Let’s not be troubled by the healthcare buildings infected by crumbling RAAC. Let’s not be dismayed about the Government’s vanishing new hospital-building commitments. Let’s not fret about the stresses on beleaguered staff. Let’s just make nurses and doctors work so much harder in order to achieve our ideological goals”. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, you could not make it up.
I invite the Minister to share this pledge: that nobody, in any part of this country, should ever be treated in a hospital corridor. If that is not a government objective by now, we certainly need a new Government. Meanwhile, I have to agree with Professor Ranger of the Royal College of Nursing when she commented on the Autumn Statement, saying:
“The NHS faces a multi-billion pound deficit—giving away at least £5 billion in tax cuts in place of health spending confirms the NHS is no longer a priority for the government”.
Let those words sink in: “no longer a priority”. A fit for purpose NHS seemingly does not fit with the Government’s ideological scheme of things. Even the NHS Confederation, hardly His Majesty’s Government’s greatest critic, had this to say about the Statement:
“There were no new major funding announcements for healthcare and existing settlements will stay the same in cash terms”.
This is despite the Nuffield Trust estimating that the NHS faces £1.7 billion deficit. Let us face it, a Conservative Secretary of State for Health—and there have been a few—is about as welcome to health professionals at the moment as James Cleverly would be today in Stockton North.
It is, we are told, the Chancellor’s stated goal to boost productivity in the UK—and so say all of us. Can one think of a faster route to increase productivity, as noble Lords have said, than a healthy workforce with few anxieties about seeing a consultant or getting treatment for a loved one?
The NHS is now 75 years old and remains probably our most stirring national achievement, the envy of the free world. This septuagenarian should invite both respect and support—and it does not appear to be getting either from this Government at the moment.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I join other speakers in thanking my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for initiating this debate. I am going to focus on the issue of mental health and I declare as an interest my involvement with the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute. My remarks depend a lot on the excellent briefing note produced by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and there is also the continued information provided by the BMA about the pressures on mental health services in England.
Looking back over the last 75 years, we have seen massive changes in this area. It has improved significantly since the NHS was launched. Treatment options have increased and access to treatment has improved. Most notably, of course, there was the closure of the large institutions—the asylums—and the welcome shift to emphasise treatment in the community. Attitudes have also changed. Social barriers are being broken down, mental health is being talked about more openly and positively than before, and in particular, as has been noted by NICE, young people have a different attitude and will drive the process of achieving progressive change.
Having said that, I endorse the remark made by my noble friend that it is deeply disappointing that we are still waiting for the Mental Health Bill which was first proposed six years ago. Despite all the work that has been done, the issues that prompted the reform process remain unaddressed. Detention rates continue to rise and the detention of black and racialised communities remains hugely disproportionate. I am pleased, therefore, that the Labour Front Bench in the Commons has given a commitment to introduce the Bill in its first King’s Speech, were it to win the next election. I call on the Minister to make a similar commitment. What goes in the manifesto is possibly above his pay grade, but perhaps he can assure us that he will urge it on his colleagues as a priority should we get another term from the Conservatives.
It is worth emphasising that, even without this major legislation, there is much that can still be done to protect people’s dignity, autonomy and human rights when they are subject to the Act. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that active steps are being taken, failing the Act achieving this objective.
I turn now to where we are and waiting lists, which are highlighted in the Motion. There are a record 1.9 million people currently on waiting lists for NHS mental health services and record numbers of children with a mental illness. One of the main reasons for this is the shortage of staff. We have a workforce plan, but we still lack the ambitious and measurable commitments to expand the mental health workforce, in both hospitals and the community. There are also significant retention challenges affecting the mental health workforce, with professionals reporting high workloads, time pressures and poor work/life balance. Especially, there is the need to address racism and discrimination in the workplace, as well as recruitment.
The problems with staffing result, inevitably, in long waits in A&E, reflecting the difficulties that people have in accessing in-patient provision or community-based crisis alternatives. On top of this, adult acute bed occupancy has not fallen below 95% since May last year. Unfortunately, one of the reasons for this is that more than one in 10 people occupying an adult acute in-patient bed are clinically ready for discharge, but, due to a lack of social care and housing support, they remain in hospital. It also means there is still an unacceptable level of inappropriate out-of-area placements, so perhaps the Minister could say something about that.
There is a special problem with children’s mental health. Over the last few years, we have seen record numbers of children and young people with mental illness. To tackle this problem, it must be recognised that the first five years of life are crucial to a child’s development and to protecting them from future mental health conditions. The Government must invest in early intervention for children and young people—that is widely recognised. The mental health of under-fives should be a priority. The Royal College has identified the need for the urgent introduction of a national network of early support hubs.
Finally, there is the need to address the long-term disinvestment in mental health estates. The mental health sector has some of the oldest buildings across the NHS, with 15% of mental health and learning disability sites built pre-1948—older than the NHS itself—compared to about half of that in the acute sector. Despite this age, and more than 50 bids from mental health trusts for the Government’s “40 new hospitals scheme”, only two were allocated to a mental health trust. Mental health faces the most substantial shortfall in capital investment in cash and percentage terms across all trust types, which is part of a sustained trend in recent years. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance in his reply that capital will be put where needed.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare all my interests as listed in the register, including having worked throughout my life in the NHS. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, both on securing this debate and, more so, on all the work he has done in his many years of service to the health of this nation.
Perhaps we should have called this debate “In Place of Fear”, the title of Bevans’s own short book. As Gordon Brown said:
“The astonishing fact is that Bevan’s vision has stood both the test of time and the test of change unimaginable in his day. At the centre of his vision was a National Health Service … a uniquely powerful engine of social justice”.
To know where you are going, you must know where you have come from. Bevan had seen directly how the mother in the average family suffers when there is an absence of a free health service and how financial distress excludes those with the greatest need from accessing even minimal care. Yet poverty still blights our health and care, particularly when serious illness hits and the main carer in the household is a child or young person. According to Bevan:
“The collective principle asserts that the resources of medical skill and the apparatus of healing shall be placed at the disposal of the patient, without charge, when he or she needs them; that medical treatment and care should be a communal responsibility; that they should be made available to rich and poor alike in accordance with medical need and by no other criteria”.
Seventy-five years ago, so many physically and mentally wounded were returning from war, penicillin had only just become available and, compared to today, there were relatively few interventions in medicine. The concepts of evaluating the efficacy of clinical audit and the frontiers of medical research that have revolutionised practice were just a dream for many. People now want to be cared for and know that they will get better care in research-active services.
My mother-in-law, as a young GP, gave penicillin injections to a critically ill woman with pneumonia; the response was miraculous. This recovered patient gave her a teapot as a wedding present, and we still have the “penicillin teapot” in the family today. Yet now we face huge threats of antimicrobial resistance, as these precious resources have been misused. Over-the-counter sales of antibiotics in some countries and their use in animal husbandry are threatening our survival from life-threatening infections. Drug-resistant TB is now a major threat.
Some of our failure to value adequately the importance of health to the country’s economy has resulted in too little effort being put into health promotion and public health, as others have said. Yet amazing advances have been made. The polio of my childhood has almost been consigned to history, diphtheria is rarely seen here, and other vaccines have transformed disease incidence, from measles to carcinogenic HPV, and many more. Yet we still see Dr Julian Hart’s inverse care law in play, that the availability of good medical or social care tends to vary inversely with the need of the population served.
With so much more that is treatable, and with social problems creating more avoidable disorders, we must tackle the social determinants of health if we are even to begin to tackle growing waiting lists. The NHS cannot be the final repository for all that is going wrong in society. Our collective responsibility is through care and well-being in communities, better nutrition, and through supporting people to look after their own health and to respect a health service that is not simply a demand service—it is not like online shopping.
As we push for more care in the community as people are moved out of hospital, we have to remember that the local family structure that previous generations depended on is just not there. Discharging people from hospital to loneliness does not aid recovery. Does the Minister acknowledge and value the excellent work undertaken by all those in the community, particularly district nurses and care staff, and the ever-increasing pressure on them?
We need to tackle public health more than ever, and the misinformation that blights its use and interventions. Prevention runs through everything, including preventing complications and care failures. Nye Bevan recognised that it is obviously preferable to prevent suffering than to alleviate it. We often know what to do but are just not doing it. We understand analgesics yet too few people with advanced disease are accessing the expertise they need, including in my own discipline—I declare an interest in specialist palliative care.
Our emergency departments are under such pressure that staff talk of leaving as we hit a downward spiral in access for those with greatest need. Disease does not respect the clock or the calendar. If we do not use our resources better—the greatest resource being our staff—we will never tackle increasing waits.
We live in a seven-day society so we need to make it easier for staff with children to work on different rotas, use term-time flexible hours and weekend childcare resources so that we can use our theatres with high-intensity teams, and use diagnostic scanners and so on much more efficiently. These are human resource issues. Staff at every level can care only if they feel cared for, supported in difficult decisions and valued for all they do, with meals available, on-call rooms, and private areas to have private conversations. Without the tools and the space they need to treat people and care for people, we cannot expect them to do well.
There are many apparently high-cost interventions now available that result in remarkable long-term savings. Failure to invest in these is short-termism at its worst. Investing in capital and training, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, is essential. We need to rethink our health economics model to ensure that we meet need, in the short and long term. There are different ways of working. Technology can help but it is not the only answer to current issues. A healthy nation is a productive nation.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, exactly 75 years ago today, I was as a child ill in Stockport infirmary, and I am totally taken by the memories of that day. In the morning, the consultant came by with his entourage of doctors, matrons, and so on. Consultants were very important in those days; they still are, but in those days, one did not speak unless one was spoken to. I said to him, “Excuse me—I have a question to ask”. He turned around. “What is it?” “Are we having a party today?” He asked, “What for?” I said, “The hospital is ours—it’s a great day”. He was not very impressed and walked on. Later on, they asked me at the other end of the ward, “What’s going on?” and I explained how the hospital was ours and what a great day it was. It was a privilege to be ill on the day the health service started.
Since then, I have served on an area health authority and on a mental health trust. It is no secret that I spent two months in Charing Cross Hospital earlier this year—the danger is that anybody in this House who is asked how they are can spend 20 minutes telling people about their health conditions. I am going to resist that, except to mention it in passing. There I was in intensive care at three in the morning, it was noisy and one could not sleep. The doctor came up and looked with interest at the books I had my table—which I could not read—and she said to me, “We know who you are”. I hope I had the presence of mind to say, “Yes, but please don’t tell anybody”. This is a good moment to thank the brilliant staff, nurses, doctors, nurses, physios and cleaners of Charing Cross Hospital, who are absolutely first rate. I was delighted to remember that when the Government threatened to close Charing Cross Hospital some years ago, I had gone on every demo imaginable to save it. Little did I think that I would be the beneficiary of that campaign.
The NHS, for all its weaknesses and faults at the moment, still works well once one is in the system—I was in the system, and it looked after me brilliantly. There was also excellent follow-up; physios and OTs came home, and so for another two months I had great support. That was pretty good, and I am grateful to all those who helped. I am also grateful to the many organisations who sent excellent briefings, which are helpful for the debate today.
There is one fundamental problem, among others, for the health service. It is too vulnerable to a Government who want to cut the service and save money. It is a real political difficulty with the health service that one decision by a Government can damage it. We have to find some way around that. Perhaps having a Government who do not believe in cutting the health service is the simplest answer.
There is another problem: the imbalance between those of us who are lucky enough to be ill in London and those who are unwell in other parts of the country. We are so lucky, if we are ill in London, to have excellent hospitals very close. In other parts of the country—I know the Lake District pretty well—it is a long way to a hospital and the quality is perhaps not quite as good as it is in London, where we are pretty fortunate.
Social care has been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, who has spent a lot of time campaigning for better social care. In my experience, the people getting discharged are the ones who have family support in their homes. People who do not have family support are taking up hospital beds because there is not that much social care support. We cannot say enough about voluntary carers, the millions in this country who work for a pittance—I think it is £75 a week—and who keep this country going. We owe them such an enormous debt.
My son has MS. That has made me clear that MS needs far more focus. We need more neurologists. In France and Germany, there are seven neurologists for every two in the UK. We have a paucity of experienced neurologists and we are way down the list of countries. There is therefore a legitimate claim that there should be a neurology task force, as many NGOs working in this field say, to pull all this together: the NHS, social care, professional bodies and the voluntary sector. I also make a plea for MS nurses or neurological nurses. I believe they would not be an extra cost burden but would save money, because they would provide one place where people suffering from MS could go to get help, probably reduce the pressure on GPs and might be good value for money.
I say very clearly, in case there is any misunderstanding, that what I am about to suggest is not Labour Party policy—they are all sitting up on the Front Bench. It is certainly not Conservative policy. We are obsessed with saying that we must reduce taxes. I am obsessed with improving public services. We cannot have the two together. For all the propaganda that taxpayers want the money in their pockets because it is their money, it is also our health service and our public services. My living standard, my quality of life, probably depends much more on public services than it does on whether the taxman takes a bit more money from me or not in a particular year.
I repeat that this is not Labour Party policy, in case anybody starts hitting it on the head with this one. I do not see how we can deal with the difficulties in the NHS without providing more money for it. One obvious way is to have an increase in income tax, hypothecated to the NHS and social care, so that we can say to people, “Yes, we want you to pay a bit more, but every penny of that extra money will go to the NHS and social care”. We would all benefit much more from that than from this obsession with cutting taxes. That is my suggestion.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for initiating this debate. There are three factors which will ensure that the NHS survives, and the Minister has no control over any of them: finance, social care and decently funded local government. The NHS Confederation has said that that constitutes 80% of health needs, so we are really talking to the Minister only about the remaining 20%. The levels of funding are below those needed to serve an ageing society. It is as simple as that. The absence of long-term funding cycles prevents capital investment. The NHS Confederation states that nine out of 10 health leaders believes that underinvestment in capital is undermining their ability to tackle elective backlogs.
The Government’s complete failure to fix social care has led to acute problems around hospital discharge and an increase in human misery and fear. No sustainable system for care homes means unexpected closures for some and private equity landlords for others. Local government has more and more responsibility piled on it for less and less funding. Whatever happened to the civic pride in the Conservative Party? Without a sustainable local government service, the NHS will continue to bear the brunt of social care failings, and the population will continue to experience inequalities in treatment.
I am sure that other speakers have received numerous briefings; my noble friend Lady Taylor referred to some of them. I appreciate the trouble they have taken and thank the House of Lords Library for its background document. Even allowing for their individual advocacy, they reveal the deeply worrying state of the NHS, whether in capital spending, mental health, skills training, cancer treatments, maternity care or the virtual collapse of GP and dental services in some areas.
I will speak about osteoporosis, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has already referred. We know that there were talks between the Department of Health, the Treasury and the Royal Osteoporosis Society about funding fracture liaison services in the Autumn Statement. The Minister, Maria Caulfield, made a commitment to action by the end of the year. As the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, said, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow—who I see in his place—announced in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, that osteoporosis care would be improved, saying that the Government were
“proposing to announce, in the forthcoming Autumn Statement, a package of prioritised measures to expand the provision of fracture liaison services and improve their current quality”.—[Official Report, 14/9/23; col. GC 241.]
However, that statement was withdrawn 24 hours later.
Come the Autumn Statement, it became clear that Ministers had broken their promises to fund fracture liaison services as it contained no references to fracture liaison. NHS England has also confirmed that no expert steering group has been set up or is even in the planning stage. Osteoporosis has been excluded from the advisory groups and working groups of the Government’s major conditions strategy despite being the fourth-worst cause of disability and premature death. Failing to deliver on what was thought to be a commitment will waste £88 million on preventable fractures, including 150,000 hospital bed days. Every year, 81,000 working-age people suffer fractures due to osteoporosis, with a third quitting their job due to long-term pain and disability. If the Government honoured their promise, 74,000 fractures could be prevented in the next five years, including 31,000 life-threatening hip fractures. What plans does the Minister’s department have to honour the ministerial promises made on osteoporosis?
My direct experience in the health service is varied. I was a ward orderly in the 1960s in a Warwickshire hospital, traipsing up and down wards with a cow gown on and pulling a trolley of urine bottles—I must admit, I felt like the bee’s knees in those days. I went on to become a non-executive director at King’s College London and a champion of elder care. However, I still cannot quite get over being older than the National Health Service. I know that the Minister cannot do anything about that but, with the 20% of things he can do something about, can he improve osteoporosis care or is he effectively reduced to rifling in that trunk in the attic marked “reorganisation, reconfiguration, privatisation, efficiency gains and distance medicine”? He is a hard-working and sincere Minister who commands the respect of the House—at least this side of the House. I hope that his expertise will continue to be used in whatever happens in future.
Lord Drayson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for securing this debate and for his truly excellent speech. I draw the House’s attention to my declared interests and previous experience, including my current roles at Appella AI and Freevolt Technologies Limited and my previous roles at Sensyne Health plc, PowderJect Pharmaceuticals, the University of Oxford, the BioIndustry Association and the Royal Navy, as I will speak on procurement of technology and innovation in the NHS.
As we have heard today in this debate, there is now compelling evidence and widespread concern about the declining performance of the NHS. Often, the adoption of new technology, including most recently AI, is cited as the key to improving standards of care and NHS productivity in future. Statistics highlighting the inferior levels of technology in the NHS compared with other countries, such as in the low numbers of MRI and CT scanners and proton beam machines, the obsolete software systems used by NHS trusts and anecdotes about paper records and fax machines, provide clear evidence that the NHS is a laggard in adopting modern healthcare technology.
Poor procurement of technology by the NHS is at the heart of the problem. It is currently a balkanised and fragmented process across the hundreds of trusts and other siloed groups involved in procurement at the national and local level. It lacks a joined-up approach based on evidence and it lacks a clear, long-term strategy. There is a shortage of expertise in the NHS in technology adoption and management, and an overreliance on external management consultants charging huge fees. Failures in NHS procurement not only undermine the quality of care and waste taxpayers’ money but create a barrier to businesses and investors wishing to invest in UK healthcare.
Life is particularly hard for small companies, which are often the shock troops of innovation. The unwillingness of NHS trusts to accept evidence from other trusts means that companies spend ages repeatedly doing pilots in multiple trusts, never getting to a critical mass of business in the UK market. It is why many investors shy away from businesses that seek to have the NHS as a major customer. The fact is that the NHS determines the fate of our UK life sciences industry, an industry in which we have a great track record of science and innovation but we lack scale. Just look at the life sciences sector on the London Stock Exchange now compared with 20 years ago; it is a shadow of its former self.
Protectionism is not the solution. We should welcome foreign companies and investors coming here, provided that they adhere to our values. However, we must care about where the work is done, where the skills are developed, where the health data is stored, where the profits are made and where the tax is paid. The recent decision of the NHS to purchase Palantir software from the US for its new federated data platform was another opportunity missed. Why did the NHS not choose a system that would help to grow our UK skills base and a system built on open source software that would enable innovation to flourish? Why did it not choose a system that would provide confidence to patients in how their health data will be shared and used?
Much is being said about how artificial intelligence will have an enormous impact on our society in future. In fact, it is already happening, and in healthcare the effects will be profound. If the UK does not develop the onshore expertise to create software systems aligned with the values of the NHS and our society, the NHS will have no choice but to buy systems which, like Palantir’s, were developed elsewhere, with the AI algorithms trained on patients cared for under different healthcare systems. We will then import the biases and constraints that are embedded in those systems and our NHS will become less fair and less aligned with the values of our society, and the wealth created by the AI wave will accrue elsewhere.
There is a better way. Back in 2005-06, the Labour Government, in which I was a Minister, published a defence industrial strategy and a defence technology strategy that provided the Armed Forces and the defence industry with clarity on the sovereign capabilities that the UK needed. As a result, we maintained the skills and industrial capacity required to design and build submarines. Some 17 years later, not only are we still making submarines for the Royal Navy but, for the first time in years, under the AUKUS project we will soon be exporting them to our allies. That is what long-term strategic planning, backed by consistent investment in onshore skills and technology, can achieve.
We need to invest in a well-staffed, well-trained NHS procurement body that sets national standards, defines requirements and buys intelligently on behalf of the taxpayer. We need a technology strategy for the NHS, aligned with an industrial strategy for the life sciences industry, that will deliver UK sovereignty over the technology that will affect how patient care is delivered in future. These strategies will provide the global life sciences industry with clarity on what the NHS requires, highlight the opportunity for investing here, and provide our own life sciences industry with the ability to create the skills and the wealth that our economy desperately needs. Only then can we be sure that the core values of the NHS, set out 75 years ago, will survive the coming wave of technological change, deliver the high-quality healthcare our people want, and help create the wealth needed to pay for it.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am not able to go back to the foundation of the NHS like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but I will start by going back half way, to 37 and a half years ago, when I was starting to travel the world, having just left school. I got into those conversations where you compare countries, and I was asked what was so special and interesting about the NHS. I could not say that it was all public, because it has always been mixed, and I could not say that it was all free, because there have always been charges for some elements of it. The best way I found of explaining why the NHS was special was that, in the UK, we can go to bed not worrying about getting help if we fall ill in the night, or if something happens to our parents or, God help us, to our children. That is certainly not true in all parts of the world. This reflects the promise that was in the newsreel that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, cited at the beginning of our debate. It is a wonderful freedom that we enjoy, and it means that most of us can change jobs, move across the country, have children, and live far away from our families, all without worrying about whether those decisions will harm our healthcare and that of our families. These freedoms are underpinned by knowing that the NHS is there.
By contrast, a family member in the United States brings home to me what it is like not to have this freedom when he jokes that he has to stay with his spouse because of his health insurance—funny, but not funny. When I left my job with a US company in 2019, access to healthcare was irrelevant to my decision. It had a private health insurance policy, which meant it could get me back to work quickly because it needed me there, but I was much more interested in the free food; I did not see the private health insurance as essential because I had the NHS. I compare that with former colleagues who live in the United States or other countries, for whom the loss of their job vastly increases their health risks.
The NHS represents a significant form of freedom, but this applies only as long as it passes a key test: that we feel that it is sufficient and that we do not need something else. That proposition is holding up remarkably well, even though it has been under severe pressure many times. However, it is not certain that it will hold for the next 25 or 75 years without herculean efforts. In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly talked about previous phases when there were herculean efforts. I was at the other end in the Parliament of 1997, and the work that Labour Ministers did then was remarkable and necessary. I feel that we are in that phase again and we need remarkable efforts to hold up.
The front-line staff have rightly been praised in this debate as critical, but I hope we also take a moment to recognise those who do the hard work of prioritisation. Administrative staff who manage waiting lists do not do fashionable or glamorous work, but it is essential to making sure that people feel that the service can deliver. Staff at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence spend their time evaluating new forms of treatment and are often only in the headlines when they are being criticised, but their work prioritising new treatments means that that promise can be sustained. My noble friend Lady Walmsley mentioned IT staff, with whom I have a particular affinity, having been one for some years of my professional life; they keep the information flowing that allows patients to keep flowing and people to maintain confidence in the service.
There is no world in which some form of rationing of finite resources becomes unnecessary, but the key is the right allocation of those resources to where most people agree, most of the time, with the way the services are being prioritised. That is the key point I want to make in my contribution: that trust and confidence depend on not allowing the gap between people’s reasonable expectations and their actual experience of the service to grow too wide. Neither side of this equation is static, but will evolve over time.
Expectations are very different today, as we live longer and patterns of behaviour have changed, but we have also changed our expectations in wanting more information about and involvement in decisions. It is often said that the age of deference is dead. That is certainly true: we are in a very different world from 1948, when you were grateful for whatever the doctor gave you; now, people want to question and be involved in decision-making about prioritisation. My main ask of the Minister in this debate is for him to focus on that link between information and trust. It is about not data as an end in itself, but how we can turn data into useful information that feeds into a good process of deliberation, which means that we reach decisions about the allocation of NHS resources that win widespread trust and confidence.
I declare an interest in open data—I realise that I also spoke on this earlier in the week—as I am a non-executive director of the Centre for Public Data, which is a not-for-profit organisation campaigning to make more data public. I joined that organisation because of a long track record of believing in the value of open data, precisely because I think that transparency and not black boxes leads to trust in our much more inquisitive, non-deferential age.
We need to flesh out the narratives, as well, and not just get the raw data. It is interesting to know how many GPs there are—the Government just tell us that we have X number of GPs—and how many appointments they are serving but, for a complete picture, we need qualitative information, as my noble friend Lady Walmsley mentioned. We need to know how many of those GP appointments were useful, how many would have been better directed to other healthcare professionals, how many urgent consultations were stuck in a queue behind less urgent ones, and what could be done about improving the identification and prioritisation of those appointments.
I hope the Minister agrees that we need this kind of open, informed and above all honest discussion about how choices and prioritisation are done to maintain public confidence. This is not an alternative to providing additional resources, as many previous speakers have said, but is complementary to it, as people will feel that the additional resources they are putting in will really make a difference, according to their priorities for what they want to get out of the service.
On honesty and transparency, I note that the focus of the Government’s Autumn Statement on simply tax cuts, without telling us what impact they will have on public spending, was extraordinarily unhelpful. Certainly, the choices have been noted as a reflection of the Government’s priorities.
The prize here is that our children and grandchildren enjoy the same freedoms we have—freedom from worrying about getting help for their own health and about whether their elderly parents or young children will be cared for. This is a huge benefit in which it is worth investing, but it can easily slip away. Trust takes years to build, and the NHS still has bucketloads of it, despite the many challenges it has faced.
But if we as political leaders allow this trust to leak away, the drip may turn into a flood. Every detail matters in this debate, and in preventing the horrible outcome of a lack of trust in our National Health Service—and I know the Minister is a details man. I hope he will commit today to taking the measures needed to maintain trust, and that he is willing to agree with the proposition that a British Government, of any political colour, will have failed if the people of this country can no longer go to bed at night free from worries about where they will get healthcare when they need it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Hunt for his visionary introduction. We share the privilege of both being former Health Ministers and are therefore also fortunate to have the benefit of insight into how things can be, with the right approach by government.
My noble friend Lord Dubs spoke of the value of quality public services. As he was doing so, and while we were having such a passionate and intelligent debate, I was sorry to hear the sad news of the death of Alistair Darling, a giant of public service and former Member of your Lordships’ House. May his memory be for a blessing.
In the wake of the Second World War, the Labour Government founded the National Health Service through the leadership of Prime Minister Clement Attlee and Health Secretary Nye Bevan. While the values on which it was founded still survive, its ability to deliver on them, as we have heard today, has been greatly diminished by the biggest crisis in its history and by stagnation; while the world, the whole of our country and the expectations and demands of the people in it have changed around it, not least through the widening inequalities in healthy lives and access to healthcare that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London so clearly identified. The current situation is so dire that leaders at the King’s Fund, the Health Foundation and Nuffield Health felt a need to write on the 75th birthday of the National Health Service to the leaders of each major political party, urging change.
The content of their letter was stark and bears reflection. According to it, the NHS has insufficient resources to do its job, fewer beds than almost all similar countries’ services, equipment that is out of date and inadequate, buildings that are falling down, and inadequate IT systems to do the job. It does not have enough staff, so people’s needs are not being met, whether they are patients on the receiving end or staff seeking to do the job; and it does not matter how hard-working those staff are because they are struggling to deliver care of a quality that people need and deserve. As my noble friend Lord Prentis emphasised in speaking about the whole team, whether we are talking about the cleaner or the consultant, all play their part. The letter also said that any plans to move care from hospitals to closer to people’s homes have seen movement in the opposite direction only. All of this, while public satisfaction is at its lowest level in 25 years, with no let-up in sight.
This is the key question that I always think of when we discuss waiting lists and the other challenges for the health service: can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House how the Government got us to this stage? They have had 13 years in which to improve things; it is impossible to ignore the role of government—the role this Government have played since 2010.
Of course, I am sure the Minister will point to the pandemic. My noble friend Lord Brooke acknowledged, as I would, that it is clearly a factor. However, even prior to then, between September 2009 and September 2019, waiting lists almost doubled to 4.4 million. Now, that waiting list stands at 7.8 million, which is an all-time high. The waits are felt across the National Health Service. In A&E, nearly one in three people is waiting over four hours. Category 1 ambulance calls take almost two minutes longer than the seven minutes that they should, and the 62-day cancer treatment target has not been met since 2015.
Unsurprisingly, the failures are not limited to the most high-profile areas, as my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton, Lord Cashman, Lady Crawley and Lady Donaghy all referred to. To name just some, nearly 2 million people of all ages are waiting for mental health treatment, with about three-quarters of that number of people being out of work with mental illness just between January and March this year. The economic as well as the individual impacts of this failure are quite clear.
In ophthalmology, patients wait for surgery to address preventable sight loss, while patients are also being lost to follow-up with no route back to primary care if treatment has started. In social care, as highlighted by my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Pitkeathley among others, the autumn survey of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services found that 250,000 people were waiting for an assessment of their needs, and almost the same number again were waiting for their care and support to begin or to be reviewed. What are the Government doing to address the lesser talked-about areas that still have real significance to people’s lives and well-being?
Returning to waiting lists, the Health Foundation believes that, by next summer, the list could be over 8 million. What is the Minister’s response to this prediction? Have the Government done their own modelling on the length of waiting lists? What responsibility do the Government take for the impact of their policies, and therefore what action will they take? In the spirit of co-operation that has been mentioned in this debate, perhaps I could offer a suggestion to the Minister, who is, of course, welcome, as he knows, to adopt any of the commitments that have been given by Labour. To take immediate action to cut these waiting lists, what about paying staff extra to provide the extra clinics and appointments that patients so desperately need? If this Government will not do it, if Labour is in government, we certainly will.
That is just about the immediate. As we have heard today, the UK’s population is undergoing a massive age shift. More than 11 million people over the age of 65 are living in the UK now, and in a decade this is expected to rise to some 22% of the population. As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said, it is to be celebrated that we have an ageing population. But, sadly, growing numbers of older people are experiencing poverty, discrimination and poor health in their advancing years. This, therefore, requires a reset, but primarily in health and care, with a new focus on prevention and community care, driven by technological advances that we can take advantage of today—as my noble friend Lord Drayson highlighted.
Training more GPs, district nurses and health visitors, harnessing technology and AI, giving NHS and care workers fair pay and fair terms and conditions, joining up services and giving patients the choice that they want to help achieve these things: that is what a Labour Government would do. Why have this Government not done this?
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and other noble Lords called for a change of focus from dealing with sickness to prevention. This is not only common sense; it makes economic sense too. Research by the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York found that spending through public health functions in local government is up to four times as cost effective as NHS spending—something my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage brought her great wisdom to. The Government clearly know this, as their own 2019 Green Paper said:
“The 2020s will be the decade of proactive, predictive, and personalised prevention”—
but they simply have not followed through. As my noble friend Lord Davies highlighted, the failure to provide for the reform of the Mental Health Act—something that Labour has committed to doing if in government—is the clearest example of not following through. However, as we have heard today, there are many other examples.
At 75 years, the NHS, its workforce and all the people it serves deserve better. If this Government will not fix the crisis they have created and give the NHS the reform and support it needs, somebody else will have to do that. We stand ready to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I would like to start by giving our side’s condolences to the family of Alistair Darling. I echo the points on him made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, talked about the cross-party working. Alistair Darling was one of those people who, while clearly a Labour politician, approached things in a very objective, cross-party manner. I know he will be missed by all of us.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling this debate, which has been fascinating. It started off with a very informed and fascinating history of the NHS from my noble friend Lord Lexden, which enshrined the point that the noble Lord, Lord Allan, made: it has given us all that wonderful freedom to go to bed at night and feel secure, and to make life choices about where we work and who we live with without that being a worry. I agree with the basic premise that that is the duty of any Government.
I am also kind of—I am not quite finding the right words to say, but I was really marked by the point that the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Brooke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, were at the 50th anniversary and took part in these conversations. That is quite humbling, particularly since I found out, strangely enough, that I am currently the longest-serving Health Minister. I am not sure that I will make it to the 100th anniversary, but I will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, by trying not to walk in the middle of the road and get hit. If I do make the 100th, I will definitely follow the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, of having a party.
I welcome the debate. While I will try to answer the points raised, given the 75th anniversary, and as others have mentioned, it is important that we try to make this forward-looking and look at the innovation agenda, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned.
I will also address squarely and up front the funding point, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and others. Rather than only putting a nickel into this, we are putting in 11% of GDP—by far the highest amount in history. Tony Blair has been mentioned a lot. I well remember the Wanless review in the early 2000s, which talked about increasing the spend to about 8%—my memory might not be quite right, but it was about 8% of GDP. I do not think that anyone would say today that 11% does not absolutely show our commitment.
It is comparable to all other European countries. In fact, there is only one country in the world which has a significantly higher spend: America. I want to put that record level of investment on the record. As many have mentioned, it is of course important that we allocate that and use those resources as well as possible. I was very struck by the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made about the productivity conundrum, so to speak, and those that the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, made on the technology agenda and innovation. I hope to address some of those points a bit later.
I put all this into the context of our knowing today that a digitally mature trust will be 10% more efficient. We have done quite a bit of work on this; it will be 10% more efficient than other trusts in its output and efficiency. Since a few people mentioned the new hospitals plan, I should say that we know that a new hospital where you unite the best in technology with the best in physical real estate will be 20% more efficient in its output. That is not just in productivity; more importantly, probably, we are also seeing a 20% reduction in the length of stays. The one statistic that has impressed me the most, as I have gone around in the year or so that I have been in this job, is that for every week a patient spends in hospital they lose another 10% of their body mass if they are elderly, so their ability to go home—back to the normal environment—degrades day by day.
We have been talking about what we are trying to do with the technology agenda and the new hospitals programme, but we are all here because we care about patient care. That is vital. We all want people to get back into their home environment sooner. We all know that the problems often come when you are locked in for too long. Then you need a social care space and can get into the downward spiral that we all know about.
As someone actively involved in the new hospitals programme, I assure everyone that there are action steps happening on all 40 of those new hospitals. They are all very real. I will happily talk to anyone about any of them if they should wish it, and show them my photos from visits to many of them as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, made a very good point: often, it is the short cycles which are hard. One thing that has not been spoken about very much, but was very much part of our new hospitals plan and the announcement in May, was our moving to five-year capital cycles. That will be really important for that long-term planning; work is going on as we speak around having 25-year to 30-year capital cycles.
I am trying to address the points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, understandably mentioned the waiting lists, as others did. Obviously, that is an area of concern but we have made good progress in the area of two years and are making good progress in the area of 78 weeks. We are focusing on those areas where there is the most impact. Undoubtedly, industrial action has impacted this, which is why I think we are all pleased that we now have a likely deal with the consultants. I am hopeful that it will extend to the junior doctors as well, but we have been working hard on that. We are trying to get on top of it: in terms of supply, there are the 130 CDCs with their 5 million tests. There is also the use of technology, such as patient choice with the app and the FDP, and we will see big improvements in what that does.
Through all this, we have been talking about the 13 years in which Conservatives have been in charge of the NHS in England. Of course, there have been 25 years that one party has been in control in Wales. I noticed that no mention has been made of Wales. While none of us is happy with the waiting lists, I know for sure that they are a lot better in England than in Wales.
I turn to the 62-day backlog for cancer. We all know that time is of the essence in cancer. We are seeing a 27% reduction in that backlog since 2020 and a record level of referrals; we are treating 12,000 people per day. We are starting to hit the 75% target of diagnosing people within 28 days. To put this into context, we are treating 32% more people for cancer than we were prior to the pandemic. We know that fast diagnosis is key.
One of the key differences in inequalities in life expectancy, as raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, is lung cancer. Of the nine-year disparity, one year is caused by lung cancer. That is why we have things such as mobile screening, which we take on the road to areas where lung cancer is most prevalent—for example, in some of the mining communities. Rather than the majority of people with lung cancer not being found until stage 4, when it is too late, in the areas where they have been doing this we are finding the majority of people in stage 1 or 2. That is so much better in terms of life chances. That is how we will achieve the target of detecting 75% of cancers by stage 1 or 2 by 2028. To give some context to that, we estimate that it will mean that 55,000 more people will be surviving as a result by then.
There has also been talk about waiting times for ambulances and A&E. While they are too high, I am glad to say that they are improving. We have been making sure that we have learned lessons. We are taking action for this winter by increasing supply, with 800 new ambulances, 5,000 more beds to increase capacity and the 10,000 virtual ward beds we will have in place. We are using technology, which I will come to later, to make sure that they are being most effectively used. We are making sure the hospitals are digitised. We have features such as those I saw in Maidstone, such as flight control, where you allow the clinicians to manage the flow of patients right the way through.
Key to all this and to the length of stay is discharge and the adult social care end. Quite rightly, as the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, said, the flow is important. It is vital not only on the social care side, but for the whole hospital and the UEC—urgent elective care—waiting lists. I have seen at first hand the impact of step-down areas. Patients can be put there early on, and everything is organised around that. I have seen the improvements that makes to the flow.
We are trying to learn the lessons of last year by getting the money and commitments out early. That is why we are making a commitment of £600 million extra spend. We told the local authorities and systems that in the summer, so they could plan now rather than hearing about it too late and not being able to impact it then. That is all part of an increase of up to £8.1 billion over the next two years—a 20% increase. Staff are at the centre of that, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. It has been a difficult area, but we are now up in terms of staff versus last year. I accept that there is still a long way to go. My notes show that we have about a 15,000 increase in staff, but clearly, we need more within that.
Mental health is obviously a key part of this. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and others mentioned, now more than ever we are seeing a massive increase in the number of young people with mental health issues—we had a good debate on this the other day. As I have said, I am determined that we understand the reasons underneath that. Covid might be part of it, but there are also long-term reasons, such as social media, that we need to understand. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned, we need to make sure we diagnose those early, because that is crucial, particularly for young children. As noble Lords know, I have personal experience of the importance of acting early on this.
On the mental health Bill, we are committed, as mentioned, to do as much as we can without the legislation—hopefully we can explain a lot of that when we have the round table. Although getting it in the manifesto might be above my pay grade, I personally agree to make sure that all my colleagues understand its importance today and in a year’s time or so, if we were to win a general election.
Many noble Lords—the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lords, Lord Prentis and Lord Hunt, to mention a few—raised the importance of staffing and how everything is underpinned by it. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in particular picked out—and I completely agree with them—that it is not just the clinicians but the managers, the admin and the non-clinical staff who are key to this as well.
I am a bit of a data anorak, and one of the things I did when I first came into my post was to try to understand all the differences in hospital performance, looking at certain areas’ demographics and whether they happened to have more funding through a quirk of the formula. I put in all sorts of variables, but we could only ever explain 50% of it—for the data anoraks, I say: the r² never came out higher than 0.5. The only conclusion that I and others could come to from that was—this is not earth shattering—the management and the leadership. I have had the privilege of visiting a lot of hospitals, and when you walk into one you know early on about the leadership—you can tell it on the tour and through the reaction, less from the leaders and more from the staff. You get a vibe about a place. I totally agree about the importance of that.
I come to the specialist areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned optometrists, and, funnily enough, I had this conversation with one the other day, and they mentioned that many of the early, indicating warnings are picked up when they take retina scans. That is why the long-term workforce plan is important, as are the extra training places. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, said and as I know from my experience with my mother, the other routes, such as apprenticeships, are just as important if we are going to get them there, because you should not need to be a graduate to be a nurse or clinician. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned, it is vital that it is a rewarding and accommodating profession. Training and development are obviously part of that. I hope to talk more to noble Lords soon about using the estates for a lot more housing, because we know that can be a key recruitment and retention tool. Then there are things such as flexible rotas—hopefully, we will be able to use technology for that.
In terms of talking and working with the staff, I have to say that is something that is early days, but we are seeing the style and the engagement of the Secretary of State already and it is very welcome. Underpinning the long-term workforce plan, which many noble Lords have mentioned, is the move away from hospital treatment and into primary care and prevention. We know that that is the first line, and we are now close to achieving the 50 million increase in appointments—but we know, given the demand, that that is still not enough. That is where the Pharmacy First scheme will make a material difference, in expanding the supply of places where you can get the advice and treatments that you need.
I have seen some great examples of prevention, also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. Funnily enough, just yesterday I was talking to one of the doctors—I am sure that many of you know him—Sam Everington from east London. He was talking about how he was taking type 2 diabetes treatment totally out of the hospital environment, and the difference that it is making there. I have mentioned before the Redhill frequent flyers, looking at the people who are having the most hospital treatments and how they can get upstream of it all. Screening is important to that, which is exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, was making about the HIV screening programme. That needs to be welcomed—making sure that many more people are seeing that and understanding it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, talked about an active and healthy lifestyle and its role in social prescribing, which I completely agree with. I know that all noble Lords are on the same page here. The anti-smoking legislation that we are talking about is the biggest single thing that we can do towards that active lifestyle going forward.
I have mentioned it a few times, but I really believe that what we do in terms of technology and the app will be key to this, in terms of people’s access to primary care. People can use the app as their front door, from which they will be guided to the right service—to the 111 service—and then directly make an appointment, be it with a doctor or nurse or with a pharmacy. We have seen already that because people are reminded on the app, the numbers of “do not attend” have gone down by 10%, when people make their appointments digitally in that way. Of course, that means a much more effective use of time. Talking of time, I notice that I am out of it, so I shall quickly finish up. I see massive ability in the app for people to take control of their health and give us that sort of data, so people have the information and trust behind it.
I could have written the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, myself—and I quickly acknowledge everything that he said about the problem. He said that we have great examples of innovation and really difficult cases of how to scale that up. I am exaggerating slightly to make a point, but when they have a great example in one place, they say, “Fantastic, it works in X hospital, how can we get it elsewhere?” It is like, “Here’s the telephone directory with 140 trusts and the buyers—good luck”. A lot of what I am trying to do, as the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, mentioned, is to look at how we scale that up, and have a way to buy sensibly from the centre and get that spread out. In the area of digital therapeutics, that is obviously vital.
Given the time, it is probably time for me to sum up, as I say. As ever, I shall write to noble Lords in detail. I have not answered the points that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, raised about international cosmetic operations, and others. Likewise, I have not addressed the fracture liaison services, and the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, so I shall make sure that that is properly followed up in writing.
I finish by echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was saying, which is to try to take this out of the Punch and Judy and make it as cross-party as possible—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister understand that I will have no time at all to respond?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I have only a minute now to respond: I understand that the clerk will time us out at 2.56 pm.
All I will say then is, first, that I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lady Merron for their tributes to Alistair Darling, who was such a formidable colleague, Minister and public servant.
Secondly, the conclusion I reach is that we have to have a whole-system reform; we need a Government who are determined to do it; I do not believe that the current Government can do it at all; I look forward to a Labour Government who are going to do the business; and I beg to move.
Benefit Claimants: Free Prescriptions
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of London
To ask His Majesty’s Government what impact the removal of free prescriptions for benefit claimants who fail to look for work will have on their health, and the health of the workforce.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I start by thanking your Lordships’ House for giving time for this important debate. I also thank the House of Lords Library for its very helpful briefing and the Minister for his engagement with me and for our helpful meeting earlier this week about this debate.
The measures we are discussing today relate to the announcement that the Government made in the Back to Work Plan and the Autumn Statement that people on universal credit who do not engage in activities designed to increase their skills and improve their employability after 18 months of support will have their claim terminated. With that termination, their accompanying passported benefits, including free prescriptions, will also be stopped.
Benefit claimants may disengage from Jobcentre Plus for many reasons, some of which I suspect we do not completely understand, and not solely because they have failed to look for work. I have brought this debate forward from a health perspective, and the central frame of my remarks today is around health inequalities, because the Back to Work Plan as it stands could serve to exacerbate these inequalities. There are many complexities within universal credit, and many exemptions and allowances that are made for vulnerabilities and medical conditions that are to be commended. I was grateful to hear about some of them at the meeting I had earlier in the week with the Minister and officials from DWP and DHSC. I understand that the number of people who will be affected by this is small: they are those without a vulnerability that would exempt them from having their claim ended, and who do not have an additional factor attached to their claim.
However, I also understand that those who will face this measure will have already been zero-rated for six months, for which time their prescription fee exemption will have already been removed. I believe the mitigation there is that if they have a health condition, they can access low-level prescriptions, such as an asthma pump, until the time their claim is stopped. I know that these mitigations and allowances are designed to reassure those of us scrutinising these plans and, more importantly, those who are fearful of losing the prescriptions they need. I appreciate that this measure will impact only a small number of people, whose prescriptions are likely to be of a low level, but I have some significant concerns.
First, as this House is acutely aware, we are in a cost of living crisis. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society published the results of a survey of pharmacists earlier this year. Some 51% had experienced an increase in the number of patients not collecting their prescriptions in the six months before the survey, and 52% reported an increase in patients asking for different items to be prioritised due to affordability concerns. Some 67% had seen more patients asking about cheaper, over the counter alternatives to their prescriptions. If prescriptions that were once free are no longer so, a person whose universal credit has just been stopped may not be able to afford their prescriptions. This is a serious concern, especially when in so many other ways the cost of living crisis has been an incubator of the gaping inequalities that remain.
Secondly, it is those who are unable to engage with Jobcentre Plus who are most likely to be subject to poor conditions that determine their health, or ill health. It is these people who are most likely to make up the “plus” of the Core20PLUS5. It is important that all engagement with them is not lost when their claim ends. If they struggle to engage with public services, any poor health they experience may worsen if they do not take the medication prescribed. Even if the prescription is of a low level, these prescriptions are fundamental to keeping us in good health, and our being in good health will in turn relieve pressure on the NHS. An acute asthma attack in A&E costs far more to the public purse than someone’s routine inhaler and has a far more profound impact on the person concerned.
I would be very interested to hear from the Minister how the department is working to understand the reasons for people’s disengagement from the support it offers, and what resource there might be for the department to offer the steadier relational support that I know Jobcentre Plus hopes to offer. Have they considered a way to identify those who are extremely vulnerable, and work with the health services to ensure that they do not fall off the radar, perhaps by informing the GP that their claim has ended?
Thirdly, I appreciate that this measure is a deterrent from disengagement and is designed to act as an encouragement into work. I was unaware, until meeting the Minister this week, that parliamentary legislation will be required to bring forward these changes. I have no objection to that in principle, but I am concerned that, with a limited amount of parliamentary time, there is a risk that this legislation will never appear. I am concerned that this proposed measure and the press coverage, which I acknowledge was not completely accurate or helpful, seems designed solely to deter, causing anxiety and fear. This is concerning, even given the small number of people it will impact, and when we are dealing with changes to a highly complex system, it often increases anxiety. To use, or to threaten to use, health measures in any way as a punitive consequence for disengagement is, I believe, a misuse of power and could have a significant impact on the lives of people who need to be helped, not punished. Can the Minister confirm exactly what is needed to be brought in by primary legislation—whether it is the whole Back to Work plan—and share whether he has any expectation of when it might progress?
The expansion of the health programmes within the Back to Work plan are welcome and I know that they have been commended as part of the Autumn Statement debate. Health and work are linked, and prioritising the health of the workforce is required for a thriving economy. Part of that is to ensure that people have the option to take time off if they need it, which under the current sick pay system may not always be possible. This is especially true for those in insecure work. A report by WPI Economics, Making Statutory Sick Pay Work, highlights stories of workers coming back to work while still sick or injured because they cannot afford to take time off. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to examine statutory sick pay and ensure that those who are working have the option to take time off while they are ill?
On a slightly different note, I was very surprised to read in the Lords Library briefing that the total cost to the NHS of exempt prescription charges from community pharmacies in England was £9.9 billion, while paid-for prescriptions made up only £500 million. It makes me wonder whether installing universal free prescriptions would be less costly than is sometimes assumed and whether the savings to the public purse from better public health may well be worth it.
I again thank the Minister and look forward to hearing the speeches of noble Lords participating. Worsening health inequalities is one of the worst health outcomes of recent times and it requires a multifaceted approach. It is important to consider how people’s health may be impacted by measures that are not directly health based, and I feel encouraged that the Chamber has decided to debate this.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for securing this debate on the end of free prescriptions for certain benefit claimants. She covered, in detail, the operational effectiveness of this and how it works out in practice; I will talk about the philosophy that lies behind the proposal.
As I said in yesterday’s debate on the Autumn Statement, I am angry. I saved my anger from yesterday’s debate for today. It is unfortunate that the noble Viscount the Minister, for whom I have considerable respect, has to be the butt of my anger, but my anger exists nevertheless. I am angry about this cruel and outrageous proposal that reflects so badly on a Government that have already lost much credibility and honour—I am angry and sick to my stomach. My immediate reaction when I read this policy was to ask, “Are we back to the workhouse?”. I am angry, because we have known for almost two centuries that the policy of less eligibility simply does not work—not only does it not work; it leads to further cruelty in a race to the bottom, devoid of compassion and sense.
I will talk history. I am sorry that we have lost the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, who gave us a history lesson in the previous debate today, for which three of us were present—but here is some more history. I will talk about the Poor Law and the principle of less eligibility that played significant roles in shaping the approach to poverty and welfare in the 19th century, particularly in the United Kingdom.
The Poor Law, a system of social welfare that dated back to the 16th century, underwent significant reforms in the 1830s with the implementation of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834. The core principle of the Poor Law was the provision a relief to the poor through workhouses, which were intended to be austere institutions to discourage dependence on state assistance. The workhouse system aimed to make poverty less desirable than the lowest paying jobs available, thus enforcing a concept of less eligibility. That meant that conditions in the workhouse were intentionally made to be harsher than the worst situations outside, creating a deterrent against seeking public assistance.
Less eligibility sought to create a clear distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, with the belief that the fear of destitution would drive people to seek alternative means of support. The workhouse environment was designed to be Spartan and unpleasant, reinforcing the idea that dependence on state support should be a last resort.
It became clear, however, that the Poor Law and less eligibility meant the system was dehumanising and punitive, pushing vulnerable individuals and families to the brink of despair. The workhouse conditions were often harsh, further exacerbating the emotional toll on those seeking assistance. Charles Dickens, through his literary work such as Oliver Twist, on the Poor Law and its bastard children, vividly depicted the hardships faced by the poor in workhouses, contributing to public awareness and debate. Over time, society’s attitudes shifted and the harshness of the Poor Law system began to be questioned. As the 19th century progressed, there were calls for reform and a more compassionate approach to poverty. Eventually, the Poor Law system was largely dismantled in the early 20th century, making way for the development of modern welfare programmes.
In retrospect, the Poor Law and less eligibility reflected the prevailing ideologies of the time, attempting to address poverty through deterrence rather than systemic support. The approach was rooted in a belief in self-sufficiency, but it ultimately led to widespread suffering and hardship for those already marginalised by poverty. The lessons learned from the shortcomings of the Poor Law should influence contemporary discussions on social welfare and the importance of a compassionate and inclusive approach to addressing poverty and inequality. However, it is as if the Government have forgotten these lessons.
My question to the Minister is: has he read his Dickens? Does he realise that, not as an individual but as the representative of the Government here today, he is playing the part of the villain in an up-to-date Dickens novel and that he is, in his official role, if not personally, acting as a modern-day Mr Bumble, the cruel manager of the workhouse in Oliver Twist, devoid of compassion? I was struck by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, in the discussions yesterday, when she complained that this was a compassionate policy. I think it is identical to Mr Bumble, the cruel manager claiming to be compassionate.
When we look at the people who will be affected by this policy, we do not really know much about their characteristics—I think that was the point that was made—so we do not know who will be harmed by this policy. Make no mistake: the intention of this policy is to harm people. I suspect that few if any people fit the tabloid caricature of the feckless, workshy scrounger, but we do know that these people are poor. We also know that they are ill, and we know this policy is designed to make them poorer and iller. To put it at its clearest, even the feckless, workshy scrounger deserves the medical treatment they require.
I hope the Minister can hear history speaking to him, saying that this policy is a component of the failed idea of less eligibility, and it is bound to fail and create more problems than it seeks to address.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, who has reminded us of how in many ways our society is going back to Victorian times with the level of inequality and the insecurity affecting so many people’s lives. In the times the noble Lord was talking about, the spectre of the debtors’ prison hung over so many families. We are potentially back in that situation now, except that of course the spectre now is of benefit sanctions, which hit so many people utterly unjustifiably.
As the noble Lord said, poverty is a feature of our system, not an individual failing. I thank the right reverend Prelate for securing this terribly important debate. It is a grave pity that we do not see on the speakers list any Tory Back-Benchers stepping up to defend the policy—although I note that one noble Baroness on the Tory Benches has joined us to listen to the debate. Perhaps the others will read it in Hansard later.
The right reverend Prelate talked about “significant concerns”, in the manner of her speeches. I would go much stronger: this is a disgusting piece of dog-whistle politics targeting the most vulnerable in our society and, as the right reverend Prelate said, possibly having minimal effect in saving the Government money and likely costing them money, while spreading fear in an attempt to activate some of the least desirable emotions in our society.
I am going to take a somewhat different approach from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and look at the medical impact. The right reverend Prelate clearly and cleverly set out the debate by talking about the impact on individual health and the health of the workforce, so my speech will cover those two areas. I looked in some detail at to whom free subscriptions are available. There is a group of conditions—cancer, diabetes, hypothyroidism and epilepsy are among them—the sufferers of which automatically have the right to free prescriptions. I ask the Minister to put on the record that, if you have those conditions, even if you are affected by these rules, you will still get your cancer drugs and diabetes drugs. It is incredibly important to put that on the record for people to understand.
Let us think about some of the conditions that are not included in what I hope is an automatic exemption from prescription charges. Mental health conditions are not on that list. As the right reverend Prelate highlighted, asthma medications are not on that list. Of course, free prescriptions for everybody would be the ideal situation for our society, for the health of both individuals and the workforce—and I point out that that is Green Party policy and where the NHS started. Another group of drugs taken by huge numbers of people, particularly older members of society, is statins, which treat high levels of cholesterol that can lead to cardiovascular disease, heart attacks, coronary heart disease, angina and stroke. Can the Minister confirm that statins, asthma medication and drug treatments for mental health conditions will all be covered by these sanctions? More than that, what about counselling? Will the NHS continue to provide counselling to people who need it if they are affected by these sanctions? I am not sure I have seen that explained.
I want to put this in a broader context—and it is a great pity that none of the House’s legal experts is taking part in this debate. In the World Health Organization’s constitution, to which we are of course signed up as a member, the
“highest attainable standard of health”
is a fundamental right of every human being. More than that, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that the right to life is a fundamental human right. If we are going to deny people statins, asthma drugs and mental health treatments, how does that square with the basic right to life, let alone the best attainable standard of healthcare, which we are signed up to through the WHO?
I turn to a broader question, on which the Minister might agree with me a little. Your Lordships’ House may be aware that yesterday, under a new methodology, a survey by the Office for National Statistics suggested that the current unemployment rate is actually 3.5%. We have a labour market in which the essential problem is a shortage of medical professionals, care workers, HGV drivers and construction workers. We need to start to think about human time, energy and talents—scarce resources that need to be nurtured, cultivated and looked after. We will be having a debate later on early years, in which I will be participating. We need to give people the best possible start in life, so they can contribute best to our society.
The right reverend Prelate hinted at this: the best way we can look after people and ensure that they are fit to contribute to our society—it might be through paid work, voluntary work or caring for family members—is to offer security, which is what people need in all those situations. This is why the Green Party’s alternative Autumn Statement said, “Let’s lift the basic level of universal credit payment by £40 a week”. I put it to the Minister that giving people unconditional payments—indeed, the Green Party’s aspiration is for a universal basic income—and a universal, secure payment that meets their needs means that they can be healthy and can contribute to society through paid work and other means. We would all be richer. Making people ill and forcing them into impossible situations, even fear, is a huge problem.
I circle back to the point I started with—the noble Lord, Lord Davies, also mentioned it—concerning Victorian times. Too often, poor health is seen as an individual characteristic, yet we have a deeply unhealthy society. We have terrible levels of air pollution on our streets and in our homes. We have terrible-quality homes with poor insulation, people cannot afford to heat their homes and there the problem of mould, which has been illustrated so tragically lately. To get a healthier and more productive society, as well as the kind of growth the Government are so keen on, the best thing to do is ensure that we have free prescriptions and free support for everyone who needs it. This would help everyone to contribute to our society as best as they can, rather than punitive sanctions waved at some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London helpfully said in her opening speech that she was in some ways surprised to see that this issue would require legislation. I fear that may actually be the point: that the whole purpose of this is to table something and invite Members on this side of the House to vote against it, so that the Government can somehow claim that we are being weak on the workshy. I must say, whenever the Government find time for something such as this—as noble Lords might expect, I think it is wrong in principle and in practice—in lieu of other legislation we have called for, such as on mental health, we have to question their priorities and whether all we are seeing now is a political agenda from a party playing out its last few months in office.
I turn to the substantive issue and why I think this is wrong in principle and in practice. On the principle, we need to understand the rationale for prescription charges. We are not paying for our drugs when we pay prescription charges; the rationale is that people who can afford to do so should make a contribution to the costs of operating the entire system of dispensing prescriptions. Those people are working-age people, in work. The whole system is based on that rationale. People who are not of working age do not pay prescription charges: 70 year-old millionaires—and, indeed, their 15 year-old children—do not pay them. The whole system is based on this, so taking a segment of people who are, by definition, not in work and magically putting them in the in-work paying bucket is entirely inconsistent with the whole scheme as it has been set up.
No deserving/undeserving judgment is made with prescription charges; otherwise, we would be testing people’s incomes and whether they had made themselves ill before getting a prescription. We do not do that because that is not the rationale. The rationale is that people who are in work and have the means to pay, such as myself, should do so. I do not speak for others, although I would have spoken for the noble Lord, Lord Markham, had he been here, because he is in a similar position, in that we are the kind of people who should be paying prescription charges. In a few years, I will stop because I will be deemed no longer of working age, so, although I will have plenty more time here, my prescription charges will cease. Being in work and being of working age are the criteria for making contributions.
In principle, we are breaking that and I see no rationale for doing so. Saying that you have not complied with a jobcentre request and therefore you lose access to the scheme is so inconsistent with everything else that has been set up. That is particularly the case where an obvious response to the sanction is that someone should seek the healthcare they need. Everything in the prescription contribution system has been carefully designed not to deter people from getting drugs. A whole bunch of exemptions are wrapped around this to do that. To undermine it seems entirely problematic.
I turn to the practical issues. The prescription charges are not a fee for the medicines. They are completely unrelated to the cost of the medicines; they are a contribution to the NHS. They are capped at £111.60 per year and the cap is set, effectively, by the prescription prepayment certificate. Anyone who needs more prescriptions than would add up to that price is entitled, whoever they are, to get a PPC. I assume that this will apply equally to the cohort we are talking about today. If the claimant has a condition that needs several prescriptions per year, we are effectively fining them £111.60 per year. This is probably one for the Minister’s DHSC colleagues but, given that we have set a cap, I am curious why, if TfL can figure out when I have travelled enough during a day to hit its daily transport cap, the prescription pricing system—which is all computerised—cannot figure out when I have hit the £111.60 cap and automatically apply it. The obvious reason is that it is hoped that people will keep paying beyond the cap. If we are to have a cap, let us help people claim within it rather than send them over it. That is particularly true here.
This £111.60 fine is now being levied as a sanction on top of all the other sanctions for this group of claimants. The first option is to pay the fine so that, if you need the medicines, you can go off and get them. The second is to keep ticking the exemption box. All sorts of people do this all the time. You run the risk of getting a £100 fine plus the cost of the prescription penalty charge notice at some point in future. Again, I am not saying that to invite it. It is a very common phenomenon. It happens all the time, so much so that the Public Accounts Committee down the other end has done a report on it, which was very critical of this whole system. It is quite expensive to administer and we spend a lot of time chasing people around for this. A rational response of someone in this category is: “Okay, here’s my choice: £111.60 or take my chances. Maybe I will end up paying about the same amount as and when they come and get me with one of these penalty charge notices”.
The third option is for them to stop taking the drugs that they need. That is the worst option, disastrous for all possible outcomes. I am looking at the noble Viscount the Minister—from the point of view of the benefits system, what possible interest is there in having someone stop taking their drugs if the goal is to get them back to work? I cannot see any circumstance in which someone who needs the medicine for a physical or mental health problem would be more fit for work if they stopped taking the drugs than if they continued taking them. Therefore, I assume the hope is that everyone will pay the fine and treat it as just another financial sanction.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the reality is that we have seen this lots of times in previous economic cycles. When there is a serious downturn in the economy, significant numbers of people—this will vary geographically according to where the downturn hits hardest—will move first to out-of-work benefits and then to sickness benefits. I was brought up in a posh bit of Sheffield but when my communities in South Yorkshire lost the steel and then the coal in the 1970s and 1980s, you saw entire communities moving from work to sickness benefit. What they had really lost was hope. Hope had gone and the community was devastated. People were sick in the sense that they felt terrible. That expressed itself in all sorts of physical and mental problems and they moved on to sickness benefit.
If you are in one of those communities, the solution is not fining you £111.60. That will not give you back your hope or encourage you to go out and take a job. I really fail to understand why the Government think it will. We have seen this play out before—it is politics. The Government must be seen to be doing something; they are trying to artificially create some kind of conflict where they are tough on the work-shy and people who question this are somehow championing them. I think this is completely the wrong target. I know politics must react to things, but in this case it is reacting incredibly clumsily.
I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the opportunity to debate this issue. I leave the Minister with the following questions. First, have the Government assessed how affected people will split into those three categories? In category one, they pay their £111.60 for a prepayment certificate; in category two, they keep ticking the exemption box and risk a fine; in category three, they stop taking the drugs. For a policy of this significance, we need to understand—I assume the Government have some data as they are proposing this—how those people will split. If the numbers in category three are significant, that is the most important area of concern. Secondly, have the Government made any assessment of this measure versus a financial sanction of the same value? If the intention is to fine people for not going back to work, have they considered a straight cash fine rather than this clumsy prepayment certificate method? Thirdly, what measures will the Government take to make people aware of the prepayment certificate option, particularly if they move ahead with this? I hope they will tell everyone not to keep paying the individual prescriptions and to get a certificate as the cheapest option.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate, especially the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for making it possible and for her introduction. I remain grateful for her continued commitment to the health and well-being of the nation, especially the most vulnerable within it, and I thank her for all she does in this respect.
Before I speak on the Motion, I would like to record my sadness at the news that Lord Darling has died. Before becoming a valued Member of this House, he was Chancellor during the global financial crash. The country was fortunate to be in the hands of someone of such ability and integrity. But as this is a DWP debate, he was also a fine DWP Secretary of State, with whom I had the privilege of working when I was a special adviser to Gordon Brown. Our country is the poorer for his passing.
As we have heard, the trigger for this debate is the Government’s proposal to close the universal credit claims of some people who fail to meet employment-related requirements. As a result, they would cease to have access to passported benefits, including free prescriptions. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, explained the rationale for a prescription charging policy, but the problem is that this is not a health policy. It is a policy that would try to use access to healthcare as a tool to enforce conditionality in the welfare state. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has highlighted some of the real challenges of such an approach. As she, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others, have said, this clearly risks putting the health of some individuals at risk. It will clearly not make them any more likely to work—less likely, if anything—and it will probably end up costing the NHS more in the long run, as the right reverend Prelate’s example of asthma inhalers versus asthma attack treatment has shown.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, is on to something on the point of this policy. I am sorry to say that I think there is an attempt to create dividing lines and say, “You do not really want to do X”. To avoid jumping into that trap, I will say for the record that we believe everyone who can work, should work. That has been the basis of Labour’s policy in the past and will be again. The welfare state was created to support those who could not support themselves, and conditionality has been part of it from the start. If people refuse to engage with the system, there must of course be consequences, but not like this. The quid pro quo is that the state should provide the help people need to get into proper, sustainable jobs, and I have real questions about how well it is doing that right now. Although that is a problem, I do not think anyone really believes that this proposal is the solution, and I think Ministers know that.
The OBR forecasts, after taking account of the Government’s plans, suggest that the employment rate will remain static, there will be 600,000 more people on sickness and disability benefits and that that will put spending up 75%. That does not sound like a plan that is likely to be effective in addressing its ostensible objective. It is hard to understand what the Government want to do with this.
In opening, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said that, in her conversations with the Minister, she realised that very few people would be affected and that the media may have misreported this. To be fair, I think they were meant to report it in the way they had. I would not expect the right reverend Prelate to engage in the politics, but I simply quote from the speech made to the Conservative Party conference by the Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt. He said:
“It isn’t fair that someone who refuses to look seriously for a job gets the same as someone trying their best”.
It was then briefed out that the intention was to signal this as a crackdown on those who do not try very hard. The job of the Minister, for whom we all have great respect, is to say that this is one of two things: it is either a major crackdown, which potentially risks the health of many people, or it does not make much difference. I would like to know which it is, so could the Minister explain that?
The most obvious question is how many people will be affected. Has the DWP done a formal assessment of that? If so, please could the Minister share it? If it has not, why not? Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Davies asked, do we know which people will be affected? Are they young or old? Do they have children? Could they be single parents or carers? Who are they? Free prescriptions are just one of the benefits passported from universal credit. Others include dental treatment, help with travel to hospital to get NHS treatment, free school meals for kids and Sure Start maternity grants. Are those included in the same policy?
The right reverend Prelate mentioned that the Minister had indicated that most of these people will be on a nil universal credit payment and therefore would not qualify anyway. Either nobody in this position would be affected or some will be. What is the process to distinguish between them? Will that action be automatic, will a case be closed at a certain point, or will an individual assessment be made? What safeguards will be put in place to check whether people were failing to engage because of health problems, whether physical or mental? Will this need extra staff and, if so, what will that cost?
I cannot help but conclude that this policy is born of failure. Britain remains the only country in the G7 where the employment rate is still not back to pre-pandemic levels. Some 2.6 million people are now shut out of work due to long-term sickness—the highest number since records began. It is hard not to conclude that a major contributory factor is that the Government have let the NHS lurch from crisis to crisis, when waiting lists have soared to 7.8 million. More and more people over 50 are out of work due to long-term sickness. We all know that large numbers are stranded on NHS waiting lists, who are desperate for treatment or in pain. Many of those are mothers caring for older relatives or other people who are sick or disabled, and they are getting precious little help from the social care system, which still goes unreformed, despite 13 years of promises.
The right reverend Prelate said that health and work are linked, and she is absolutely right. It is quite right that health and employment policies need to be considered together, especially when we have these inactivity rates, but we need to do this in a positive, strategic way. Labour has said that we would invest £1.1 billion in the NHS to provide more appointments and get the backlog down. We would recruit 8,500 more mental health staff. We would also overhaul jobcentres, so that they can provide personalised help and work in partnership with the NHS, employers and others that can help people back into proper, well-paid, sustainable jobs. We would create technical excellence colleges, so that people get the skills that would help them get jobs in their area and then bring the skills that are needed into those areas.
That is the way forward—not a policy that grabs a few headlines but probably will not make much difference anyway. We want a proper, strategic approach to the labour market, working with the health service to help get our country back to work. The social security system is there to support those who cannot work and to help those who can work get back into work. Does the Minister not agree?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my own condolences at the loss of the noble Lord, Lord Darling. I was shocked and greatly saddened when I heard the news earlier today. He was a giant of a man, and he was extremely helpful, indeed instrumental, in helping the country through the financial crisis back in 2008 and onwards.
It is a pleasure to close this important debate which, at its heart, is about ensuring that more people who can work are supported to do so and benefit from all the rewards of work. I start by thanking all noble Lords for their valuable contributions, in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for initiating this debate. I also thank her for our meeting earlier this week, which was greatly appreciated. Getting into work and ensuring that work pays remains a key government priority. Building on the £7 billion employment package announced in the Spring Budget, the Autumn Statement set out a further £2.5 billion investment in employment support over the next five years. This support will ensure that no claimant reaches 18 months of unemployment if they have taken every reasonable step to comply with the jobcentre support offered to them.
I will cover two or three points upfront. I was interested in the very hard-hitting speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. They both opined about the issues of sanctions more broadly. It is fair to say that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London alluded to some misrepresentation in the press. I can think only that the noble Lord and noble Baroness have maybe been reading too much in the papers, but their questions were fair.
I say at the outset that conditionality supported by sanctions has been a long-standing feature of benefit entitlement and a policy of past Governments, including past Labour Governments. Claimants on work-related benefits are generally expected to take responsibility for meeting the conditionality requirements that they have agreed to with their work coach. Where a claimant fails to attend a mandatory appointment or fails to comply with specific work-related activities without good reason, an open-ended sanction is applied. Open-ended sanctions are applied from the date of the failure up until the date that the claimant complies with the agreed requirement—I will say more about this later. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her general acknowledgment of this policy.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London understandably asked about continued disengagement and whether the policies we are taking forward are a bit harsh—I think that is the general principle of what she said. Perhaps I can be helpful by saying that claimants are set mandatory work-related requirements based on the benefit regime that they are in. All mandatory requirements are tailored to the claimant’s circumstances and are discussed with them beforehand, as are the consequences of failing to comply. We have also hugely increased the training that job coaches have. I reassure the House that the quality of job coaches is increasing the whole time, and there is a great deal of sensitivity involved, as the House will imagine.
Following a failure to comply, the claimant has the opportunity to provide good reason. Additionally, a pre-referral quality check is in place to check for known vulnerabilities before a sanction referral is made. Following a referral, cases are reviewed to ensure that the mandatory requirement was fairly set in the first place and to check whether a conditionality easement should have been applied. Claimants will be contacted through the normal channels from the point of sanction decision. These include a digital nudge at six weeks following the decision. Where a claimant remains disengaged following an open-ended sanction, they will receive a notification at month five that will inform them of the claimant closure intention and prompt them to re-engage or to inform us of any new circumstances that may impact this.
The right reverend Prelate asked, reasonably, about the cost of living. We remain very aware of the pressures that people are facing with the cost of living. That is why we have provided £94 billion of support across last year and this year, 2023-24, to help households and individuals with the rising cost of bills. In addition, subject to parliamentary approval, working-age benefits will rise by 6.7% from April 2024, in line with inflation. The House is well aware of the Autumn Statement announcement on the local housing allowance rates, which I know will make a considerable difference.
The right reverend Prelate asked about statutory sick pay. There is a very short answer: we will absolutely continue to keep it under review. She also asked about primary legislation and timing. Although I cannot give her any precise information on the timing, I can say that it is very unlikely that we will be able to bring this forward during this Parliament. That helps perhaps to answer a question from the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam.
Turning to the issue of disengagement, I should explain that for the quarter ending August 2023, 95.3% of sanctions were for universal credit claimants failing to attend a mandatory appointment with their work coach, as opposed to refusing a job interview. These sanctions are typically open-ended, as mentioned earlier, meaning that they can easily be ended at any time by the claimant re-engaging with their work coach. We know that the majority of people who have open-ended sanctions do re-engage with the support on offer within six months. However, there is still a growing number who are choosing not to engage with employment support, despite support being available to them.
It is important to place this area in the context of the Government’s wider Back to Work plan. A key part of this is about ensuring that a short spell out of work does not turn into a period of longer-term unemployment. I am sure that we all agree with that, because the longer someone remains unemployed, the harder it is for them to return to the labour market. This can have detrimental impacts on the individual, as well as the wider economy. That is why, as part of our plan, we are bringing in much more intensive back to work support earlier on in someone’s claim. This includes upskilling, job search support, practical work experience and tailored advice to support claimants. Those claimants who remain unemployed after 18 months of intensive support will undergo a review by a work coach and will be expected to either take up a job or mandatory work placement, or engage in a programme of intensive activity.
To ensure fairness to the taxpayer, it is right that there are consequences for those who refuse to engage with the support on offer. It comes back to my initial comments at the beginning of my remarks. As a result of this new approach, no claimant should reach 18 months of unemployment in receipt of their full benefits if they have not taken every reasonable step to comply with jobcentre support. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, asked about the additional jobcentre support—the AJS. She asked whether this was even proven to work. Perhaps I can reassure her that there is good evidence to show that work is generally good for physical and mental health and well-being, whereas worklessness is associated with poorer physical and mental health and well-being. Work can be therapeutic and can reverse the adverse health effects of unemployment. This is why the AJS aims to support those closest to the labour market to return to work as quickly as possible and prevent long-term unemployment. So we do think this is a very worthwhile project. It will send a clear message to claimants who can work about engaging properly with support.
Having covered that area, I will now focus on the important points that were raised about claim closure. I would like to, I hope, give some reassurance, and dispel a few myths which were put about. I listened carefully to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, whom I have much respect for. However, I am afraid that I just did not agree with much of what he said in this respect. It is important to underline that not everyone who fails to meet with their work coach is subject to a sanction. If you have good reason, you will not be sanctioned, nor will your claim be closed. The examples of “acceptable good reasons” include new or worsening illnesses, health condition flare-ups and periods of mental ill-health—which answers a question raised by another noble Lord. They also include working or attending an interview, unexpected childcare, attending the funeral of a close family member or friend, or transport failures.
Even if there is no evidence of good reason, work coaches can also apply discretionary easements, as mentioned earlier, such as domestic emergencies. When an easement is in place, we relax our requirements so that individuals will not be sanctioned, nor will the claim be closed. Still, if you do not have a good reason for a failure but you take corrective action and re-engage with the support on offer within six months, your sanction will end and your claim will not be closed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked who these people were, and I hope I can help to answer that. There is a rapidly growing group of disengaged claimants, as the right reverend Prelate acknowledged, on nil award, who have had a failure without good reason and have failed to re-engage for more than six months. They have no housing or child elements attached to their claim. Crucially, this means that claimants who do have housing costs or children can rest assured that they will not be at risk of losing the income that they have come to depend on.
In addition, the people in the impacted group have not declared that they are homeless or, because they have no housing element, they are likely living with family, possibly including their parents, or their friends. We also exclude any claimant with a health condition that impedes their ability to look for or carry out work—which might play into the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It is therefore only right that we close the loophole that allows people to continue to maintain a claim without complying with any commitments.
In the remaining time, I will focus particularly on free prescriptions. This was another theme raised by the right reverend Prelate. Not everyone who is subject to a claim closure will lose access to free prescriptions. There is a variety of exemption criteria beyond receiving universal credit that would qualify an individual for free prescriptions. Claimants are entitled to help with health costs, including free prescriptions, only if they are in receipt of a monetary award of universal credit that is above zero and if their earnings in their last assessment period were below the income thresholds. Many will have stopped receiving access to free prescriptions when their claims were fully reduced by the sanction.
As always, if entitlement to other benefits is reliant solely on a universal credit claim to establish eligibility, that eligibility will cease if the claim is closed. By excluding the claimants who have more severe health conditions and vulnerabilities from sanctions, we believe that the claim closure group would likely be claiming prescriptions for only minor health conditions. I think the right reverend Prelate acknowledged this in her remarks.
There were a number of questions, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, pressing me on the lack of support for the most vulnerable. I hope I can be a bit more helpful. A well-established system of hardship payments is available as a safeguard if a claimant demonstrates that they cannot meet their immediate and most essential needs, including accommodation, heating, food and hygiene, as a result of their sanction. In universal credit, claimants are able to apply for a hardship payment from the first assessment period the sanction reduction is applied.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about work being the best route out of poverty. He knows what my reply will be, which is that the Government are committed to a sustainable long-term approach to tackling poverty and supporting people on lower incomes. He is well aware of the expenditure that the Government are making in this area and we believe that the best route out of poverty is through work. The Government remain committed to a sustainable, long-term approach in this respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about abolishing the prescription charge. I say very briefly that the Government have no plans to abolish the prescription charge in England or to review the medical exemption qualifying list. Our policy remains to help those whose need is greatest through the rules we currently have in place.
I really ought to finish. There are a number of questions that I will most certainly answer—
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will write, but I will ask one simple question before we are timed out: how many people could be affected by this policy?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have asked about that figure. I will need to check whether I can give it to the noble Baroness, as it is not in the public domain. It is substantial. I will write to her to give her whatever answer I can. It is a very fair question, which was also raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. However, that is as far as I am able to go.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Could the noble Viscount put that in the Library and share it with everyone in this debate?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will most certainly do that.
I will conclude briefly, because time has run out. I have not had a chance to focus on safeguards, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised. I will write to her on that as there is quite a lot to say. I close by saying that our Back to Work plan is about putting fairness at the heart of our welfare system: fairness for claimants who play by the rules and try their best, and fairness for taxpayers who contribute to the welfare system. Above all, it is about helping those who can work to move into jobs, which will grow our economy, change lives and, indeed, change their own lives.
Early Years Education
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Andrews
That this House takes note of the importance of good quality early years education provision and environments, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, this debate could not be more timely. I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who have put their name down to speak this afternoon, despite the hour and the weather.
In the spring Budget, the Government made £4.3 billion of new investment to expand entitlement to childcare. For children between nine months and three years, who will be offered 30 hours of funded—not free—childcare per week from April 2024, this was extremely welcome. I want the Minister to know that we are grateful indeed for, and acknowledge the significance of, that investment. Why was this new funding therefore received by the childcare sector with more alarm than joy? Briefly, it is because it has become clear over the past seven years that the sector is simply too fragile to deliver additional places at the price that the Government are prepared to pay for them, without putting even more providers at risk and adding to the potential erosion of the service. Since the Government are actually purchasing about 80% of all childcare hours the providers, especially in the poorer areas, will be made even more vulnerable because there will be less scope for asking richer parents to pay more.
At the heart of this issue, therefore, is the chronic and cumulative underfunding of the existing provision for three to four year-olds, which led the Institute for Fiscal Studies to estimate yesterday that funding was 10% below that which it was in 2012, and that funding will simply not reach many of the poorest families at all. It is that which is raising the alarm now among providers and parents, and that alarm is shared by the Select Committee on Education, which reported in July that without every effort, the extra places cannot be delivered—and possibly cannot be delivered without risk—and that the existing places may become more vulnerable.
Yesterday, the Government announced that £400 million would be available for the policy. Again, that is welcome news but, in a complicated funding environment, I have to ask the Minister for further clarity. Can she tell me whether this, or a proportion of it, is new money? What and who, and exactly how, will it be funding? Can she just give us those details for greater clarity? How will it improve the situation for the many existing providers who provide just for three to four year-olds? How will it incentivise those who want to expand the service to the younger children?
When there is such huge investment at stake, it is really dispiriting that we cannot be certain that, with the best intention, extra places can be provided, that objectives will be met and that there will not be such perverse outcomes. Those perverse outcomes were baked into the Childcare Act 2016. It gives me no pleasure to say this but I and many others, informed by the childcare networks, warned in this House then that unless places were fully funded, there would be an exodus of providers that could not afford to bear the burden of expansion. It turned out that the funding provided was a quarter of what was estimated to be needed.
I also make the point that the Government’s own objectives short-changed the children involved. While the emphasis was on getting parents back into work, there was no equivalent urgency or assurance on quality or educational outcomes, especially for those with special needs. The child, it seemed, had been left out of the policy—so it still seems, but it is so much worse now after Covid. In the short term, we can already see the impacts: the sustained loss of language, learning and socialisation in very young children, which is of course worse in disadvantaged areas; a wildfire of absenteeism in secondary schools; and a breakdown of some basic trust between parents and schools about the value of attendance. Then there is the ultimate broken environment: the crumbling concrete, which puts children and teachers at risk.
I have enormous respect for the Minister. This policy is not of her making but I know that she and her colleagues, like us, want it to succeed. She will also know that when I say that childcare provision has been knowingly underfunded, I am referring to the information obtained directly from her department, revealed by a freedom of information request from the Early Years Alliance, which shows that in 2015 DfE officials were already worried about a funding gap and had already estimated that, by 2021, the hourly costs for funded-hours entitlement for three and four year-olds would reach £7.49. In 2021, however, providers were receiving only £4.89 for each place.
The foundations were being undermined from the start, because the original gap between what the Government were prepared to pay for and what it actually costs to care for and educate a young child has widened every year, accelerated by inflation, the cost of living increases and minimum wage increases. In 2024, providers will get £5.62 per place. The sector estimates that the real cost is over £9.
What is clear is that, across all comparisons, the UK is still the third most expensive of all OECD countries for childcare. This bears down most on families who earn less than £45,000; they do not qualify for universal credit but cannot afford the £14,000 now estimated as the annual cost of one child in full-time preschool care. Parents and children are falling through the cracks. But the present crisis is not just about financial shortfall; there was another gross failure in 2015. Staffing accounts for 70% of costs. What was crucially needed was a workforce plan in place dedicated to building the childcare workforce of the future, with provision for training and professional development and a clear focus on learning outcomes. That did not happen.
Instead, funding was grafted on to a service which was already struggling with retention and recruitment. Ofsted has shown that the service has shrunk from 85,000 providers to 60,000 since 2015. According to the Early Education and Childcare Coalition and the University of Leeds, 57% of nursery staff and 38% of childminders are considering leaving the service in the next 12 months. A workforce plan is more urgent now. We cannot start soon enough. I urge the Minister to go back to her department and urge her colleagues to put in place the beginnings of a workforce strategy, because it is in the poorest areas that we have the greatest impacts as it is where children’s preparation for school and attainment in school is lowest.
I am afraid I have a few more statistics. Half of providers exist just on the margins of profitability. The National Day Nursery Association estimates that the average setting has lost £32,000 as a result of those 15-hour places for three to four year-olds, and 96% of those were good or outstanding; these are not poor providers. Ofsted’s latest figures—from August 2022—up to now show a loss of 3,200 additional providers. The fastest exodus from the profession is by childminders, who are becoming an endangered profession. Of all these statistics, the most alarming I have seen is an estimate that by 2035 there will be only 1,000 childminders left in the UK.
To be graphic, what we are watching is a system which has been unequal from the start become more unequal, more unfair and more inefficient. Women are still being held out of the workplace and we need them to be as fulfilled and as productive as possible, particularly in the poorest areas. The Early Years Alliance is a good example. It is one of the largest community-based providers. It has 132 settings four years ago in the most deprived areas; now it has 42. It is in the childcare deserts that childminders have left at the fastest rates. They are the areas where the pressures on preschool settings are the greatest because there are so many fewer high earners who can help cross-subsidise the system. When 80% of those places are funded for poor families, you do not have the scope to borrow and cross-subsidise. You have two choices; cut the hours of your staff or cut your staff entirely. Perhaps the Minister will say that a low take-up reflects lower birth rates or that women are choosing to work from home more. If she does, I urge her to give us the evidence for that.
We can all agree that we will never deliver for children unless the Government deliver for the early years’ educators, who feel “undervalued” and “under-respected”, in their words. We really need a review of pay and conditions. Nearly half of them survive on benefits or tax credits. The Sun recently put out an article with the 20 least popular jobs in the country. At the bottom of the list, earning about £22,000, were early years educators. What does that say about the value we put on children? It is estimated that it would take five early years educators pooling their resources to afford an average-price house.
I have a few related questions. Why was there no reference at all in the Autumn Statement to the impact of higher minimum wages on those caring for three to four year-olds? Exactly how many new places are expected to be created for younger children with the new money? How many new staff will be needed, and how will they be found and retained? What is the plan?
What is the estimate of the number of younger children under the new scheme who will come from families on universal credit? How will that be evaluated? Has DfE made any estimate of the amount of dead weight—parents who are presently paying but who will move, by different means, on to the funded places? How is that being evaluated? Why have the Government rejected all the evidence from the sector and parents about the change in the ratio from 4.1 to 5.1 staff, which is going ahead despite all the evidence that this will cause retention to deteriorate further? Why, in the spring, did the Government not consult or even inform the sector regarding the planned expansion before it was announced? It read about it in the newspaper.
Why have the Government rejected Select Committee’s arguments on the need for sustainability by rejecting recommendations on the right rate of funding for all ages and the abolition of business rates? This is a unique sector with a unique national public service to offer, and it would make a massive difference if business rates were removed. Is the Minister prepared to meet with the Early Education and Childcare Coalition and the Early Years Alliance to listen to their shared concerns?
There is no need to rehearse the importance of early learning: we have decades of evidence on how and why these years have the most profound impact on what people make of their lives—speech and language, curiosity, relationships and behaviour. A threadbare, uncertain and stressful environment holds every child back. These are the same children who suffered so badly by being locked out because of Covid, and whose parents could not provide the books, the companionship, the conversation, the outdoor play, the stimulation.
The evidence is piling up. Ofsted has charted the continuing impact on child development, such as language and learning loss, and more children needing specialist help and waiting longer. The Education Policy Institute has said that according to the evidence, the disadvantage gap between poor children and the rest, which has been much reduced over the past decade, has been “reversed”. In June this year, the Public Accounts Committee noted in relation to older children that Covid had wiped out a “decade of progress” in reducing the attainment gap. This is really serious. The Children’s Commissioner told the Covid inquiry that children and the child’s perspective were entirely left out of Covid planning. It is worth reading all 130 pages of her evidence.
One of the most conspicuous failures has been not following the powerful and expert advice of Sir Kevan Collins. What was wanted for secondary and primary school children was a properly funded, coherent, active-learning programme that was not simply tutoring, but which brought enrichment, motivation and an appetite to learn. I know that because I spent much of my life in that sector.
No one in the Chamber disputes the link between children in poverty and school failure, nor how the number has grown. No one disputes that putting the childcare sector on a stable footing and making that investment work properly is as much about expanding the minds of children as it is about expanding the economy, and the care economy in particular, which underpins it all. It is about ensuring that the future is in safe, intelligent and courageous hands.
This why the current situation is so profoundly frustrating and dispiriting, and I have some sympathy with Ministers in this respect. We seem to have ended up with a Treasury model focused on childcare, not children. Children are invisible and their value is commodified into the cost of places, rather than optimising the benefits to them. Although the additional funding this spring and the announcement yesterday are of course welcome, they do not put right the profound structural problems that will make it so difficult to deliver this policy, which we all want to see—indeed, they could make it worse.
If the evidence in the next few months shows that there is an issue with delivery, I urge the Government to listen to what the sector tells them and not to short-change providers, parents and children. We need to assert that every child matters, and we need to see this at the centre of every government policy, in bold caps. Otherwise, after years of failing to provide, this will be the generation that was promised more but given less.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, last week I introduced a debate on the impact of edtech on the learning, social development and privacy of children, and more than one noble Lord stood up and said that they were an expert not on tech but on education. So, this afternoon, I hope noble Lords will bear with me because I am standing up and saying that I am not an expert in education but rather in tech, and it is from that perspective that I will make my contribution.
I declare my interests as in the register, specifically as adviser to the AI Institute in Oxford and fellow of the computer department there, and chair of the Digital Futures for Children Centre at the LSE, and of the 5Rights Foundation.
Technology is neither the enemy nor the salvation of the education sector, whether for school age or early-years children. It has magical qualities of interactivity, transporting children to places and spaces they would otherwise not experience. It has the benefit of consistency and predictability, so a good programme or experience can be reproduced an infinite number of times. Technology is multifaceted: it contributes to complex management systems, delivery of services, learning products, devices, safety tech—and, of course, that includes technology that we consider part of the fabric of a child’s life, from TV to radio to talking toys. I want to make it clear at the outset that it is not technology itself but rather the gaps between how it is being sold, used and governed that I seek to highlight.
In June 2022, Nesta, as part of its mission to close the gaps in school readiness, undertook to see whether it could harness the trend of increasing screentime to narrow the gap in language, maths and literacy experienced by children from low-income households. The Nesta report is relentlessly optimistic in assuming a positive role for digital tech, yet the first three of its four key findings were that it is imperative to improve the quality of toddler tech, so it delivers greater benefit for children’s social, emotional and cognitive development; to help parents navigate a crowded market, so it is easier to identify apps worth their children’s time; and to make high-quality content freely available to low-income families. This third recommendation came on the back of the finding that 88% of toddler apps had in-app advertising, 70% had in-app purchases, meaning that you had to pay to progress in a puzzle or a task, and 58% of all of them had low-quality or no educational value at all. The fourth and final recommendation was a call for further research on how technology could boost children’s outcomes.
The Nesta report is worth a read because, even in this refreshingly pro-tech report, the lack of quality in learning and developmental outcomes for children was stark, as was the shameless creation of an advertising market targeted at the under-fives.
I was disturbed to discover that several colleagues recently suggested that there was an outpouring of research showing that early-years development was increasingly inhibited or stalled because of screen use. I asked Children and Screens, at the Institute of Digital Media and Child Development in the United States, to share its evidence of tech impact on early years. With something of a spoiler alert, I shall read the conclusion:
“High-quality, age-appropriate educational content can have positive impacts on learning and socioemotional development—but not over and above the effects of traditional learning or interpersonal interactions. There is little research that technology is particularly beneficial for educational outcomes, and screen time (particularly TV and video games) relates to poorer academic performance. Technology can increase access to education (eg remote learning), but rarely if ever improves upon traditional learning in its current uses. In the meantime, excessive screen time and online interactions, without proper safety precautions and literacy, can expose children to harm”.
In the detail of its findings, the institute provided research from around the world showing that more screen use is related to lower scores on language and literacy development; that higher passive screen time— “passive” is the key word in that sentence—relates to worse working memory; and that passive screentime in the first five years of life correlates with problems with attention and concentration, learning rules, cognitive flexibility and hyperactivity. There is also a whole set of other problems if what they are watching is age-inappropriate.
There is a worry that screen time is currently, and increasingly, displacing peer play in one to three year-olds, resulting in poorer social development. There is a problem with the quality of what children are seeing or doing, whether they are doing it alone or with a carer, and the opportunity cost—that is, what they are not doing while they are looking at the screen. There is also a problem of widespread privacy and safety concerns in an entirely unregulated market. Then there is the problem of the Government’s response, because while the Government have taken a robust view of the need to regulate tech, particularly in relation to children, they have consistently exempted educational settings, creating a bizarre situation where a child’s privacy and safety protections are worse in education and care settings than they are outside. Leaving tech outside any formal oversight has resulted in the free flow of products and services that claim to be educational but have no right or reason to be considered educational and are gathering children’s personal data at an alarming rate.
While the age appropriate design code brought forward in the Data Protection Act 2018, started in this very Chamber, brought in wide-ranging design changes to tech platforms to protect children’s privacy, an exemption is made for schools and education settings. In many cases, edtech providers do not have to provide the high bar of privacy by design afforded by the AADC, the impact of which I set out last week in debate and can be found in Hansard. In short, there is an eyewatering flood of children’s personal and intimate data straight into the commercial sector.
Similarly, however much I welcome the Online Safety Act, it states:
“A user-to-user service or a search service is exempt if … the provider of the service is … the person with legal responsibility for education or childcare … a person who is employed or engaged to provide education or childcare”
or if
“the service is provided for the purposes of that education or childcare”.
The true impact of this exemption will not be fully understood until we see the detail of Ofcom’s children’s code, but I believe that it will result in some rather contradictory outcomes in which tech providers have fewer duties to children in education and childcare settings than when they access the same or similar services from a bus.
Turning to the need for standards and certification of the tech itself, I want to briefly mention, as I did last week, the work of Dr Laura Outhwaite, a researcher from UCL, who while looking at maths apps for under-fives found that of the top 25 only one had been peer reviewed, half did not meet good practice of learning support and six had no maths content at all.
There is a consensus across many studies and academics that edtech that is worth a child’s time needs four things. It needs to promote active learning, which means activating mental activity on the child’s part and not just clicking or swiping. It needs to consist of learning material, which means engaging with, rather than distracting from, the learning goal—that is, it needs to not include advertising, mini-games or other things that distract and collect data. It needs to be meaningful and relatable, which means providing scaffolding from what children already know or can relate to to support new learning. It needs to include social interaction. That is key, since passive watching has significantly poorer outcomes, so it should encourage interpersonal interaction and use parasocial relationships rather than encouraging exclusively solo play. In addition to those four requirements, children at schools and in early years provision should be afforded privacy and safety equal to or greater than that afforded in other settings.
On the idea that the provision of, and compliance with, safeguarding standards that are routinely delivered by school and carers is equal to the ICO, Ofcom or an edtech standards and certification body—which currently does not exist but is sorely needed—I ask noble Lords to imagine why we expect a nursery teacher to check the privacy or security of an app. Why is it okay for a company to provide a sales pitch to a teacher or a school leader that fails to mention that there is no, or poor, educational benefit, as is found in 58% of edtech?
That rather disheartening list should be seen in the context that high-quality digital media that encourages engagement and conversation can inspire and educate even the youngest child, which means that the quality and format of what children are given matter, in many cases just as much as the amount of time they are doing it and whether they are using tech in a shared context with truly interested and focused adult engagement. Although it remains the view of paediatric associations both here and in the US that under-twos should have no screen time other than for video calling, there are real opportunities that we are missing because of the poor oversight and wrongheaded view that schools and early years safeguarding adequately covers tech from a regulatory point of view. At the same time, we provide no standards for the tech itself.
I want to associate myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and add to her concerns that where money is an issue, tech is often considered to be the answer. I urge all noble Lords to take seriously the role of tech in this situation.
I have been raising these issues for some time with Ministers, regulators and in debates about technology, and I hope that in joining with those of you who are experts in education, we can focus on something which I believe to be, at best, a terrible oversight and, at worst, a failure to respond to a known harm, or a series of known harms, and that together we can address these issues across disciplines.
Before I sit down, I have a couple to questions for the Minister, some of which will be familiar to her. Does she agree that it would benefit children, parents, teachers and carers if there were a system of certification and quality control across the edtech sector, and that the privacy of children in school, where data shared is both sensitive and compulsory to provide, is an urgent matter and should be covered by the upcoming data protection Bill? That would be a useful conversation between the education department and DSIT. Will the Minister agree to ask officials to consider formally how the decision to exempt from the Online Safety Act schools and early learning might impact children in education and childcare settings? I look forward to her response.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Andrews for bringing this crucial topic to the House. It is vital that this Government think seriously about early education and implement strategies to mitigate the awful reductions in education attainment across the whole spectrum of school age groups, made significantly worse since the Covid-19 pandemic.
We all know that a child, even before it is born, can feel a whole lot of aspects that are going on through its mother’s womb, including violence and calmness. So when the child is born, it is absolutely vital that it starts to have early education, including in the home. That is why Sure Start projects should be reinstated, so that mothers, fathers or carers can take children to groups to start them being social at a very early age and so that they learn to share, talk and behave and learn all the aspects that my noble friend spoke about earlier through apps and so on. I am very pleased about her lecture; I will send it on to others, as many parents and care workers need to know about that. I thank her so much.
Why are early years important? When discussing childhood education, preschool often gets relegated to the sidelines, as if it were somehow of secondary importance compared with primary and secondary schooling. Pre-education gives the ground rules and start to every child. We like to say that every child is born equal, but if they are not having preschool and that sort of help in the home and outside, they will be losing already. If we look at how children develop—and, importantly, when they develop—we may become inclined to pay a little more attention to this overlooked phase of our children’s development journey.
The simple fact is that early years education tremendously impacts on lifelong achievements. The majority of all development occurs during the very first years in this world, and 85% of our language is cemented before the age of five. I can tell that with young children around me. That is even more so these days, when it is even quicker; for some reason, they grasp things much faster. Between the ages of 18 months and five years, a child goes from knowing approximately 50 words to using around 2,000 and understanding some 5,000 more. This kind of rapid development happens at no other time during our lives, and the same pattern of booming cognitive ability happens in other areas, too, including physical, psycho-emotional and cognitive ability. All these skills are the foundations that later learning and development are built on. That is why we have to invest more. If a child has encountered disadvantages during this time, this has already had an effect.
According to the Times Education Commission,
“40 per cent of the attainment gap that can be seen at the age of 16 is already in place before those children even start school”.
So a bad start at an early age can never be made up; we know that education cannot be made up for those children who start school as late as five. The commission states:
“A child’s development score as young at 22 months is”
the
“predictor of where they will be educationally at the age of 26”.
That is very frightening, but we know that it is the truth.
Often, the entire process has occurred before a child has encountered a teacher. The importance of properly funded, well-trained and well-staffed preschool education has gone entirely amiss under this Government. The decision to increase staff-to-child ratios in early years settings sends a clear signal, because children need people to look after them. You cannot increase how many children the teacher or carer will look after; we should decrease the number of children they have to look after, so that the children can get much more attention. This is sending a clear signal that, instead of giving the sector the much-needed investment it needs, they would rather lower the standards of care available—at the moment of a child’s life that is arguably the most important.
Another important issue with going to childcare or nursery schools is food. We know that a child and its brain cannot function without food—we have to understand this. It is vital that we provide more breakfast clubs, so that children get food when they go to nursery. Those who cannot afford that should be given free food. Also, we should have free school meals, including during the holidays, which is a very difficult time. This will affect the generations to come and we will not be a country that is fast flowing if we do not invest in our young people from the very beginning.
These decisions on the quality of preschool education affect not only the child’s attainment but the economy and our society at large. The Times estimated that, for every £1 spent on early education, £13 would be saved later. That is not a lot of money when added up over a long time. The money will be saved later in a child’s life in education, catch-up interventions and, more importantly, mental health and health. Research from the Effective Pre-School, Primary and Secondary Education project showed that children who attend preschool have better education and social outcomes at the end of primary and secondary education, and have higher GCSE scores and the potential for higher earnings.
I come to Covid and post-pandemic changes to early years education. For children, we can even say that the pandemic is not fully over. They continue to be impacted by the effects of lockdown measures, and it is still difficult to ascertain just how harmful the pandemic period has been on their development. That applies in particular to those who were locked in high-rise flats with nowhere to turn, who had balconies but could not go out on them because it was unsafe and who received no education, with no way of ascertaining anything with regard to preschool.
During the first national lockdown, early years settings experienced partial closures, permitting only children of key workers and those considered vulnerable. Who decides whether a child is vulnerable? A child can be vulnerable in a rich family or a poor family—all sorts of factors determine that decision. Despite subsequent lockdowns allowing preschools to remain open in many circumstances, statistics released by the Department for Education in December 2021 highlighted that attendance levels had not reverted to their pre-pandemic status. We see that today with children who are not attending school, and the numbers of those who are not attending preschool are even worse. Parents are keeping children at home because of costs, but that is damaging that child beyond damage. Consequent numbers of children have missed out on valuable guidance from early years practitioners.
Families continue to grapple with the challenge of balancing childcare alongside remote work, health concerns and the cost of living crisis, which has meant that many cannot afford full-time preschool. That is why we have to have nursery schools attached to schools; regardless of the cost, this is vital to the country. Additionally, a report from the Children’s Commissioner has revealed that a substantial number of children endured adverse circumstances during lockdown, including experiences of poverty, exposure to domestic violence, parental mental health challenges, instances of parental abuse and even more violence.
Early years education needs to be taken as seriously and given as much time and attention as primary and secondary education. The early years education system needs reform, and quickly, if barriers to entry are going to be broken, especially if they exist alongside the wealth divide. We must place more nurseries in primary schools and integrate early years into the more formal education sector. This would not only help bring down costs for parents of young children and babies but would also help to standardise and improve the levels of care and education delivered at a young age.
Early years educators should be on the same pay scale as primary educators, and more teaching graduates need to be brought into the profession and encouraged. Our early years facilities are closing down at alarming rates, and educators are leaving the field en masse. Much of this issue stems from early years underfunding and undercaring, and the idea that this area does not matter, and children can go to school at five but not before—that is it. The Government, and any Government after them, must put investment in the early years education sector central to any long-term strategy for education.
I will say a word about families and children of refugees in this country. Many families have come to this country not as refugees but sometimes because they have been displaced by war or climate change. Those children should be in school and should have the advantage of preschool as well; over the years they have and they have not. These are the future generations and it is about our soft power; they may decide to stay here or to go elsewhere, but we need to take care of those families properly because they will be our partners as the world goes further.
I come back to say that, when you are thinking about moving refugee families, think about the children’s education, including their preschool education, and their health. That is vital; otherwise, it will cost those families, the country and the world much more. We should take that more into consideration when we are moving children of refugees abruptly.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and to share her passionate concern about the level of inequality that affects children’s start in life and therefore affects people throughout their lives.
I have been enjoying taking part in this debate and am particularly glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, brought her expertise to this afternoon’s session. I was particularly interested in her focus on advertising built into apps, built into systems where parents feel as if they are doing the right thing by exposing their children to them. It is the Green Party’s policy to ban all advertising targeted at children of primary school age or under, because there is psychological evidence that shows that children are unable to distinguish between editorial content and advertising content—where, indeed, there is a difference between those two. I understand that it may not be in her brief, but I ask the Minister later, if possible, to say what actions the Government plan to crack down on advertising aimed at a vulnerable population with no way of understanding that what has been targeted at it is advertising.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for giving us the opportunity for this debate and for introducing it so powerfully. I have crossed out quite a number of things in my speech in an attempt not to repeat but rather to add to what has been said in this debate. I note that for the second debate in a row, there are no Tory Back-Bench speakers. I have to draw the contrast between this debate and yesterday’s debate on the Autumn Statement, where we saw a large number of speakers with a very different gender balance. I urge those who participated in yesterday’s debate, if they read the Hansard of this debate, to think about the fact that if they will not think or care about early childhood education for other reasons, they should at least acknowledge this is the foundation of our economy. In yesterday’s debate, we were—as we are practically every day in the House—lamenting the terrible level of productivity in the UK. Where is the foundation of that? With our inadequate early years provision. If you will not care about it for other reasons, please think about caring about it for that great god of the economy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in setting up this debate, focused on the impact of Covid, and we have already heard very powerful testimony about that, but it has exacerbated problems right through our education system from early years onwards. Of course, when children leave the early years system, they go immediately to baseline testing. Then, in primary schools they have SATs and all the pressure, worry and concern that they raise. Our whole education system is focused on teaching to the test, treating children like an empty vessel into which a whole lot of information is poured. They are shaped into a work-ready form. I go back to 2013 and the then Childcare Minister, Liz Truss—you might remember her. Liz Truss, having, in her position as Minister, toured a number of early years settings, said:
“I have seen too many chaotic settings, where children are running around. There’s no sense of purpose”.
I ask the Minister if that still reflects the philosophy and approach of the Government.
As an alternative approach that I think the Government should be taking, I will point her towards the work of Paul Ramchandani, the world’s first Professor of Play in Education, Development and Learning, who is based at the University of Cambridge. I encourage the department to look at the professor’s work, which very much focuses in the early years setting on the fact that that play is fundamental for children to learn and develop. For younger children, that is where they learn to communicate, to share, to interact with other children and to manage their emotions when things do not work out. There is an excellent article in the Times Education Supplement covering this much more broadly than I have time to today. Does the Minister agree that early years education has to be focused on the development of the whole child, rather than making them school-ready in the narrow Liz Truss sense?
In addressing this debate, I have three sections: philosophy, staff and some inequality points, building on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.
One of the things to think about in the Green Party philosophy is that early years education should go on for longer. In many countries, academic learning is not introduced until the age of seven. These early years should be regarded as a unique educational stage in their own right, not just as preparation for school. Here is one of the practical realities that we see: I am sure that many of the noble Lords taking part in this debate are regularly contacted by parents who are concerned about their child being the youngest in the year and struggling developmentally to keep up with children who are almost a year older than them. We need to recognise the variance in children’s development and give them the chance to develop in that early years setting, which should—indeed, can—be much more flexible and adaptable than a school setting could ever possibly be.
We think that we should see a movement towards the early years going on for longer. One thing that is really important, but which much of our early years provision does not currently enable, is regular access to outdoor green spaces and nature. We are very much aware of the fact that this has both educational and health benefits. We now understand that the human microbiome is crucial to our well-being. Being in natural environments, for example playing in the mud, has all kinds of health benefits to which, sadly, many of our young children simply do not have access either in their early years setting or in their home environment. The science shows us that the benefits are huge. I do not know whether the Minister can offer me any hope that the Government acknowledge the importance of that exposure to the natural world—that is, physically being in the natural world. Can she say whether the Government have any plans to increase that opportunity?
I come to staffing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has already covered quite a bit; I will lean heavily here on the Early Education and Childcare Coalition’s report, prepared with the Women’s Budget Group. The Government are talking; I welcome them saying, “We need to expand early years provision and improve the quality”. However, the coalition’s figures show that 57% of nursery staff are planning to leave their jobs in the next year, while two-thirds of nurseries are already reporting an average waiting time of six months for a place. We have a long-term situation where car mechanics are generally paid far more than childcare workers. This is an old feminist commentary on the gendered nature of those two roles, of course, but we have to acknowledge that this issue is crucial for all our futures. We need to value our workers.
Some of the practical recommendations from the coalition are really worth focusing on; they are not necessarily enormously expensive. They include having a career development hub at the Department for Education, because one thing that this study and others have very much focused on is the fact that there is not really any way for people to develop their skills practically. Nurseries are often understaffed and struggle to keep up with the legislative requirements on staffing levels. Their ability to have time for staff to go away for training and further development just is not there. What is also crucial—I will come back to this—is the need for more special educational needs training so that we can meet the increasing demands for special educational needs provision in early years education.
Further to that point about allowing staff to go away for training, the report recommends a system of having bank staff at the local authority level to enable staff to take time out for training. This would mean that staff could do so without any negative implications for their employer. There is also the experts and mentoring scheme for childminders. Do the Government plan for that to become a permanent programme?
I will finish with a point that I have raised before with the Minister and cannot avoid raising in this context, as we are focusing so broadly on the early years sector—the rising number of hedge funds and those in the financial sector investing in it. These people are not running nurseries because they are passionate about children’s development or because they really want to make a difference. By definition, they are there to make a profit. There are now 81,500 childcare places in England owned by investment funds and similar organisations. That is almost double the total in 2018.
A report from UCL academics last year said that these are very risky financial models, heavily indebted and at real risk of collapse—as we have seen in the care home sector. I put this on the record because I suspect that many parents do not realise the role of the financial sector in their provision. We all know how desperately parents have to hunt around for a place and then grab what they can, but I wonder whether they know that Busy Bees Nurseries is owned by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. Kids Planet is owned by the private equity firm Fremman Capital, which has recently been on a large buying spree of expansion. The Dutch private equity firm Waterland recently acquired Partou. The London-based Oakley Capital owns what it renamed the Bright Stars Nursery Group, which is one of the fastest growing.
We are talking about something fundamental. We are talking about the future—and we are not doing very well.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. What a fascinating and wide-ranging debate this has proved to be. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Andrews for securing the debate and for the excellent way in which she introduced it. I note that I am the first male to speak. I spoke to her about whether I should put my name down as I thought I would be rather wide of the mark, but as I listened to the contributions, particularly from my noble friend Lady Goudie on free school meals, I recognised that, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, while I am not an expert on education I have spent a bit of time working on health.
When we look at the totality of what influences babies and children in their early years and children early on in school, all these important factors come together—media, the environment, what we eat and do not eat, what we are taught. My contribution will, I am sure, make the Minister groan, as we have been on the subject as recently as two weeks ago: what we feed our children and what we do not feed our children but should. I declare an interest as a founding member of the All-Party Group on Nutrition: Science and Health and as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Obesity. In recent years I have increasingly spent more time on children and obesity than on adult obesity.
Labour has an extraordinarily good record. We should keep saying this over the coming months. Back at the turn of the century, the Labour Government then in power started to get concerned about the growth in obesity among schoolchildren and babies. There was a programme on the radio today about babies’ food. One of the big issues is the amount of sugar that we are feeding to babies, unbeknown to many parents as they feed their children. I declare my interest as a patron of a small charity, Sugarwise, which was founded by a woman who happened to look at the ingredients in what she was feeding her baby. She was astounded by the high element of sugar that her child was being fed, which she believed had an influence. It continues and there is a very big case for further work to be done on babies’ food, but today I am looking at schoolchildren.
The Labour Government were concerned about children aged three to four, and upwards, that were starting to put on weight. In 2006, after doing some research, they introduced the national child measurement programme to check the height and weight of most schoolchildren from age four to five and 10 and 11. It has now also gone into school breakfasts. The aim was to track the changes that were taking place with children’s height and weight, to assess whether they were overweight and if they were then to try to take measures in conjunction with local schools and parents to try to reverse the growth in obesity. In 2007, they turned their attention to school meals because they recognised that, if they were to influence the course of events on health, this was the area where they had the greatest scope. They examined the quality of school meals and then in 2008 devised a programme to produce a set of regulations on the quality of school meals being presented to our children. Unfortunately, we went out of power in 2010, but that was a very ambitious and comprehensive programme. What a great pity that we were not able to stay in power and enforce those regulations properly, as we would not be facing the problems we now have with our young children.
In 2013, the coalition Government decided to do a review of those regulations governing the quality of school meals, and they changed them. There was concern about insufficient energy in the definitions, so they eased the rules—believe it or not—so that it was possible to increase the amount of sugar in the meals. The Front Bench of the Lib Dems have some responsibility for this, as they were then part of the coalition. I do not know whether they agreed with what was happening in the coalition Government’s internal debates, but they were certainly part of it. Public Health England started getting worried in 2016 about the continued growth in obesity, and it set up a programme aiming to reduce it by 20% in children by 2020. There was then an intention by the Conservative Government to undertake a review of those regulations in 2018-19, but then—in fairness to them—Covid hit us, and they have not had the opportunity to do so.
We have reached a stage where children are continuing to put on weight. Not only that, but we are now starting to identify children aged 10 to 11 with type 2 diabetes. These are people who will have their lives shortened. If this cannot be reversed, they will have attendant problems with ill health in their 40s and 50s, and possibly even end up with amputations taking place. The Government have responsibility in these areas. People like me have been pressing them to undertake this review of the regulations and reduce the amount of sugar that is now permitted to be served to children, early in school as well as at breakfasts, back to at least the level applied by the regulations introduced by the good Labour Government in 2007-08.
My colleagues here, whom I hope will be going into government, should take note of this. They should congratulate the former Labour Government for what they did on this and we should pick that up and run with it. If the present Government are not prepared to undertake a review of these regulations governing food, the Labour Government in their manifesto should at least be willing to commit to look at the quality of school meals, seek to improve it and reduce the amount of sugar in them.
I pressed the Minister two weeks ago to do that, on the basis of the good messages I heard from her side, her Front Bench and her health spokesperson, and in writing. I thought that there would be a review this autumn, yet I regret that, when the noble Baroness responded two weeks ago, she gave no indication at all that that would happen. I hope the Minister will reflect on that in the light of this House’s decision to set up a special committee to look at ultra-processed food, sugar, fat and salt. That group will be doing that work over the coming year and I hope that I might be a member, as I would press, as your Lordships might expect, that it looks especially at what happens to children. As we have said in so many other areas, what happens in their early years governs their development for the rest of their lives. Without good health, we do not get good education and all that goes with it.
I hope the Minister reflects on whether to do this review, because it is urgently needed. This is not a party-political issue: children are entitled to better food than they are getting at the moment. The Minister may say that it is healthy and nutritious. I think it probably is nutritious, but whether it is healthy is highly questionable, given the amount of sugar that is now going in. I have even been getting complaints from people who produce school meals that they are unhappy about what they have to produce and serve because, with the cost pressures now on them, they feel that they are not able to make the best possible food for children. I hope the Minister reflects on that and maybe redeems the Government by putting in place the review earlier than she had indicated last time we spoke about this.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I reflect on how it was the coalition Government, pushed strongly by their Liberal Democrat element, who brought in free school meals for all key stage 2 pupils.
I remember that my first education essay was on the importance of play—I think I still have a copy of it somewhere—and my second was on good toilet training. That is something on which we can all reflect.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for initiating this debate and for her important and well-measured speech. Anybody who watched BBC’s main news last night will have seen vividly the effects of the Covid lockdown on three very young children. Their speech, after intensive speech therapy, is only now beginning to develop.
I hope we all know about the importance of early years provision. However, it is too often framed by the needs of working parents, with political parties trying to outbid each other on the number of hours offered, rather than looking at the quality and importance to the development of the child. Early years provision provides the hugely important benefit of social interaction with other children of a similar age—making friends and learning to establish connections, learning to share, taking turns, listening to others, playing together with other children as well as independently, learning from peers, copying and helping each other. I was quite right about the importance of play. Developing communication skills which will increase their vocabulary and language through a wide range of different situations, learning how to communicate their feelings and opinions, and interacting with peers and adults other than just their parents are vital parts of their development.
Playing with other children also provides an ideal opportunity for them to gain a greater understanding of other people’s feelings—empathy—and increase their own independence and confidence. That added independence can nurture a child’s self-confidence; help to develop their own personality, disposition, thoughts and ideas; and encourage a child to discover more and more about themselves. Learning basic tasks by themselves, taking part in activities and spending time with others develops their confidence and builds a foundation that prepares them not only for school but the outside world.
Early years education is a springboard to learn new skills academically, socially and emotionally. The child will learn new life skills every day, from putting on a raincoat to mathematical concepts, which are valuable to build future foundations. Early years provides routine and structure to a child’s day, including mealtimes, naps, and indoor and outdoor activities. The routine of early years provision helps the child feel more confident, secure and in control of their feelings. Knowing what to expect and when enables a child to play more of an active role in tasks.
Every parent hopes that their child will develop to their full potential, and this is enshrined in Article 6 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, across England, a significant number of children are not developing the competencies and abilities that they need to start off their lives. At the start of 2022, 154,689 children were missing out on their entitlement. Half of disadvantaged pupils were found to not be at their expected level of development. Good-quality provision is vital for children’s development, equipping them with the foundational physical, cognitive, social and emotional skills needed to be successful in adolescence and adulthood.
I turn to mental health services in early years. I remind the House that, in January, it will be five years since the Government published the NHS Long Term Plan, which promised that mental health services would be comprehensive in covering children aged nought to 19. However, five years on, it is clear that mental health support is coming too late, and the services that support vulnerable babies and toddlers are few and far between. There is, in effect, a baby blind spot. A baby’s early experiences shape their brain development, so getting help early is the key to preventing mental health disorders in children.
In January 2019, the NHS Long Term Plan promised that at least 66,000 women with moderate to severe perinatal mental health difficulties would have access to specialist community care from pre-conception to 24 months after birth. Does the Minister not agree that it is time to set an equivalent target for the next five years, which will drive and increase services that help vulnerable babies and toddlers? The Government have recognised the need, and they estimate in their Start for Life initiative that 10% of babies are at risk. The Parent-Infant Foundation was among those organisations calling on the Government to set a target for the NHS to support 60,000 vulnerable babies over the next five years who are at risk of developing mental health conditions in childhood.
It always surprises me that, in education, the older you get the more money is spent on you: a sixth-former gets more money than a 12 year-old or 13 year-old, who gets more money than a seven year-old or eight year-old, and a preschool or nursery child gets the least amount of money. That is unbelievable. This is the time of their development, and shapes what they will be like as adults. Yet we as a society—in all political parties; this is not an attack on the Government—have an educational view that the younger you are, the fewer resources and less money you need.
Early years is the most important stage in a child’s life, yet do we invest in quality provision? Do we ensure that staff are well trained and well rewarded, so we attract the best possible people? Do we ensure that there is regular updating of their skills and knowledge? Why do we not have a qualified nursery teacher as head of every early years provision and setting? Here is a radical thought: given that the very life opportunities and rounded development of the child start in early years, should we not consider making early years a statutory/compulsory part of education?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Andrews for securing this debate. It has been very interesting and varied, with considerable consensus on the need to provide children the best start in life. I declare an interest as London’s deputy mayor for fire and resilience, as I will refer to the problems in securing childcare faced by shift workers, including firefighters, later on in the debate.
However, before I speak on the subject being debated today, I would like to pay tribute to Alistair Darling. There can be few politicians who have contributed so much to this country, both in his leadership in his roles in government and in his leadership in keeping the union intact. I did not have the close friendship with him of so many noble Lords, but unlike many Members I had the privilege of voting for him, in 1997 when I lived in his constituency. I know the thoughts of all noble Lords will be with his family at today’s deeply shocking and sad news.
My noble friend Lady Andrews gave a stark picture of the issues within the early years sector, with areas of deprivation seeing higher loss of provision, to providers simply not being able to take on more government-funded free hours. As highlighted by my noble friend Lady Goudie, there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that the pandemic has impacted the social, physical and communicational development of children. There has to be a focus on how to address this, otherwise a bad situation will continue to get worse and potentially blight the lives of children in this country, both now and throughout their lives.
I welcome the fact that so many speakers today have focused on the child. As my noble friend Lady Andrews has said, the child needs to be at the front and centre in how we plan for and deliver early years education provision and environments. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, spoke about what is required to make edtech work for this age group. My noble friend Lady Goudie highlighted the critical skills of language that children need to develop in their early years. Speech and Language UK has identified that, since the Covid-19 lockdowns, a greater number of children face challenges talking. In September, it published a report which found that a growing number of children faced challenges talking and understanding words, from an estimated 1.5 million in 2021 to 1.9 million in 2023.
Labour will ensure that children get support in developing early communication skills, to ensure that every child develops a strong foundation in speech and language development that sets them up to achieve. Labour intends to equip every school with funding to deliver evidence-based early language interventions. For example, the Nuffield Early Language Intervention, which provides small-group language teaching sessions, has been shown to significantly improve the language skills of reception pupils, aged four and five.
I welcome the description of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, of the need and value of outdoor play, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. This and socialisation are clearly vital. The UNICEF UK briefing to Members ahead of today’s debate estimates that around 155,000 children in the UK are missing out on their entitlement to free early childhood education and care. They provided an example of a mother whose son has symptoms of autism, and on that basis had been suspended from his nursery. She was struggling to find a nursery that would accept a child with symptoms of autism but who had not had a diagnosis. For those with a diagnosis, UNICEF UK also described the situation of little support and no clear pathway for it. These are among the children with the greatest need for good early years education: those who can least afford to miss out. However, they and so many others are currently missing out.
As my noble friend Lady Goudie pointed out, it has a hugely harmful impact on all children’s attainment when they miss out on this. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government plan to address this issue, particularly in relation to children with SEN or issues that they await diagnosis on?
My noble friend Lady Andrews referred to the use of the term “fragile” by the sector to describe the precarious present and future state that many providers find themselves in. She quoted some truly shocking statistics about the state of play. The current funding model is forcing many businesses out of the market and many more out of providing free hours. The Tories’ broken hours system has relied for too long, and unofficially, on cross-subsidy, with paid hours and additional costs to parents making up the difference. This means that the Government’s welcome offer of further free hours earlier in the year simply cannot be met. Unless further action is taken, this will be yet another empty promise.
I will not repeat all the statistics used in the debate, but it is not rocket science: childcare businesses are going bust in alarming numbers because their expenses—their costs of doing business—are rising and their income is simply not matching it. Many providers that are still in business are struggling and many simply cannot afford to subsidise the Government’s free hours scheme any longer. A survey of 800 providers by the Early Years Alliance found that only one in five providers that currently offer places to two year-olds plans to deliver additional places under the expanded entitlement. Another third said that they were unsure whether they would deliver places under the new scheme.
As my noble friend Lady Andrews said in her opening remarks, Ofsted figures show that the service has shrunk from 85,000 providers to just 60,000 since 2015. There are now two children for every Ofsted-registered childcare place in England. The knock-on effect is that parents—often mothers—are coming out of the workforce to take care of their child or children. Does the Minister agree that this situation shows that the Government are failing families?
On yesterday’s announcements, the Government have clearly recognised the dire financial state of the sector. However, it is clear from the response of sector representatives that the funding falls far short of what is needed. Can the Minister tell the House what assessment of the sector’s viability and ability to deliver on the commitment of free hours the Government have made, including of the funding required? Given that the announced funding is to go to local authorities, could she tell us how much of it will go to nurseries and childminders, who the chief executive of the Early Years Alliance said yesterday were “still in the dark” as to how much they will receive? Has this now been clarified?
Another major block for delivery in the sector is recruitment and retention. This was highlighted by my noble friend Lady Andrews and others, including the critical need, which is also an ask of the Local Government Association, for a workforce plan. My noble friend mentioned that 57% of nursery staff and 38% of childminders are considering leaving the sector in the next 12 months. This is simply not sustainable.
Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will work with the sector and local government to develop an effective workforce plan focused both on drawing people into the sector and on their ongoing training and development needs, so that the quality of the provision gives children the benefits they need and deserve? If she can commit to this, would she ensure that it also covers childminders and addresses an increasing reliance on childminder agencies—a trend about which the LGA has raised concerns? Early years care will form part of Labour’s workforce strategy, which offers more opportunities through high-quality training and recognition for the skilled work of early years practitioners.
This House recently spent a lot of time discussing levelling up. Childcare and early years education have to be a major part of levelling up children’s chances in life and breaking down barriers to their success. Some small measures related to childcare were added towards the end of the levelling-up Bill’s passage through Parliament. Labour tabled an amendment to allow councils to run childcare provision themselves when they judge that it is right to do so, not simply as a last resort. I am grateful to the Minister for the Government’s concession to allow this. Will the Government now ensure that local government is encouraged, and given adequate support, to do this to anticipate the current and future needs of their local populations, rather than to try to address patchy provision when providers fail?
The ONS recently published figures for UK monthly median pay in October, putting it at £2,276. With 20 hours of childcare costing £7,000 a year on average and full-time nursery care costing an eye-watering £14,000 a year, it is simply out of many parents’ reach. It has been noted that the cost of nursery places often exceeds the amounts that a family pay on their rent or mortgage. Does the Minister agree that this situation needs to be addressed, and will she accept the need for greater reform of the sector to deliver for children, parents and providers—but particularly for children?
Labour would reform childcare and early years. We know that children who are eligible for free school meals are already five months behind their peers when they start school. We have to ensure that they do not get left behind and that all children and families get the best support, which they need so that every child has the best start in life. With this in mind, Labour has commissioned an early years review led by the respected former chief inspector of Ofsted, Sir David Bell, who will be supported by a panel of independent experts. This review will consider how to deliver new places and have a motivated, well-trained workforce to deliver high and rising standards, and more accessible childcare, under Labour.
My noble friends Lady Goudie and Lord Brooke both highlighted the importance of good food in children’s development and learning. The health elements of this are crucial and, given that my noble friend Lord Brooke recently asked the Minister about school food, I hope that she is able to respond to his questions today.
This debate is focused on children, not necessarily on women’s ability to be economically active. However, it would seem inappropriate to discuss childcare and early years education without touching on this. Women are still largely the parents who have to put their careers on hold to have a family. This issue is particularly acute for those taking on shift work with irregular hours, such as police officers, firefighters and nurses, as well as people working in the hospitality sector. In the case of emergency responders, if they are in the middle of responding to an incident, they may end up having to work additional hours on a shift with no notice. Sites such as Mumsnet have many questions about this, but few solutions are offered other than family care or a costly live-in au pair or nanny, which is out of reach for most.
As a Deputy Mayor for Fire in London, I have spoken to firefighters who are in relationships with other firefighters or emergency responders. They work different shift patterns to care for their children, thereby rarely coinciding with their partner. This is far from ideal. We need working parents to be able to juggle work and their home life. Can the Minister say what more the Government will do to support the early years sector to ensure that it can cater for parents undertaking shift work?
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the many questions posed in what has been a hugely interesting and broad-ranging debate. I end by quoting my noble friend Lady Andrews in stressing this: “Children are invisible and their value is commodified into the cost of places, rather than optimising the benefits to them”. That is the situation we appear to be in. Childcare should not be just about providing care while the parents work, even though that is important. It should be viewed as a vital step in a child’s development. Labour will work to provide higher standards for early years provision, alongside better availability and a model that works for providers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I express my sadness at the untimely death of Lord Darling. We can have some small insight into the extraordinary pressure that he must have worked under, at a time of global financial crisis, and the calmness and judgment he brought to his role. We send our very best wishes to his family, in particular.
We have heard some powerful messages from across the Chamber today on the importance of high-quality early years education. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, very much for securing this debate and all noble Lords who have contributed to the topic. Whatever our perspectives, today’s debate has highlighted how crucial it is that we ensure all children have the best start in life. Decades of evidence, as we heard today, has shown that quality early years education has a critical positive effect on children’s outcomes, in the short and the long term. That is why the Government are committed to ensuring that every child receives high-quality education and care.
I absolutely accept that His Majesty’s Opposition are rightly there to challenge the Government’s record but, before I talk more about the Government’s policies in this area and attempt to address some of the questions raised by noble Lords, I feel it is important for the record to say that some of the remarks about how unsuccessful our education system is are very far from the truth. We have seen a significant improvement in reading and in maths. Our children aged nine and 10 are now fourth in the world and the best in the western world at reading. There has been a significant improvement in maths as well. That has been thanks to the absolute focus that this Government, and in particular my former ministerial colleague Minister Gibb, paid to this very important plank for future education. I absolutely accept the challenges posed by noble Lords, but we need to keep the record straight on the Government’s record on education.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, gently again raised the important issues of childhood obesity. I will take back his thoughts to my ministerial colleagues about the importance of a review and the work he is leading in relation to ultra-processed foods. The early years foundation stage framework requires that, where children are provided with meals, snacks or drinks in an early years setting, they need to be healthy and nutritious. We have example menus for early years settings in England and provide guidance to staff on menu planning. I hope that he takes some reassurance from the focus within early years, although I accept his concerns about the wider issues of obesity.
The quality of our early years provision was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and others. England has some of the highest-quality provision in the world, with 96% of early years settings rated good or outstanding by Ofsted as of August 2023, which is up from 74% in 2012. The early years foundation stage statutory framework sets the standards that all early years providers must follow to ensure that children have the skills and knowledge they need to thrive. In 2021, this Government reformed the early years framework more broadly to improve early years outcomes for all children, particularly disadvantaged children—noble Lords rightly raised the subject—in the critical areas that build the foundations for later success, such as mathematics, language development and literacy and, importantly, in play, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, articulated so clearly.
I am delighted to be able to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that we are making great progress in encouraging children to connect with nature. We recently launched our National Education Nature Park; I can send her the link. This is providing children in every school the chance to map their school grounds and upload those digitally, so that we can build a whole digital map. There are grants for schools with very low levels of biodiversity to be able to increase biodiversity. I visited an extremely urban school in Birmingham earlier this week to see what it was doing in relation to the nature park. It is growing vegetables; it has chickens and takes the eggs from them for the breakfast club’s scrambled eggs. I know that she is not pleased with everything the Government do, but I hope that she will accept that this is a step in the right direction.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I do not necessarily expect an immediate answer, but can the Minister perhaps think about whether it is possible to extend such a programme to nursery settings?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It has already been extended to the nursery sector. We are way ahead. But this is an important point because it sets children off in the way we hope they will continue: with a love of nature but also a sense of agency within it.
I turn to concerns that noble Lords raised about the impact of Covid on children’s development. The 2022-23 early years foundation stage profile results, published by the department today, show that there has been an increase in the proportion of five year-olds achieving a good level of development compared to last year. In 2022-23, 67.2% of children had a good level of development, and 65.6% were at the expected level across all 17 early learning goals—that is up 2% on last year. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, rightly raised concerns about recovery post Covid.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for raising important issues about children and screen time. If the noble Baroness has time, I would be happy to meet her and talk about the additional security that we think the Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance provides to children in education settings, although she is clearly not convinced it is achieving that. I do not think there is any difference in our aims and aspirations for the safety of children, so it would be helpful if the noble Baroness would agree to explore that in more detail. I absolutely agree with her about the importance of the privacy of children’s data.
I turn to the expansion in provision. We are determined to support as many families as possible with access to high-quality and affordable childcare. A number of noble Lords remarked on a focus on encouraging people—principally women—back into the workplace, which is an important goal for all the reasons that the House will be aware of. However, it is in no way a compromise on the quality and richness and developmental value that the noble Baroness opposite set out so clearly in her remarks.
By 2027-28, we expect to be spending in excess of £8 billion each year on free childcare. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, cited the current costs of childcare, which make the case eloquently for the changes that we are bringing in, because we understand that they are a tremendous pressure on those who have very young children and wish to go out to work. This huge expansion means that millions of children will benefit from the extraordinary efforts of the sector to give children the safest and highest-quality early education and childcare. As a first stage in growing and supporting the early years workforce to deliver these entitlements, the Government consulted on a number of further flexibilities to the early years foundation stage this year, which will be implemented from January 2024, so that providers can use their existing workforce better while protecting quality and safety.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked why the Government did not consult on the planned expansion. The Spring Budget announcement responded to the concerns aired and raised by parents about the cost of childcare. Since then, the noble Baroness will be aware that we have consulted on key factors of the rollout, including funding and other changes.
The quality of our early years and childcare sector is a testament to the ongoing dedication and hard work of those in the profession. Since the pandemic, the Government have committed up to £180 million of support to promote quality and best practice and provide staff with opportunities for career progression, as we heard from a number of speakers this evening. This includes a package of training, qualifications and guidance for the workforce. We have expanded the early years professional development programme to enable up to 10,000 more level 3 qualified early years practitioners to access the latest teaching in communication and language, early mathematics and personal, social and emotional development. We are also funding the national professional qualification in early years leadership, which is designed to support early years leaders to develop expertise in leading high-quality education and care, as well as effective staff and organisational management.
In addition, we are proud to say that over two-thirds of primary schools have benefited from our investment in the Nuffield early language intervention, improving the speech and language skills of over 160,000 children in reception classes so far. More than 500,000 primary school children have been screened to identify those with language development difficulties, which we know can be such a blocker for their future education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked whether the department had made an estimate of the dead weight in our expansion. There will be a full evaluation of the rollout, which will also look at that issue.
To return to the workforce issues, which were raised again by the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Twycross, and other noble Lords, to support providers to recruit the staff they need to deliver the expansion in childcare entitlements announced at the Spring Budget, we are developing a range of new workforce initiatives, including the launch of a national recruitment campaign, planned for the beginning of 2024, to boost interest in the sector and support the recruitment of talented staff. We are removing barriers to entering the workforce by ensuring that qualifications are suitable and easy to understand. This includes launching a competition to find providers of early years skills boot camps, which will include a pathway to an accelerated level 3 early years apprenticeship. We are also developing new degree apprenticeship routes so that everyone, from junior staff to senior leaders, can easily move into a career in the sector.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Goudie, challenged on whether the change in the staff-to-child ratio would make it harder to retain staff. As the House knows, we are providing flexibility to providers to move from a 4:1 to a 5:1 ratio, in line with that which exists in Scotland. However, ultimately, it is the managers of settings who know what support their children need, and they will know their staff best. The Government trust their judgment as to what ratios they believe are right for them in their settings. Supporting the workforce is obviously a priority, which is why we provided £204 million of additional funding to local authorities, so that providers can recruit and retain the staff that they need.
The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, raised a very troubling case, if I understood rightly, of a child on the autism spectrum who was suspended from nursery school, which slightly defies one’s imagination. We do recognise that quality early years education means meeting the needs of all children, which of course critically includes those with special educational needs and disabilities. The House knows very well the importance of those needs being identified as early as possible, as emphasised in the SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan, which we published in March this year.
We are funding the training of up to 7,000 early years special educational needs co-ordinators, and there is also SEND-focused content in the package of support and guidance for the workforce which I outlined earlier. We are also reviewing the operation of SEND inclusion funds within the current early years funding system to ensure that funding arrangements are both appropriate and really well-targeted to improve outcomes for preschool children with special educational needs.
To finish, I want to touch on an important point that was raised in the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, today; that quality early years education is provided not only in nurseries, childminder settings and schools but also, of course, at home. We know that a stable and stimulating home learning environment is also crucial to children’s development. That is why we secured £28.7 million between now and 2025 for local authorities to support specifically the speech and language of young children who were worst affected by the pandemic, namely today’s three and four year-olds. That programme is being delivered through family hubs and the Start for Life programme. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised the importance of parenting and children having a routine, which clearly family hubs are part of delivering.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, mentioned the return of Sure Start. As I think she will be aware, we believe that our family hubs really build on the learnings from Sure Start and from children’s centres and are a single place where a family can access all the support they need, including support for mothers with mental health issues, which noble Lords also raised.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, invited me to meet the Early Education and Childcare Coalition and the Early Years Alliance. She may be aware that the department meets both groups very regularly and I know that the Minister for Children and Families has also met them. I would be delighted to as well, if the noble Baroness would find it useful. She also asked whether we hold data on children whose families are in receipt of universal credit. That is held by the Department for Work and Pensions, but I am happy to write if that data is available. I close by thanking your Lordships—
Lord Storey (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I raised the issue of a new target for the 60,000 vulnerable babies and asked what the Government are planning to do on that. Will she write to me about it, as it is an NHS matter?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would be delighted to write about that and all the other issues that I have not had time to cover this evening.
I close by thanking your Lordships for their thoughtful contributions to the debate today and to underline our shared gratitude to early years professionals who are doing such a fantastic job to deliver high-quality education to our youngest children.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I think that is an excellent note on which to end a very good, passionate, as usual, and expert, as usual, debate. I thank the noble Baroness for associating herself and her party with our grief at the death of Lord Darling.
It has been a debate about quality, and lots of elements that constitute quality have been raised. Lots of questions have been asked and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for these known harms—and probably unknown harms as well. They are very important to explore. A whole range of issues constitute quality, including the value and the content of food and the absolute necessity of play—to quote Schiller, we are not fully human unless we know how to play.
I thank noble Lords for their emphasis on the essential nature of child development. Many questions were answered by the Minister but quite a few were not, so I would appreciate answers particularly to the questions I raised on the £400 million. I also have some questions arising from her winding up. There are reasons to be cheerful and we should not diminish the importance of, for example, those statistics about numeracy and literacy in the later primary years. However, while the information brought forward yesterday by the department suggested that 67% of children are in good development, there are still a third of children who apparently are not—that is a very high proportion. I would like that to be explored.
I would also like to know more about when the evaluations will start—I hope that it will be immediately. There are lots of initiatives, but the Minister did not really answer the questions which are so fundamental about the coherence of strategies, particularly for retention, and going forward with this acknowledged frailty in the system.
I have much more I could say, which I do not think anybody would be grateful to hear at this stage, but I am very grateful to the Minister because I know we share a huge range of values and both sides of the House want this policy to succeed. I am grateful that we have had an opportunity to dive a bit deeper into some of the issues. I would like to follow up some of the questions when I read Hansard and I will pass on the invitation to the agencies. I am sure they would appreciate a personal conversation with the Minister, because there are always more questions and there is always more to do.