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
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
We comply with the public sector equality duty in considering how our policy decisions impact on individuals with protected characteristics, and we have complied with that obligation in drafting and developing the kinship strategy.
Munira Wilson
The annual survey of the Kinship charity showed that the majority of kinship carers are women, typically grandmothers, many of whom are affected by the gender pay gap and a rising retirement age, yet they are often forced to give up or reduce work to take on kinship care responsibilities. What progress has the Minister made with the Department for Business and Trade in finally securing paid leave for kinship carers so that they are not forced out of the labour force?
David Johnston
As the hon. Lady knows, we are committed to publishing the first ever strategy for kinship carers before the end of the year. She will not have long to wait.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
In July 2021, the Government set out our long-term vision in the national disability strategy. Over the summer, we consulted on the disability action plan, which will set out the immediate action that the Government are taking in 2024. Together with other relevant reforms being taken forward by my Cabinet colleagues, those measures seek to tackle inequality and improve the daily lives of disabled people.
Cat Smith
The neuro drop-in centre in Lancaster provides a unique support network for those affected by neurological conditions, but my constituent, who travels there by bus from Bowerham to Torrisholme, is a wheelchair user, and if there is already is a wheelchair user on the bus, he cannot board. Does the Minister think that that is fair?
Mims Davies
That does not sound terribly fair at all. I am very interested in what the hon. Lady shares with the House. Of course, we have a Transport Minister answering questions today, so I am very happy for us to look at that issue for her. If she writes to me, I will see that the matter is looked at.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Sense has found that, because of the Tory cost of living crisis, a large proportion of disabled people will not be seeing family, buying presents or even celebrating Christmas this year, yet the Government are ploughing ahead with changes that will ramp up sanctions and that could remove NHS prescriptions and access to legal aid for disabled people. Why, at every single opportunity, do the Government hit people with disabilities the hardest?
Mims Davies
I apologise, Mr Speaker, because the Transport Minister I mentioned is not coming today—they might be on the bus. I will pick up the issue raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) in further responses.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) will know that we are making cost of living payments once again to support people in need. In fact, that support totals over £104 billion. If she is concerned for her constituents—and rightly so—she should definitely direct them to Help for Households, the benefits calculator on gov.uk, and the help to claim process. There is also the household support fund, which is about £1 billion this year. I hope she is satisfied that we are absolutely supporting the most vulnerable.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The disability pay gap has risen under the Conservatives from 11.7% in 2014 to 13.8% in 2021. Labour will act to close the gap and to support disabled people by introducing disability pay gap reporting for large employers. That is good for disabled people, good for business and good for our economy, so why will the Government not follow suit?
Mims Davies
We are absolutely committed to supporting disabled people. Frankly, we are very proud of our record: we have supported more than 1 million disabled people into work, hitting the target five years early, and we are rewiring our benefits system to give a renewed focus on what people can do rather than what they cannot, so that there are opportunities for people to improve their lives and get the pay that they want through their employment.
Ashley Dalton
Disabled people are also being hit hard by the Conservative cost of living crisis that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) referred to. On average, the extra cost of disability is equivalent to 63% of household income before housing costs. I would ask the Minister what discussions she has had with the Minister for disabled people about this important issue, but there is no Minister for disabled people. Will she tell the House when one will be appointed?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. As she has rightly said, we should all aim to reduce the disability employment gap, and that remains our goal. To answer her question, I am the lead on those matters for Equalities oral questions. I am disappointed that I am not enough for her today, but I do lead on those matters for the Department. All Department for Work and Pensions Ministers take responsibility across our portfolios for removing barriers to progress, and updates to ministerial appointments will be made under the usual process.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I reassure my hon. Friend that she is more than enough for me. There was a really worrying article in The Times a few days ago that talked about the invisibility of disabled people when making employment applications. We know that disabled people are less likely to be in work and to take up opportunities for entrepreneurship. Perhaps my hon. Friend could highlight the important work she is doing as the Minister for social mobility to make sure that across Government, there is a real drive to help disabled people get the best opportunities to work.
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members for their interest in this area. As the Minister responsible for social mobility, I am taking direct leadership on access to employment, particularly in respect of applications and recruitment that suit disabled people to get into work, because if we do not get them into work, they cannot progress. That is why we have billions of pounds in our back to work plan, and why we are supporting vulnerable people by uprating benefits by 6.7% in April equally.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The disability action plan’s accessible 12-week consultation closed on 6 October. Since then, officials have been carefully considering all the consultation responses and working closely with other Government Departments. We have led discussions with the cross-Government ministerial disability champions before we publish the final disability action plan.
Mr Hollobone
Some 14 million people live with a disability. They are statistically less likely to have a job or any qualifications or to own their own home, and sadly, their children are twice as likely to become victims of crime. Will the Minister ensure that the disability action plan addresses all those issues?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for his typical care in this area. I assure him and the House that significant work is taking place across Government in those areas where disabled people have told us that their outcomes must be a priority, whether that is in education, employment or care. We are focused on that, and the disability action plan will complement that work. We are using the insight from the 12-week consultation to deliver improvements in all the areas that matter most to disabled people, in order to improve their daily lives.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Some 1.4 million people in the UK are living with a brain injury. Will the Minister make sure that the final version of the plan lays out precisely what the Government intend to do in relation to people who have had a brain injury? The good news is that with really good neurorehabilitation, people can be given back not just their life, but a real quality of life. We owe that to them, don’t we?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. My father lived with a brain injury for over 25 years, and my annual Christmas card this year comes from Headway Sussex through its art therapy work, so I assure him that at the DWP, I think about the impacts of brain injury on a daily basis.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
It is crucial that the international community recognises the atrocities committed by Hamas, and that Hamas are held to account for their barbarism. That is why we are engaging with partners, including the UN, to ensure that perpetrators are held to account for their depravity.
The UK remains a global leader in eradicating sex-based violence. Our preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative has £60 million in funding to combat conflict-related sexual violence and ensure that survivors access redress and support. On 28 November, we announced a further £33 million to support grassroots women’s rights organisations tackling sex-based violence.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Hostages who have been released have reported Hamas atrocities, such as being subjected to physical and sexual violence in captivity. The Israeli health service also reports that hostages have been drugged to make them look happy on videos. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning Hamas for doing that and in demanding that the International Committee of the Red Cross has access to every single one of the hostages immediately?
Kemi Badenoch
I share my hon. Friend’s horror. It is extremely distressing to hear all those reports, and I do unequivocally condemn the sexual violence that is being reported. We continue to engage regularly with partners, including the UN. I will pick up the points that he raised directly with the Foreign Office to see whether we can do what he asks. It does sound like something that needs the involvement of the Red Cross, but we will make sure that we co-ordinate across Government for a dedicated response on this issue.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Will the UK use its seat on the UN Human Rights Council to raise the use of gender-based violence on 7 October, and to secure a clear condemnation from its members of the rape, murder and torture perpetrated against women by Hamas on 7 October?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Yes, we will. We have raised the reports of sexual violence attacks on 7 October with UN Women and with the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict. I will make sure that we continue to do this and to impress upon international organisations that the whole world needs to respond to this.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
We are having cross-governmental discussions about AI, and we are very clear that AI systems should not undermine people’s rights or discriminate unfairly. This was a key topic of discussion at the AI safety summit, and it remains a priority for the Government. Fairness is a core principle of our AI regulatory framework, and UK regulators are already taking action to address AI-related bias and discrimination.
Patrick Grady
In that case, is the Minister aware of the findings of the Institute for the Future of Work that the use of artificial intelligence
“presents risks to equality, potentially embedding bias and discrimination”,
and that auditing AI tools used in recruitment
“are often inadequate in ensuring compliance with UK Equality Law, good governance and best practice”?
What steps are being taken across the whole of Government to ensure that appropriate assessments are made of the equalities impact of the use of AI in the workplace?
Saqib Bhatti
That is exactly why we had the AI safety summit, at which more than 28 countries plus the EU signed up to the Bletchley declaration. In March, we published the AI regulation White Paper, which set out our first steps towards establishing a regulatory framework for AI. I repeat that AI systems should not undermine people’s rights or discriminate unfairly, and that is one of the core principles set out in the White Paper.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The risk of perpetuating inequality and the problems that arise from solely automated decision making are well accepted both in recruitment and, as we heard earlier, in the challenges for disabled people in accessing employment, but also in other contexts such as immigration and welfare benefits. However, the UK Government’s Data Protection and Digital Information Bill is liberalising the use of artificial intelligence in decision making and reducing the rights of people to appeal those decisions. Does the Minister understand that it is increasingly important to make sure that we mitigate risks such as encoded bias? What is the specific plan to do that?
Saqib Bhatti
I do not recognise the hon. Member’s assessment, but let me say this: context matters. The risks of bias will vary depending on the specific way in which AI is used. That is why we are letting the regulators describe and illustrate what fairness means within their sectors, because they will be able to apply greater context to their discussions. The risk of discrimination should be assessed in context, and guidance should be issued that is specific to the sector. That is why we are preparing and publishing guidance to support the regulators. We will then encourage and support them to develop joint guidance. We will be working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
The Government are committed to boosting economic growth across the UK and ensuring opportunity is spread as widely as possible. Education is the most significant lever to create opportunity and reduce inequality, and I am pleased that Conservative reforms have seen children in schools in England excel in the 2022 PISA—programme for international student assessment—scores. England significantly outperformed the average, rising from 27th for mathematics in 2009 to 11th this year, and from 25th for reading in 2009 to 13th this year.
Paul Howell
When it comes to economic equality, physical mobility is critical. As the Minister may know, I am joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods, and our recent report talked about how limited public transport connectivity frustrates access to education and employment. I have constituents in places such as Trimdon and Fishburn who cannot get to the 10,000 jobs in Aycliffe, which is only 10 miles away. Does the Minister agree it is imperative that when funding for local transport is determined, the opportunity to enhance social mobility is seen as critical?
Kemi Badenoch
I agree with my hon. Friend, who raises an important point about how connectivity creates access and generates social mobility. The Department for Transport is working to put the needs of current and potential users at the heart of the operation of the transport system, and Network North, our new £36 billion plan, will improve our country’s transport. Perhaps my hon. Friend will write to me about the specific issues, because some of those duties will fall to his local council and I want to know what it is doing with the money we are giving it to improve access.
Ian Levy
This Conservative Government have done more for the people of Blyth Valley than any other Government—[Laughter.] And they have brought much needed investment in employment opportunities for my constituents—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, I cannot hear the question. Obviously there must have been something funny, but I didn’t hear it.
Ian Levy
Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Conservative Government have done more for the people of Blyth Valley than any other Government and have brought much needed investment in employment opportunities for my constituents, following decades of Labour neglect. Will my right hon. Friend please assure me that continuing to close the gap between the north and the south remains the Government’s highest priority?
Kemi Badenoch
I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend of that. He is an effective advocate for his constituency, and he knows that this Government have been investing in Blyth Valley. We have given an £18 million boost to regenerate housing, £1.5 million for new high-tech training equipment, £200,000 for extended CCTV provision, and a further £20 million for our long-term plan for towns. Our investment in Blyth shows that only the Conservatives can deliver there, and levelling up and closing the gap is a priority for this Government.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Some 42% of children in Newcastle upon Tyne Central are growing up in poverty, 17% of households are in fuel poverty, and a fifth of adults are estimated to be in problematic debt. Does the Minister agree that a Government who cannot deliver economic prosperity for working people in the north-east are a Government who cannot deliver on socioeconomic equality?
Kemi Badenoch
This Government are delivering. Of course we recognise that there are people who are in need, and that is why we are doing everything, across all Departments, to deliver for them. For example, our supporting families programme has funded local areas to help almost 600,000 families with multiple and complex needs to make significant positive changes to their lives. The programme is working, and evaluation found that the proportion of children on the programme going into care reduced by a third and the number of adults receiving custodial sentences decreased by a quarter. There is so much we can say—I know we are running out of time, Mr Speaker, so perhaps the hon. Lady would like me to write to her.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
One thing that can militate against socioeconomic equality, particularly for the elderly and most vulnerable, is access to care staff. The rate of remuneration is 61p per mile, going down to 25p per mile after the first 3,500 miles, and those figures have not been revised upwards since 2011. It means that wonderful people in my constituency are very often losing money travelling about, and that does not do much for recruitment either. Will the Minister agree to talk to the Treasury and the Scottish Government about doing something about that?
Kemi Badenoch
I am sure that colleagues in the appropriate Department will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question and will be able to provide a more detailed response.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
In my last topical statement, I spoke about the unacceptable rise in antisemitism and hostility towards the Jewish community since 7 October, and I am updating the House on what further action I can take to promote social cohesion. The Equality Act 2010 is a shield against discrimination, and the public sector equality duty is part of that shield. It is particularly important that all public authorities take the duty seriously. To ensure that they understand how to comply with the duty, I will be publishing updated guidance shortly. I will then write to leaders of public authorities that have a key role in promoting social cohesion, to show how they can foster good relations, promote equality of opportunity and eliminate unlawful discrimination.
Steven Bonnar
I thank the Minister for that answer. As the Women’s Budget Group has rightly pointed out, women are more reliant on benefits, due to care-giving roles, and they have been disproportionately impacted by regressive social security changes since 2010. What consideration has the Minister given to the abolition of the poverty-inducing benefit cap and the hated two-child limit, to prevent further poverty and destitution among women and children, and will she raise that matter with her Cabinet colleagues?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman will know that we disagree with the propositions that he has set out, and we have said so time and again at this Dispatch Box. We believe that the two-child policy is important. We know that there is a cost of living crisis caused by rising energy costs and the war in Ukraine, which was caused by Russia. The Government are doing everything we can to limit the impact on households.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
I do agree. I am not even sure whether we can call it just sensationalist or woke. The research apparently was based on phrenology, which is a completely discredited type of science. I agree with my hon. Friend that this type of research is damaging to trust, to social cohesion and even to trust in health services. I have written to the director of the Museum of London to express my concern.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
In 2020, women’s life expectancy in the poorest parts of the UK was almost 19 years shorter than those in the most affluent. Thirteen years ago, Labour introduced a socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act 2010 to make the NHS and other public bodies tackle this gap. Why have Ministers failed to implement it?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady is right that the socioeconomic duty she references is not commenced in England. It is in Scotland, however, and the figures are worse there, which shows that the duty is not the solution to the problems she raises.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
I agree with my hon. Friend that the circumstances of a person’s birth or where they live should not be a barrier to social mobility. That is why we have established things such as the Social Mobility Pledge consortium with businesses, and 120 have signed up. There are 12 community renewal fund projects serving her constituency and the wider area, and £1.2 million from the shared prosperity fund to achieve those aims.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Stuart Andrew
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It was a very important review, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an apology at the Dispatch Box. There will be a statement later, and I suggest that she asks the Defence Minister a question at that point.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Every year, 800 women pass through immigration detention, including centres such as Yarl’s Wood in my constituency. Many of those women have been trafficked or are victims of sexual abuse. I am working with a group, Women for Refugee Women, to provide a snapshot of the backgrounds of these women. Will the Minister agree to meet us to analyse the results of their findings?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend. Women who have survived trafficking or sexual abuse are detained only when the evidence of vulnerability in their individual case is outweighed by immigration removal considerations. Victims of torture have their case considered by a single specialist team, autonomous of general caseworkers, and victims of modern slavery undergo a needs assessment to identify recovery needs.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
We are working with more than 42 integrated care boards across the country to improve the timelines for diagnosis of autism and ADHD. Some ICBs are doing particularly well, but others need a lot more help and support.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Many people with impaired mobility conditions depend on their cars for the freedom to live the lives they want to lead. Will the Government therefore crack down on Labour’s anti-car policies in local government, such as the expansion of the ultra low emission zone and low-traffic networks and the building over of station car parks?
Maria Caulfield
This Government are clear in our condemnation of Labour’s attack on motorists, whether it is in London or Wales. That is why, in the summer, the Prime Minister ordered a review of low-traffic neighbourhoods, which are making some parts of London inaccessible for disabled people, whether they are using public transport or cars.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Kemi Badenoch
That is something that my Department is working on. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to ensure that data is accurate, that people understand what is being recorded and that this does not have an impact on how public services are delivered. If he has any further information that he would like to share, I would very much like to see if there are specific constituency circumstances we can look into.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
Mr Speaker, as this is the last Prime Minister’s questions before recess, I know that the whole House will want to join me in wishing you and all the House staff a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. I know that Members will also want to join me in sending our warmest wishes to our armed forces based at home and stationed overseas, our emergency services and all those who will be working over Christmas too. Finally, I know that everyone will want to join me in wishing Mark Drakeford all the best as he moves on from his many, many years of devoted public service.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mike Kane
May I concur with the Prime Minister’s comments about our armed forces, Christmas and Mark Drakeford?
My constituent Fred Bates is 74, he has liver cancer and he is a victim of the contaminated blood products scandal. The Prime Minister had a chance to do right by Fred last week, but he failed to do so and lost the vote in this House. After half a century, Fred wishes to know when he and fellow survivors will be compensated and get justice.
The Prime Minister
This was an appalling tragedy, and my thoughts remain with all those concerned. I absolutely understand the strength of feeling on this. It was this Government who set up the inquiry, which I participated in, and we fully understand the need for action. The Government, crucially, have already accepted the moral case for compensation and acknowledged that justice needs to be delivered for the victims. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will update the House on our next steps on the infected blood inquiry shortly.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, the OBR has brought greater transparency and independence to the forecasting on which Government policy is based, but he is right. It is required to produce an assessment of the accuracy of its fiscal and economic forecasts at least once a year but, crucially, as he acknowledged, thanks to our management of the economy and the fact that we have halved inflation and controlled borrowing, we have now delivered the largest tax cuts in a generation, and they will benefit families up and down the country from January.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Yesterday we heard of the tragic death of a young man on the Bibby Stockholm. I know that the whole House will want to send our deepest condolences to his family and friends. We must never let this happen again.
I would also like to mark the retirement of my colleague and friend Mark Drakeford, the First Minister of Wales. Mark committed his life to public service and lives his values every day. Quietly and patiently, Mark has been a titan of Labour and Welsh politics. We thank him for his service and wish him well.
Christmas is a time of peace on earth and good will to all—has anyone told the Tory party?
The Prime Minister
Well, Christmas is also a time for families, and under the Conservatives we do have a record number of them. At the beginning of the year, I set out some priorities that this Government would deliver for the British people, and over the course of the year we have inflation halved, the economy growing, debt falling, action on the longest waiters, the boats down by a third and, crucially, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), tax cuts coming to help working families in the new year.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister can spin it all he likes, but the whole country can see that, yet again, the Tory party is in meltdown and everyone else is paying the price. He has kicked the can down the road, but in the last week his MPs have said of him that he is “not capable enough”, he is “inexperienced”, he is “arrogant”, and he is “a really bad politician”—[Interruption.] Government Members are shouting, but this is what they said. Come on: who was it who said he is “a really bad politician”? Hands up. [Interruption.] They are shouting. Well, what about “inexperienced”—who was that? Or—there have to be some hands for this—“he’s got to go”? [Interruption.] They are shy.
Apparently, the Prime Minister is holding a Christmas party next week—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It is Christmas—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—but you might not want the Christmas present that I could give you.
Keir Starmer
Apparently, the Prime Minister is holding a Christmas party next week. How is the invite list looking?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for all the comments, but he should hear what they have to say about him. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Do you want to be the first one? It is Christmas, and I am going to hear this. My constituents are going to have a Christmas like everyone else, and they want to know whether their Christmas is going to be affected, so I want less of it from all sides.
Keir Starmer
Government Members have obviously found the donkey for their nativity—the search for three wise men might take a little longer. While they fight among themselves, there is a country out here that is not being governed, where more than 100,000 people are paying hundreds more a month on their mortgages. Energy bills are going back up in January. The economy is shrinking again. NHS waiting lists are at an all-time high. Does the Prime Minister not think that the Government would be better off fixing the messes they have already made, rather than scrambling to create new ones?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about governing, but he spent his first two questions talking about political tittle-tattle. What a joke. Let us get on to the substance. He mentioned those things. What is the news we have just heard in the last week? What is the most important thing? The most important thing is education, because that is how we spread opportunity in our country. What have we learned? Where are the schools performing best in the United Kingdom? It is in England. Thanks to the reforms of this Conservative Government, they are rising up the league tables, giving our kids the start they need. Where are they plummeting? It is in Labour-run Wales.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister talks about children. Nearly 140,000 children are going to be homeless this Christmas—more than ever before. That is a shocking state of affairs, and it should shame the Government. Instead of more social housing, house building is set to collapse. Instead of banning no-fault evictions, thousands of families are at risk of homelessness. Rather than indulging his Back Benchers swanning around in their factions and their “star chambers” pretending to be members of the mafia, when will he get a grip and focus on the country?
The Prime Minister
Let us just look at the facts. Rough sleeping in this country is down by 35% since its peak, thanks to the efforts of this Government. There are hundreds of thousands fewer children in poverty today, thanks to this Government. And when it comes to home building, again what did we do? We have had the data just this last week: in the last year an almost record number of new homes were delivered, more than in any year under the last Labour Government.
Keir Starmer
One hundred and forty thousand children homeless this Christmas and the Prime Minister is utterly tone deaf. The rise in homelessness shows how these Tory crises merge and grow and damage the country; families like the Bradys in Wiltshire, both parents working full time with two young children forced out of their home of 15 years by a no-fault eviction, now living in their van. Or 11-year-old Liam Walker, homeless this Christmas. He wrote a letter to Santa saying, “Please can I have a forever home? I don’t want any new toys, I just want all my old toys out of storage. I just want us to be happy again.” If there is anything that could shame this Government into putting the country first, then it is surely this little boy.
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman really cared about building homes—[Interruption.] No, if he really cared about building homes—when there was an opportunity in this House to back our plans to reform defective EU laws to unlock 100,000 new homes, what did he do? He went in front of the cameras and said one thing, and then he came in here and blocked it—typical shameless opportunism.
Keir Starmer
Is that really the Prime Minister’s Christmas message to Liam? Cocooned in his party management breakfast, he just cannot see the—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Cleverly, please. It is Christmas. I want a little bit of silence, and I am going to get it one way or another. That applies to each side.
Keir Starmer
Cocooned in his party management breakfast, the Prime Minister just cannot see the country in front of him and what they have done.
I will finish by thanking hard-working families across Britain who kept our country going. It has been an impossibly difficult year for so many. I want to pay special tribute to our key workers, particularly those in emergency services and those serving abroad in our forces who, even at this time of year, are doing the vital work of protecting their country. I wish everyone, including Members on the Conservative Benches, a very happy and peaceful new year. Will the Prime Minister join me?
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon and learned Gentleman missed that I paid tribute to our emergency workers at the beginning of the session. But let us see, because I think it is important. He talked about working families. Of course I want to make sure that we support working families, and that is what we are actually delivering. All he has to offer them is borrowing £28 billion a year. All that will do is push up their mortgage rates and push up their taxes. Meanwhile, what have we done? We have delivered tax cuts for millions of working families, boosted the national living wage, recruited 50,000 more nurses and 20,000 more police officers, improved our schools, cut the cost of net zero for working families, cut the boat crossings by a third and halved inflation. That is the difference: we are getting on and delivering for working Britain.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Chancellor has already authorised more than £2 billion of investment to support our transition to zero-emission vehicles, and that we are well on track to reach our target of 300,000 charge points by 2030. I can also tell him that we will consult on amending the national planning policy framework to ensure that it prioritises the roll-out of charge points, on top the funding of almost £400 million to support local authorities to spread them out so that all our families have access to them when they need it.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Will the Prime Minister please share his Christmas message for children being bombed in Gaza this winter?
The Prime Minister
Nobody wants to see this conflict go on for a moment longer than necessary. We urgently need more humanitarian pauses to get all the hostages out, and to get life-saving aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. We have been consistent in supporting a sustainable ceasefire, which means that Hamas must stop launching rockets into Israel and release all the hostages.
Stephen Flynn
If the current actions of the Israeli Government continue, it is estimated that almost 1,400 more children will die between now and Christmas day. In the United Nations last night, our friends and allies in France, Ireland, Canada, Spain and Australia joined 148 other nations to vote with courage, care and compassion for a ceasefire. The UK shamefully abstained. How can the Prime Minister possibly explain why 153 nations are wrong, yet Westminster is right?
The Prime Minister
As I have said consistently, we are deeply concerned about the devastating impact of the fighting in Gaza on the civilian population. Too many people have lost their lives already. That is something that we have stressed, and something that I stressed personally to Prime Minister Netanyahu just last week. What we are doing practically is to get more aid into Gaza, and the Foreign Secretary is appointing a UK humanitarian co-ordinator. In my conversations last week with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I pressed him on opening up the Kerem Shalom crossing so that more aid can flow in, and we are actively exploring the opportunity for maritime corridors, something on which the UK is well placed to lead. I can give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that we will work night and day to get more aid to those who desperately need it.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend and the headteacher of Alston Moor Federation, Gill Jackson, have done a fantastic job in securing more funding. I wish her well for what I believe is her upcoming retirement.
As my hon. Friend knows, our school travel policy ensures that no child is prevented from accessing education by a lack of transport. Not only do we have home-to-school travel policies, but the 16 to 19 bursary fund can be used to support young people with transport costs, and, more generally, we are taking action to keep bus fares capped at £2. However, I will happily ensure that my hon. Friend secures a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss his proposals further.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Prime Minister will be aware of Unionist concerns about the need to remove the Irish sea border created by the protocol, which disrupts the UK’s internal market. Will he bring forward legislation to amend the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and both guarantee and future-proof Northern Ireland’s unfettered access to the UK’s internal market in all scenarios?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. I recognise the need to do more in this area, and I can confirm to him that the Government do stand ready to legislate to protect Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom and the UK internal market, alongside an agreement to restore the Executive. We can do this apace, and I know that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are working hard to achieve that. Our NHS, our police officers and the most vulnerable in Northern Ireland need devolved government urgently, and I think it is incumbent on all of us to work to work day and night to help to achieve that.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister
This Government will always back our farmers, and I welcome the work of my hon. Friend and the National Farmers Union on this issue. We absolutely support calls for industry-led action on this topic, and I welcome the news of the “Buy British” button at Morrisons. We will continue to encourage all retailers to do all they can to showcase the incredible food produced right here in the United Kingdom.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We have a long-standing principle that anyone bringing dependants to the UK must be able to support them financially. We should not expect this to be done at the taxpayer’s expense. The threshold has not been raised in over a decade and it is right that we have now brought it in line with the median salary. The family immigration route does contain provision for exceptional circumstances, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but more generally it is also right to look at transitional arrangements to ensure that they are fair, and I can tell him that the Home Office is actively looking at this and will set out further information shortly.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I praise my hon. Friend’s leadership in championing her local community and also the steel industry in the UK. She is right to do so, because it is an incredibly important part not just of our local communities but of our economy and security. She is right to put this issue on the agenda.
We are committed to working with the steel sector to secure a decarbonised future, supporting local economic growth and our levelling-up agenda. That includes our commitment to major support with energy costs and also access to hundreds of millions of pounds of grants to support energy efficiency and decarbonisation. I obviously cannot comment on conversations with individual companies, but my hon. Friend can see from our track record on working with either Celsa or Tata Steel that we have been able to support our fantastic steel industry, and we will always continue to do so.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this incredibly important question. I know she has been working alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) on this. I also thank the emergency services in her constituency. My understanding is that Lancaster City Council, the Environment Agency, the UK Health Security Agency and the emergency services are working together to ensure that the health risks and environmental consequences are minimised, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister understands the absolute urgency of the issue the hon. Lady has raised and make sure that she meets them as soon as possible.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are investing £3 billion in dentistry. The NHS dentistry contract was reformed last year to improve access for patients, and around half of all treatment was delivered to non-paying adults and children. The number of adults seen has gone up by 10% and the number of children seen has gone up by 15%, but my hon. Friend is right that more needs to be done, which is why the Government will bring forward the dentistry recovery plan in due course.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We care deeply about making sure the most vulnerable in our society get the support they need through the winter, which is why we increased welfare by record amounts earlier this year. We supplemented that with £900 in cost of living payments for the most vulnerable. It is why we have provided energy bill support for those who need our help the most. Pensioners in the hon. Lady’s constituency and elsewhere will receive up to £300 alongside their winter fuel payment. Indeed, that support will last not just through the winter but into next year, because we are deeply committed to helping those who need it. This Government have a track record of delivering that help.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. He is absolutely right about the work that needs to be done, and I am grateful to the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill. Our intention is to bring forward a Bill when parliamentary time allows.
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues to discuss this. I remind everyone that we are undertaking the largest expansion of mental health services in a generation, with £2.3 billion of extra funding by March 2024. We are increasing capital investment in mental health urgent care centres and, under the long-term workforce plan, providing the largest expansion of the mental health workforce we have ever seen in this country.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The most pressing issue facing families is the cost of living. That is why this Government have delivered what we said, which was to halve inflation, and not only that; we are supplementing it with significant tax cuts, which will benefit working families from January—£450 for a typical person in work—demonstrating that we are absolutely on the side of hard-working families. This Government are cutting their taxes.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Breast cancer survival rates have improved, but we need to go further on harder-to-reach cancers. In Parliament this afternoon, there is a drop-in session on lobular breast cancer and the research we need. Could my right hon. Friend or his excellent new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care find time in their busy diaries to join us?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work on this specific and important issue. I am happy to tell him that I believe the Health Secretary is attending this afternoon’s event to hear more about that work. I can assure him that we are focused on fighting cancer on all fronts: prevention, diagnosis, treatment, research and funding. We are making good progress, but there is always more we can do. I look forward to hearing from him after this afternoon’s event.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
That is a total mischaracterisation of what was put out, which was an advert, not a commitment. I am glad that the hon. Lady now cares about this issue—not something we have seen previously from Labour. Our track record is clear: we have got the numbers of small boat arrivals down this year by over a third. That is what we are doing about it. The Labour party is voting against every measure that we have taken.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I chair the caucus of 38 Conservative Members of Parliament who have Britain’s longest river flowing through their constituencies, and we have presented a business case to the Chancellor for £500 million to try to manage the river holistically. Our constituencies are now facing flooding every year, causing damage to our businesses and our communities. This evening, I have an Adjournment debate on flooding of the River Severn. Will the Prime Minister take an interest, because the business case shows a gross value added uplift for the west midlands of more than £100 billion if we can manage and tame Britain’s longest river?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I recall that he and I spoke about it when I was Chancellor, and I praise him for his work and leadership on this issue in his local area. I will make sure that the Chancellor does look at the business case. My hon. Friend will know that we have significantly increased funding for flood defences, to over £5 billion, protecting hundreds of thousands more homes, but if it is an interesting opportunity for the Chancellor, I am sure he will take that up.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
What matters to me is delivering for the British people, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Given the appalling reports of sexual violence committed by Hamas on 7 October and the risk that hostages could have that treatment inflicted on them as well, will the Prime Minister raise this issue in international forums so that the international community demands, strongly, humanitarian access to hostages in Gaza?
The Prime Minister
The reports of sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas are deeply shocking. We have raised our concerns with the United Nations a fortnight or so ago, and we are engaging with the Israeli Government to consider what further support we can provide. More broadly, we continue to do everything we can to ensure that all hostages can return safely to their families, including the British hostages and those with links to the UK. My right hon. Friend can rest assured that the Foreign Secretary and I are working tirelessly to bring about their safe return.
LGBT Veterans Independent Review
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
With permission, I would like to set out the Government’s formal response to Lord Etherton’s LGBT veterans independent review.
The treatment of those armed forces personnel perceived to be LGBT between 1967 and 2000 has long been a stain on the conscience of the nation. Last year, this Government asked Lord Etherton to conduct a review into the impact of the historic ban on homosexuality in Defence. Following the call for evidence, the inquiry received 1,128 responses from those who were dismissed or discharged because of their sexual orientation; from those who felt compelled to resign, purchase their release from service or curtail their contracts because of the ban; and from those who, while not part of the LGBT community, witnessed the trauma of such antediluvian rules, as family members, colleagues or friends. Etherton paints an unflinching picture of the most shocking treatment of gay members of our Defence community by an institutionally homophobic organisation.
Out of the blue, when applying to be a reservist in 1980, I was asked if I was gay. Even then that struck me as hugely inappropriate, but that strong sense of impropriety, which has stayed with me for 43 years, pales into insignificance against the wall of hurt experienced by LGBT people in the course of their Defence journey, much of it evidenced by Terence Etherton.
Different members of the community have been impacted differently. Yet, for each and every one, the repercussions were enduring, with the tentacles reaching into all dimensions of their lives since. Sadly, we cannot turn back the clock, but we can apologise for decades of hurt. That is what the Prime Minister did after Lord Etherton published his report in July and what the Defence Secretary and chiefs of service have done in their turn. However, apologies alone are not enough.
Etherton demands more and we agree. That is why the Government took steps to right historic wrongs, even before the report was published. In 2021, we began handing back medals to anyone who had had them withheld or removed because of their sexuality. Medals matter; they should never have been snatched away. In December 2021, we removed the barriers that prevented those living with HIV from joining the military and, back in June, the Home Office extended its disregard and pardon scheme, wiping historic convictions for same-sex sexual activity. The extension was especially important for veterans, because it broadened the eligibility to include any same-sex conviction that would not be a crime today, thereby covering service disciplinary offences.
In addition, we published guidance helping to make LGBT veterans aware of things to which they might not have felt they were entitled. That includes information on mental and physical health support, as well as benefits that all veterans are able to receive, not to mention the armed forces veterans badge, which I handed out to a number of veterans at this year’s Pride event in London.
However, today we go further still. I can announce we are accepting the intent behind all 49 of Lord Etherton’s recommendations. In fact, to date we have already implemented almost half of them. We have established a legacy website to host the review, the Government response and information collected by the review, including testimonies. Through Op Courage, we are ensuring a focus on the non-combat mental health impacts of the ban.
Significantly, in some instances we have gone above and beyond the review recommendations. For example, Etherton advised making certain restorative measures available for the next of kin of deceased veterans, but we have created a broader definition of next of kin—namely, persons of sufficient interest—recognising the impact the ban may have had on LGBT veterans’ relationships and ensuring that those they would have nominated as next of kin are seen as such. Next year will see the expanded roll-out of the armed forces veterans card to all veterans who served in the UK armed forces before 2018, and planning for a veterans memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum is also now under way.
Today, we are throwing open the front door to our LGBT veterans. Today, we ask them to apply or register an interest for restorative measures that are relevant to them, including individual apology letters, return of berets and cap badges, amendments to veterans’ service history and additional personal testimony to evidence collected by the review. That testimony will eventually become part of the historic record in The National
Archives, signalling that our LGBT veterans will never be forgotten and that 33 years of national shame will never be expunged, and affirming and celebrating the part that those veterans played in our country’s history. I strongly urge colleagues across the House to encourage LGBT constituents to come forward, read the online guide and complete the application form for restorative measures. Importantly, the form will also allow veterans to indicate their interest in applying for a financial award when eligibility is confirmed and that scheme goes live.
Lord Etherton recommended that an appropriate award should be made to affected veterans, with the Government’s overall exposure capped at £50 million. We have agreed to that in full, but, in order to develop the scheme, we will first need to gain a much better understanding of what the affected cohort looks like. Hence, we are calling for veterans to indicate their interest on the form that goes live today. That data will help officials and the community—working together—to design a fair and equitable scheme for distributing the funds that Lord Etherton has called for and that we accept. There will be an opportunity for a full debate in the new year once the financial award scheme is matured and we have the benefit of the data captured through the front door that I am opening today.
Once again, I place on record my gratitude to Lord Etherton and his team for their outstanding work compiling a comprehensive and deeply affecting report. I thank Fighting With Pride and our working group, including trusted stakeholders and independent LGBT veterans, who not only made sure that their voices were heard, but helped steer our response throughout. They will not seek it, but may I mark out Craig Jones and Caroline Paige in particular for their part in bringing us to where we are today? Above all, I pay tribute to all those who came forward in the first place. Those veterans showed tremendous courage in chronicling traumatic experiences, which for many had been suppressed, causing grief and groundless silent shame for decades.
Today’s Defence has come a long way since 2000. We cannot change the past, but we can make the future better. In accepting Lord Etherton’s recommendations, we salute a slighted generation and ensure that its successors can hold their heads high in a place that wants them, values them and honours them. I am today placing a copy of the Government’s response in the Library, and I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement.
With due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a diligent Minister, this statement should have been made by the Defence Secretary; the last one was. This no-show from the Defence Secretary downgrades the importance that the Government give in July to backing up the Prime Minister’s apology to LGBT+ veterans. Crucially, it undermines the confidence that LGBT veterans will have in the Government being serious about fully implementing the Etherton review and fully righting the injustices arising from the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces until 2000.
This is unfinished business for Labour. We lifted the ban in 2000. We argued for the Etherton review in the Armed Forces Bill. We welcomed its publication and recommendations. We again thank Lord Etherton for his review and the inclusive way in which he conducted it.
At the heart of the review were the statements of those who were victims of the overt, often brutal, homophobic policy. We pay tribute to them for sharing their experiences and giving their testimonies. Like the Minister, I also pay tribute to groups such as Fighting With Pride, which have campaigned for justice, along with backing from wider veterans organisations such as the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes. This is a cause that unites the House.
The previous Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), said in a powerful and moving statement in July that he had
“decided specifically that a debate in the House should take place”
in order to
“make sure that the House properly debates the report and the Government’s response to it,”
and not just the compensation scheme, as the Minister has implied. Will the Government honour that promise to the House in full? When will that debate take place? To be clear, the debate is of profound importance to veterans. It should be a watershed moment for defence to move beyond the long, shameful shadow of the past, and to say in the future, “We are deeply proud of our LGBT veterans. We honour your service to our nation. You are part of us.”
The previous Defence Secretary also said:
“We will be very happy to work with the Opposition…to discuss our thinking on the recommendations.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 921-24.]
That has not happened. The Minister confirmed today that the Government
“are accepting the intent behind all 49 of Lord Etherton’s recommendations.”
The previous Defence Secretary pointed out that the Government
“may deliver a number”
of those recommendations
“in different ways from that described in the report.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 921.]
In his statement today, the Minister was not clear on that.
We welcome progress on handing back medals, on an armed forces veterans badge and on a national memorial, and we welcome the opening of registrations of interest for the restorative measures, but what action is the Minister taking to ensure that pensions are fully restored to those who were misinformed that their pension rights had been abolished, and to guarantee that those whose evidence of investigations was destroyed in 2010 do not lose out? Will he fully involve Fighting With Pride and other veterans groups in developing the compensation scheme, and confirm that the scheme will make provision for the two main groups proposed by Fighting With Pride? Is the financial provision of £50 million in the 2024 Ministry of Defence budget, and when does he aim to open up the scheme?
We cannot change the past, but we can act to make amends. We can honour the service of our LGBT veterans. We can take pride in the inspiration that they provide to future generations. That is what they, and we across the House, have the right to expect from Ministers.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I gently remind him that it was this Government who set up the Etherton review, and it is this Government who are carrying out the 49 recommendations. I am proud of that. He needs to be very careful: political parties should not throw stones, and I think that he would be the last to try to make party political points out of this subject matter. To a large extent, I think that we have resisted that.
I said that a full debate would happen in the new year, but it must have the advantage of there being something meaningful to debate—namely, the financial elements, which I perceive to be the main point of likely controversy. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that we are all in agreement with the general thrust of the review, so the controversy will be around how we structure the financial award. I expect to be in a much better place in the new year to bring a suggestion to the House about how we might do that, having consulted others and observed the lessons of the past and experience in other countries. However, the debate will not be confined to the finances. I think that was implied by my use of the phrase “full debate”. I hope that reassures him.
On intent, we have discussed before other ways of delivering the same outcome to the satisfaction of veterans. For example, some veterans want a veterans badge that is different from the existing veterans badge; some do not. We have therefore designed a ribbon, which I have seen the prototype for, and I think that is a compromise. That is an example of how we might do things differently from the ways described by Lord Etherton. Lord Etherton also talked about re-listing people on the Navy, Army and Air Force lists. Those lists do not exist in the way they once did, but we can publish those names, if people want them published, via the London Gazette. That is a further example of doing the same thing, but in a different way.
We debated pensions in the summer, when we last went round this particular buoy, so the right hon. Gentleman will know that accrued pension rights remain. However, some people were misled when they left the armed forces, and I strongly recommend that they refer to the guidance available on gov.uk. The “LGBT veterans: support and next steps” page is very comprehensive and will take people through how they can apply for pensions if they are not currently drawing them.
Destroyed documents, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, are impossible to rediscover. However, there are tags attached to most of them that highlight the fact that material has been removed following the advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2010, so there is a marker, at least, of why those pages are missing. He will know too that ACPO made those recommendations for very good reasons at the time—namely, the desire of people who had been wronged to have reference to those wrongs expunged from their records.
I think that I have covered most of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, but I want to be as comprehensive as I possibly can, so if I have missed anything out, I will be happy to write to him.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Last week, I met Fighting With Pride and one of my constituents, who I will not name because he has not given me permission to do so. Three points came across in that meeting. The first was the importance of testimonies. He was a grown man who had been discharged in the 1980s and whose mother had received a letter from his commanding officer outing him as gay. He was still traumatised and crying in my office last week. This is about making sure that those testimonies are heard. The second point was about having the debate on the Floor of the House and not farming it out to Westminster Hall. Will the Minister make sure that the debate happens on the Floor of the House?
The third point was about financial redress. I welcome the opportunity that my constituent will now have to feed in how he has been impacted—how he has lived a life alone, because he has carried that shame for all these years. On behalf of my constituent and all the other LGBT servicemen and women who suffered in that way, I put it on the record that they want the opportunity to feed in their own stories so that the financial redress addresses the harm they suffered.
Dr Murrison
My right hon. Friend is right that testimonies are vital. Those testimonies will ultimately be lodged in the National Archives and they will be part of our national story. I urge her to encourage her constituents to log on and provide their testimony—that is very important. I can confirm that the debate will be on the Floor of the House and not in Westminster Hall.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. In it he said:
“The treatment of those armed forces personnel perceived to be LGBT between 1967 and 2000 has long been a stain on the conscience of the nation.”
It has also been a stain on the conscience of this place, so I welcome his statement today and the work of Lord Etherton. The apologies the Minister spoke of are welcome, but they will never take away the hurt or the terrible impact on the lives of those affected by this institutional homophobia. We must remember that while homosexuality was decriminalised in 1967, the ban on LGBT people in the armed forces remained for 33 more years. That is three decades of additional harm. The reality is that all our veterans deserve respect and proper support, and all the more so those ostracised and shamed in that way.
I recognise what the Minister said on reparations, but what assessment has he made of the adequacy of the reparations cap? I wonder how that arbitrary cap on reparations payments will work, particularly when, as he said, we are asking people to come forward. How can he set a cap at this stage? He said he is throwing open the doors today, but that needs to be done in a way that is as easy as possible for people to navigate and that works for all those affected. No one must be left behind.
My colleague Keith Brown MSP, himself a veteran, is leading a Members’ business debate in the Scottish Parliament today on Fighting With Pride. I was pleased that the Minister spoke about Fighting With Pride and I would be keen to hear more about his reassurances that he will continue to work with that group and others to make sure that all LGBT veterans are properly and adequately supported in the way that is right for each of them individually.
Dr Murrison
The cap is part of the Etherton report. We have accepted all 49 recommendations and are working them through. I do not know—the hon. Lady will have to ask him—but I suspect that Lord Etherton was mindful of the Canadian experience in that regard. The Canadian scheme is not directly comparable to anything we might set up, not least because of its scope, but nevertheless there is precedent and I imagine Lord Etherton was mindful of that. The hon. Lady is right to suggest that we should work with the community, and she cited Fighting With Pride in particular. We have of course done that throughout and I pay tribute to them. We will continue to work with them on the details of the financial scheme as we work those out in the next few months.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
When Fighting With Pride described to me, some time ago now, the awful things that we had done to LGBT veterans, it was the worst injustice I had heard of in my 26 years in Parliament. I welcomed the Etherton report, which came about as a result, and I welcome the Minister’s warm, deep and expansive response to it today. The fact that he is accepting all 49 recommendations is vital. The debate is also important, because veterans want to tell their tales through their own MP, and I think that will be a great opportunity to do so. However, like the SNP spokesperson, I have a concern: if the claims that come through the website that the Minister describes come to more than £50 million, will the Government undertake to revisit the cap? It would be crazy if £51 million was applied for, but the cap said that only £50 million could be paid out.
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend will know full well that we cannot write a blank cheque. It is just not possible to do that. Lord Etherton came up with £50 million, which is a significant amount of money. He will have been mindful of other schemes, albeit not directly comparable, in this country and overseas. That is why, I believe, the figure of £50 million was arrived at.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Recommendation 16 of the report references pensions. In his statement, he said that people can apply for pension that had been accrued, but some individuals will have expected a pension for longer service but been dismissed before they could accrue it. Will that be taken into account, and will next of kin be able to access those pension benefits?
On the £50 million compensation, which is recommendation 28 of the report, I am a little lost to understand how that will be distributed. If the Minister is going to come up with a scheme, I suggest that he looks at the Post Office Horizon compensation scheme, of which I have been on the advisory board for the last year, helping to develop it. We are going to have to look at what elements are taken into account before we get to an accrued sum. Setting up an advisory board or some steering group to work up the scheme would be a good idea—and let me say that I do not think £50 million will even touch the sides.
Dr Murrison
There is precedent for such a scheme, as I say—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Canadian scheme—so we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper, and neither was Lord Etherton.
On pensions, it is important that those who thought they did not have an entitlement to pensions look again, because accrued pensions are accrued pensions and were not forfeit. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about pensions that might have been accrued after the point at which individuals left the service. There is no way of restoring those pensions, and I hope he will understand that. It would be incredibly difficult to do that, so I am not going to give him any encouragement that that will form any part of our deliberations in relation to the financial award.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women in defence, and of the Defence Committee’s inquiry on women in the armed forces and female veterans, I wholeheartedly welcome the statement and thank Lord Etherton for his work. However, I am also acutely aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, which disproportionately affected women, and on the ban on pregnancy in our armed forces. Our armed forces still have pockets of misogyny, poor leadership and inappropriate behaviour, so will the Minister continue to commit to rooting that out so that we can have a better environment for our armed forces now and in the future?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and predecessor. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done, not least in her report, which has been extraordinarily impactful. I agree with her 100%: we need to root out misogyny wherever it is found in defence. I hope she will accept that, thanks to her report and the work of others, we have taken significant strides in that direction.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
On 9 May 1996, I spoke in this House about the case of John Beckett, one of my constituents. He was a young man who had been in the Royal Navy for five years and was going to train to be an officer. Along with three other young men, he was discharged for being gay. All he had done was to have a civilian gay relationship, about which we had told his padre and his commanding officer, and it was sufficient to have him discharged. We can try to undo the wrongs that were done to John Beckett and others at the time. I know that John got another job afterwards, but can the Minister possibly believe it is right that someone who committed no crime—all he did was offend against the bigotry and prejudice of those who discharged him—will potentially have to suffer financially for the rest of his life for what was done to him? Surely, when we come to look at compensation, the principle ought to be to not merely to rectify the hurt and the prejudice of the time, but to ensure that people do not lose out financially for the rest of their lives.
Dr Murrison
That is why Lord Etherton has made his recommendations on financial awards. The structuring of that is yet to be determined, but I just want to manage expectations—as I suspect my Canadian counterparts managed the expectations of the Canadian community—about the quantum. I do not want people to think that all that financial loss will be restored to them—it would be unwise of us to suggest that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned padres. I hope that he reads the Government’s response to the report in full. If he does, he will see that there is a specific section relating to chaplaincy, and contrition on the part of chaplaincy about how some of its practitioners behaved during that period, which I think did them no credit at all. I am very sorry to hear the testimony that he has just given. I encourage his constituent to engage with the front door that I am launching today.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I join others in thanking Lord Etherton and all those who took the brave step of sharing their experience with him to inform the review and all 49 recommendations. Although significant work clearly needs to be done to follow through on those recommendations, will my right hon. Friend consider how we can use this work to help parts of the world that are still facing up to this realisation? They may need to do a wholesale piece of work to understand how they can change the way they deal with the LGBT community among their military personnel and veterans. The change that we are seeing in the UK must not be stopped from happening elsewhere in the world.
Dr Murrison
None of us has a monopoly on this. We are learning from the Canadian experience, and I expect others will learn from us. Across the board, this country is looked up to as a purveyor of norms and values of the highest order. When, for example, we train people from among our allies in how to conduct themselves, as is happening right now, those norms and values are inculcated, including this material.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
In the late ’80s, I was very close to someone who suffered considerably as a result of this ban when she was thrown out of the Army for being a lesbian. She had her distinguished and lengthy period of military service cut short, she was humiliated in the process, and, initially, she found it hard to find employment commensurate with her skills and worth as a human being. All that happened to her just because she was a woman who loved other women. It was a ban based on sexual orientation—nothing more, nothing less. Her loss, and that of others, includes pain and suffering, loss of earnings, loss of employability and loss of pension rights. Any compensation scheme should seek to put them back in the position that they would have been in were it not for that homophobic ban. Can the Minister confirm that all those heads of damages—pain and suffering, loss of earnings, loss of employability and loss of pension rights—will be taken into account in the compensation scheme?
Dr Murrison
The hon. and learned Lady will be aware that, in the early 2000s, the MOD was taken to court by a significant number of people who had been maligned in the way she has described. The MOD was found wanting and awards were made at that time. I cannot give her the assurances that she seeks because the financial awards scheme—it is a financial awards scheme, not a compensation scheme—is still being worked through, but I hope that we will be able to come back to the House soon to describe at least the bare bones of what we have in mind.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the tone in which he delivered it, and express my pleasure that there will be a memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum in my constituency? What discussions has he had with colleagues in the Home Office regarding any convictions that there may have been for servicemen in connection with their military service and their sexual orientation?
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend will be aware of the disregards and pardons provisions in part 12 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. They have the effect of expunging those offences, which are no longer offences. That clearly applies to what we are debating today. The answer to his question is that that expunging of material will be complete in relation to offences that are service offences and go outwith the civilian—then criminal—offences listed in part 12.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent worked for the Secret Intelligence Service between 1975 and 1984. In 1984, he was offered a posting overseas, at which point he declared that he was gay, and he was then dismissed expressly because of his sexual orientation. I thank Lord Etherton for the review and for meeting me to discuss this. Clearly, the review does not cover my constituent, but he and others in his position do not even have the comfort of being able to go public at any point because of the nature of their employment. Has the Minister spoken to colleagues in other parts of Government? If not, will he undertake to do so, because this experience should not be prolonged for those in the secret element of service to this nation?
Dr Murrison
I am more than happy to discuss the details of that constituent’s concerns separately. This is a review into the way in which Defence handled the matter between 1967 and 2000, and Lord Etherton’s terms of reference were drawn up accordingly. From what the hon. Lady has just told me, I do not think that her constituent will be covered by the review, but I am more than happy to have a conversation.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I commend the Government for commissioning the review and thank Lord Etherton for such a thorough piece of work. I also thank the Government for accepting all 49 of the recommendations—it is pretty unusual to accept all the recommendations, so the Government should be commended for that.
To follow on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about the disregards—or “expunging”, as the Minister suggested—am I right in thinking that those who have had service convictions would need to apply? If so, what more can be done to encourage them to apply to the Home Office for those disregards? Perhaps the Ministry of Defence could proactively suggest to them that they could do so.
Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the UK intelligence community should not be overlooked. There should perhaps be a second review, or at least some sort of internal review, about the treatment of UK intelligence officers over the past few decades.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. Lord Etherton’s terms of reference were deliberately drawn in the way that they were to focus specifically on defence, but my right hon. Friend has made a reasonable point, and I am sure colleagues across Government will hear what he has said. I am more than happy to have a discussion about this specific case with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and with my right hon. Friend, if they wish to do so.
It is important that if we are considering the implications for wider public service, we learn from what has gone before and from this review. I am confident that colleagues right across Government will be looking at what we have proposed doing in response to Lord Etherton’s report today and drawing their own conclusions. Perhaps they can learn from what has gone on and assure themselves that they, in turn, do not have dark corners that need to be given the light that Lord Etherton’s report has certainly given to defence.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests, including those relating to my recent Army Reserve service. I was very happy to be able to do that as an openly gay man alongside many other LGBT+ service personnel who serve us bravely around the world and in this country. That opportunity was not available to the many generations who went before who were equally courageous and brave in the service of our country in so many contexts, but who faced horrific discrimination.
One of those discriminated against was one of my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth. She was discharged in a totally humiliating way from the RAF in the 1970s for being a lesbian, but in her service record, the reason was recorded as “services no longer required.” I have raised her case with the MOD over many years, but was told that it could not be changed because it was correctly administered. In his statement, the Minister referred to amendments to veterans’ service history, which recommendations 26 and 27 of the report also refer to. Will he confirm that where individuals were discharged for reasons other than their sexuality, but their sexuality was clearly the reason, that will be considered in restitution for them and their service?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I remember him raising his constituent’s case when we debated this matter in the summer. The straight answer to his question is “yes”, and I encourage his constituent to go to the front door that is now open to ensure her case is properly examined and, if she wants, references to what happened to her are removed or expunged.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is impossible to put a price on, or indeed measure, the extent of the grief, trauma and shame that was caused to LGBT veterans, so why should we be putting a financial cap on the compensation they are going to get? When I was at a Fighting With Pride event recently, that grief, trauma and shame were palpable, so I plead with the Minister that although there is much to celebrate in Lord Etherton’s report—I congratulate him and the Government on it—there are clearly shortfalls, and given that nothing has been decided, he could go further. I am sure he agrees, and I think he should do so, given what has been experienced by our LGBT veterans.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Lord Etherton recommended £50 million, and we have accepted that recommendation. The details of the scheme will be worked out in the next few months, and I hope she will be pleased with what she sees.
We need to know what the cohort looks like. At the moment, we really do not know that, which is why the front door opens today. In a very short while, I hope, with the help of right hon. and hon. Members across the House encouraging their constituents, we will have a better handle on who needs to be marked with this financial reward, and what they suffered at the time and the degree of that. Once we have a handle on that, we will be better placed to design a quantum that will be appropriate to people who were maligned between 1967 and 2000.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s recognition of and apology for the persecution, dismissal or forced resignation of LGBT personnel, but the answers the Minister has given are raising more concerns. The first is the cap on reparations, the second is whether there is a deadline for those reparations, and the third is this: if people’s records did not actually state that their dismissal was because of LGBT persecution, how are they meant to prove that it was?
Dr Murrison
The answer is “with difficulty”, given what happened in 2010 for perfectly understandable and perfectly good reasons—it is the law of unintended consequences, is it not? I cannot give the hon. Lady that detail at the moment, because it is being worked out. It is so very difficult: if everybody had their records marked up, it would be quite straightforward, but they do not. We need to know who the folk are who are in scope, and then we need to look at what records exist. Many of those records had tags placed on them when papers were removed, which I think will help.
We also have to look at other schemes, such as the Canadian scheme. However, I suspect most right hon. and hon. Members in this House would be cautious about the Canadian scheme, because it drew the criteria very narrowly. Those who were nudged out, or inched out, through all sorts of means—innuendo, personal pressure, or being tipped the nod and the wink that somebody was on to them—would be disadvantaged under the Canadian scheme. I hope they will not be disadvantaged under ours.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The RAF lost a courageous serviceperson in 1997 when it sacked Carl Austin-Behan. Carl won the Royal Humane Society bronze medal for rescuing a pilot from a burning Hawk aircraft at RAF Chivenor. Last September, an inquiry found that there had been accelerated enlistment for women and ethnic minority candidates in the RAF, which was found to be dubious and possibly in breach of the Equality Act 2010. Clearly, we are not looking for that sort of overcorrection, but what assessment have the Government made of the legacy of the sackings of people such as Carl for recruiting the next generation of courageous gay service personnel?
Dr Murrison
Let me be absolutely clear: Defence wants people, regardless of their sex, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and social class. We just want people with talent—that is the touchstone for recruitment into the Army, Navy and Air Force right now. I do not care if people are gay; I welcome gay people serving side by side with everybody else. Our history is full of examples of the most courageous individuals who served in uniform and were gay.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I am privileged to be an ambassador for Fighting With Pride, and I worked with the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on this matter before he took up his role. I pay tribute to Caroline and Craig in particular, as well as all the people they have been working with.
Fighting With Pride has welcomed the pace, positive intent and completeness of this process, but the next stage is a full debate in this Chamber to which Members can contribute. I hope the Minister will listen to the representations he has heard today. Finally, I put on record my concerns about the £50 million cap and the fact that the Minister has spoken about this being a financial award scheme, not a compensation scheme. I think the Government are in the wrong place on that and that they will end up causing themselves more problems if they do not seek to compensate veterans who have lost livelihoods, careers and pensions through their mistreatment by Government.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s observations. He may like to look up the Canadian scheme, which is a reasonable exemplar, although the circumstances are different. It awarded 110 million Canadian dollars, and this morning a Canadian dollar was worth 58p, but that scheme covered a much broader scope and the population of Canada is smaller than that of the UK. It covered police, the armed forces and civil servants, so the scope was much wider. Although the two are not directly comparable, the Canadian scheme does at least make us feel that we are in the right ballpark. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the commitment he is seeking, but I urge him to look closely at other schemes and certainly at the Canadian one, which is probably the closest comparator we have.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
May I impress again on the Minister the importance of hearing LGBT veterans’ voices on the Floor of the House, just as it was important to hear the apology from the Prime Minister at the time? I, too, want to share my concerns about the structure of the scheme that the Minister has talked about. He has referred to a front door; can we have an assurance that that front door will remain open for as long as is needed? Many of our LGBT veterans suffer great trauma and shame, and will be quite far away from that front door. They will need support from trusted partners such as Fighting With Pride to get anywhere near it.
Dr Murrison
Yes, the front door will remain open, but a stakeholder pack will also be sent to all organisations that we know are interested, urging them to socialise it, which is vital. I cannot emphasise enough that it is vital that those who believe they are eligible for some restorative action—in the first instance, non-financial—should register their interest. In doing so, they are able to register or flag the fact that they may be interested in a financial award as well. Unless we have that data, I think our job of determining what the scheme ultimately looks like will be very difficult, and the sooner we get a handle on that, the sooner we can start to get money out of the door.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
This is an issue I raised many times over the five years that I was the armed forces spokesperson for the SNP, so I very much welcome Lord Etherton’s review, and I pay tribute to Caroline and Craig at Fighting With Pride. We have mentioned the spurious reasons for which many LGBT veterans were dismissed. Of course, the other thing is that the colleagues they served with were encouraged to report their supposed misdemeanours. I do think one of the difficulties for the Government will be tracking down all those who have been affected and impacted by this, but it will not just be in their own records. I am sure there must be things in other people’s records that can be tied into this as well.
I want to mention the £50 million. I have done a quick sum, and if the 1,120 people who responded each got a share, it would be £44,000 each, which is an absolute pittance for a lost career, a lost pension, loss of earnings and the loss of a reference to go on to a new career outside the armed forces. We really have to look at that £50 million figure, which does not even touch the surface.
Dr Murrison
The Canadian scheme offered sums ranging from 100,000 Canadian dollars to 5,000 Canadian dollars depending on what happened. It was tiered in a way that gave a range of awards depending on the experience evidenced, and it was evidenced. It is more difficult when we come to a scheme where evidence is difficult to come by. I think the hon. Member would accept that, for some of the higher level awards, we do have to have some form of evidence that people were forcibly ejected from the armed forces. Now, £50 million is a great deal of money. It is a recommendation in the Etherton report, which we have accepted. We will use that as our guiding star in designing the scheme that we have in mind for financial awards. I am not going to promise her or indeed give her any hope that we will breach the £50 million. It is the Government’s intent that we should stick at that figure.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I want to add my gratitude for the work done by Fighting With Pride and to those affected veterans who gave evidence to the review, including a constituent of mine. In response to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is no longer in his place, the Minister mentioned—I hope it was a slip of the tongue—the debate today. I do hope that the debate will be soon in the new year in this Chamber and in Government time.
It is being reported that an earlier draft of the Etherton review recommended double the compensation offer for LGBT veterans than has come out in the final version. Can the Minister tell the House if that was the case and, if so, why the compensation offered has been halved?
Dr Murrison
I am certainly not aware of that. Lord Etherton is known for his independence, and his report was independent. Lord Etherton said £50 million, and I will leave it at that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for his statement.
Afghan Resettlement Update
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
In September this year, I notified Members of the House that on 31 August the Government had successfully ended the use of bridging hotels for thousands of legally resettled Afghans, and through the hard work and determination of central Government officials and local authorities, the vast majority of them are now in settled accommodation. Hotels were never designed to be a permanent solution either for the Afghans who risked their lives working for UK forces in Afghanistan or, indeed, for the British taxpayer. Ending the provision of bridging accommodation was the right thing to do for our Afghan friends, who can now get on with rebuilding their lives.
The hotel exit plan required a considerable cross-Government effort and represented a significant national achievement, but our debt of gratitude to our Afghan partners is ongoing. We are now working to ensure that Afghans who are eligible for relocation via the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, and who remain overseas in Pakistan and other third countries, are moved over here at pace so they can start to rebuild their lives here in the United Kingdom.
On the current trajectory estimates, we expect to have welcomed around 3,500 arrivals by the end of 2023 across ACRS and ARAP, and wherever possible new arrivals will go straight into settled accommodation. For ARAP families, this will largely be into service family accommodation options, which have been made available by the Ministry of Defence across the country. The Ministry of Defence is also providing shorter-term transitional accommodation until movement into settled accommodation is possible. For ACRS arrivals, we are committed to bringing eligible persons over to the UK as fast as possible, and this week we will welcome 250 arrivals from Pakistan, with a further flight arriving next week. Some 70% of families manifested on these flights have been pre-matched into settled accommodation, but for a small number of this cohort transitional accommodation will be required.
The Government remain committed to ending the systemic use of hotels, and we do not plan to open new hotels to meet this increased demand. A small number of hotels with existing contracts will be extended for a limited time period to help accommodate ACRS arrivals who have yet to be matched to settled housing solutions in the United Kingdom. The Home Office has already undertaken initial engagement with local authorities in which those hotels are located, and it will continue to work closely with councils across the United Kingdom to ensure they are receiving the support they need to relocate Afghan families into settled accommodation as quickly as possible.
The Government recognise the challenges that local authorities face when it comes to resettling communities across the United Kingdom, and that is why we put in place a generous funding package of £285 million in March to help fund housing solutions and support councils to provide integration support to Afghan families. While the scale of the task is much smaller this time than it was in the summer, with the vast majority of arrivals this year already pre-matched to settled accommodation, the Government will be matching the commitment we previously made to local authorities by offering a similar funding package of financial support for the resettlement of these new arrivals.
That includes wraparound funding of £28 per person per day, which is available to councils that are supporting households in transitional accommodation. In addition, local authorities will be able to draw on the flexible housing fund, which provides over £7,000 per Afghan individual to enable them to support move-ons, and that will be capped at £35,000 per household. Furthermore, funding will be provided to mitigate any additional pressures of homelessness from transitional accommodation, and there will be up to six months of wraparound funding for those in temporary accommodation. Where local authorities are supporting Afghan arrivals into settled accommodation, they can claim the integration tariff funding of £20,520 per person over the first three years towards resettlement and integration costs.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will continue to explore a range of accommodation options to ensure the use of transitional hotel accommodation is kept to an absolute minimum. This includes exploring a pilot sponsorship scheme that aims to support ACRS households and builds on the learnings from the Home Office community sponsorship scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme that proved so successful. As was the case before, the role of the voluntary sector is vital in providing support at a local level.
I want to reassure Afghan families who remain in Pakistan and other third countries, and who are eligible to come to the United Kingdom, that this Government will work night and day to bring them over as quickly and as safely as possible. I recognise the uncertainty that comes with living in temporary accommodation. That is why Departments across Government continue to work at pace, and in step with their local authority and third-sector partners, to provide suitable settled housing solutions as quickly as possible. The Prime Minister has asked me to oversee the successful delivery of that operation, and that is exactly what I intend to do.
No one knows more than me the debt we owe to our Afghan partners. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that we continue to support them, as they once supported us. I urge local authority leaders to engage as much as possible with central Government over the coming months, to replicate the collaborative spirit that proved so successful during the hotel exit scheme over the summer, and to ensure that all new arrivals to the United Kingdom under those pathways continue to be met with the warm welcome they deserve. I remain determined to deliver that for the Afghan people, and I commend this statement to the House.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
As this is my first outing at the Dispatch Box in my new role as shadow Minister for Veterans, let me say that the Labour party is proud of our service personnel, our veterans and our armed forces communities. I also thank my excellent predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for all her hard work. I will attempt to build on her efforts to improve the lives of veterans and their families across the UK—I hope I can work with the Minister on that.
I pay tribute to all those involved in Operation Pitting, all those who served alongside our forces in Afghanistan, and all those who worked to assist them. I thank the Minister for, as he acknowledged, his first oral update on Afghan resettlement since September. Since then it has been confirmed that, unfortunately, Ministers have missed their target to clear the ARAP backlog. Thousands are still waiting in Pakistan. There is real concern that ARAP and ACRS applicants could be sent back to Afghanistan.
Families are still awaiting permanent accommodation in the UK, and military sites, as we have heard, are being used as temporary housing. Just today, I understand that the Government have been fined £350,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office for a data breach concerning the ARAP scheme. It is hard to feel proud of our record in relation to those events. Britain’s moral duty to assist these Afghans is felt most fiercely by the UK forces they served alongside. We as a nation gave a commitment to those who served with our forces that we would do right by them when they arrived on our shores.
I note the Minister’s comments about the hotel exit plan. Will he confirm that zero Afghans have returned to bridging hotels since September, and that the contracts that he referred to as being “extended” are only for new arrivals? How many new arrivals have been placed in hotels since September? The Minister said in his previous statement that
“some families have moved into temporary accommodation under local authority homelessness provision. That is less than 5% of the 24,600 people we have relocated from Afghanistan.”—[Official Report, 19 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 1254.]
That was still over 1,000 people registered as homeless. What is the figure now?
As the Minister mentioned, it has been reported that the Ministry of Defence has made available 700 service accommodation units for Afghans. Yesterday it was announced that the Government are now using Chickerell Camp near Weymouth to house Afghans who supported the UK. How many Afghans are currently in military accommodation, how many MOD sites are currently in use for that purpose, and for how long does the Minister expect Afghans to be accommodated in military housing?
The Minister for Armed Forces said on Monday:
“There are around 2,000 people in Afghanistan who we need to move out and around 1,800 left in Pakistan who we need to bring in. In all, I would expect another 4,000 to 4,500 arrivals.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 635.]
When does the Minister expect those people to arrive, and where will they be housed? Too much of this feels like a saga of failure. It cannot continue. Lives cannot remain in limbo, and Afghans cannot be put in danger from the Taliban. On behalf of our veterans and members of the armed forces, who feel so strongly about this, we must fulfil our duty to them and provide a new and secure life in the UK.
Johnny Mercer
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post, and on another day I look forward to engaging with him across the Dispatch Box on veterans policy. As of 8 December, 215 families remain in temporary accommodation, and as of a few days ago, around 1,826 ARAP-entitled personnel are still in Pakistan. That is obviously blending with the ACRS pathway. Indeed, a flight of 246 people is arriving today on the ACRS pathway and will be met by Home Office officials. As I said, 70% of those have been pre-matched to houses, and we are looking to accommodate the remainder and get them into settled accommodation as soon as possible.
The red lines remain the same: nobody has slept rough as a result of this policy. We are clearly juggling multiple different dynamics when it comes to getting people into this country, into temporary transit accommodation so that we do not delay the flow out of Pakistan or Afghanistan, and then into settled accommodation, which is where we all want these people to be. The numbers are changing every day, and I am more than happy to share what they will be. I do not want anybody to be in a hotel for a day longer than they want to be, whether in Pakistan or the United Kingdom. I am not really interested in what has happened before; we are where we are today.
I am determined that we will see through our duty to this cohort—both ARAP and ACRS—and I will turn myself inside out until we get to the place where all entitled personnel are in settled accommodation in the United Kingdom, in line with our commitments.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a matter of honour and common human decency that we should give these people, who served us so well in Afghanistan, proper accommodation and a safe refuge here in the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister is doing that for the remaining people in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I also welcome the fact that he has been clear that hotels are not the right place for these people to be housed, and I am proud that we in Wiltshire are making a significant amount of our empty military accommodation available to them, including 40 in my own constituency, but also a large number across the county. That is a good use for empty military accommodation and I hope it will work extremely well.
Will the Minister make representations to his colleagues in the Home Office that the strength of feeling against the use of hotels for these people stands in some contrast to the Wiltshire golf club hotel, not one mile away from Lyneham, where those people will be housed, which is crammed to the doors with 120 other asylum seekers and refugees of one kind or another? The Home Office must take steps to do what the Minister has done by removing those people from unsuitable hotel accommodation and into decent, permanent accommodation.
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Wiltshire Council is one of many local authorities across the country—I had a call on Monday with officials, and yesterday with council leaders, 270 of them across the country—that are part of this real national effort, and I pay tribute to them for their work on this. The operating box that I am within is the Afghan cohort, both ACRS and ARAP-entitled personnel. Those in the Home Office are dealing with the wider migration issue, and I will let them write to my hon. Friend and answer those points in due course.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in August 2021, and it should be a source of shame and embarrassment to this Government that we are still talking about bringing people to safety over two years later. A marker of the failure of the ACRS and the ARAP schemes is that it is known that there are 17 Afghans in every small boat in the channel for every one who has come over on those schemes. When the Government talk about small boats, they know that it is a result of their own failure to deal with and to support Afghans, to whom he says—and I agree—we owe a significant debt of gratitude.
Can I ask the Minister about his conversations with his counterparts in Pakistan, because it seems very much as if the Government are watching as Pakistan sends people back into the hands of the Taliban? I would like to know what those conversations are. The message going out that he will bring people in Pakistan as quickly and safely as possible will ring hollow to the many constituents who are still in touch with me and desperately afraid for friends and family who are in hiding in Pakistan, waiting for a chap at the door.
I will return to the case of those people who are perhaps owed a debt of gratitude in the schemes and who have not been successful in applying. The case of the Triples has been called a “disgrace” by General Sir Richard Barrons, because:
“It reflects that either we’re duplicitous as a nation or incompetent.”
Which of those does the Minister think he is?
On access to services, the Minister talks about £28 a person a day. That will barely cover the cost of an interpreter, never mind anything else that people who have experienced such trauma may require. It is just not appropriate at all. On the accommodation side of things, I agree that hotel accommodation is never appropriate for the long term, but I have visited the former Napier barracks, which are also extremely poor quality and not suitable for long-term accommodation, particularly in the depths of winter. How long will people be held in that accommodation before they can move on to something more suitable? What support services will be put in place, because I have found them to be completely inadequate?
A constituent of mine has been working since the fall of Afghanistan to get a particular colleague and his family over. He has found it desperately difficult to negotiate the paperwork. As far as I am aware, they have still not been able to bring them over. Will the Minister look at that particular case if I write to him? Finally, can he tell us some numbers? How many expressions of interest are still outstanding? How many people have been lost contact with or have passed away waiting for this incompetent Government to deal with their case?
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Member refers to what has happened in the past, and I have been asked to look at this from a clear date in time. Since then, I have been working day in, day out to get as many as we possibly can of those to whom we owe a duty back to this country and into settled accommodation.
When it comes to conversations with Pakistan, I am clear and have had assurances—as have the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Staff—that these individuals will not be deported back to Pakistan.
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Member shakes her head, but that serious threat is hanging over these families. It has not happened, and it is not right to overplay that when officials and others are working incredibly hard to make sure that we do not cross that red line for anyone who is entitled to be here in the United Kingdom. She well knows it is not £28 per day; that is on top of the £7,000 a person and the £20,520 for integration. I am focused on trying to solve an incredibly complicated and difficult scenario so that we see through our duty to those to whom we owe it. If there are contributions that will help me do that, I will always listen to them, but I am obviously not going to engage when contributions are just used as a stick to try to beat the Government.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for this statement, and I know he takes these matters seriously, as do Members across the House.
On Monday, in response to an urgent question, the Minister for Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), said that
“certain members of the CF333 and ATF444 taskforces, will not be eligible for relocation under ARAP.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 629.]
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs well knows, as do I, that the Triples were recruited by the UK, led by the UK and paid by the UK. By design, they served shoulder to shoulder alongside us. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and it is a matter of honour. Does the Minister share my concern that, based on what the Minister for Armed Forces said on Monday, the ARAP criteria do not guarantee qualification for the Triples? He will share my concern that many have already been rejected, and some undoubtedly already are dead. What more can be done to support the Triples?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to my friend, the hon. Member, who I know commanded one of these units at a similar time to when I was in Afghanistan, and he has a deep and intimate knowledge of how these taskforces were set up, paid for and funded. It is for the Ministry of Defence and the Minister for Armed Forces to speak about what that Minister said on Monday, but I am clear that we have a duty to these individuals. While technically the Minister for Armed Forces was right that they were led and had direct command chains into the Afghan Government, there will be no attempt whatever from this Government to close down avenues for those who served in 333 and 444, who the hon. Member personally trained and fought alongside. While I recognise the concern, he will know that I will not oversee a scheme that does not do its duty to those he and I served alongside in Afghanistan, particularly in the 333 and 444 taskforces,.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, but I have to use the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituent. Since travelling to the UK as part of Operation Pitting in August 2021, my constituent, who was a military police officer, has been separated from his wife and four children who were unable to travel due to the chaos at Kabul airport. Two years on, he has been resettled under ACRS pathway 1, yet he is still waiting for further information on how his family will be resettled. His wife, unfortunately, is receiving death threats. He is concerned for their safety, and they are still in Afghanistan. Will the Minister meet me to help get clarity on how my constituent’s family can travel to the UK so that they can get on with their lives together?
Johnny Mercer
If the hon. Member writes to me with that particular case today, I will have a look at it and have an answer for her today.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The data breaches affecting 265 people who worked with the UK Government in Afghanistan, for which the MOD was fined by the Information Commissioner’s Office yesterday, are incredibly serious and could have cost numerous lives. We know now that the Afghan resettlement scheme, which was set up to support such individuals, has had numerous issues from the start, with a number of people being incorrectly categorised as ineligible. I welcome the families who are settling into service accommodation in Leuchars in my constituency, but does the Minister accept that eligibility loopholes remain, as eloquently pointed out by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)? Will the Minister commit to correcting those in the new year, so that we can support all those who are rightly eligible?
Johnny Mercer
I reiterate what I said earlier: it is a clear red line for me, as it is for this Government. For those who are eligible for those schemes and who are entitled to be in the United Kingdom in settled accommodation, it will happen. We will keep going until we achieve that objective. We stood here in the summer looking to get 8,500 Afghans out of hotels and into settled accommodation. That was a significant challenge, but we achieved that, and I fully intend to achieve this task, too.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, but the system is still shambolic. I had a constituent who was a member of the special forces who arrived here, but trying to get his family here was complete chaos. We were being bounced between the Home Office, Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence. We finally succeeded, but the process was not easy. Who is actually in charge of this? The frustration in this case—it was clear that they were eligible for the scheme—was that without my intervention, it perhaps would not have been solved.
May I pick up on what the Minister just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)? Is the Minister actually saying, in contradiction to what the Minister for Armed Forces said on Monday, that this scheme does apply to the Triples? The Minister for Armed Forces clearly said that it did not.
Johnny Mercer
The two things that the Minister for Armed Forces was saying on Monday are correct. Being in a taskforce does not automatically entitle someone to be in the United Kingdom, because while that might initially get them through the eligibility criteria, there may be well-founded reasons why that individual does not settle into accommodation in the UK, including many different national security reasons that have been outlined. He was correct to say that, and he is correct to say that the Afghan taskforce had an Afghan command reporting chain. I am clear about the criteria for ARAP entitlement, and the vast majority of triple-three and triple-four operators should fit within those criteria. If they meet the criteria and deserve to be in the United Kingdom, I will do everything I can to get them here. This is a Government effort; it is not led by a single Department. This is a cross-Government issue for the Home Office, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Ministry of Defence. I have been asked by the Prime Minister to oversee it, and that is what I am doing at the moment.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for including the word “integration” in his statement. This weekend I met a man who is now settled through the ARAP scheme in a permanent home in my constituency after living for over a year in a hotel elsewhere with his family. Although he is hugely grateful to the Government, Hounslow London Borough Council and Refugees Welcome Hounslow for the support he has had to ensure that he and his family are safe and secure, it is not everything. He is working 16 hours a week in a minimum-wage catering job. He has had no support to find properly paid work that uses the skills and experience that the UK valued when he worked for our specialist services in Afghanistan. As well as providing adequate housing, will the Government please ensure that those settled through ARAP and ACRS get quality support to help them into a future career in this country, so that they can be fully integrated?
Johnny Mercer
I do not accept that this individual will have had no support. There would have been a lot of money and support thrown at such individuals and communities as they came in. There is the £20,520 integration fund, which is specifically for that purpose. Clearly, we are balancing different competing pressures when it comes to individuals getting into jobs and using skills that they had in Afghanistan, and that work continues. That will be stood up again for the process that we stood up in the summer, to make sure that we get people out of hotels and into good, long-term accommodation. I fully accept that there is a job of integration to be done there, and that is what we are working to do, using the voluntary sector, the third sector, local authorities and everybody else who is willing to lean into this.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
My constituent’s sister and 70-year-old mother, who were accepted on to the ACRS in January this year, have since been stuck in Pakistan alone and are now homeless, with the constant threat of being returned to Afghanistan. They cannot afford exit visas from Pakistan, and the UNHCR is not currently paying for exit payments. My office has contacted the Home Office on several occasions, receiving only template responses, so will the Minister take a look into this individual case and get back to me as soon as possible?
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Gentleman must be telepathic, because just this morning I have commissioned work to look at what we can do about visa fees. I do not want an extraordinarily complex and expensive programme set back by having to pay a £500 visa exit fee in Pakistan. We are looking at how we overcome that, but I am more than happy to look at his individual case as well.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I was pleased to hear this week that unused MOD service family accommodation in my constituency is going to be utilised to house Afghan families, and that the Government now aim to bring people waiting in Pakistan to the UK. The Minister seems to have gone some way to unblocking the logjam—I am buttering him up because I want something.
I met the Prime Minister earlier this year to ask him to look at rescuing Afghan women judges and prosecutors, who have been left behind in severe danger, yet nothing has happened. We could look at doing this through community sponsorship, but in the meantime these women are at desperate risk. Will the Minister meet me in the new year to see if he can help break the logjam on this issue as well?
Johnny Mercer
I will absolutely meet the hon. and learned Lady, because I hope we will soon have something to say on one of these schemes. She can have a look at it when we get to that moment, and then we can meet in January to discuss what else she thinks we might do.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister again for visiting Cardiff to meet Afghans living in a hotel in my own constituency. He will know about the constructive approach that was taken by Cardiff Council and Vale of Glamorgan Council in working with his Government’s officials to move people into long-term settlement. Can he assure me that underused MOD estate in Wales will be used to the fullest extent that it can be to support new arrivals? All our local authorities are obviously under substantial housing pressures at the moment. They have gone above and beyond in giving Afghans a very warm welcome. Can we make sure that we are using the MOD estate in Wales fully?
Johnny Mercer
Yes, of course. I had local authority leaders on the phone yesterday, and I know it is frustrating for people if they feel that the MOD has empty properties in their area that it can be using. To be clear, the MOD is bending over backwards to try to accommodate as many people as we can. Just because a property is empty does not mean that it can be used; there will be plenty of rotational work going on, plenty of maintenance upkeep and so on. We are straining every sinew to make that happen, and it is happening in Wales as well, but I will continue to work closely with MOD colleagues and make sure that we meet this challenge.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and his clear commitment to honour, in his words, the debt we owe to our Afghan veterans. Yesterday’s debate on immigration and those who have entered the country illegally underlined the fate of Afghan soldiers who served with the UK forces and who are soon to be forced back to Afghanistan, probably to face certain death. These men, who put their lives in danger, seek to find a legal home under the promise given to them. I say this very gently: does the Minister accept that rather than send a message that people travelling illegally in boats will have more success than those signed up to the present scheme, we must instead emphasise the need to revisit why so many applications are failing while immigration through illegal means seems the easier and more successful route?
Johnny Mercer
I recognise the challenges with the eligibility process, and people’s concerns and frustration. That is an MOD issue, but as a Government we are working together to remedy it and to make sure that we arrive at the correct outcome. Anybody who has been to Afghanistan or worked with this cohort will know that it is incredibly difficult to identify these people. They have extremely complex families and histories. No one is sitting there and trying to put up barriers to their coming to the United Kingdom, but it is right that we are careful and clear when we process applications. I have given a commitment to this House, and to the Afghan community, that I will keep going until we have seen through our duty to every last one of them.
Point of Order
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The daughter of my constituents Brendan and Marion Chesterton died of a pulmonary embolism after she was seen twice at her GP practice by a physician associate. She was 30 years old and a budding actor in musical theatre. The coroner at her inquest said that Emily should have been immediately referred to a hospital emergency unit and that:
“If she had been…the likelihood is that she would have been treated for pulmonary embolism and would have survived.”
Since I raised serious issues in an Adjournment debate about the way that the physician associate was used in this case, I have seen many serious concerns raised by doctors about the risks to patient safety from the way that physician associates are being used, yet the Government are ploughing ahead with their plan for a rapid increase in the number of physician associates in the NHS. I understand that today the Government will lay or have laid an Order in Council—the Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2023—which amends the Health Act 1999 to regulate physician associates via the General Medical Council. There is a real and widespread concern among doctors about the risks of regulating physician associates as if they were doctors, which they are not. Has there been any indication from the Health and Social Care Secretary that she intends to make a statement on this matter? There is a real concern that this is too important an issue to be dealt with by delegated legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice of it. She raised whether a statement was likely to be made. I certainly have had no indication from the Government that they intend to make an oral statement on this matter. I note that the Minister for Health and Secondary Care, the right hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), made a written ministerial statement on Monday, and I understand that there will be further opportunities to scrutinise the draft legislation to which she referred. She is an experienced Member of the House, and I am sure she knows how she can contribute to that process. If not, I know that the Table Office will give her advice. I think we will leave it at that.
Bills Presented
Government of Wales (Referendum on Devolution) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Rob Roberts presented a Bill to make provision for a referendum on devolution in Wales; to provide that no further such referendum may take place within twenty five years; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 26 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 137).
Immigration and Nationality Fees (Exemption for NHS Clinical Staff) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Rob Roberts presented a Bill to exempt NHS clinical staff from the requirement to pay fees under section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 26 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 138).
Welfare Benefits (Adequacy, Debt and Deductions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
David Linden presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the potential merits of prohibiting the making of deductions from certain social security benefits within the first six months of a claim, of restricting the making of deductions in cases where a claimant is at risk of hardship, of reducing the maximum proportion of a claim that may be deducted, and of changing the priority order in which debt repayments are recovered by deductions; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the adequacy of the rate at which social security benefits are paid; to require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for increasing the availability of free debt and money advice for people claiming social security benefits; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 2 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 49).
Finance Bill
Wednesday 13th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2024 View all Finance Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 46 / Noes: 296 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 54 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must inform the House that the reasoned amendment in the name of Drew Hendry has been selected.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before I start the debate, I should declare, to avoid any potential conflict or perception of conflict, that, with reference to my previously published entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my ministerial interests, I have recused myself from making ministerial decisions on issues relating to pillar two, which will be dealt with more than ably by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies).
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered an autumn statement with a clear intention to strengthen the economy now and for the future. The Government proposed to do that by putting money back in people’s pockets and cutting taxes. The Finance Bill that we are debating today does just that. First, it supports British businesses by allowing them to invest for less, which will encourage innovation and enhance productivity. Secondly, its measures will improve and simplify our tax system, which will ensure that it is fit for purpose.
The Bill covers 36 different measures in total, some of which are more complex than others. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased—or perhaps displeased—to know that I do not intend to cover every one in detail in this opening speech. I would like to focus on some of the key themes and measures.
I will first detail the Bill’s measures to support British business. The Government understand the simple truth that a strong private sector drives economic growth. That growth in turn serves the public good by allowing the Government to invest in public services. Perhaps most importantly, it allows the Government to support the most vulnerable. That understanding has shaped our approach. That is why we are lowering business taxes: because it will incentivise investment and boost private sector growth.
The Bill’s first measure to achieve that will make full expensing permanent, allowing businesses to invest for less. As a result, the UK’s plant and machinery capital allowances will increase. It is effectively a tax cut to companies of over £10 billion a year—the most generous of any major economy. The benefits to the economy of the policy—just this measure alone—are that it will drive 0.1% GDP growth over the next five years, increasing to almost 0.2% in the long run, and it will unlock an additional £3 billion of investment per year. That is only one of many Government policies backing British businesses.
The Government also recognise the important role of research and development in driving both innovation and economic growth as well as the benefits it can bring to society as a whole. Therefore, we will merge two Government programmes: the research and development expenditure credit scheme and the small or medium enterprises scheme. That will have two key impacts: it will simplify the system and provide greater support for UK firms to drive innovation. Those changes will apply from April 2024 onwards.
The support does not stop there. The Government will also introduce greater support for loss-making R&D-intensive SMEs. We will also lower the R&D intensity threshold required to access that to 30%. That will help about 5,000 extra SMEs, and they will receive £27 per £100 of qualifying R&D invested. Let us be in no doubt that this is a major boost for innovators across the UK. These measures significantly increase support to R&D firms to about £280 million a year by 2028-29, and overall they will ensure the success of UK plc.
I will now outline the next measure to back British businesses. The Government will extend the sunset clause for two more programmes: the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme. Both will be extended to 6 April 2035. That will support young companies to raise capital for successful growth.
The Government applaud our world-leading creative sector—after all, it grew 1.5 times faster than GDP between 2010 and 2019. In response, a new measure to back British business will go even further through reforming tax reliefs to refundable expenditure credits for the film, TV and video games industries.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the Minster outline support that the Government are giving to the creative industries, which secures thousands of jobs around the UK, and particularly in the north-west of England, where we have seen a huge creative hub develop. Does he agree that it is not just about jobs, though? It is also about soft power, which the creative industries ensure goes right around the world, with great British TV and film. Does he also agree that we want to see that continue?
Nigel Huddleston
Yes. My hon. Friend makes an important point. The jobs and economic activity are hugely important, but we are known throughout the world for excelling in the creative sectors—we always have, and we always will. We can all be proud of the incredible creative talent in the UK. He is also right to highlight how it is spread right across the UK.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Minister is talking about creative industries, and the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) talked about soft power, but I wonder whether the Minister will get on to the changes to other cultural tax reliefs included in the Bill. Among other proposed changes, the Bill will remove European economic area expenditure from qualifying costs for orchestral tax relief from next April. That will result in a significant long-term cut for orchestras that tour Europe frequently. Does he not see that orchestra tax relief—an important cultural tax relief—is working as it is and should not be amended to the detriment of those orchestras, which should be supported?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the success of our creative industries, and particularly the music industry and orchestras. She will be well aware, though, that we are not in the European Union any more, so some of the EEA measures no longer apply. Instead, we have to be World Trade Organisation-compliant. That bring some challenges, but we are certainly there to support the industry across a whole range of measures. I have already mentioned some of them, but we are doing even more with targeted measures to support the sector, because we want to boost investment in three other areas: animated film, animated TV and children’s TV programmes. As a result, those will be eligible for a 5% uplift to a 39% credit rate.
Barbara Keeley
The Association of British Orchestras has warned that, for some orchestras, the proposed changes to orchestral tax relief risk making European touring financially unviable. Given the financial and administrative burdens that the Government have already forced on orchestras through their botched Brexit deal, it seems ludicrous to create more difficulties for orchestras that are touring, especially as orchestra tax relief is working fine as it is. Does the Minister not accept—I know that he has had evidence on this—that the changes are unnecessary and damaging to orchestras?
Nigel Huddleston
As I outlined, I think the hon. Lady is hoping for measures to turn back the clock to when we were in the EU. We are not in the EU any more, and therefore the world is a different place. However, we are always keen to support and engage with the creative industries, and orchestras in particular. When I was at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, we raised those issues again and again—actually, with considerable success—to enable orchestras and tourers to get across Europe, often by doing individual deals with individual countries, which we sometimes have to do now that we are no longer in the European Union.
I will now outline measures to support our employment-boosting agenda. The path to achieve this is clear: we must remove both barriers to work and incentives not to work. Perhaps most of all, though, we must ensure that hard work is rewarded. That is why our spring Budget announcements were so important. Let us take the abolition of the lifetime allowance. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that that will retain 15,000 workers annually and the Bill completes that change by removing the lifetime allowance from the statute book completely.
I now turn to the measures to simplify our tax system. Complex and inefficient taxes are one of the biggest restrictions on businesses. They often come at a high cost in terms of both time and capital. It is the Government’s duty to deliver a modern, simpler tax system and the measures in the Bill will help to do just that. Making full expensing permanent is a huge simplification for larger firms, but we are going further by expanding the cash basis for over 4 million smaller growing traders. This will simplify the process to calculate their profits and pay income tax. We have also listened closely to feedback from businesses and, as a result of that consultation, some of the main restrictions on using the cash basis will be removed. The simpler cash basis will be the default method for calculating profit, and businesses will therefore start on the simpler regime as standard. We will also be taking forward other technical small measures. Those will include improving the data that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs collects from its customers. These measures will result in a trusted modern tax administration system.
We must also build a tax system that is fair and works for everyone. We cannot understate the role of tax in supporting our public services. Taxes pay for them directly and, through attracting investment, indirectly. We must all fairly play our part. The Bill will make promoting tax avoidance a crime in circumstances where persons continue to promote a scheme after the receipt of a stop notice. It will also enable HMRC to act more quickly to tackle promoters of tax avoidance by introducing a new power for HMRC to bring disqualification action against the directors of companies involved in promoting tax avoidance. We will also reduce the scope for tax fraud in the construction industry by amending the construction industry scheme. The amendment will add VAT to the gross payment status test. This means two things: that compliance will now be checked as part of this process, and that HMRC powers to remove gross payment status will be enhanced.
Of course, it is only fair that we also guard against over-collection of tax. The Bill addresses a concern here, too. It will do so by enabling HMRC to reduce the off-payroll working PAYE liability of a deemed employer who is responsible for ensuring that PAYE is calculated and sent to HMRC correctly. This will apply where that engagement is incorrectly treated as self-employed for tax purposes.
It also remains important that we are in lockstep with our international partners during such unprecedented times. In spring, we legislated to implement OECD pillar two in the UK, building on the historic agreement built by the Prime Minister, to a two-pillar solution to the tax challenges of a globalised digital economy. In the Bill, we are making technical amendments to the main pillar two rules identified from stakeholder consultation. That is to ensure that the UK remains consistent with the latest internationally agreed guidance.
The Bill builds on the autumn statement that focused on the long-term growth of the UK economy and sound economic policy. What a contrast to Labour’s fantasy economics, including £28 billion per year of additional spending without any idea where that money will come from—although we all know at heart that it will be taxpayers or through more debt, which is, of course, just deferred taxation. In contrast, this Finance Bill backs British businesses, rewards hard work, and supports a modern and simpler tax system. In doing so, it delivers on the Government’s commitments to prioritise economic growth, encourage business investment, nurture innovation and simplify our tax system to combat tax avoidance. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
After 13 long years of the Conservatives in power, it is clear that, no matter what they try to do or say, they cannot escape the reality of their record in office. That reality is one of people across Britain being worse off, public services collapsing, and a Conservative party that puts its own interests before the country’s.
We now have a governing party barely able to govern and a Prime Minister barely able to lead, but at least the Chancellor is still following the Prime Minister’s example by trying to emulate his reverse Midas touch. Frankly, whenever the Chancellor talks about getting the economy growing, the country is pushed in the opposite direction. In his speech three weeks ago, he used the phrase “autumn statement for growth” seven times, and what did we see? The growth forecast for next year cut by more than half, cut again the year after that, and cut yet again the year after that. It seems that the Financial Secretary is getting in on the act, too. Today, he talked about what he has been doing to support growth, and what do we see? Figures out today confirm that the UK economy contracted unexpectedly in October, with GDP falling by 0.3%.
It is not just in relation to growth that the reverse Midas touch applies. Last month, the Prime Minister said:
“I want to cut taxes, I believe in cutting taxes.”
But what have we seen? Even after all the changes the Government have announced, the tax burden is still on track to be the highest since the second world war. The truth is that after 13 years of failure on the economy, the Conservatives are incapable of getting our country back on track. After 13 years, they do not have the determination or the plan to get us out of this doom loop where growth is low, taxes are high, public services are collapsing and families are worse off. Only Labour’s plan will bring stability and responsibility back to our public finances, give families the security they need and reform our public services for the future. Only Labour is ready to work with businesses day in, day out to get our economy growing, to create good jobs for the future and to make people across Britain better off.
There are a number of individual measures in the Bill that we have been calling for for some time; we will not oppose its Second Reading, and we look forward to considering it in detail in Committee. However, it is clear that the Bill and the autumn statement it follows are simply the latest chapter in 13 long years of Conservatives failing to get the economy growing and make working people better off. It is sobering and frankly staggering that, as the Resolution Foundation set out following the autumn statement, real average weekly earnings are now set to remain below their 2008 level until 2028. That is two full decades of pay stagnation. That is what happens when the Government cannot find a plan for growth that works.
To be fair, it is not for want of trying. The “autumn statement for growth” is the 11th attempt at an economic growth plan we have seen from the Conservatives. The problem is that the Conservatives simply do not have the ideas we need for our times, nor the focus on the country that the British people deserve from their Government. As Conservative MPs meet behind closed doors to plot their next leadership election, families across Britain are fed up of struggling and being squeezed, businesses yearn for stability and certainty, and our country misses out on the chance to fulfil its potential.
Of course, people across Britain are feeling the hit not just from growth being weaker and inflation more persistent than in similar countries, but from the 25 tax rises the Conservatives have already pushed through in this Parliament alone. There is, however, one small group of people who will continue to be protected from this Government’s tax rises on much of their income. That group of people is non-doms: those who live in Britain but do not pay UK taxes on their income from overseas. As we have long said, Labour believes it is only fair that if a person makes Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here. Closing the non-dom loophole—replacing that archaic status with a residence scheme like other countries have—could raise crucial funding to bring the NHS waiting list down. Yet today we have another Finance Bill from this Government that leaves the loophole open. The Government are continuing to help a few at the top to avoid paying their fair share of tax when they keep their money overseas, while letting families across the UK face a tax burden that is climbing to a post-war high. Whatever the Government say, that is the reality facing working people in Britain.
As the Resolution Foundation points out, any cuts to personal taxation announced in the autumn statement pale in comparison with previously announced tax rises through the freezing of national insurance and income tax thresholds. The Resolution Foundation concludes that the combined effect is an average tax rise of £1,200 per household, with almost every single person in the country who pays income tax or national insurance paying higher taxes overall. Across all taxes that the Government levy, the Resolution Foundation points out that
“despite the tax cutting rhetoric, the reality is that the tax burden is rising, with tax receipts as a share of the economy set to reach 37.7 per cent in 2028/29, the highest level in 80 years.”
That is the reality from which the Conservatives cannot hide.
Barbara Keeley
My hon. Friend is making a great speech. He has been talking about the tax burden, and I raised the subject of cultural tax reliefs earlier. Another change in orchestra tax relief is that eligibility requires 10% of expenditure to be on goods or services that are used or consumed in the UK, rather than being incurred in the UK. The Association of British Orchestras has said that there is a lack of clarity about what orchestras will now be able to claim. This level of uncertainty is very unfair on UK orchestras, which have been through a turbulent time as a result of Brexit, covid and the cost of living crisis. Will my hon. Friend agree to raise that point with the Minister in Committee, to obtain some clarity and to enable Members to consider what these changes are doing? I appreciate that the subject is too complicated to be dealt with at this point.
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point; she is a great champion for orchestras. It is only right, when we consider the details of the Bill in Committee, for us to push the Government to provide the certainty that is so often lacking from many of the measures that they propose.
I was talking about the reality from which the Conservatives cannot hide. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is present, has been desperately trying to claim that the tax burden is going down. Three weeks ago, she claimed that
“taxes for the average worker have gone down by £1,000.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 360.]
Two weeks ago, she claimed:
“Taxes for the average worker will have gone down by £1,000 since 2010.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 1084.]
However, analysis conducted by the House of Commons Library makes it very clear that national insurance and income tax for the median earner will rise by well over £1,000—up from £6,112 in 2010-11 to £7,364 in 2024-25.
In an attempt to understand the tension between the Chief Secretary’s comments and the Library analysis, I wrote to her and also tabled written parliamentary questions. The Financial Secretary responded to both the letter and the questions with rather more careful wording, saying that
“an average worker in 24-25 will pay over £1,000 less in personal taxes than they otherwise would have done.”
He was careful to make it clear that the Government’s
“calculations are on a same-year basis against a counterfactual”,
and that this was not, in fact, a comparison over time, as that
“would include the effects of earnings growth on cash totals of tax due”.
I wonder whether the Chief Secretary’s statement that taxes for the average worker have “gone down by £1,000” may have inadvertently misled the House, given that her colleague’s written response to me tacitly admitted that the Government’s statistics do not refer to the actual taxes that a worker pays. When the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury responds to the debate, perhaps he will tell us if he knows whether the Chief Secretary would like to correct the record. Whatever the Conservatives say—however they twist and turn—the truth is that people across Britain are feeling the squeeze, and life is very different from the picture that Ministers are desperately trying to paint.
I have already made it clear that we support a number of the individual measures in the Bill. We welcome, for instance, the measure in clause 1 to make full expensing permanent; we have been calling for that for some time. Welcome as it is, however, it simply cannot make up for the years of uncertainty that businesses have faced. When I meet businesses across the country, they are clear that they want stability, certainty and a long-term plan, but even during the time for which I have been shadow Financial Secretary—a period that has seen five different incumbents of the office that I shadow—business taxation and reliefs have been chopped and changed every year.
Let us take the annual investment allowance. At the start of this Parliament, it had been raised to £1 million on a temporary basis. That temporary basis was extended first by the Finance Act 2021 and again by the Finance Act 2022, and was then made permanent by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023. During that time, of course, the super-deduction, which Members may recall, came and went entirely, and last year full expensing for expenditure on plant or machinery was introduced—but, again, only on a temporary basis for three years, before being amended yet again this year to be made permanent. Frankly, while the latest Treasury Ministers may say that full expensing is now permanent, how long any policy under this Government may last seems to be decided by the Conservatives’ internal battles rather than what is right for the country.
Andy Carter
The hon. Member has said that Labour will support the Bill today, and I welcome that, but I have been doing some calculations. Does he agree that if Labour remain committed to their £28 billion borrowing plan, debt will soar and they will break their own fiscal rules?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman was desperate to make an intervention about fiscal responsibility, when just a year ago his party crashed the economy and sent interest rates soaring, and working families throughout the country are still paying the price. We on this side of the House take fiscal responsibility seriously. We want to have a fiscal lock in place, we want to get debt falling, and we want to get the economy growing. That is the difference between us and the Conservatives.
Clause 2 contains measures on research and development. In Committee we will probe the impact of those changes in greater detail, but it is clear straightaway that stability and certainty have been lacking here as well. We need only look at the changes in the current Parliament’s Finance Acts. The Finance Act 2020 raised the rate of the R&D expenditure credit from 12% to 13%. The Finance Act 2021 made changes to the amount of R&D tax credit that small and medium-sized enterprises could claim. The Finance Act 2023 again changed the rates of R&D tax reliefs, and that same year the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 made yet further changes to how the relief operates. Now, of course, the Finance Bill before us introduces a whole new regime. Businesses making investment decisions yearn for stability and certainty, but after 13 years in office, the Government are proving themselves incapable of providing those crucial foundations for success.
We acknowledge, of course, that the tax legislation in Finance Acts needs to be kept updated, and that some change is not only inevitable but important in enabling legislation to function well. However, with this Government it is hard to avoid the sense that changes are being made without a long-term plan in mind. It looks very much as if there has been no long-term plan for capital allowances or research and development reliefs, and the same is true of tackling tax avoidance and evasion.
Although we welcome any measures to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, again there has been a busy history of legislation in this Parliament alone. The Finance Act 2020 made changes to the general anti-abuse rule, introduced to deter taxpayers from using tax avoidance schemes. That was followed by more changes to the rule in the Finance Act 2021, alongside other changes to the legislation covering avoidance. In the Finance Act 2022, a further round of changes were made to the legislation relating to avoidance, including on HMRC’s publication of information about avoidance schemes. Now, in 2023, we see the latest set of changes to the rules and penalties in respect of avoidance and evasion. While we will consider the detail of those changes in Committee, it is already clear that a long-term plan is very hard to see.
Stability and certainty are crucial foundations when businesses are making decisions about where to invest and where to create jobs. We in the Opposition hear that from business leaders day in, day out, across all sectors and in all parts of our economy. We know how much damage is done to economic growth and people’s standards of living when that stability and certainty are not there. We saw that at its most extreme last autumn, when the Conservatives crashed the economy and trashed their reputation in a matter of days, through a reckless disregard for our economic institutions and for working people’s security. But it is not just about last autumn; it is about 13 years of Conservative government. It is about the inability of the Conservatives to provide the stability, the certainty and the plan for the future that businesses and our economy need.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
If we have crashed the economy and we do not have a long-term plan, why are you voting with us today? [Interruption.]
James Murray
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I took that question to be addressed to me rather than to you. We have made it clear that when it comes to the measures in the Bill for which we have been calling for some time, we welcome and will support them. We would not oppose measures that we have been calling for. However, given the Government’s chopping and changing year on year from one Finance Act to the next, it is desperately clear that there is no evidence of a long-term plan over the past 13 years, and no evidence of the plan that we need for the future. I hope that in a general election, when businesses and working people across the country look at the Conservative party and at the Labour party and ask themselves who has a plan to grow the economy and make working people better off, they will conclude that it is us.
Barbara Keeley
May I make a further point about cultural tax reliefs? It seems to me that there is not quite enough understanding of the importance of this subject on the Government Benches. International touring is vital to the survival of many orchestras and makes up a fifth of earned income. That is a substantial proportion. My hon. Friend has talked of the changes that have been made, and all the flip-flopping. There is a strong economic and strategic case for incentivising touring in the European economic area for UK orchestras, because it boosts cultural exports and enhances the UK’s place on the world stage. That does not apply only to film and video, which the Minister has mentioned; our orchestras are world-class too. There is a move to limit the cultural tax reliefs, including orchestra tax relief. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that that will be reviewed in Committee, but the key issue is the continuing importance of those cultural reliefs, and what the Minister has said today does not convince me that he understands that. I therefore fully support what my hon. Friend is saying.
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention on that point, and we will certainly raise questions on her behalf in Committee to try to get clarity from the Government. As she rightly points out, clarity and certainty have been distinctly lacking from this Government over a whole range of topics. We will certainly press them on that in Committee.
As I was saying in response to the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), we will not be opposing many of the individual measures in the Bill, including those on capital expensing, on research and development and on tax avoidance and evasion, but they all serve to remind us just how much of a merry-go-round this Government have become and just how much they lack a plan for the future. A plan for the future is what has been sorely missing from this Finance Bill and from the autumn statement, and it is clear that the Conservatives are now incapable of offering one. With no stability, no real certainty and no plan for growth that works, businesses are left without the partner in Government that they need, and without the growth that our economy needs, working people are left worse off, with the tax burden set to rise to a peacetime high.
If Labour wins the next general election, we will overhaul and accelerate the planning system, modernise our electricity grid, attract far greater private investment, scrap and replace business rates, set out a road map for business taxation and boost skills and training across the country. We will do all that to get the economy growing and to make working people better off. That is the change our country needs. Without change, we would have a fifth term of the Conservatives, and what on earth would that mean for Britain? What would the Conservatives speak of as their achievements in this Parliament? Twenty-five tax rises, the highest tax burden in eight decades, taxes up £1,200 per household and two decades of pay stagnation, as well as a fall in real household disposable incomes—the first time that has ever happened in a Parliament. That is the record of the Conservatives. That is what they cannot hide from and that is why it is time for change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
What an extraordinary experience that was. I have just listened for nearly 20 minutes to the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) ranting on about tax hikes, but at the same time not proposing a single concrete economic policy. Indeed, Opposition Members have gone entirely AWOL. Where are they? There is no one on the Opposition Benches this afternoon. They are not going to oppose a single measure in this Finance Bill. I have scoured Wikipedia for any policy they might have come up with on taxation, and all I have found is that they are proposing an additional £28 billion in borrowing. That is simply more taxes for our children and grandchildren to pay in the future.
I have also spotted that the Opposition have two additional new taxes that they think would be a good idea. Those two taxes are the ones that were outlined by the shadow spokesman. The first is the non-dom taxation, which analysis shows would actually result in a net subtraction in tax revenue to the UK economy. Furthermore, they are proposing that we should be the only country in the world that taxes education, with a tax that would increase the cost to the state and again fail to pay for itself. So that was my scour of Wikipedia. I am now going to move on from discussing the Opposition rant to talk about the excellent points that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) has made.
Barbara Keeley
I am standing in part to illustrate that I am here, because the hon. Lady just said that there was nobody on this side of the House. Well, here I am, and I have been intervening on both the opening speeches, so I hope she will take that back. Also, could she clarify what she was talking about when she mentioned a tax on education?
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Lady is the honourable exception that proves my rule. She is indeed engaging thoroughly in the debate from the void that is the Opposition Benches this afternoon. The tax on education is her party’s Front-Bench policy to add VAT to school fees. She may not be aware of that policy, but it is not a good one and I recommend that she use her influence to get her Front Bench to drop it.
Let me turn to the excellent remarks made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is the view of the Treasury Committee that the tax system in the UK is far too complicated. We were concerned earlier this year, as we mentioned in our report, about the abolition of the Office for Tax Simplification, because we want to see the Treasury team look at more ways in which it can simplify the tax system. We also published a report on tax reliefs that identified more than 1,000 tax reliefs in our tax system, many of whose impacts or costs to the Exchequer the Treasury does not even know. They really should be thought of as expenditure lines, and they should be looked at a bit more carefully. Some of the steps announced in these measures, and indeed in last week’s National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill, will do some good in that regard, and I want to highlight those.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
In relation to what the hon. Member was saying about national insurance, would she like to comment on the fact that, overall, the richest fifth of households will be £1,000 better off on average by 2027 whereas the lowest fifth are set to gain only £200. Does that make it the progressive autumn statement that has been claimed?
Harriett Baldwin
I can also attest to the fact that the hon. Lady is the second Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber. That brings the total to the two who are visible to me at this time on the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) is also providing the shadow Parliamentary Private Secretary role. National insurance is indeed a terrible regressive tax as it stands and I wholeheartedly endorse any measures that reduce that burden and simplify things. The hon. Lady has pointed out that this is work in progress, but I think she should welcome the abolition of class 2 national insurance. That has simplified the national insurance system, and in the spring Budget we had the welcome simplification of the lifetime allowance charge. We also had a great simplification in childcare entitlement with the announcement of a much wider offer of free childcare. These simplifications have been broadly welcomed.
There are further welcome simplifications in this Finance Bill. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was kind enough to write to me yesterday to summarise his principles for the simplification of the tax system. He wants tax rules that
“have a clear consistent rationale”.
He wants it to be
“easy for taxpayers to get their tax right”.
He wants taxpayers to be able to understand what they need to do “at key life cycle points”, and he wants a tax policy that
“does not…distort the decisions of taxpayers and result in poorly informed choices.”
In summary, the Government want
“the tax system to be simpler, fair and to support growth.”
The Financial Secretary’s letter, which we will be publishing on the Treasury Committee website this afternoon, also outlines further simplifications, which were in the remarks he made earlier. They include expanding the cash basis for small businesses, improving the design of Making Tax Digital, simplifying research and development tax credits, which we welcome, and simplifying capital allowances and making them more permanent. I will draw to the House’s attention to other measures for individuals that he did not highlight. There is an increase in
“the threshold for individuals with income taxed through Pay As You Earn to file a Self Assessment return to £150,000”.
That is important because more and more people would otherwise be caught by the freezing of the thresholds. From April 2024, that threshold will be abolished altogether. There are also simplifications for individual savings accounts in this Finance Bill, as well as measures to simplify customs processes. I think the Financial Secretary’s heart is in the right place on simplification, and there is no question but that R&D tax credits were being abused.
I draw the Financial Secretary’s attention to future opportunities for simplification while welcoming the fact that venture capital tax relief is being extended to 2035, as the Treasury Committee called for in our report. I would love to see the Financial Secretary focus on the unintended disincentives to taking on additional work and additional hours that exist throughout the tax system, at all sorts of income points. We have made huge strides on simplifying it for people on universal credit, making every extra hour of work pay, but once people get into the tax system, there are cliff edges and high marginal tax rates that deter them from working more. I will highlight two in particular.
First, the Treasury Committee is currently holding an inquiry on “Sexism in the City,” and we have had evidence on how we could improve some of those marginal tax rates. The child benefit taper was introduced 10 years ago with my wholehearted support. It was the right thing to do in 2013, but it is now time to look again at how it interacts with the free childcare offer. We should consider the opportunity for simplifying the tax system by getting rid of the taper altogether, as it is a terrible deterrent to the families who get caught.
A person with a lot of children, earning between £50,000 and £60,000, can have a marginal tax rate of over 100%. It has become far too complex, and it is deterring many women from taking on more work. With the childcare offer we now have, it is time to look again.
I also want to throw the evidence from our “Sexism in the City” inquiry into the mix. The City has the highest pay and, indeed, the highest pay gap in the country. Some of the best paid careers for women are in financial services, but we hear time and again that, because of the tax-free childcare cut-off at £100,000, some women are choosing to work less than a full week. The freezing of the thresholds is having side effects. As the Financial Secretary thinks ahead to next year’s fiscal events, I urge him to consider those two potential simplifications.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while approving the changes to taxation of tobacco in the Finance Bill and full expensing being made permanent, declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because it fails to make a much-needed reduction in VAT for the hospitality and tourism sectors, and fails to introduce measures through the tax system that would help alleviate poverty.”
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Treasury Committee, on which I serve, even though she is at odds with the London School of Economics and the University of Warwick on non-dom status—we might return to that later.
The problem with this Bill is not so much what is in it but what is not in it. For example, full expensing is being made permanent, which is laudable and is to be supported, but the Minister and, indeed, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) did not mention that choices are being made that fail to support families, that make people poorer and that reduce community resilience and sustainability, which is no way to grow an economy. There was no mention of tackling the growing cost of living crisis that people face every day. There was nothing on rents, mortgages, food bills and, most of all, energy costs, as we go deeper into winter. The Minister is an affable person, but he has a brass neck as wide as the Dispatch Box to say that the Government are looking to invest in public services—I will come back to that in a moment.
Today, the Bank of England has told us that the proportion of mortgage balances in which the borrower is behind on payments is the largest in six years. The SNP asked for direct help for people: a £400 energy bill rebate, a social tariff on energy, a lower price cap, mortgage interest tax relief and help for tourism businesses through VAT adjustments. Of course, there could have been much more, but we got none of that from the Chancellor or from this place.
Instead, the Government turned a deaf ear to the inflationary costs for households, in addition to starving the public sector of funds. Councils in England are already going bust: Labour-controlled Birmingham, Hackney, Croydon and Slough; Conservative-controlled Northamptonshire and Thurrock; and Lib Dem-controlled Woking. The Local Government Association says that one in five councils—60 of them—is at risk of issuing a section 114 notice, but the Chancellor, while doing nothing to help families, is slashing public sector spending. Richard Hughes, from the Office for Budget Responsibility, has pointed out that there are £19 billion of public sector cuts coming:
“the real spending power of Government departments in England goes down by about £19bn over the forecast period”.
The Chancellor has also frozen capital spending, which has a direct negative impact on the spending available in Scotland. When Labour is asked what it would do differently, we hear only silence. There is no attempt by this place to protect public services. Scotland’s block grant has, over the past few years, been cut by 17% in real terms compared with 2010—the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit has given those figures. We all know that inflation running at 4.7%—do not forget that it was much higher last year, at 11.1%—means that any increase is dwarfed by inflation, so when Scotland’s block grant increases by just 1.4% next year, it is wiped out before it touches the sides. This is a savage real-terms cut for Scotland.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that living standards will be 3% lower in 2024-25 than they were before the pandemic, which is the largest reduction in living standards and the highest tax burden since the 1950s. There is zero growth forecast for the economy. The GDP figures from the Office for National Statistics show that for the three months to October 2023 there was no growth, and the economy actually contracted in October.
David Bharier from the British Chambers of Commerce says that this
“confirms the low-to-no growth cycle the UK economy is in.”
That, of course, takes us directly to the choices that this Government and this place have taken since Brexit. Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems support Brexit, so the self-harm continues to cause difficulties.
The UK suffered a broad-based fall in both openness and competitiveness between 2019 and 2021. UK trade fell by 8%, compared with 2% in France. That is not my description; it comes from the London School of Economics. Our industries face severe challenges due to the Westminster-inflicted harm of Brexit, yet this place cannot point to a single benefit, beyond a made-up line about vaccines. Workforce shortages in tourism, hospitality, the NHS and care have all dramatically increased since Brexit—a Brexit that Scotland rejected and continues to reject. Yet for the people of Scotland, Westminster continues to show indifference.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that the 2p cut to national insurance in the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill is almost entirely eaten up by frozen tax thresholds, due to what is known as fiscal drag. Basically, this Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
We have seen nothing on energy bills, which are due to rise again in January; nothing on food bills, while countries such as France and Canada take action; nothing on mortgages, on which the Government could have delivered some relief; and nothing to reduce VAT in a range of areas, where the Government could have taken action to help people and to ease inflation at the same time.
Although certain measures, such as full expensing being made permanent, are welcome, the biggest problem with this Bill is what it fails to address, and that is to help millions of households that are struggling with the cost of living. This place should have introduced a UK-wide version of the Scottish child payment to help families. It should have introduced a £400 energy bill rebate and a social tariff, and it should have provided for a household essentials guarantee.
The Government could have addressed unfair tax loopholes by abolishing the non-dom tax status. As I said, the University of Warwick and the London School of Economics reckon that would raise £3.6 billion per year. The Government could have done that and they could have decided to put a tax on share buy-backs, but instead they decided to set their sights on ill and disabled people, telling them to get back to work. It is worth remembering that, according to research in 2015 by the University of Liverpool and the University of Oxford, old-style incapacity assessments were “associated with” an extra 590 suicides across England between 2010 and 2013. This is a scandalous thing to bring to people at this time. Positive Money has noted that a windfall tax on the profits of the big four banks could have raised £20 billion in the first six months of this year, but the Government chose to do nothing.
The autumn statement delivered the worst-case scenario for Scotland and for our people. We needed proper funding for public services, but instead we face massive cuts—the health funding announced represents just 0.01% of the budget for 2024-25. We needed immediate help for people in our energy-rich country to pay for some of the highest energy bills across the nations of the UK.
By contrast, the SNP Scottish Government have ensured that people in Scotland pay less council tax than those in England, and we have frozen council tax for the next year in order to assist with the cost of living crisis. At the moment, people do not have to pay prescription charges or tuition fees, and they do not have to pay for eye tests. Under-22s and over-60s do not pay for bus travel. We also have the Scottish child payment and much more. In Scotland, we have used the limited social security powers we have to provide dignity, respect and support for people. Those are manifestations of the values of a progressive Government looking at every opportunity to help people who are struggling.
Imagine what would happen to all of that for the people of Scotland if this place had control of all of those issues, as Labour and Conservative Members want to happen. The Scottish Government are using all the levers at their disposal to help people through this cost of living crisis, but the implications of this Westminster fiscal event are clear; with the current reliance on Westminster for our capital grant allowances and limited borrowing powers, this place is stamping its austerity on Scotland. The path for Scotland is ever clearer: we need to be an independent country, to rejoin the EU and to have the ability to look after our own people.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Let me start by declaring an interest in relation to clause 15, as I believe I am one of the Members who managed to discriminate against themselves via pension changes a decade ago and therefore will benefit from the tax changes in this Bill. I should therefore perhaps not touch on that any further.
Overall, there is nothing to oppose in the Bill. I will break the habits of this debate and try to speak about the Bill, rather than stuff that is not in it or might have been in it. I will try to address some of the clauses it contains. Clause 1 deals with the full expensing of expenditure on plant and machinery, a matter I raised in the debate on the autumn statement. I welcome the measure, which I hope will work to encourage greater capital investment across the UK economy.
However, we should not underestimate how fundamental a change in our tax system that measure is. We have built, over decades, a series of rules on how companies—and individuals too, but we are talking about companies for this purpose—get tax relief on the capital spend they make. A large amount of work has to go into tracking what is counted as revenue spend and what is counted as capital spend, but now there is no point in doing that work in respect of plant and machinery, because companies are going to get the same tax treatment either way round—so all that can go.
Then there are all manner of ways of getting that relief, be it through the main general pool for plant and machinery, the long-life asset pool or the short-life asset pool. We have different rules for cars, for environmentally-friendly assets and for environmentally-friendly cars. We should take a step back and ask, “Is it necessary to keep this whole complicated regime if, for the vast majority of spend, we are giving 100% tax relief in year 1 when that spend happens? Should we now look at striking away a load of that and just accept that we could have a very different regime?” Perhaps we should just accept the accounts depreciation for all the other assets that are not plant and machinery? I suspect that the loss to the Exchequer for accelerating tax relief on those things would be tiny, but it would take away a huge burden of having to follow a different set of rules.
We also ought to ask, “What do we mean for buildings?” We are now being generous for tax relief on plant and equipment, but not generous at all if a brand-new factory is built. Tax relief is given very slowly on that and even then not on the whole spend. Is that what we want? Or should we be trying to incentivise people to build brand new, modern, energy-efficient factories? We give very little tax relief for office buildings. We want more people to come back to work together in offices, so should we not be incentivising people to build brand-new offices in the right parts of the country, rather than giving no tax relief?
We end up driving an entire leasing industry, because a completely different tax treatment is given where assets are leased or rented, rather than bought outright in someone’s own name. Do we really intend that if someone finance-leases something, they get 100% relief up front? What happens with a hire purchase? All this stuff is so complicated. Having made this radical and expensive change, the Government should go away and think, “What is the future of tax relief for capital items in the UK? How do we incentivise the right form of spend?”
I wish to raise one other question for the Minister to think about. It is very likely that a lot of businesses will be unable to get full relief for this in the first year, because they just will not have enough profit to absorb all their capital spend being relieved in a year. The chances of a medium-sized business that buys a multi-million-pound printing press having multi-million-pound profits are low, so it will end up having a loss to carry forward. Such a business will get benefit in the fullness of time, but we will have restricted how much of its losses it can carry forward and use—if it is a business of a certain size, it can offset only up to £5 million. Do we really mean that now? Or do we mean that if a business has spent a load of capital and generated a big loss that is carrying forward, it should be able to relieve that as early as possible when it makes a profit? Do we need to revisit some of those restrictions we have introduced for sensible reasons in the past?
I urge the Minister to commission some work, now that he has made this big and expensive change, on what the whole regime should look like. Do we need all those hundreds of pages of rules and all the compliance effort that has to go in, for what will probably now be relatively small amounts of tax relief at stake in the grand scheme of things?
I wish to discuss a few other clauses. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill’s anti-avoidance clauses. It is absolutely right to extend the punishments we give individuals who recklessly promote tax avoidance schemes that they ought to know do not work and in many cases do know do not work but carry on trying to sell. It is entirely reasonable to have the sanction of being able to disbar them from being a company director if they carry on doing that. There has been a lot of encouragement for the Government to go further on duties to prevent all manner of economic crimes, so I fully welcome these things.
In Committee, we could perhaps think about whether we are sure we have drafted that measure perfectly. A lot of tax advisers work through limited liability partnerships, but where someone is a member of a limited liability partnership that is promoting unacceptable tax avoidance, they will not be caught by these rules because they are not a director of a company that is doing it. Therefore, such a person will not be disbarred from remaining as the designated member of an LLP, because they are not a director of a company. Is that what we mean? Given that LLPs and their members have to be registered with Companies House, should we not broaden that sanction out to catch as many people as possible? Perhaps the Minister would think about whether we could make some extension to this, to ensure that we are catching everyone engaging in this industry, not just a small subset of it.
Clause 21 has further amendments on pillar two; at times, I think I am the only Back Bencher who supports pillar two. I will continue to support it but, as I said a year ago, the rules are fiendishly complicated. Anyone who tries to read clause 21 and the schedules that come with it will realise they contain an almost impenetrable set of rules for a relatively small number of situations, in relation to a simple principle about subsidiaries in tax havens that are paying less than 15% tax having their tax topped up to 15%, in order to discourage tax havens and the artificial movement of profit.
We have ended up with a hugely complicated shadow tax regime that every company with subsidiaries around the world will have to apply to every subsidiary they have. Even if they are in a respectable country with tax rates even higher than ours, they will have to work out whether they have accidentally managed to trip themselves below that rate. That cannot be what we intend, so can we try to find a way to filter out most of this work, so that we can catch the guilty but not make life miserable for the innocent?
With those few remarks, I welcome the Bill. The provisions are entirely sensible and I look forward to supporting them. I will have to vote against the SNP amendment, because I want the Bill to proceed today.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats do not support the Bill. It is a deception from the Government after years of unfair tax hikes on hard-working families.
The Conservatives talk about tax cuts, but there are no tax cuts. The autumn statement maintains the Government’s unfair stealth taxes through the freezing of tax thresholds, dragging millions of people into a higher band or into paying tax for the first time. Changes to national insurance rates will not even touch the sides after years of tax hikes and spiralling mortgages. Thanks to the Conservatives’ decision to freeze tax thresholds, next year someone on a typical salary of £35,000 will pay an extra £400 in tax, and someone earning a middle income of £65,000 will pay an additional £1,200. Meanwhile, the typical mortgage will go up by £220 per month. Nobody is better off after years of this Conservative Government.
Worse still was the deafening silence on health in the autumn statement. The Government should be using any additional tax revenue to tackle the crisis in our NHS, to give people the quality of care they deserve and to let more people return to work to grow our economy. We cannot fix the economy without fixing the NHS. OBR growth forecasts have been halved, largely because people are waiting for NHS treatment. It is a no-brainer that we need to treat the millions of people on NHS waiting lists and allow them to return to work, but this Conservative Government simply do not care.
The Bill offers nothing to households struggling amid the cost of living crisis. It fails to introduce a proper windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas producers. That revenue could be used to fund energy support for the most vulnerable, such as doubling the warm home discount and launching a proper home insulation scheme. It could also be used to invest in British farmers, to bring down food prices for the long term.
The Bill fails to reverse tax cuts for big banks, a measure that could fund support for vulnerable mortgage holders and renters. Worst of all, it takes none of the vital steps we need to grow the UK economy, such as launching an industrial strategy, reforming business rates and the apprenticeship levy, and reducing trade barriers for small businesses.
As other hon. Members have highlighted, the creative industries are a major driver of the UK economy and the Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring their continued success. The Finance Bill has some implications for theatre tax relief, which plays a crucial role in enabling the development of new theatre productions. UK Theatre and the Society of London Theatre have raised concerns to the Treasury about these implications, which could damage how this essential relief operates. I urge the Treasury to work with representatives from the creative sectors to address these concerns and provide clear guidance on changes to the administration of theatre tax relief introduced in this Bill.
While the Liberal Democrats support of certain measures within the Bill, such as the extension of full expensing, we cannot support any legislation that arises from such a deceptive and unjust autumn statement. Ultimately, the Office for Budget Responsibility says living standards are forecast to be 3.5% lower in 2024-25 than their pre-pandemic level, which is the largest reduction in real living standards since official records began in the 1950s. Households across the country are crying out for real support from this Government, as well as action on the cost of living crisis and investment in our NHS, but all we have heard is more stale announcements that show just how out of touch the Conservative Government are.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I now have to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Representation of the People (Overseas Electors etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, the Ayes were 325 and the Noes were 154, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023, the Ayes were 464 and the Noes were 11, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Representation of the People (Overseas Electors etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, the Ayes were 324 and the Noes were 186, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I praise and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on bringing forward the Bill. As we have previously discussed, it will implement the important measures set out in the autumn statement.
We have already debated some of the key measures that were included in the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill, which was considered in the other place yesterday. I do not want to go over the arguments on fiscal drag and lower taxes, as I have set out my views previously, but I commend the Government for bringing forward those measures quickly and in the right way, as they will go some way to easing the tax pressures the public are feeling.
My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are well versed in my views on the tax burden, so I will not go on about how about I feel about that or measures we can bring in going forward. However, I would like to press them to ensure that we think about long-term provisions and that the next Finance Bill goes further by raising thresholds for income tax, including for higher-rate taxpayers, and for national insurance.
It is worth noting that in the Budget after the general election of summer 2015, the then Chancellor outlined plans to increase the tax-free threshold to the equivalent of 30 hours’ pay at the national living wage. The new £11.44 national living wage rate for 2024 commences in April, so if the tax-free threshold rose to cover 30 hours per week next year, that would equate to £17,000 to £18,000, rather than remaining at £12,570 through to 2028, as currently planned. I press my right hon. Friends to keep that under review—thankfully, all tax measures are under review—and to prioritise uplifts to those thresholds, because we believe in enabling people to keep more of their earnings.
At the same time, when we see GDP figures not growing as fast as they could, as we have today, it is important to focus on how we can grow the economy much more, and with that people’s incomes. We want to see more growth in those GDP figures, but they represent the impact of high interest rates and what they mean for inflation. High interest and inflation have placed a burden on businesses and households. The Bill outlines reductions in business taxation that are well timed and well placed but, as ever, they need to be kept under review. Businesses grow the economy by employing more people, which helps economic growth, and that is the space where we, as a Government and a country, want to be.
It will not surprise my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I wish to speak to certain clauses, as I have spoken about clauses on business taxes in the past. I want to focus on the provisions in clause 21 and schedule 12 of the Bill, on pillar two and the global minimum corporation tax measures that we are adopting. I have been on record about this previously, but the Minister is also well aware of my long-standing concerns over the implementation of pillar two measures. Binding ourselves to pillar two undermines our fiscal sovereignty and risks deterring investment into our country. I labour this point because we have just seen the publication of our GDP growth forecasts. Obviously there will be revisions in our growth forecasts, even by financial institutions, and we should be mindful of that, but this measure undermines our competitiveness. It is known that some 130 countries have signed up to pillar two, but, unlike the UK, barely a quarter of them are implementing it at the end of the year. Given our economic backdrop and GDP forecasts, I would rather see a delay in the implementation of this measure.
A written parliamentary answer earlier this month shows that just 30 countries are implementing this measure at the same time as we are. They will be followed by Japan in April, and then Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Hong Kong and Singapore from January 2025. We also know that the US, our big economic ally, is not likely to implement the measure, so by pressing ahead with this fiscal measure, we are basically limiting the scope that we give ourselves—oxygen, basically—to develop and grow.
When the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 went through Parliament last year, it contained more than 150 clauses, which were spread over two parts, with a further five schedules, covering 170 pages in total. Many of us remember carrying those weighty tomes into the Chamber and flicking through all the pages. There was a large and complex change in tax laws. But despite that legislation being passed in the summer, this Bill makes even further changes to pillar two and the domestic top-up levels. Clause 21 and schedule 12, which cover those changes, span 55 pages and include multiple amendments to the Finance (No. 2) Act passed only a few months ago. I recall saying that the amendments alone would generate more complexity to the system. I say politely to those on the Front Bench that the 55 pages here point to the complex nature of the matter. The fact that we are amending something that went through the House not that long ago says it all.
No impact assessment has been provided of these measures, which give effect to the accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2023. Companies and partnerships will be impacted by the changes coming into effect in less than three weeks’ time, even though the Bill will not receive Royal Assent until next year. We must be cognisant of the burdens that we are again putting on businesses. I am no fan of accountants, but by putting more burdens on to businesses, we are increasing their dependency on accountants and on process, which we should be freeing them from. I ask the Minister to provide us with further details as to why these changes are needed when the previous Finance Act was passed only earlier this year, and with an impact assessment of them.
I would like to understand the merits of the global minimum income tax, and I hope that, in the same way that all tax is under review, Ministers will consider removing all the provisions from our statute book in due course, because other countries will not follow suit or are delaying implementing some of these measures.
I wish to comment on clause 2, relating to research and development tax credits. It merges the current R&D expenditure credit with the small and medium-sized enterprises scheme. These tax credits help and support businesses to invest and take risks, and, importantly, to innovate and grow, set up jobs and employ people. I have previously raised the concerns that some businesses have about the complexity of claiming them and the processes that they experience. I am aware of many businesses that have spent more than a year having their claims investigated, with multiple rounds of questions and inquiries from HMRC officials. There are many live cases, which I will not reflect on now, but previous Treasury Ministers have committed to hold discussions on them.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. In Staffordshire, which is a manufacturing powerhouse, R&D tax credits are vital in driving productivity in manufacturing businesses. Does she agree that it would be good to hear those on the Front Bench make a commitment to reviewing and slimming down that scheme, so that it actually gets those small businesses embracing it and getting the investment that we need?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is spot on. The scheme was set up for a very good reason, which is, effectively, to support entrepreneurism and innovation and to grow businesses. Now we are seeing those businesses saddled with bureaucracy and burdens. What is worrying is the number of small businesses that have been under investigation by HMRC for over a year, as that is now having a detrimental impact on their performance. As a representative not just of Witham, but of Essex as a whole, I can see businesses that have now come together to make wider representations to HMRC and the Treasury about that. I hope that those on the Front Bench will learn from some of these experiences and look at how we can evolve and adapt the process, so that the scheme can revert back to its original premise of supporting businesses. As I have said many times, the only way is Essex. Essex is a county of entrepreneurs and they are the ones who are feeling the pressures.
In his summing up, will the Minister outline the operational aspect of these changes? In particular, what interactions is he having with HMRC about some of the cases that have been under investigation for more than a year, and the impact that that is having on those smaller businesses? At the end of the day, they are SMEs that are not able to grow their businesses because of these inquiries and investigations. Naturally, that has an impact on the profits that they can then reinvest in their businesses.
I also wish to make a few comments on air passenger duty and the provisions in clause 24. Many of us in this House have spoken about air passenger duty for many years. I have been a long-standing campaigner for reform of this tax to encourage and support economic growth. It is ironic that we are having this debate on a day when the GDP figures have come out as they have. I believe in globalisation—in the sense of more global competition—and in our being more open to the world when it comes to those global dynamic markets.
We should also make travel more competitive and affordable for families, especially as they are struggling with the impact of the cost of living. Reforms that have taken place under previous Conservative Chancellors have been welcome. I query the small increase in the APD rates for 2024-25 in the Bill. Back in the summer, in his speech on net zero, the Prime Minister pledged to scrap plans for new taxes on flying, but the Bill provides for an increase in APD rates, ranging from 50p to £6 per flight. Although they are small increases, they are still increases. They are lower than the rate of inflation planned for and assumed in previous Government statements and OBR forecasts, which is to be welcomed. Therefore, any clarification on what is happening with APD going forward is welcome. Again, that is important for certainty and also for forecast purposes.
On the subject of air travel, I am disappointed that the autumn statement and this Finance Bill do not contain reforms to end the so-called tourism tax. I was one of the few Members to speak on that during the Humble Address debate. If we look at London, our great city, we can see that, at this time of the year, it is a magnet for tourism and for people coming from overseas. It is great for our businesses, great for our country and great for our brands—our British brands and our small brands. Our tourism sector and shopping and retail businesses are losing out to their European competitors as a result of the removal of the VAT refund and the VAT-free shopping and arrangements that had previously been in place. I think that we can reintroduce those measures. In the last debate, those on the Front Bench committed to looking at dynamic modelling in this area, and some external reviews of the potential revenue base. It would be a boost for business and jobs, and we should be looking at all measures to boost economic growth and competition. There are plenty of reports and studies out there. I do not want to labour the point; I know that those on the Front Bench will be aware of them.
It is winter, and we are heading towards a spring fiscal statement. Since 2010, the Government have consistently kept fuel duty down, cutting and freezing rates. This is an opportune moment to remind the public what the Government have achieved on that alone, because it is very important. Families, businesses and households depend upon it, and I very much hope that we will continue to stand up for the measures that we have put in place historically. I urge the Government to commit to maintaining the 5p reduction, and perhaps even to go further where there is fiscal headroom. Finding fiscal headroom is difficult, but sometimes—I say this as a former Treasury Minister—it can be found when we really look for it.
As the Bill passes through the House and is subject to further scrutiny, I know that my colleagues on the Front Bench and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is dedicated to dealing with the difficult fiscal challenges that we face, will be focused on unleashing future growth by reducing taxes and, importantly, empowering the very businesses that employ people and keep people in their jobs for long-term economic security.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I agree with a lot of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said. I was in this House for 13 years of Labour Government. Twice a year, we had the autumn statement and Budget, and all taxes were reviewed. In not one of those fiscal statements did they change the arrangement for non-doms. Why? Because it brings in more money. I am therefore shocked at the criticism from those on the Labour Front Bench of their Chancellors when in government. What we have with the Opposition is the politics of the magic money pot. The magic money pot is called non-doms, and the Opposition think that it will pay for everything. It will not; because such people are internationally mobile, they will move. The best things to tax are things that do not move, such as property. People can move, and we will not get sufficient money in as a result.
The Government have done a lot of good things. Putting up the triple lock is the right decision to look after pensioners, but those who pay tax might, because their pension will go up, pay more tax. Putting up the living wage is a good thing, because we want a higher-paid economy, but as lower-paid workers’ pay goes up, they pay more tax. It is one of the features of the modern world that those in the most successful and highest-paid economies tend to pay more tax. Although the overall tax burden, because of the freeze, has gone up, we need to reverse that, and we have started the process in the autumn statement.
The Government have set out a good long-term plan, which is essentially based on increasing the incentives for business to invest. We have a problem in Britain on productivity. One way of getting productivity up is to get pay up and investment in machinery and equipment up. If we can do that, we can pay for the public services that we all want, on both sides of the House, in terms of better education, a better health service and better outcomes. However, that requires getting productivity up. One of the problems since 2008 has been that Britain has struggled with productivity. Whatever we do, whether it involves incentives, higher pay, or credits for research and development, if it gets productivity up, that has to be a good thing.
I welcome an awful lot of what is in the autumn statement, but we should not look at it as one event; it is part of a series of events brought in by the Chancellor that mean that our national debt is falling over the plan. Our yearly deficit looks like it will be in the 3% range rather than the 4% range. Even the trade gap looks like it is improving. Our economic situation does not look too bad, and when we look over the channel to the EU and the eurozone, our problems seem rather less than theirs, with some of those countries going into recession.
I, too, saw today’s GDP figures. I would caution against any flash estimate of GDP. The monthly figures bounce around. I spent six weeks on a Finance Bill Committee during the days of the coalition when every day those on the Labour Front Bench talked about the double-dip recession, which was revised away six months later. The key point is to do the right things for the economy, get productivity up and get the economy growing, and the other things will come right. They will certainly come right when a lot of data is in. Even the three-monthly GDP data is based on something like a quarter of the stats. It is constantly updated over years and months. We should not be too fixated on short-term figures.
One reason I think the economy will grow over the next 12 months is that living standards have gone from falling to rising. That means that ultimately the British consumer ought to come to the rescue of the British economy and get it growing, if the Government can keep a stable economic situation, and pay continues to outstrip inflation, which I am very optimistic about. Brent crude has fallen under $75, which means that gas prices are now barely above where they were before the invasion of Ukraine. That has improved since the autumn statement. Petrol prices are falling again. This morning, the 10-year bonds interest rate was under 4%. That is a sign that the pressure now is to lower interest rates. The overall Government economic policy is not only to balance the books and reduce taxation in terms of national insurance, which will help 29 million people, but to get interest rates down so that, when people come to refix their mortgages, they can do so at a more reasonable rate. Good progress has been made, but we will not be free with one bound; it will take Budgets, statements and steady persistence. That means not giving in to every request for extra spending, however worthy they are individually. I commend those on the Treasury Bench and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has put together a good package, and I look forward to what will happen in March.
Before I sit down, I will pay tribute to a Labour Chancellor, Lord Alistair Darling of Roulanish, who was a very modest but very competent man. He faced what would be anybody’s nightmare in the Treasury, with banks collapsing. I think that history will treat him well for his management of the economy at that very difficult time. He is missed by this House and I am sure the other place will miss him too.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I echo that tribute to Alistair Darling. I was in the House with him for many years. He was a great politician and an excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer.
David Simmonds will make the last Back-Bench contribution. We will then move on to the wind-ups. I anticipate at least one Division.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, having been here to listen to some incredibly insightful and useful contributions from so many colleagues. I will endeavour not simply to repeat those excellent points, but to focus on some additional ones that have been raised in the course of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, touched on something that is not in the autumn statement, but that I am sure those of us on the Government Benches will wish to seek further assurances about from Ministers: the tax on education proposed by the Opposition.
I represent a constituency in which there are five independent fee-paying schools, which have certainly been in contact with me to raise their concerns about the Opposition’s proposal. Every secondary school that serves my constituency, including the state-funded ones, is an independent school, because they are all academies. Every special educational needs and disability school that serves my constituency is an independent school, including those that have never been part of the state sector but came into existence as charitable organisations with a view to providing specialist SEND services. There are even stables in this country that provide equine therapy to non-verbal autistic children that, because they serve more than one child, are registered as independent schools with Ofsted.
The implications of the proposed policy, which it is said would raise £1.7 billion, would be additional VAT on fees paid by local authorities up and down the land and, more significantly from the Exchequer’s perspective, to bring a huge amount of VAT within scope of being reclaimed by that wide variety of institutions. I hope that Ministers will state with great clarity that it remains the policy of this Government that we support the excellence in our incredibly diverse independent sector, which includes both SEND and state-funded education.
We have been challenged to say what has been the biggest achievement of the Government in the past 13 years. For me, it is the thing that forms the backdrop to this Finance Bill and to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s autumn statement: the transformation in the number of people in our country who earn their own living through work. The Office for National Statistics data shows an incredibly clear trend in youth unemployment. Under the last Conservative Government, it was falling and falling; once Labour took office, it began to rise. Since this Government took office in 2010, the rate of youth unemployment has halved. That makes an incredible difference to both the financial wellbeing and, most importantly, the mental and physical health of our young people. It gives people prospects. It gives people hope. It means all our citizens have a stake in the economy of our country.
The same trends are replicated elsewhere. I remember what it was like as an employer trying to engage with the incredibly complicated systems under the last Labour Government, in which so many people were disincentivised to work—especially women who wanted to work part time and fit that around bringing up children. The changes in policy—particularly universal credit and really good childcare offers—have transformed the ability of people in this country to access the workforce over that period. While that has not always meant that those individuals are much better off, the fact that they are able to earn their own living and take pride in having a stake in our economy is incredibly important.
There are particular reasons why this Bill strikes me as important. I would like to develop the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) about tax avoidance stop notices. I have a number of constituents who have been affected by the loan charge over the past few years, and it particularly concerns me to hear from them that, in some cases, they are still being contacted by businesses trying to sign them up to schemes of the kind that have already got them into significant financial trouble.
I enormously welcome the fact that the Government are taking steps to make sure that that behaviour can be brought to an end and that we do not see any more of our constituents trapped in financial situations not of their own making as a result of the marketing of organisations that should know that, while what they are doing is theoretically and perhaps technically within the law because a loan is free of tax, if it is not a genuine loan and not to be repaid during the person’s lifetime, it should be considered part of their remuneration for the purposes of taxation. I welcome the step that the Bill makes in that respect.
The second thing I particularly welcome is the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge. I have heard from a very large number of professionals across my constituency, especially in the NHS, but also in other types of businesses in the private sector. The impact of the lifetime allowance has been the loss of highly experienced staff from those organisations. These are generally people in their 50s and 60s who are at the peak of productivity and have an enormous amount to give, but face a financial cliff edge and are forced by that limit to make a decision to leave a career that, in many cases, they love and enjoy and in which they have much to contribute. In the NHS in particular, the change will enable experienced GPs, surgeons and consultants to return to the workplace or continue working at a higher level than they would have been able to in other circumstances. For that reason, it will benefit our public services enormously, both in productivity and by ensuring that waiting lists, which are already beginning to fall, come down much faster.
Let me turn to some of the measures designed to support our small businesspeople and the self-employed. In politics, the loudest voices in debates about the economy are often those of large corporations with substantial, well-funded public affairs departments. However, we also know from the ONS that around 70% of people employed in the UK economy are in an enterprise with fewer than five staff. The voices of those small businesses, which are the bedrock of our economy, are not heard collectively as often as the voices of big international businesses.
The measures to simplify and reduce national insurance for small businesspeople and the self-employed are enormously welcome, and not just because of the money that they put in people’s pockets—it is important for us to remember that point. We heard some scoffing and comments of “big deal” from the Opposition when the reductions in class 2 national insurance contributions were mentioned, but the reductions represent about a quarter of what most households in the UK spend on Christmas, or a significant contribution to a child’s school uniform, a summer holiday or maintaining the car. All of those things make a small difference individually and a big one collectively. They send a message to our lower-income but entrepreneurial people that we are a Government who are on their side and keen to get off their backs.
I will finish with two suggestions. The first—to develop again a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire—is to tackle some of the cliff edges in our tax system. The abolition of the lifetime allowance charge is one example of that. It is clear that around the £100,000 income level—that is a significant sum of money, but one typically earned by many of the public sector professionals on whom services such as the NHS, GP practices and schools depend—many of the benefits of extra earnings begin to be withdrawn. The situation in which two earners on £99,000 a year, with a joint income of £198,000, can continue to enjoy the benefits of tax-free childcare, but if one earner goes to £100,001 a year, those benefits are completely withdrawn, creates a significant marginal tax rate for professionals with children.
I have heard from a number of constituents who work in public sector bodies, particularly the NHS, that they have had to scale back their hours or decline to take on additional waiting list initiative work funded by the Government because the impact of that cliff edge is so financially significant for them. Of course, we see the same impact at that point from the pensions taper. I suggest to my Front-Bench colleagues that, as we think about the public sector productivity strategy, we need to consider how to take out some of those cliff edges so that the people we are asking to work and contribute more, and who are in a position to make a transformational difference to some of our public services, have good financial incentives to do so.
Finally, the OBR has been mentioned a few times in the debate. There is a degree of controversy about whether it is the correct body to provide a view about the sound financial management of our national finances. Having spent a lot of time in the local government sector, it is striking to me that it is a legal requirement for councillors making decisions in any of our local authorities to have before them the financial and legal implications of the decision, whereas in this House we usually decide on policies in a crowded debate with a big row about what we should do and then, sometimes months later, have a scantily attended debate at which the financial implications of the policy are debated and agreed. We do not take the financial implications and the policy decision together. I suggest that Ministers should consider whether, in order to emphasise the sound financial management approach of a Conservative Government, in addition to statements such as those about compliance with the requirements of the European convention on human rights, we should seek to ensure that every Government policy and paper on which this House makes a decision states what the financial implications of that decision might be.
Coming back to the point about VAT on school fees, I will make a forecast: should there be a change of Government, we will find ourselves back in the position that we were in under Gordon Brown. The announcement will be, “We want to spend the extra £1.7 billion that we have assumed, but we can’t actually raise that in taxes because the policy doesn’t work in practice, so we’ll borrow it,” and the £28 billion will become £29.7 billion. In addition, the non-dom money will not be forthcoming, so the Government will say, “We’ll assume how much that might be when we get around to tackling that and add that on to the borrowing as well.” That is the reason why under Gordon Brown we spent something like 10% more in every year than we raised in tax revenue. As a measure to prevent future Governments from running our finances into the ground again, let us make sure that we have that clarity of financial rigour in the decision making of Parliament, so that when Members cast our vote, we all understand the implications for taxpayers of the policies on which we are making decisions.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Tulip Siddiq to begin the wind-ups.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
This afternoon, we have been told that the measures in the Finance Bill and the wider autumn statement will deliver the growth that our economy urgently needs. Unfortunately, our leading economic institutions and economists do not seem to agree. Despite the Conservatives’ attempts to distract attention with headline figures, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has described their numbers as “sort of made up”. The Chancellor wants us to believe he is cutting taxes to give people back more of their pay packets, but the reality—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) helpfully clarified for the Government—is an average tax rise for working people of £1,200, with nearly everyone who pays national insurance left with a bigger tax bill next year.
The Chancellor may want gratitude and praise for his recent interventions, but the reality is that growth forecasts have been cut for next year, the year after and the year after that. Meanwhile, the Bank of England is forecasting zero growth before 2025. The Conservative party might want us to believe that that is due to events outside its control and that things are starting to improve, but we learned just today from the latest GDP figures that growth fell in October, demonstrating that our economy is still going backwards despite all the warm words we have heard from Ministers. Taxes up, debt skyrocketing and the biggest hit to living standards ever recorded—that is the legacy of 13 years of Conservative government, however much they try to escape from the reality of their record. Only the Labour party has a clear plan to grow our economy by boosting wages, bringing down bills and making working people in all parts of the country better off.
As we have set out, there are a number of specific measures in the Bill that we support and, indeed, have long called for, so we will not oppose the Bill’s Second Reading. For example, we welcome the Government’s decision to heed the calls of industry and make full expensing for businesses permanent, because we know that if the UK is to turn a corner and we are to drive growth in the economy, we need to address our chronic lack of business investment.
While we wait for Committee stage to examine in great detail the decision to consolidate research and development tax relief schemes, it is worth noting that that is the latest of eight separate changes to the R&D regime that this Government have made since the last election. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North took us on a comprehensive tour of the constantly shifting tax policy we have seen from the Tories during this Parliament. It is now clear that by chopping and changing their business taxation and reliefs, from the annual investment allowance to the short-lived super-deduction, the Government have kept businesses guessing and not given them the confidence they need to grow.
The measures set out today do not scratch the surface when it comes to undoing the years of uncertainty for business and investors, while industry is crying out for stability and a long-term plan. The truth is that, despite the words of Conservative Members, the UK is now lagging behind our international competitors when it comes to private sector investment as a share of GDP, at a time when we cannot afford to drag our feet. It is Labour who will address this head-on with a comprehensive plan to boost business investment, working with our businesses to expand and compete with rivals in the US, Europe and Asia.
It is clear from this Finance Bill and the recent autumn statement that this Government lack the imagination, leadership and appetite to transform our economy after 13 years in power. Without that stability, certainty and long-term plan, our businesses will be left unequipped to deliver the growth that we so urgently need at this time. If we do not deliver that growth, the poorest in our society will pay the price as their living standards stagnate. The Government may want us to believe that our economy is turning a corner, but back in reality, millions of people are struggling to make ends meet.
The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) asked what the greatest achievement of this Government is. Frankly, I think that is quite a dangerous question, but I will try to answer it for him anyway. Was it crashing the economy, or producing the shortest serving Prime Minister in the history of our country? Was it the tax burden being at its highest since the war, household incomes that will be 3.5% lower next year than before the pandemic or, my personal favourite, the latest growth forecasts showing us plummeting and plummeting even further? Was it—shall I turn to my own constituency—people having to make the choice between turning on the heating and eating? That is the reality facing people in the country after 13 years of a Conservative Government.
Drew Hendry
If, as the shadow Minister says, and I agree, the Bill is this bad, why is she voting for it?
Tulip Siddiq
We are not actually voting. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member is slightly misguided, as we are not voting.
There are specific measures that we support, but, overall, we do not support the economic plan of this Government. If the Government are so sure about their economic plan, why do they not take their opinions to the public? Why do they not call a general election, and we will see who is smiling and smirking after that?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
What a great pleasure it is to close this debate on the Finance Bill on behalf of the Government. I want to thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is new in post, and to recognise the work of his predecessor and my constituency neighbour in Lincolnshire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who carried out a great deal of work on this Finance Bill in the run-up to the autumn statement.
I will address a number of the points raised in this very good debate—it was lacking on quantity, but high on quality from a number of sources—but before I reflect on the comments, let me reflect on the Bill. Be in no doubt but that this Finance Bill will mean that companies will pay less tax if they invest more. It will simplify and strengthen tax reliefs to bolster innovation, and it makes the tax system fairer and more secure. Taken together, the measures contained in it will strengthen our economy and create more opportunities for more rewarding work in every corner of this country.
I will now turn to the comments made by a number of colleagues. I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, who has carried out significant work on the tax simplification programme with her Committee. The Government are clear that we want the tax system to be simpler and fairer, and to support growth. As she mentioned, the Financial Secretary has written to her just this week setting out the progress we are making on simplification. This autumn statement, and the Finance Bill in particular, has a number of measures, not least the capital allowances and the R&D expenditure credit consolidation. This a step in the right direction, but we are not complacent and we will continue to go further.
I was heartened to hear cross-party support for full expensing. That is in the context of the lowest headline rate of corporation tax in the G7, but the autumn statement announcement, and the provision in the Bill, is a £10 billion-a-year effective tax cut, called for by the IFS, the CBI, the IOD, Make UK, and many other businesses across the country. It is also in conjunction—this is not in the Bill—with a business rates package that will see a freeze for more than 90% of rate payers in this country.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) made a comment about the oil and gas sector. Let me be clear: this Government have resolute support for our domestic oil and gas sector, and its 210,000 jobs. She called for a “proper tax” on oil and gas companies, and I can tell her that we already have one of the highest rates of windfall tax in the world. The energy price levy strikes the right balance between providing support for families and businesses through an energy crisis—namely through the energy price guarantee, which effectively paid 50% of people’s energy bills—while also encouraging investment to bolster our energy security. Conservative Members want to see the sector’s profits reinvested to support our domestic economy, our jobs, and our domestic energy security. Investment allowances within the EPL help to do that, and the energy security investment mechanism, which I announced in June, will help to provide banks with certainty in their modelling as they provide financing to the oil and gas sector, and as they are part of the transition to net zero.
Along with SNP Members, the hon. Member also said that she would like an increase in tax on banks, but she failed to mention that tax on banks has increased in recent times from 27% to 28%. She failed to mention that the tax revenue contribution from banks has increased significantly from £17 billion in 2010, to more than £33 billion today. That helps to pay for our NHS, our education, our defence, and many other public services that we all rely on. We want our banking system to be internationally competitive, and to keep the 1 million jobs that it employs stable and secure.
Many Opposition colleagues have mentioned living standards, and they are right. Conservative Members care deeply about that issue. That is why as part of the autumn statement, we increased the state pension by 8.5% as part of the triple lock which, by the way, has brought 200,000 pensioners out of poverty since it was introduced by a Conservative Prime Minister. We have also uprated benefits by 6.7%, and uprated the local housing allowance, which will benefit 1.6 million households across the country. That was on the back of a £289 billion welfare budget. Under this Government 400,000 children have been brought out of absolute poverty, and we have seen the Government step in with significant support through two global shocks of covid and the energy price spike, with £500 billion of support to get people through.
Gareth Davies
I will not give way. We are going to proceed I’m afraid; the hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) who has great consistency when it comes to reducing the tax burden. She has made clear her views on our tax system, and we agree with her. We have a keenness to bring taxes down, but we will do it in a responsible way that is in line with sustainable public finances. She also made clear her consistent campaign on pillar 2, and we are very alive to her concerns. I am pleased that the Chancellor recently met and wrote to her, following the two fiscal statements. I understand her concerns about sovereignty, and I assure her that the pillar 2 provisions do not impact on sovereignty or indeed on competitiveness. The provisions in the Bill are technical amendments that we will discuss in more detail as it goes into Committee.
Finally I thank, as always, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) for his positivity about our economy, which does not always get reported. For me, his critical point was about looking at the long-term performance of the economy, not just at the provisions we are putting in place. Instead of looking month by month by month, we should look at long-term provision.
In conclusion, in January this year, the Prime Minister set out his priorities for the Government. Three of them were economic and, since then, we have seen our inflation cut in half and our economy is expected to grow in every year of the OBR’s forecast period. That is half a decade of uninterrupted growth. Because we are reducing borrowing, debt is now forecast to fall. Put simply, we have turned a corner, and it is because of the actions of this Government, this Prime Minister and this Chancellor.
This is a Conservative approach through supply-side reform, and it is in stark contrast to the Labour party’s debt-driven ambitions. We know that its plans to borrow some £28 billion every year for green initiatives will put at risk the great progress that we and the British public have achieved. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has issued a stark warning for Labour’s plans. It said they will increase inflation and drive up interest rates, leading to more debt, higher rates, higher inflation, fewer jobs and more tax. That is the Labour party’s playbook. We cannot let that happen, and we will not.
We want an economy driven by enterprise, and by workers and by businesses throughout this country who push and strive, making us more competitive abroad and resilient at home. We want a tax system that pushes up businesses and workers who want to succeed, not that pulls them down when they do succeed. The autumn statement was a statement for growth, investment, work and reward. The measures in the Bill will deliver much of that, so I strongly commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedule 1; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and that Schedule2 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill. | 2 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill. |
Clause 21 and Schedule 12; Clauses 31 and 32 and Schedule 13; Clauses 33 and 34; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and those Schedules | 4 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill. |
Clauses 25 and 27; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses 6 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill. | 6 hours after the commencement of proceedings |
Business without Debate
Petitions
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Audlem, Cheshire in the Eddisbury County constituency,
Declares their opposition to the introduction of parking charges to public car parks in the village, and the coterminous reduction in its on-street parking capacity, pursuant to a change.org petition of 1,808 signatures opposing the same; further that the petitioners believe that such measures would threaten the vibrancy of Audlem as a countryside business, tourism, events and infrastructure hub for residents and visitors, and reduce access for vulnerable service users in a rural area which is readily accessible only by private car and one regular bus service.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that such proposals are only developed and deliberated on following rigorous and renewed local public and economic consultation, having due regard to Government policies supporting rural high streets, services, businesses, communities, and healthcare, amongst others.
[P002889]
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
This petition to stop the West of Ifield development is supported by over 7,300 local people. Homes England has put forward proposals for up to 10,000 housing units on a greenfield site that is prone to flooding, and these proposals would put intolerable pressure on already strained local public infrastructure such as highways and doctors’ surgeries. The petitioners therefore
“urge the House of Commons to ensure the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities work with Homes England to ensure these proposals are withdrawn.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Crawley
Declares that proposals put forward by Homes England for up to 10,000 housing units on land to the west of Ifield are unsustainable, and would see the loss of greenfield sites and intolerable pressure on local public infrastructure
The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to ensure the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities work with Homes England to ensure these proposals are withdrawn
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002890]
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on the urgent need to reopen Ulverston library in my Barrow and Furness constituency. Since Ulverston library’s closure due to an electrical fault, the amazing library team have done a remarkable job in setting up two pop-up libraries but, as the 600-plus signatures on this petition attest, local people want a full service to be restored as soon as possible. Our library enables far more than just the lending of books and is a true community hub. The petitioners therefore
“request that the House of Commons urge the Government to help ensure that Ulverston has a full library service restored as soon as possible.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Barrow and Furness,
Declares that the Ulverston Library offers a vital service to a local people from lending books to supporting literacy, to enabling community groups, and bringing local people together; further that Ulverston Library must be re-opened as a matter of urgency.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to help ensure that Ulverston has a full library service restored as soon as possible.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002891]
Flooding: River Severn Catchment Area
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I now consider flooding to be the single biggest barrier to my Shrewsbury constituency’s economic development. We are now flooding on an annual basis, and the sheer misery, damage and destruction that takes place in my town every single year is causing my council, local authorities, businesses and homeowners a great deal of financial stress.
In February 2019, when the Coleham area of Shrewsbury flooded, I invited the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), to visit. I will never forget the day he went around Shrewsbury with me to meet many businesses—butchers, hairdressers and cafés—and homeowners, or the sheer, raw emotion that we experienced and saw on the streets of Shrewsbury.
People’s properties were devastated, and one has to remember that an Englishman’s home is his castle. People’s personal possessions and homes were badly affected. I know one lady in my constituency whose home is flooded every single year. It was a very emotional time for both the Environment Secretary and me, but it was an important visit, because I introduced him to Professor Mark Barrow from Shropshire Council. He helps to run the River Severn Partnership, which is a consortium of the councils all the way down the river. We have had enough of acting in silos; we understand the key aspect from an emotional intelligence perspective—the interdependence of all the communities along the River Severn. My council, Shropshire Council, has reached out to other councils all the way down the river to create the River Severn Partnership, so that as a consortium they can speak with one voice in lobbying the Government.
I am pleased to inform the Minister that in 2019, after that visit to my constituency, we received £50 million of taxpayers’ money, not only to help us with some small flood defence schemes in the constituency, but, most importantly, to start the work of creating a plan to manage the River Severn holistically.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the extraordinary amount of work he has done over the past few years in achieving a momentous investment, potentially, in the whole of the River Severn valley. He has also been successful in securing £50 million for his constituency. The last Prime Minister but one was also incredibly generous to Wyre Forest, in committing £10 million to the Bewdley flood defences, which are going up at the moment. Some action is being taken, as well as the excellent work my hon. Friend is doing.
Daniel Kawczynski
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I put on record how much my team and I appreciate his consistent support in working with me on the caucus that I manage here in the House of Commons.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important Adjournment debate. My constituency contains the River Severn catchment, the River Teme and the River Avon, so it is also prone to flooding. Does he agree that it is wonderful that the Environment Agency has delivered schemes in Upton upon Severn, Pershore, Uckinghall, Kempsey and Powick? Does he also agree that it would be good if the Environment Agency would complete the schemes it is working on in Tenbury Wells and in Severn Stoke?
Daniel Kawczynski
I am happy to echo those sentiments, with the Minister listening and making notes. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the constructive way in which she has worked with me and others on the River Severn caucus. I wish her every success with getting those flood defences completed.
Although the flood defences that my hon. Friend refers to are essential—they are critical in the short-term to medium-term—there is also a long-term objective of managing the River Severn holistically. Hitherto, we have had the idea of building small flood barriers. They are important, but inevitably they push the problem further downstream; that is counter-intuitive to a certain degree, because we are protecting ourselves and making it more difficult for the community further downstream. Later in my speech, I will explain how, now that we have left the common agricultural policy, we want to start to manage this river holistically.
I pay tribute to Mark Barrow of the River Severn Partnership and to the Environment Agency, whose new chief executive, Mr Duffy, I met recently. As a result of our work, we have presented a business case to the Minister for flooding, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I am grateful to her, because she has visited my constituency twice in the past year. At my invitation, she has come to Shrewsbury, sat with the officials of the River Severn Partnership and been presented with the business case that we are now sharing with the Government on how we intend to manage the River Severn. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all her work, as well as her determination and ability to visit my constituency to hear our proposals at first hand. Following those discussions, the then DEFRA Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), visited Shrewsbury earlier this year at my invitation. She was presented with the business case that has now gone to Government and she was impressed with what she saw.
Finally, as I mentioned, I invited the chief executive of the Environment Agency, Mr Duffy, to visit Shrewsbury two months ago, which he did, and he was presented with the proposals as well. Those proposals have been developed through a collaboration between the caucus of 38 Conservative MPs whose constituencies the river flows through. As I said to the Chancellor, “You have heard of the blue Danube—well, this is the blue Severn”, because 38 of us Tory MPs have the river flowing through our constituencies. I presented the proposals to Mr Duffy and he understood the importance of the plans.
We presented the plans to the Chancellor at a meeting of the River Severn caucus last month, and I know some of his senior special advisers and assistants are currently examining the business model in order to understand its economic impact on the midlands. We hope and expect the Chancellor to have positive things to say to us in the spring Budget.
I also raised the matter at Prime Minister’s questions today. The Prime Minister kindly recognised the many dealings I had with him when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He promised that the new Chancellor will look at the proposals and stated that the Government have already given an extra £6 billion for flood defences. I recognise that and thank the Government for allocating an extra £6 billion of taxpayers’ money to flood defences. However, the situation is grave across the whole of the United Kingdom and I have heard that a lot of that money has been spent in London. Protecting our capital city is obviously a priority, but I would argue that £6 billion is a drop in the ocean, if you would pardon the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker, compared to what is required.
We are not prepared to go to DEFRA to ask for a piece of that £6 billion. We want to go directly to the Chancellor, give him a business case and a business plan, and explain that if £500 million is invested today, there will be an economic uplift in the west midlands, which is the industrial heartland of England, of over £100 million gross value added. That is what is in the business case that has gone to the Chancellor.
I am proud to have campaigned for Brexit, but I am even prouder that my constituents in Shrewsbury voted for Brexit. One clear benefit of leaving the European Union is that we no longer have to comply with the ghastly common agricultural policy, which was difficult for us to benefit from and almost designed to be unconducive to English farming practices. Now that we are no longer part of the common agricultural policy, we can, for the first time, pay and incentivise farmers and landowners to hold on to water. That was not allowed under the common agricultural policy. Now that we have left, for the first time we can go to farmers and say, “If you want to be part of a major solution to flooding, we can incentivise you financially to hold on to that water and manage that water during extreme times of flooding.” We can also pay landowners for helping to be part of that solution.
I have had two very productive discussions with two Secretaries of State for Wales. I think you were once a shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you were brilliant. You will know, from having held that position, the extraordinary interdependence that we have in western England with our neighbours in Wales. We are all part of the same Union, and, of course, this solution to managing Britain’s longest river can be achieved only if we have collaboration and co-operation from our partners across the border. Having represented a constituency on the English-Welsh border, I am acutely aware of the need to have schemes that enhance and promote the interdependence of both of our countries, as we share this one island together.
I am very grateful for the close support from my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who is the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. We collaborate on many things, but he has already stated to his local press that he supports these plans. A counter-intuitive person would say, “No, I am not interested. That’s your problem. You deal with it” but he has said that he understands how some of his landowners and farmers could benefit enormously from financial payments if they were part of the solution. He understands the potential of the vast economic investment in his constituency, particularly at a difficult time for farmers and agriculture.
Shropshire Council has taken the lead with the River Severn Partnership. I chair a caucus of 38 Conservative MPs who have this river flowing through their constituencies. We are approaching—I say this unequivocally—a general election. Every year, Mr Blair and John Prescott came to Shrewsbury. In 1999, they ostensibly walked around Shrewsbury, saying, “Don’t worry, folks, we are going to protect you.” Well, we had a flood barrier, which protects a car park and 38 houses and that was the extent of the help that we got from Mr Blair and Mr Prescott. We cannot have just little sticking plasters on this problem, bearing in mind that this situation will only get worse—I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you and I can agree on that. Given climate change and the number of months and days of floods that we are experiencing, this situation will get increasingly worse for our children and our grandchildren. If we can invest today in an innovative, progressive and modern way of holistically managing rivers, that will be not just a prototype for other parts of the United Kingdom, but, potentially, a massive British export worldwide. Think about the suffering and the misery in Bangladesh. Think about all the millions of people around the world who face economic hardship and sometimes death as a result of these rivers spilling over. If we can invest in this technology of managing rivers, it could be of huge benefit not only to our exports, but to our international development aid programme.
Finally, with £500 million—that is what is in the business case—we can show an uplift of more than £100 billion for the west midlands economy. I am not begging for £500 million; I am saying to the Chancellor, “This is the return on investment that you will get if you invest in this scheme.” I know how difficult the public finances are at the moment, which is why I am so proud of the way in which we have presented the plans.
I am grateful for the constructive dialogue that I have had with the Minister. I welcome him to his position, and I know that he will do a superb job. We need his support. I have sent his officials copies of the business case that has been presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am asking for the Minister’s understanding of our proposals, and for him to lobby the Chancellor with me ahead of the spring Budget. I am sure he will agree that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will need more than £6 billion in the years to come to manage flooding.
Finally, let me tell the House about my constituent Mr Bob Ashton of Cambrian House, an apartment building that floods almost annually. He has taken me to see it, and the residents themselves have built flood defences to protect the entire building; a sort of electronic shield goes up to protect it. That is a very innovative way of trying to protect a whole apartment building, and I pay tribute to Mr Ashton and his fellow residents for their innovation. They live in Coton Hill in Shrewsbury. I must declare an interest, because I too live in Coton Hill, an area of my constituency that floods annually.
I go to see businesses in Shrewsbury not just when they are flooding, but 30 businesses tell me their takings during the floods and in the weeks after them, and they are significantly down even two weeks after the flooding has subsided. As we know, the media are brilliant at highlighting when Shrewsbury is under water, but they are not so interested in broadcasting that the floods have subsided and we are back to normal.
Flooding is the single biggest barrier to Shrewsbury’s economic development. We have more listed buildings—Edwardian, Elizabethan and Georgian—than any other town in England. We are so proud of our architectural beauty. Charles Darwin was born in Shrewsbury. We are a very historic town and we are very proud of our town, but, as I say, the flooding is causing horrendous problems for my citizens, adversely affecting people’s ability to get insurance for their properties and putting tourists off coming to our town when they see the consequences of it.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on a subject that I feel so passionately about. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this important debate to build his case for dealing with the challenges that not only he and his constituents but those across the whole River Severn catchment area are experiencing with flooding. Not only was my hon. Friend successful in securing an Adjournment debate, but he did so for a day on which we could continue to speak about the subject for another couple of hours if we wished. That enables me not only to set out the position that the Government are taking nationally, but to pick up on some of the specific concerns that he has rightly voiced to me, as the Minister with responsibility for flooding, on behalf of his constituents.
Of course, the Government and I sympathise with my hon. Friend’s constituents, and all households and businesses that experience regular floods. I was taken by the point my hon. Friend made at the beginning of his speech, when he talked eloquently about having hosted the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who visited his constituency back in 2019 to meet some of his constituents who had unfortunately been flooded, get to grips with the emotional challenges of flooding for them, and its impact not only on their property, but on their livelihoods, their families and some of their businesses.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend was able to introduce the then Secretary of State to Professor Mark Barrow, who heads up the River Severn Partnership, to make sure that the Department is alive to my hon. Friend’s ambitions for his constituency and further afield. The number of times he has raised this issue in the House is extraordinary, and he did so again earlier today at Prime Minister’s questions; I was in the Chamber to listen to not only his question, but the Prime Minister’s reply from this very Dispatch Box.
As climate change leads to rising sea levels and more extreme rainfall, the number of people at risk from flooding and coastal erosion continues to grow. That is why this Government are acting now to drive down flood risk from every angle. Given that we have some time, I want to set out what the Government are doing at a national level, and then I will come back to some of the specifics that my hon. Friend raised.
Our long-term policy statement, published in 2020, sets out our ambition to create a nation more resilient to future flood and coastal erosion risk. It includes five ambitious policies and a number of actions that will accelerate progress to 2027 and beyond, to prepare the country and better protect it against flooding and coastal erosion in the face of more frequent extreme weather. We are now halfway through our significant £5.2 billion flood and coastal erosion six-year investment programme. In that time we have invested more than £1.5 billion to better protect more than 67,000 homes and businesses in England alone, taking the total number of properties protected to more than 380,000 since 2015 and more than 600,000 since 2010.
That record £5.2 billion investment is double the £2.6 billion investment from the previous funding round, which ran from 2015 to 2021. That programme delivered more than 850 flood defence projects to better protect 314,000 homes, nearly 600,000 acres of farmland, thousands of businesses and major pieces of infrastructure. That demonstrates how dedicated this Government are to dealing with not only the challenges that my hon. Friend has raised in the River Severn catchment, but other challenges across England.
With double the investment, we will continue to build on past achievements and improve flood resilience for all. However, it would be insincere of me not to point out the findings of the recent National Audit Office report on resilience to flooding, which highlighted that our current investment programme has faced challenges. It is absolutely right that, like previous Ministers, I ensure that we are delivering for constituents right across England who need protection for their homes and for the businesses that are impacted, and that we audit the money being spent so that we can get better protection for all.
Unfortunately, the start of the programme was impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, which resulted in fewer people being available to develop projects and delayed the mobilisation. However, I am pleased to be able to reassure all hon. Members that we are well on course to delivering the funding that we have allocated during this funding round and that, despite the challenges, 67,000 properties have already been better protected from flooding under the programme, which started in April 2021. The delays do, however, mean that the original target of better protecting 336,000 properties by 2027 is under review, and I am asking my officials to give me further advice on that. The Environment Agency’s revised forecast is that 200,000 properties will be better protected in that time. I am currently in discussions with the Environment Agency on how we can make sure that the budget is spent properly.
We are ensuring that projects are delivered in every region, and we are providing flooding protection across the country. In April 2023, we announced the first communities in England to benefit from the £100 million frequently flooded allowance. The first 53 projects will be allocated more than £26 million in total in 2023 and 2024, safeguarding 2,300 households and businesses alone. In September 2023, we announced a further round of £25 million through the natural flood management programme; successful projects will be announced early in 2024.
As part of that wider approach, we have also funded a £200 million flood and coastal innovation programme, which has three elements: £33 million to develop a coastal transition accelerator programme in a small number of areas that are exposed to significant risks of coastal erosion; around £150 million to support 25 innovative projects over six years to improve their resilience to flooding and coastal erosion; and £8 million for four adaptation pathways in the Thames and Humber estuaries, the Severn valley and Yorkshire, enabling local places to better plan for future flooding and coastal change and to adapt to future climate hazards. In addition, we continue to invest in flood and coastal defence maintenance with an extra £22 million per year for the current spending review period to 2024-25. Currently, 93.5% of major flood and coastal erosion risk management assets are in target condition, but that is not where we need to be; we aim to achieve 98% relatively soon.
In addition to all that new funding, we are working closely with partner agencies to tackle surface water flooding. Unfortunately, 3.4 million properties in England are at risk of surface water flooding, and the Environment Agency and the Met Office are investing an additional £1 million over the next three years, through the Flood Forecasting Centre, to advance the modelling, forecasting and communication of surface water flood risk. In addition, the Government are focusing on water companies, where we will be investing over £1 billion between 2020 and 2025 to reduce the impact of flooding on communities across England and Wales.
Let me address the specific points that were raised in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, because he is representing not just himself but 38 other colleagues as part of a wider caucus. I know the hard work that he has done with that caucus, and not just in the House. Not only has he already lobbied me in my first three weeks in this role, but I know that he lobbied the last flooding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), on several occasions, including on visits, and he raised his case at Prime Minister’s questions today. I know that his business case has been submitted to the Chancellor, and it has already reached my desk. I await the opportunity to digest it—it arrived only today—so that I can speak in more detail not only with my officials, but with those at the Treasury.
Let me pick up on the points made by my hon. Friend Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) about the Environment Agency scheme at Tenbury Wells and the Severn Stoke alleviation scheme. I want to reassure her that the outline business case for the Tenbury Wells scheme has been approved by the Environment Agency, which is reviewing design options for it. It has been advised that the scheme is complex, but nevertheless, we will ensure that it progresses. While there have been some complexities associated with the Severn Trent flood alleviation scheme, I reassure my hon. Friend that the Environment Agency is working to secure a contractor, so that the agency and I can be reassured that that scheme will be able to commence construction from spring 2024.
As has been pointed out, we have already invested £50 million in the English Severn and Wye catchment between 2015 and 2021, protecting 3,000 homes. That programme has invested almost £8 million within Shropshire alone, better protecting over 200 homes, and under the new funding round that covers the period between 2021 and 2027, we expect to invest another £150 million to reduce flood risk and better protect a further 3,000 homes and businesses across that catchment. Almost £45 million of that funding will be invested specifically in Shropshire, better protecting almost 600 homes and businesses. That is in addition to the summer economic recovery fund, which has already allocated £40 million of investment to the River Severn catchment. Projects in Shropshire that will benefit include the highly innovative Severn valley water management scheme, which is already shaping landscape change in the upper catchment across England and Wales.
I want to pick up specifically on a point rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. We are now out of the European Union, and will be coming out of the common agricultural policy. That creates opportunities for not only DEFRA but the Treasury to look at how we can incentivise more upstream schemes, so that we increase the lag time of the water getting into the River Severn. I am very keen to explore those options as part of my flooding portfolio and alongside my DEFRA colleagues, making sure that those schemes work not only within urban environments, but upstream in more natural environments.
The Severn valley water management scheme aims to reduce flood risk across Shropshire, but will also secure water resources for the future, benefiting and improving water quality, natural assets and the environment. The Environment Agency is working closely with local authorities, landowners and communities to identify places where it is feasible and effective to deliver such innovations. It is likely that not all funding will need to come from Government—that is important, because we need to secure value for money, not only for the taxpayer but from public funds and private initiatives. I am happy to look at the options that are available; no doubt, those options might be included in the business case that has already been submitted to the Chancellor, but that is something that I, with my officials, will concentrate on as well.
As I mentioned, the Severn valley will also benefit from £1.5 million in funding as one of the adaptation pathway projects. The River Severn adaptation pathway project will help ensure that people and wildlife within that vibrant river catchment can adapt and be resilient in the face of the changing climate we are all experiencing. That suite of pathways and actions is being developed, and will help manage flood risk and ensure that water resources can be used much more effectively across the River Severn catchment, not only today or tomorrow but well into the future. The county of Shropshire is also benefiting from approximately £3.5 million of maintenance of current flood risk assets to ensure that we can continue to be effective in better protecting communities from flooding, not only those in my hon. Friend’s constituency but others across the River Severn catchment.
In total, since 2015, approximately £245 million has been committed to reduce flooding in the River Severn valley area, demonstrating this Government’s commitment to areas impacted by regular flooding. As I have said, I will pay deep attention to the business case that has been presented to my colleagues in the Treasury, and on the back of this Adjournment debate, I will be more than happy to have a meeting with my hon. Friend and members of his caucus, which he is doing an excellent job of leading.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am very grateful for the very positive way in which my hon. Friend is responding to the points I have made. Will he also commit to visiting Shrewsbury in the new year to meet the River Severn Partnership and to see, in practice, some of the proposals that we wish to create?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before the Minister responds, may I urge him to face forward? I know the temptation is to look at Mr Kawczynski, but when he is facing forward he is speaking into the microphone, and it can be picked up by Hansard.
Robbie Moore
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I was coming on to that point. I am happy not only to pay my hon. Friend a visit, but to meet his colleagues who have been working on the business case in his constituency to make sure that we are able to take fully into account the proposals being put forward to my Department. I am always happy to get out and practically speak to people on the ground who are being negatively impacted by flooding. I hope that a visit, which I am more than happy to do, will be of value not only to him, but to me in my role.
I want to reiterate that I fully understand the anxiety and frustration felt by my hon. Friend’s constituents, which is why I am absolutely committed to providing full attention to and focus on flooding and flood resilience. Storm Babet provided significant challenges to many local authorities across England, and I hope that some of the reassurance I have provided him, through the amount of money that this Government are spending across England, gives him some sense of reassurance about how importantly flood resilience and flood improvement projects are taken by this Government.
I also want to outline quickly some other work that falls into other Departments. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has activated the flood recovery framework and its package of support includes these measures. There is the community recovery grant, from which eligible local authorities will receive funding equivalent to £500 per flooded household to support local recovery efforts. I know this has been rolled out on the back of Storm Babet and others. In addition, there is the business recovery grant, from which the Department for Business and Trade will provide eligible local authorities with up to £2,500 for each eligible small and medium-sized enterprise that has suffered severe impacts from flooding that cannot be recovered from insurance. There is the council tax discount, under which the Government will reimburse eligible local authorities for the cost of a 100% council tax discount for a minimum of three months. Finally, there is the property flood resilience repair grant, and areas flooded by Storm Babet have been able to benefit positively from that grant. The scheme offers a package of funding for property owners directly flooded by a specific weather event, and grants them up to £5,000 per property to install flood resilience measures. In addition, these grants will be supported by the existing Bellwin scheme, which can provide financial help to local authorities for the immediate actions that they take in the aftermath of an emergency, such as setting up rest centres and temporary accommodation.
To conclude, I want to reassure my hon. Friend that his debate has been absolutely welcomed by me as the Minister. He used the opportunity before this debate to speak to me very specifically on the level of detail with which his business case is being put forward, and I am more than happy to meet him and to pay a visit to his constituency so that I can understand the business case in more detail. Let me be clear: we will continue to improve the resilience to flooding of our villages, towns and cities across England and the wider UK, and we will do that in a holistic manner.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thought we were going to have a two-hour speech. I was looking forward to that.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
That the draft Representation of the People (Overseas Electors etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 23 October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 325 / Noes: 154 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 464 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Representation of the People (Overseas Electors etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 23 October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 324 / Noes: 186 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary.
The draft regulations are an important part of the Government’s commitment to strengthen the use of data and information across the public sector, so that we can deliver better and more joined-up services and, in turn, improve outcomes for our citizens. The aim is to allow information sharing between named bodies for the specific purpose of supporting cross-government identity checking when it is needed.
Verifying a user’s identity—ensuring that a person is who they say they are—is a key part of delivering many government services. The draft regulations enable this by establishing a new data-sharing objective under section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 and by setting out which public bodies may use the new objective. That will create a legislative gateway, enabling us to use existing data sets that public bodies already hold to help as many people as possible to access the government services they need online. It is therefore central to the development of more inclusive and accessible systems.
Specifically, the proposed objective would unlock the full benefits of the new cross-government digital system known as GOV.UK One Login. This is now live. Users are able to set up an account, log in and prove their identity in order to access an initial set of 27 government services, with more being added all the time. That is a step change in the provision of simple and joined-up access to government services online. It is delivering substantial cost and time savings for the Government and for users by reducing duplication and providing enhanced capability to identify and stop fraudsters.
At the moment, however, users of One Login must have photographic documentation such as a passport or driving licence. That will change following the introduction of the new objective, as it will unlock new ways for people without photo ID to prove who they are, opening up the system to more users. In summary, the proposed objective will: enable checks against existing government-held information such as PAYE and benefits data to build confidence in a user’s identity; provide a specific legal framework for checks against documents currently used in identity verification such as driving licences; and provide a specific legal framework for sharing the results of identity checks performed by one named body with another, so that users only need to prove their identity once to access all the services they need.
The draft regulations apply to the relevant bodies already listed in schedule 4 to the Digital Economy Act, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions. They also add four new public bodies to the schedule: the Cabinet Office; the Department for Transport; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and the Disclosure and Barring Service. The public bodies listed in the regulations either hold information that could be used in support of proving that someone is who they say they are, or own and manage services that people need to access and therefore need to receive the results of identity checks. Some public bodies do both.
The territorial extent of the draft regulations is England, Wales and Scotland. The Information Commissioner’s Office and the devolved Administrations support the regulations. Indeed, the Scottish and Welsh Administrations have requested that certain devolved bodies already listed in schedule 4 be able to use the new power.
I am sure hon. Members will be pleased to know that the draft regulations have been subject to the standard rigorous processes of internal and external review. In the first instance, the objective has been subject to scrutiny by the Public Service Delivery Review Board, as set out in the underpinning code of practice on public service delivery, debt and fraud under the Digital Economy Act. The board recommended that Ministers proceed with the draft regulations since they meet the required criteria of supporting the improvement, or targeting of, public services to individuals in order to enhance their wellbeing.
Furthermore, the objective has been subject to a public consultation, which received many responses. Some respondents recognised the benefits to individuals of improved and more inclusive services. Some, however, expressed concern that it was a back-door route to identity cards. That concern was mistaken. In response to the consultation, the Government confirmed that they have no plans to introduce mandatory digital identity or identity cards.
We also published additional information on how GOV.UK One Login will operate within the draft regulations and within the overall data protection framework. We extended the time between the regulations being approved and coming into force, and we amended some of the wording to reflect that of the Act.
The Government of course understand that people want to protect their personal information. I want to emphasise that that is central to our approach in developing both the draft regulations and the One Login system. Bodies that use this legislation will be required to do so with a robust set of controls that are designed to ensure that the data sharing is limited and to protect the individual.
The draft regulations relate only to using data for the purposes of identity verification. Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 gives Government powers to share personal information across organisational boundaries to improve public services. It lays down what data can be shared and for which purposes. Data sharing must also have regard to the accompanying statutory code of practice on public service delivery, debt and fraud, which sets out how the power must be operated including how any data shared must be processed lawfully, securely and proportionately in compliance with data protection legislation and UK GDPR.
The Digital Economy Act code of practice on public service delivery, debt and fraud also requires that information-sharing agreements be listed in a public register of information-sharing activity under the powers. The framework for data sharing under the DEA provides a supportive background to help organisations share data in ways that benefit the public, as confirmed by the Information Commissioner’s Office in its recent review. It includes robust safeguards that ensure organisations share data responsibly and in alignment with data protection principles, while also safeguarding people’s rights. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Gary. I will indicate at the start that I do not intend to divide the Committee nor to detain it for very long, because the Opposition support the principle of using data to improve public services, to improve Government services for citizens and our constituents, and to drive public sector productivity. We therefore support these measures.
I just have a few questions that I hope the Minister can briefly answer for us this morning. He rightly mentioned the controversies and those who will be concerned that this is a move to some form of ID card. I do not agree with that objection but none the less, as I am sure he and many members of the Committee will be aware, the issue can arouse strong feelings in some parts of the country. Will he reassure us about what processes will be in place for complaints from individuals about how their personal data is used? How will Departments obtain consent from users when they are sharing data between public bodies? How will Ministers monitor that?
I believe that the changes are key to unlocking productivity gains across the public sector and Government services. Have the Government scored any productivity improvements? Over what timeline does the Minister think that we could be reaping benefits from the changes?
I totally endorse the Government’s objective to move to the One Login system. I think they have promised that 150 public services will be using the GOV.UK One Login system by 2025. I would be grateful for an update on to what extent we are on track to hit that target. How many have already moved? As I say, if the Minister does not have the detailed answers, I would be very happy for him to write to me, but we support his endeavours today.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Member for Leicester South asked me to be brief, so I will be. The whole notion of consent is wrapped up in how the regulations have been put together. That is to say, the DEA provides the framework for consent. On complaints, I refer him to One Login’s privacy notice. I am pleased to tell him that we are on track to deliver One Login on time and in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that mobile phones should be switched off. If you want to catch my eye, you need to bob.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. As the Committee is aware, there has been a long-standing and very important process in Government to make sure that the regulation on buildings post Grenfell is improved, and that safety is at the heart of all regulation. We have introduced legislation—the Building Safety Act 2022 and regulations in affirmative and negative statutory instruments—to do that.
These draft regulations are part of a package that forms a milestone for building safety in the UK. Through the overall package of regulations, the Government seek to meet their commitment to make sure that buildings are safe now and that people feel safe in future and for generations to come.
The regulations set out the golden thread information that the people responsible for an occupied higher-risk building—known as the accountable persons—need to keep. They set out the information that accountable persons need to share with each other, other people responsible for the safety of the building, residents and owners of flats in the building itself. That includes sharing information with fire and rescue services to help better deliver responses in the event of an emergency.
The documentation for this statutory instrument is significant and is intended to indicate all the different elements of the data that needs to be provided, so that there is clear information—a clear golden thread—that explains what the building is and helps in the event of an emergency.
Understandably, the regulations set out certain limited exceptions when the information does not need to be provided—for instance, if there are issues around security, commercial confidentiality or data protection. They also seek to make small amendments to other regulations: the Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023, which clarify what part of a building an accountable person is responsible for when there are multiple accountable persons for the same higher-risk buildings; and the Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023, in relation to the specific exclusion of certain types of military premises.
I hope that this is a relatively straightforward SI, although I will be guided by Opposition Members. It seeks to do what I think we all want in this House: to make sure that regulations are fit for purpose as a result of all the changes and challenges that we have seen in recent years. I hope this is another step forward in that. I commend it to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg and to respond on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench team.
I am very familiar with the Building Safety Act. I was the shadow Housing Minister who took it through the Public Bill Committee and Report stage, and I tabled amendments to it. We worked constructively with former Ministers—and, indeed, the Secretary of State—to bring it on its journey.
We worked with key stakeholders in our constituencies and way beyond, including Cladiators campaigners, the National Leasehold Campaign, End Our Cladding Scandal, and the UK Cladding Action Group—all groups that the Minister is very familiar with. The Act is a landmark piece of legislation. It changes the regulatory regime and creates a professional culture in the construction and development industry, focused on high-rise buildings, the definition of which is in the legislation.
As the Minister rightly said, the context is the learning from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, where 72 people lost their lives, and earlier fires such as Lakanal House fire. It must be acknowledged that progress has been made. A new landscape of regulation has been created. The Building Safety Regulator is now alive, although not quite kicking; we certainly have a shared interest to get that going in the right direction. Practical remediation has started on a considerable number of buildings, but there is more to be done. Far too many buildings are still not remediated, and some developers are not doing what they should be doing. The Chair of this Committee is very familiar with that, and has spoken powerfully to challenge that in Runcorn in his constituency, as Members across the Committee have done in theirs. There are still issues around insurance and the broader financial sector—mortgages and so forth—that the Minister has been addressing.
Let me turn to the regulations. As the Minister said, they are about the golden thread of information, the principal accountable person and any other accountable person for what is classified as a high-risk building. It is vital that all leaseholders and residents are given a voice and empowered by this new regime, through that critical information—we have spoken about the previous learning. The Minister also referred to the emergency services and other key stakeholders in the building safety regime.
A concern that has been raised with me by the UK Cladding Action Group and some notable lawyers—the Minister will be familiar with some of them—is the cost of the cladding scandal potentially being passed on to leaseholders. There is reference to industry, but the Minister and Members across the House will know from experience that the magic, non-transparent money tree is tucked away in service charges. I would like the Minister to elaborate on that point.
Regulations 7 and 8 and schedule 2 require paper copies, potentially of three different documents, given to everyone over the age of 16. At large sites, that may involve giving multiple copies to multiple residents and, across hundreds of flats, that would be thousands of copies. The regulations state that those should be paper copies, so the cost of servicing that could be quite challenging. Again, there could be an opportunity for a managing agent, who may be the principal accountable person, to put that on to a service charge. We have seen some evidence of that from early regulations in the not-too-distant past, which I will happily present to the Minister.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wholly unacceptable if the costs of additional paperwork that has to be filed were passed on to leaseholders in their service charges? They have already suffered enough. As we know only too well, 72 people lost their lives at Grenfell through no fault of their own. We have to do everything we can to protect these individuals.
Mike Amesbury
That principle has been debated at length. Various Government Ministers, including the Minister here today, have spoken about the fundamental principle that it should not be the innocent leaseholder who pays, but those who were responsible for this toxic mess in the first place. I would be interested to hear the Minister elaborate on that in his response.
It has been put to me that regulations 15 to 19 could be open to abuse. The only way to challenge service charges is to produce comparable evidence. As I have stated, most accountable persons will be managing agents, and they will grab every opportunity—we have lots of evidence of this—to give no details of their charges. There is another piece of legislation going through the House as we speak that might address some of those concerns. An example is the commercial confidentiality exemption in regulation 17, which managing agents could use to avoid being transparent and open about increasing—and at times, astronomical—costs. That could be an unintentional result of the regulation. I would like to hear the Minister’s assurance and elaboration on that point.
In summary, this is a technical and necessary statutory instrument, but the fundamental principle is that further costs should not be passed on to leaseholders.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am aware that a number of regulations will flow out of the Building Safety Act, so could the Minister clarify whether disability and access information is recorded under this regulation? It is critical that there is a proper record of people who will need assistance when evacuating.
I should have declared an interest in that I am a leaseholder and live above the seventh floor in a leasehold block, and I have had recent experience of a fire drill when an alarm went off. But I represent many constituents living in affected blocks, which is my main interest today as their constituency MP. Sometimes, temporary disability is an issue. It is quite a challenge for a building manager to keep up to date with people who have broken an ankle and have a problem for only a few months, rather than people who have a regular problem. There are also important privacy issues for people with a disability who may need support and assistance, relating to how that might be recorded and dealt with differently from other information.
On data, a lot of blocks in Hackney have been sold to overseas landlords. There are landlords overseas and landlords in the UK—sometimes in London but often elsewhere. There are then the residents of those blocks—some are owners, and some are the tenants of those landlords. When the data is shared with the resident, there is reference to the redaction of personal data in some circumstances, as I am sure the Minister is aware. Could he explain who gets the full data? Is it the resident, and the landlord has some of it redacted? How will that work? There is an awful lot of personal information flying around here, and it is easy to see how there could be challenging GDPR issues.
To echo the points from my colleagues about the impact on leaseholders, the guidance suggests an estimated £15-a-month charge to leaseholders over a 15-year period. That works out at about £180 per annum for 15 years. I am interested to know how the Department modelled those figures. A one-off map of the building—if that did not exist beforehand—is one cost; it does not change. The change would be the personal information about residents—the names of people moving in—so that there is a record of who is living there, and information about access and disability where appropriate.
I know the Minister is quite hot on leasehold charges. As my colleagues have said, what efforts will be made to ensure that leaseholders, or indeed tenants, are not fleeced by charges? Where properties are tenanted, there will be certain restrictions. The Minister’s portfolio has shifted so I am confused about what is currently under his remit, but I hope he is able to shed some light on the impact on social rents.
Obviously, there is a cap on how much social rents can increase by, but if those extra pressures are put on local authorities, housing associations and other landlords, they will have to pass them on in some way to tenants through service charges. For a lot of tenants, service charges are wrapped up in rents. Can the Minister say anything about that, because £15 a month is not a lot for people in fancy, expensive leasehold properties, who, at the high end, are used to paying thousands of pounds a year in service charges, but others find it a challenge to find the extra £2 a month, or a week, for CCTV on their estate? What thought is going into that? There is a danger with bad leasehold companies, which manage properties badly and are not transparent about costs. It is easy to see how other costs could be hidden in this cost. What thoughts has he had on that?
Is there a review point? The impact assessment says that there will be no separate review, other than the review that is built into the Building Safety Act 2022. Could the Minister remind us—I am afraid this does not come to mind—exactly how that review will work? How can Members who represent affected constituents press for a review if we pick up, though our work, issues with how the provisions are applied?
Has the Minister given any consideration to the impact where a property does not have a plan? He will know about this, as a former Westminster City councillor. When I became a councillor, properties transferred to the council from the then Greater London Council often did not have proper plans. The plans available depended on when properties were built, and who the original landlord was. To what extent will plans have to be drawn up for buildings that never had them? In more recent years, and certainly since the tragedy of Grenfell, we have expected property owners to keep proper, clear building plans that are easily accessible and can be supplied to the fire and rescue services, and any other interested parties.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I have a simple question that this excellent Minister will be able to address, but before he does, may I say that he has done a very good job on this issue, as was acknowledged by the Opposition? That needs to be put on record. He is an excellent Minister; I have had personal dealings with him on other subjects, and I know that he always responds to colleagues with diligence and alacrity. More than that, he listens, and acts when he has listened, so I thank him very much.
I have a technical question; I do not want him to think I am a soft touch, given what I have just said about him. Interestingly, schedule 1 sets out clearly responsibilities in respect of resident engagement, and schedule 2 sets out in considerably more detail information that needs to be provided. I want to be clear about new or potential residents. When they are offered a place in a block, how much are they told ahead of the game? My slight concern is that people will not necessarily know what they need to. Imagine that they are coming from a way away, and are not familiar with the location or building. What are the mechanisms by which people can know what to expect, and what they are taking on? I am sure that the Minister will have thought about, and will not have any trouble answering my question, particularly given what I said about him earlier.
Lee Rowley
I thank Members for all the very constructive comments and questions. Let me try to answer them in turn. The hon. Members for Weaver Vale, for Hackney South and Shoreditch, and for Liverpool, Wavertree, raised important points about cost. It is absolutely right that we need the greatest transparency, and the minimum impact on residents. The approach will be imperfect whenever any system has so many actors within it. If the Government and the Building Safety Regulator make the approach very clear, and have processes that check these things, that is probably as much as we can do right now, but there is obviously more that should be done.
We have a combination of clarity around the issue, the Building Safety Regulator’s focus on it, and the Government’s clear statements about it, as well as a review and loop mechanism—plus there is all the work on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. Many Members here contributed to Second Reading on Monday. The Bill seeks to create transparency about service charges in general, irrespective of whether the building is a high-rise. We hope that all those things will form a package. The best way to keep costs down is to ensure that the system has transparency at its core, and that people have the ability to check and challenge in a practical way.
Secondly, on the distribution of costs, I acknowledge the point the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree made about the importance of minimising the impact on leaseholders. That is vital. Leaseholders have faced substantial challenges over the past six years, particularly those in buildings affected by cladding, those who are going through remediation and those who are still waiting for remediation. We have to try to minimise the costs. At the same time, I cannot exempt from costs unless we can find a specific fund at a time when the Government are still overspending by £130 billion—that is for a separate discussion at another time, however.
There will be an add-on in terms of cost; the job is to reduce it to the minimum and provide transparency, and then to do the work the hon. Member for Weaver Vale kindly referred to on the other costs residents are facing—increased insurance premiums, probable costs of commissions on top of insurance, and so on—and try to drive those costs down. A huge amount of work is being done to drive down the costs of insurance, which I have to say is very frustrating on a personal level. We have made some progress on commissions; on insurance, we have not made the progress I wanted, but we are working very closely with the insurance industry to do that and I hope to have more information soon. While the distribution of costs is probably not where Opposition Members want it to be, I hope I can reassure them that we are working across the piece to drive down costs in aggregate.
Thirdly, how will the appeals work? There will be an appeals process that allows reference to an independent panel through the Building Safety Regulator; if that is not satisfactory, cases can go to the first-tier tribunal for a decision. Having met with many leaseholders while dealing with the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill over the last couple of weeks, I recognise that tribunals are not an end in themselves. The processes are long, involved and complicated, and people have lives to lead, but ultimately we have to find the form of redress that works, and I hope to achieve that by providing greater transparency and easier processes through that Bill, and more information where it is necessary.
If the package does not work, I want to hear from colleagues about such examples. I meet the Building Safety Regulator—the chair, the chief executive and everyone involved—monthly to discuss issues of mutual interest. I have already said to them that getting these costs down and getting the guidance around this to a place where it is reasonable and proportionate are hugely important. I know we will have examples where management companies try it on or there is no transparency; there will be cases where things are not as we want them to be. We need to identify the problems, work through them and see whether we can make changes to make the process better.
Mike Amesbury
The Minister talks about the Building Safety Regulator, but we are talking about some 12,000 that are in scope. Is he confident that the regulator and associated teams have enough resources to meet these quite ambitious timescales? We are all keen to move things on collectively, but can he give us some assurance?
Lee Rowley
I work closely with the Building Safety Regulator. Its first job is to make sure that the rough number of buildings we are expecting to register have done so. For the past couple of months I have received data weekly, and slightly less frequently before that. The numbers are in the ballpark of how many we expected to register, so the first test has been passed. Now, it is a case of, over six years, working through the buildings, making sure that data is collected and used in a satisfactory way, and helping owners to make sure they are managing in a way that works. A substantial sum is going into the Building Safety Regulator, and from having worked closely with it, I think the indications so far—things may change—are that it is moving in the right direction.
To pick up a couple of other points, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch highlighted the very important point about disabilities and making sure that appropriate consideration is given to that issue. That is vital and it is a core part of our approach, but it is separate from the regulations before us, which are about a record of buildings, not of people who live in them. We have already consulted and we will bring forward separate measures on PEEPs—personal emergency evacuation plans.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the Minister for clarifying that. Does he have a rough timescale? I am asking not for a precise date, but for a range of dates when we might see that, because it is critical. I have a constituent who is particularly concerned about that issue.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight that. When I speak to a number of the cladding groups, it is one of the areas that is, quite rightly, at the centre of the points that they raise. I am afraid that I will do that rather annoying thing and say that I do not have a date, but we hope it to be very soon.
Lee Rowley
I hope that would be the case. The Secretary of State sees this as a priority; we are in deep conversations with the Home Office on it, and I hope that we will bring it forward as soon as we can.
I will conclude with a couple of additional points. On the point about review, I reiterate that I am keen to receive any information or data from colleagues where they see problems or, indeed, good behaviour, so that we can feed that into the BSR. I will be happy to do that as soon as these things go in, because at that point we will be able to start to gather the body of data that indicates whether it is working in the way that we hoped or needs to be looked at.
As for the final few questions, data sharing is a difficult area to get right. All data that is collected will be shareable with the Building Safety Regulator—otherwise, there is no point in having the regulator in the first place. Almost all data will be shared with the fire and rescue services—otherwise, again, there is no point in having it. There is a much more delicate interaction between the entity and the leaseholders. Obviously, the entity will need to collect the data, but a series of provisions in the guidance will try to manage that. Again, we will need to review that as we go through to ensure that it works.
On the point about older buildings, it is absolutely right to point out that whether we like it or not, ideally or not, there will be a paucity of data in certain places. Some data will need to be replaced—otherwise, there is no point having the regulations and collecting it in the first place if the questions of the fire and rescue service cannot be answered. People must be able to answer them—otherwise, it is not advancing the cause of safety.
The usual reasonable principle test is in all the regulations; therefore, the objective is to ensure that the data is available for when it is necessary. However, if people have gone through a reasonable process of trying to get it and they cannot get it until x day or they need to wait until a point in a cycle, or whatever, that will be for the usual processes of tribunals to judge. However, a reasonable test is brought into it, which is a proportionate way of saying, “You need to do this, but it may take a little bit of time”, or, “We need to work that through”.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings had a question about schedule 2. For obvious reasons, it will not be the case that residents moving in who have not made some kind of contractual arrangement to purchase the property will have access to all the data—otherwise, basically anybody would have access to it. However, they would be given that information at the point of a contract being signed, naturally. We would then hope and expect—I know that my right hon. Friend will appreciate this, as someone from a similar ideological view to my own—that it will be difficult to put rules around the level of data available in advance of that, but I expect that, through the sales process, responsible entities will want to provide a sufficient level of data to assure those seeking to purchase or take an interest in a property to be able to do so. If the data is not available or obstructions are found, it may signal an indication of the responsibility of those managing the building.
Dame Meg Hillier
The Minister is making some helpful points. It is clear that he is very much on top of this matter, so I echo the comments made earlier. It has been helpful to meet him to discuss issues at times.
On the issue of information, a lot of the properties in my constituency are tenanted—as I said earlier, the leaseholder is often living overseas or elsewhere—so we are reliant on the whole tenancy arrangement for information to be shared with the tenant. As far as I am aware—the Minister may want to have an exchange of letters about this—there is no absolute requirement on landlords to provide that document. Landlords must now provide 13 different documents to a tenant. The Minister has made general comments about fire safety and so on, but I do not recall anything specific about that document. Is there any further change in the rules or guidance for private landlords—they are the ones who would be in scope—that needs to happen as a result? It seems that there may be a small gap that is important and significant. What the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said was helpful.
Lee Rowley
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to be absolutely certain that I have understood the point. We will get officials to write to her with that information. My understanding is that the combination of clear requirements; a clear, responsible entity that needs to respond to those requirements, whoever it is in the hierarchy and however complex the hierarchy is; and forms of redress that ultimately fall back to the Building Safety Regulator to say, “No, that is not acceptable” should cover everything. However, if it does not, we can work that through in an exchange of letters.
I think that covers what colleagues have said, and I thank them for their constructive comments. I look forward to making progress on this issue. Adding additional regulation is always challenging, and there are different views on that on different sides of the House, but even for someone like me, who tends to favour relatively low regulation, it is a reasonable and proportionate thing to do. We now need to ensure that it is right, and I am keen to get feedback from colleagues to ensure that that is the case in the months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Copper Wire Telecoms
(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
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the withdrawal of copper wire telecommunications networks.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. Sometime ago the Government decided that the copper wire network—the analogue service—would be switched off in about December 2025. I can understand the reasoning behind the decision that the switchover would be industry led. We can see the sense in that, given how the telecommunications market operates these days. We have come some way from the days when everything was held under the General Post Office, which was the responsibility of a Government Minister. Although I understand the logic, I am afraid I have to bring a fairly simple and blunt message to the Minister this morning: it simply is not working.
It is apparent from the communications that I have with the industry and my constituents that the private companies are focusing on what matters to them rather than the needs and wishes of their customers and the communities we are elected to serve. The Government, after having made the decision that the switchover should be led by the industry, now have to step up to the plate, take charge and make sure that it is done properly. We have until the end of 2025 to get this right, but in terms of Government policy and given that there will be a general election in that period, we know that that sort of timescale can pass in the blink of an eye. This matters to people throughout the United Kingdom. It predominantly causes concern in rural communities because, in the switchover from analogue to digital communications, we have been the ones who have constantly been left behind—although I know that there are also urban communities that will be affected.
In Shetland and Orkney, our particular concern is around the resilience of the digital system—the fibre-optic system to which we will be transferred. For people in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow, power cuts are significant events because they are so rare. For us they are just part of everyday living, especially in the winter months. Occasionally we suffer catastrophic weather episodes such as we had last December, when parts of Shetland were left without electricity for six days. I am not always Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks’ biggest fan, but it really put in a shift along with council workers, the coastguard and other emergency services. It did a remarkable job in getting people connected back to electricity and making sure that those in the more hard-to-reach parts of Shetland were properly cared for.
Such events are occasional but not unknown. As we all suffer more and more catastrophic weather events in future, we have to assume that there will be a growing pattern of disruption for which the new system, when it is introduced to us, has to be fit for purpose; at the moment, with the lack of battery powered back-up, there simply is not that. Having a telephone line that we can plug in to the socket at the wall is very often the only means of communication left to people in such circumstances.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for securing a really important debate. One such incident happened in the lakes and the dales and Eden just a week and a half ago when we had serious snowy weather, which locked people in their communities, and many places— the Langdales, Coniston, Eden Valley and so on—lost electricity. During that time, people lost access to digital connectivity because the electricity went down. Having access to analogue and copper wire telephones gives people the opportunity to get care and reach out for help—to not be isolated. Does he agree that the Government need to get a handle on this issue to make sure that isolated communities are not cut off from the communications they will desperately need in these far too frequent extreme weather events?
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely do. By way of illustration, I received an email from a constituent in Walls, in the west side of Shetland, describing what life was like for him, his family and his neighbours during the six-day power outage last year. He said:
“Power was down…Internet was down…Heating was down (Our house has a gas cooker thank goodness)...The roads were impassable to cars for most of that period. 4x4 pick-ups could get through latterly into the week…The local shop was closed because it needed power to price items…Advice from the emergency services was that in the event of an emergency we were to wave down a passing police car. (This rather desperate advice was pretty hopeless, but more hopeless given road condition)…I need to emphasise that during this week an analogue phone with self-powered phone line was THE critical means of external contact with the outside world other than listening to the news on a battery-powered transistor radio.”
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am interested in my right hon. Friend’s point about the passing police car; we have precisely six police officers in the entire vast county of Sutherland. Does he agree that in a constituency such as mine, the distances are so vast and the time it takes for the emergency services—an ambulance, a doctor or whatever—to get to where they need to be is so long that any delay in getting the call through because of what he describes is unacceptable?
Mr Carmichael
It is absolutely unacceptable, because it would be unacceptable to people living in a town or a city, and if it is unacceptable to them, surely it must be unacceptable to those of us who live outside the major conurbations.
Alongside my Scottish Parliament colleagues, I run regular digital forums. They started originally to raise issues relating to the transfer from analogue to digital television—we have been going that long—and they have morphed over the years to deal with concerns about broadband, superfast broadband and mobile connectivity. We held two such sessions in Kirkwall and Lerwick just last month, which representatives from EE, BT, the Scottish Government’s digital team and other mobile companies attended either in person or online, and their inability to answer questions was remarkable. The people in the audience asked fairly basic questions about how the switchover would work and what it would mean for them, but the people on the panel just looked at each other blankly and shrugged. The companies have no proper understanding of the scale of the problem.
Ahead of this debate, we have received a number of briefings. I draw the attention of the House to the one from BT Group, which runs to two sides of A4—that is quite instructive in itself. It is, if I may say so, fairly heavy on assertion and light on evidence to back up the assertions. It explains that the change is inevitable, and we know that the copper network will have to be replaced eventually, but BT says that it
“will provide a better quality, more resilient service for the future.”
Well, it is that question of “more resilient” that I would query; and, again, I see nothing in the briefing that gives me particular comfort.
The briefing does deal with resilience. It says:
“In the event of a power outage, a back-up, resilient solution for Digital Voice will be required to remain connected.”
There’s a blinding statement of the obvious if ever I saw one. It goes on to say:
“We advise customers to use their mobile phone where possible, as the simplest way to remain connected.”
Well, a number of my constituents would love to use a mobile phone to stay connected, but for obvious reasons—which BT has been telling me for the past 20 years are too difficult to solve—they are unable to do so. Very often, getting a mobile signal requires them to go out of their house and down to the bottom of the garden because they will not get a signal inside the house. Doing that in the middle of winter, in the dark in a howling gale—I can tell you because I have done it—is not much fun. The briefing goes on to say:
“They typically have a longer battery life and calls to the emergency services can be made over any mobile network, including over 2G. Our battery back-up unit provides up to four hours of standby time and up to two hours of talk time to keep customers connected during a power outage. This is available free of charge to vulnerable customers and others may purchase one if they wish.”
Four hours of back-up time in a six-day power outage such as we had in Shetland really is not what we need. It concludes:
“For the very small proportion of customers (less than 1%), with insufficient mobile or broadband connectivity to make a call to the emergency services, we will continue to meet our commitments under the Telephony Universal Service Obligation (USO) to ensure they remain connected.”
That is a pretty good idea, but I suspect that many of those 1% of customers live some distance away from the person who wrote that briefing. It is remarkable that, despite the assertion, there is absolutely no indication of how that laudable aim will be met.
I had a much better briefing from Alice Mathewson, the development manager for North Yell Development Council. With Members’ indulgence, I will take a bit of extra time to read this into the record. Alice was at the digital forum in Lerwick, and she wrote:
“As you are aware I asked a direct question about this to all panel members at your digital forum in Lerwick last month, and no one could give any viable response to this. In addition, the lack of awareness from everyone on your panel was both quite telling and very frightening.
Our community is well used to power outages and disruptions caused by storms. However, the storms seen on our island in December 2022, which resulted in some areas being without electricity for four days, have reminded us of our vulnerability and the need to improve our resilience.
Coupled with electricity outage was severe snow and high winds. All communications on and to the island failed, including mobile and landline services, and travel to and within Yell came to a standstill. Whilst luckily there were no fatalities locally, there were a number of near misses particularly among the more vulnerable in our community, and a complete communications black out on the island, including landlines, resulted in difficulties undertaking welfare checks and an inability to put out any form of emergency response request.”
North Yell Development Council is taking this properly seriously. It is setting up a network of community hubs so that there will be places people can go where there will be warmth, food and whatever other support they need, and they will have connectivity through very high frequency radios. The briefing says:
“We intend to put VHF radios in these hubs in order to try and have some form of emergency communication for our communities. This will be limited in its scope and is a step back to a predigital age. However, it is at least some form of solution, which is more than was offered by anyone on your panel. It also will not help communities outwith our island.”
That, I suggest, gives a proper understanding of the scale of the challenge. It is light years away from what we have seen from the telecommunications companies.
There are particular concerns about availability for older people in these communities who rely on telecare services—for instance, pendants that they can press when they are in difficulty. My father, who is now living on his own at 92, has a little box that sits in the corner of the room, and just when it is least expected—at about 6 o’clock at night—a rather bossy voice booms around the room, saying, “Have you taken your pills yet?” These are examples of the ways in which we are able to help people who want to remain in their own home to do so, in communities like the one I represent. Without the availability of these services, we know what will happen. The families who live closer or elsewhere in the country will quietly, one by one, say, “Come on, you can’t continue to live here. You need to move into the town or come and live with us.” In that way, choices expected to be available to people in other communities are taken away from ours, which becomes denuded of people who want to remain there.
Finally, I get a steady trickle of complaints about one particular issue. I cannot yet say that this is a business practice, though it appears it may be, and we need to get to the truth: people tell me that they have had their analogue line switched to a digital line by BT, without being told what was happening and without proper consent being obtained. The undertakings we get from BT are in relation to vulnerable people and all people over 75. As I said, I cannot yet say that this practice is widespread, but I do see a trickle of these complaints coming in; my caseworkers deal with them and it causes me concern.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He has been outlining the problems faced by his rural-based constituents, many of which are replicated in parts of Northern Ireland. We managed five or six years ago to negotiate a confidence and supply deal with the previous Government, part of which has resulted in fibre-optic cables being fitted. That means that many people are not suffering the same complaints and delays as they did previously. Perhaps that technology could be rolled out in isolated communities in places like his constituency.
Mr Carmichael
Absolutely. As I said earlier, we know that the copper network is not going to last forever and that a solution has to be obtained. The bottom line is that that requires two things: resource and political determination. The reference to the confidence and supply arrangement is not lost on me in that respect. The resource will doubtless end up as an arm wrestle between the companies and the Treasury. The political determination can come from the Minister. That is absolutely necessary if the Government’s stated end is to be achieved. This can be his moment to shine, and I hope to hear from him that he is prepared and looking forward to stepping up to the challenge.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. It is an important issue, not just for my constituents and his, but across the country. I am thinking in particular of rural communities but also of the elderly and vulnerable communities that he mentioned.
The United Kingdom has embarked on a transformative journey of departure from traditional copper wire networks that have long underpinned the country’s communication infrastructure. Copper wire has been the backbone of telecommunications and still provides a vital service lifeline for many residents. However, I am conscious that the advent of digital technologies and the exponential growth of data usage have rendered copper wire networks less capable of keeping up with modern needs.
Copper wire networks are limited in bandwidth and data capacity, impeding the ability to deliver high-speed internet and accommodate the data-intensive services demanded by consumers and businesses. I am conscious that the withdrawal of copper wire networks is in line with the UK Government’s commitment to nationwide broadband expansion, and it is a crucial component of the country’s digital strategy, to ensure that remote and underserved areas have access to a reliable, high-speed internet.
Although that transition holds the promise of improved connectivity and technological advancement, it also raises valid concerns that warrant careful consideration and proactive measures. Upgrading the entire infrastructure from copper to fibre-optic cables not only requires substantial investment but it requires meticulous planning. There are cost implications and logistical complexities, and the need for widespread implementation raises concerns about the pace and scope of the transition.
In this country we did the digital TV transition very well. Led by industry, it worked exceptionally brilliantly. I should also point out, however, that in my constituency there are those who do not subscribe to internet or satellite TV. A substantial number of coastal communities only get access to 15 Freeview channels, rather than the plethora that many others do, because they rely on a relay, rather than a direct, transmitter. All of a sudden, the service where people can pick up a phone and dial anywhere in the world is going to change. We should therefore be mindful of not having a worse service for our constituents who, for whatever reason, choose not to have broadband services, but still want to have that connection around the world.
As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has discussed, bridging the digital divide and preventing communities from being left behind is an important task, not only for Government but for Ofcom and the telecommunication companies. I am aware that making the transition is an industry-led initiative and not directly Government policy. As I have pointed out, I fully understand why not only BT but other internet companies have decided that that is the way forward, and I do think they have been listening. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, we have seen an increasing number of storms and longer power outages, and it is those lengthy power cuts that really worry people. Indeed, right now, the recommendation to vulnerable communities or vulnerable people is to make sure they have a back-up analogue phone that they can plug into the socket in case of those sorts of issues, particularly as more and more people use electronically charged phones. It is therefore concerning to see how quickly we are approaching the industry’s self-imposed deadline on the transition.
I am conscious, and my right hon. Friend the Minister will know, how much mobile phone coverage has expanded since 2010—it is extraordinary. The number of transmitters has increased, and the Government have made it easier to put them up. I am not aware of the specific issue in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, but I can imagine. We talk a lot about how many places in the country have access, but I expect that there are several of us who represent those who do not have quite the same level of access, and we still want to see a fair deal for our constituents.
Can my right hon. Friend the Minister challenge Ofcom about its maps of coverage? I am conscious that Ofcom says parts of my constituency are covered by a variety of servers but, thinking out loud, the Deben peninsula, Sutton, Shottisham and areas like that suffered in the storms, were cut off and people could not do things such as phone for an ambulance and similar unless somebody was able to get into a tractor and drive through the floods to go somewhere where they could get a signal. It is those sorts of real-day issues that I know the Government are concerned about. That is why I hope their discussions with Ofcom and Openreach are ongoing, in order to think that through.
I appreciate that we will be discussing rural broadband later today, although I will be in the Treasury Committee so cannot join the debate. The same issue with Ofcom and access to a mobile signal is pertinent, with more and more people wanting to use the internet, so the same request will be made again. Indeed, there is a debate tomorrow about the merger of Vodafone and Three. I strongly say that that presents a real opportunity for significant investment in more transmitters around the country. I am concerned about the suggestion that Three being part of the Hutchison Whampoa empire is somehow dangerous to our country. Far from it—they are the same people who own Felixstowe port, Superdrug and Greene King and provide electricity for at least a third of the country. As we move forward and think about our infrastructure, I know the Government continue to keep security uppermost. They took the action a few years ago when they decided to remove a certain supplier—Huawei—from an amount of the infrastructure in this country. Nevertheless, we need to tread with confidence as we move forward.
Can my right hon. Friend the Minister update us on what has happened elsewhere in Europe with the copper switch-off, which is under way in Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland, and if we can learn lessons for those final communities that are quite hard to reach in that regard? It would be good to get some clarity. Different years have been given for when the switch-off will happen—the end of 2025 was one example, and more recently I have seen Openreach talking about 2027. It would be useful to get an update on exactly where we are on that. For what it is worth, I think we should even consider asking for it to be pushed back until 2030, but I accept that Ofcom issued guidance a few years ago. I do not know if that has been updated; it issued advice initially in 2018. However, I give credit to BT and its Digital Voice migration. It has listened: it paused the Digital Voice migration for a year, and in particular it looked at how it will support people with a particular telecare device, to which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred. People who have only landlines today are people of a certain age and customers who have no mobile signal, but that comes back to my earlier point: I am afraid that we cannot just trust the maps put out by Ofcom.
On the power situation referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, an hour is simply not enough. Okay, we might get something with four hours, but we need to work that through and consider how we could have community hubs or similar. Parts of Scotland are much bigger geographically, but the constituency I represent is about 300 square miles in size. Our district council is the largest by population, stretching from Felixstowe to Lowestoft, so as a rural part of Suffolk we are pretty extensive. I hope that some further work can be done there.
I appreciate that the number of people who do not have an internet connection is becoming lower and lower, but the percentages mean that that is still hundreds of thousands of people. The Government have made it a requirement that people can get an internet-based line without having to take a package, but we need to ensure that costs do not escalate so that that is prohibitive for people who still want the security of a landline.
I hoped and assumed to some extent that Ofcom had sorted this out a few years ago. Some of the issues the country has faced and the bodycheck caused by covid have knocked back some infrastructure projects and other transitions that we need to undertake, but it is important not just for BT and Openreach but for Ofcom and the Government to listen carefully on consumer protection and seek assurances that nobody will be left behind. It is not just about trying to get everybody on broadband; it is about ensuring that people have confidence in a lifeline when they pick up the phone if they need help or if they suffer the isolation of not being able to have a phone call. We must ensure that is guaranteed not only now, but for generations to come.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the debate, because letters from BT about the switchover have already started landing in North Shropshire and, as one might imagine, a number of people are concerned about it.
We have discussed the topic at length. The right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) covered some of the points that I will make. The plans to remove copper wiring from landline telephone networks are problematic, mainly because of the contingency plans in place when there is a power cut. We all accept that analogue phone lines have reached the end of their serviceable lives: repairs are difficult and expensive, and the whole network is becoming difficult to maintain. We need to bring the telephone network into the 21st century, so moving to a digital system that offers better connection with higher sound quality seems like a good solution. However, as we have discussed, the problem with anything digital is that when we get into a rural area, we need a good plan B—and probably a plan C—for when things go wrong. We are all extremely concerned about the issue of power cuts, which are obviously not as bad as they are for an island community, but they still pose serious threats, even in places such as North Shropshire. In bad weather they occur frequently, and they regularly span longer than just a few hours. Storm Arwen in 2021, shortly before I became an MP, left some of my constituents without power for six days. It is an issue for all rural areas as well as those island communities.
As we have discussed, voice over internet technology requires a power connection. If people are cut off from a power source, they cannot contact anyone, including the emergency services. The official plan B is to have a battery back-up. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, a battery back-up lasts only for a few hours, which is not long enough for a number of different events in an average winter, and certainly not long enough for some of the more extreme weather that we experience once every few years.
The other back-up plan is a mobile phone. Obviously, a solar-powered pack can be used to charge a mobile phone and keep it going through the worst power outages, but—and I think the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal covered this—lots of people in rural areas do not have a reliable mobile signal. Ofcom has said that 13% of the land area in North Shropshire is made up of partial notspots, so many residents do not have a choice of mobile provider if they want a signal at home. Ofcom also says that 3% of the UK cannot access a 4G signal at all.
I, too, have real concerns about the Ofcom maps. The lived experience of my constituents is that they often do not have any kind of signal indoors, even in places where Ofcom thinks they do, and that, if they do have a signal, it can be intermittent. For example, no one in my house received the emergency test signal that was sent to people’s mobile phones last year, yet we are technically in a good 4G area with indoor coverage from a number of providers. Because my husband has a home phone and a personal phone, he has two different providers, and we did not get an emergency test signal on either of them, so we know that those maps are unreliable.
To go slightly off topic, a mobile phone that functions at home but not at work is not a huge amount of use. There is an issue about the importance of being able to get a signal from all providers in all areas. I shall come on to that in a second.
Ofcom has said that landline providers have to continue to provide people with access to a telephone line even in the event of a power cut, but if people cannot prove that they do not have a mobile signal, how will that happen? I cannot prove to Ofcom that I do not have a mobile signal, because its maps say that I do. On occasion I do, but often I do not. I am worried about how residents in that situation will prove that they need an alternative back-up.
The shared rural network is supposed to address the problem of a poor mobile signal. It has promised to deliver a 4G signal from at least one mobile provider to 95% of the UK by 2025. The important thing is that we are talking about the 5% that is not included in that promise. It is supposed to be a partnership between mobile operators and the Government to fund masts so that they can be upgraded or built in areas that receive poor coverage. That is welcome: we want more investment in mast infrastructure. Having done some work on the issue, however, I am concerned about some of the things that I have been told by mobile operators. The three mobile operators that are not EE, which is BT’s mobile operator, have told me that EE has offered them exorbitant rates to share mobile masts, so those masts have been essentially cut off from them. The three other network operators are upgrading their existing masts and in some instances building new ones. Those will have shared equipment on them, but they will not have EE’s equipment.
The roll-out will continue to be patchy, and it will still cause people a number of issues about which network to choose and whether the service will function both at home and at work. It would be much more effective to have legislation that required the operators to share their equipment at a reasonable rate or which allowed customers to roam between providers, as they do for their emergency signal. At the moment, people cannot roam to make a call to a friend or relative, as they may well want to do during a power cut, but they can roam to call the emergency services. We need to look at that technology and expand it further.
Ofcom reports that only 45% of indoor premises receive a signal from all mobile operators but that 96% receive a signal from at least one. In my experience, that is not true, but still we are talking about the 4% of people who do not receive a signal indoors. If someone who has no signal has fallen over and needs to make a call in an emergency, they will not be helped.
Overall, the most important thing is that we need to address this mobile coverage problem. We need to bear in mind, if there is a big power outage in the area, that the mast carrying the mobile signal may well be out of power too, so it is not a fail-safe back-up to a copper line when there is a six-day power outage, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland described.
I would like to raise the issue of telecare devices, most of which historically have used copper wire technology. I have been reassured that there will be a proper roll-out and they will be upgraded as appropriate, but I wonder whether the Minister could provide us with any detail of how that is being tested, just to give some reassurance to my constituents who are concerned about whether they can continue to use those devices.
I want to touch on access to broadband. In North Shropshire, we are—I hope—lucky to be at the forefront of the Project Gigabit roll-out and, again, we are grateful for that. Project Gigabit plans to reach 9,000 of the 12,000 hard-to-reach properties in my constituency. Again, that is great, but it is the 3,000 properties that will not have a decent broadband service that we continue to be concerned about.
Rural communities are already disadvantaged regarding communication possibilities. We need to ensure that when we switch from the outdated copper wire technology, we have a robust back-up plan for those people who will be without power potentially for days on end. If someone cannot call an emergency service, they really are living in the dark ages compared with the rest of the country. Someone in my constituency might have to wait seven, 10 or 11 hours for an ambulance if they fall over and break their hip. That is assuming they have a functioning phone signal and call as soon as the problem occurs. If they cannot get in touch with anybody and have to attract the attention of a neighbour living many hundreds of yards away—just to summon help in the first place—they are in a pretty dire situation. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that we have properly thought-through plan B and plan C back-up plans to ensure that my constituents are safe should a big power cut occur.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). The majority of people probably have no idea about this subject—certainly no idea of the implications for them. For me, this is a debate about resilience, about what we do when things do not work as they should and about back-up plans. When dealing with climate change, unexpected power outages and extreme weather, we need back-up plans. If we did a quick poll in the room of how many people have 10 litres of water, three days’ supply of food and a torch with back-up batteries in their house, we would probably all fall short, but that is what we need. We also need a phone signal and to be able to contact people.
I will briefly digress to address the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) about the Vodafone-Three merger. She talked about the areas in which Three is already involved. When she mentioned it was the same people who are in charge of x, y, and z, she did not say they are the same people who have close links to the Chinese Community party. There is a real naivety to think that all is fine and that we can hand over critical infrastructure in this manner, but that debate takes place tomorrow.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) set out well the reasons why the switchover is happening and the advantages it will bring to do with better signal, clearer calls and lower energy use. That is fantastic, but we need to ensure that everything works as it should when the switchover takes place.
With new telephone lines working via the internet, all landline users will first need a broadband line, which not everybody has. Traditional telephone lines are run largely by Openreach and Virgin, private sector organisations that have taken the decision to retire these networks. Communication providers such as BT, Sky and TalkTalk are moving their customers over to fibre lines by December 2025. In fact, I believe Virgin hopes to have its customers moved over before then. The Government have said this change is industry led, but in practice it is a bit more complicated. The complexity of the current broadband market means there are more than 600 providers with 600 different processes, each managing the change in their own way. That could leave the consumer vulnerable, and certainly in a position where information is not properly communicated to them.
Analogue lines, of course, have back-up power, so they can work without an independent power supply if a property is affected by a local power cut. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked about the issues with his rural island constituency. I appreciate that power outages are far more common there, but even in urban constituencies and in cities, we do have power outages; more than that, wi-fi goes down regularly. Over the past week, the wi-fi in my house went down six times—that I am aware of—and twice while I was in the middle of a meeting. That was really problematic, and it would certainly be problematic for a vulnerable person who has fallen over. Although I understand the specific reasons why the right hon. Member brought this debate, the issue is not specific to rural constituencies.
Currently, personal alarms and fall detectors operate over the analogue network. It is estimated that around 1.7 million people in the UK use such devices, and they will be at risk if we do not get this switchover right. How will a personal care device work on a digital line if there is a power cut or the wi-fi is down? Those are more common occurrences than the Minister might like to admit. Upgrading those devices to the digital network—changing them so they can operate—is also going to be extremely costly, considering the number of people using them.
The Government have said that the change is industry led, possibly to wash their hands of it. Local authorities, which are often concerned with the care of vulnerable individuals, have been given no financial support for this change. Where will the money to upgrade those devices come from? There is also a lack of information, particularly from service providers. Despite that, I do not believe there are any plans for a national awareness campaign, by either Government or Ofcom—maybe the Minister can tell me otherwise. That is something we need to consider.
On top of that, there is also the potential for this switchover to create opportunities for criminals to target vulnerable constituents. There may be a potential increase in criminality through the selling of devices at inflated prices, selling vulnerable individuals new broadband packages that they may not use when all they use is a phone line, or perhaps charging for unnecessary work in their properties. We all need to be aware of those possibilities.
In summary, what is it we need? We need clear information—a campaign from Government to let people know what is happening. The timescale for this switchover has to be stretched. December 2025 will come up on us very quickly. From what we have heard this morning, many things clearly have not been considered. We need a back-up plan for when the internet goes down, and not just for when there are power cuts, because the internet often goes down even without power cuts. We need to know what specific interventions will take place in rural areas. Finally, returning to my initial point on resilience, we need to think more carefully about how we all consider our own resilience. Do we have the means to cope with extreme weather? We will be getting more of it.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is always a delight to see you in your seat, Mr Mundell, chairing our proceedings with such grace and elegance. It is a great delight to commend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on getting this debate today. We have campaigned together on many issues over the years, not least on the death penalty around the world. I am always a bit worried about his constituency, because there seem to be so many murders in Shetland of late. I am sure it is good that the BBC is making so much programming in Shetland, but honestly, virtually everybody on the peninsula must have been subject to murder, involved in a murder, or interviewed by the police at some point—I do realise it is fictional.
Sir Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman made some very good points and I will come on to them in a moment.
It is good to have the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) here with us, who made some very important points. She referred to the debate tomorrow on the potential merger between Vodafone and Three. I will also not be there, because I shall be at Glenys Kinnock’s funeral. The Minister will have a different shadow tomorrow; my place will be taken admirably by another Chris from the shadow Front Bench, also from south Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). I somewhat disagree with the points that the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal made, but anyway, those will be elucidated tomorrow.
It was good to hear from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who referred to notspots, which I think she said covered 13% of her constituency, and the fact that 3% of people in the UK have no 4G signal. We are also 51st in the world for 5G signal. We are all aware that there are quite a lot of issues in terms of mobile and internet connectivity that apply to large sections of the United Kingdom. Somehow, we have not really managed to seize this with the energy that some other countries have managed.
Carol Monaghan
I apologise to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), because I meant to mention her point about mobile signals indoors. I think any of us who have tried to have a mobile phone call on the parliamentary estate will know that mobile signals indoors are temperamental at least. Older buildings can be difficult, because of the thickness of the walls. Modern buildings can make it difficult for mobile signals too, because of the amount of steel on the outside of them. Having a mobile signal outside does not necessarily mean there is a mobile signal inside.
Sir Chris Bryant
I will come on to that point about the difference between inside and outside, which certainly applies to homes in the Rhondda. The point was also made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) was saying that the signal on the parliamentary estate was temperamental or that the MPs were—maybe it is a bit of both. The hon. Lady made other good points about the potential for criminality. This is not a point that I have heard elsewhere. The Minister may want to refer to it later.
One of the biggest problems with this debate is that the vast majority of people in this country would have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. In fact, I would guess that of the 650 MPs, barely 10% would know what we are talking about. That is a potential problem, because if the public does not know what we are talking about, there is a danger for other people to exploit that lack of understanding and knowledge. Several Members have referred to the fact that this is primarily an industry-led, rather than Government-led, project. They are quite right, but the Government have a significant responsibility in this area. Towards the end of my speech, I will come on to a few things that I think the Government may want to look at.
There are real, legitimate concerns. PSTN—if 650 MPs were asked to say what that acronym stood for, my guess is that we would be lucky if 10 of them knew the answer—stands for public switched telephone network, and I only know that because I am reading it out.
The complete lack of public understanding of the issue is significant. The industry is extremely diverse, with roughly 650 providers in England alone, let alone the rest of the UK. As has already been referred to, BT has decided to delay its digital voice roll-out, and instead of a national roll-out by the end of December 2025 there will be a region-by-region roll-out, which adds a degree of complexity to any kind of national understanding of this issue. Indeed, I would argue that there is even less clarity about what is happening now than there was back in 2022.
As has already been said, some devices rely on PSTN. Security alarms are one. I would guess that quite a few MPs have security alarms. I wonder how many of those alarms are reliant on PSTN; I have no idea.
Helen Morgan
I will just highlight that point by drawing on personal experience. New security alarms do not rely on the copper network, for that reason, but they are reliant on a mobile signal, so if there is no mobile signal, they will not work.
Sir Chris Bryant
Indeed. That is a point I will come on to again later.
The hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to telecare devices, with 1.7 million people in the UK relying on them. I am not quite sure what percentage of those devices are still on PSTN, but I would guess that it is a pretty high. One of the problems that plagues the debates on this issue is that we do not have reliable data and statistics, so the Government should try to ensure that we do.
A significant number of traffic lights rely on PSTN. There was a time in Russia when people in the Russian Federation thought that a red light meant that they should drive very fast, which was a bit of a problem. Then there was a problem because all the traffic lights in Russia went off at 10 o’clock at night, which led to other problems. I do not know whether the British Government know how many British traffic lights rely on PSTN, but maybe the Minister will be able to enlighten us later.
Then there is closed circuit television, or CCTV. There is a wide variety of different systems of CCTV up and down the country. Many of those systems will now have transitioned, but some have not.
I feel very old-fashioned in saying this, but fax machines are another thing. I saw a fax machine a couple of weeks ago in a hospital, and it is extraordinary that some of our public institutions still rely on fax machines because other forms of data interoperability simply do not exist.
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) made it a mission to get rid of fax machines from the NHS, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that fax is still the single most secure way to communicate information, partly because of its ancient technology.
Sir Chris Bryant
Indeed. However, I would argue that relying on legacy systems is dangerous for our public institutions, because we have to pay a lot of money to keep and maintain them, and they do not have a great deal of resilience. Of course we also know that if someone sends a handwritten letter, that may be more reliable than some other forms of communication. Anyway, the point is well made that we still have fax machines. Therefore, there is a wide variety of areas where we need to take cognisance of the impending danger if we go too fast down the route that we are discussing this morning.
Ofcom has also identified a series of different vulnerabilities—people who are more vulnerable than others in relation to age, disability, physical and mental health, and income. One of my biggest concerns as shadow Minister with responsibility for digital is that 18% of poorer homes in the UK have no internet to home at all—18%. That is a problem for levelling up; it is a problem when it comes to diversifying the economy; it is a problem in rural areas; it is a problem in inner-city areas; and there are problems in relation to buildings where it is difficult to get wayleaves. A whole series of issues combine to create a real, long-term problem for some of the most vulnerable families in the country. Some 7% of Welsh adults have no internet to home at all, so relying on VoIP to deliver emergency services with PSTN gone is problematic.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has faced emergency situations in various storms, and I think this debate partly stems from that experience. Of course, the law requires phone services to take all necessary measures to ensure uninterrupted access to emergency organisations, including during a power cut. That remains the case for VoIP services, which is why Ofcom provided guidance in 2018 on how service providers should do that. Virgin Media, for instance, will provide an emergency back-up line that relies on a battery-operated box in such circumstances. However, the way that all the service providers in the UK are meeting that responsibility remains unclear, which is why Ofcom started a monitoring programme in July 2022. It would be good to hear from Ofcom on how well that is proceeding.
In May 2022, the Electronic Communications Resilience and Response Group published a post-incident report after the storms in 2021-22. It was rather, I would say, blasé. It seemed to suggest that we could now cope better and that there would be greater resilience in future, but I think the points already made by several Members were very well made. In December 2022, Ofcom produced its “Connected Nations” report, which similarly suggested that we had learnt a lot of lessons from the storms, but I am not convinced that we are in a strong enough place.
I fully accept that, as a couple of hon. Members have said, there are significant advantages to transitioning. First, the copper wire is not going to last forever. Secondly, there is an affordability issue for the for the operators—keeping two systems going is more expensive. I would like every home in the land to have at least a superfast broadband connection. We were aware during covid in particular that many children were unable to do their homework because they basically relied on a mobile phone for their internet connection, and I do not think that will really work for the future.
Other countries have been much more assertive, aggressive and determined to transition. The Netherlands and Estonia have completed the process. Singapore completed it in 2020. Japan will complete it by next year. Spain had already done 80% by 2020, and Portugal had done 60% by 2020. By contrast, the UK managed only 2% by 2020. We are laggards in this. I am not going to excoriate the Minister for being slow and tardy—I see he is waggling his head in a sort of Eeyore way—but I am going to make this point to him: Estonia took three years to do it. Estonia is a much smaller country, so perhaps it was simpler to do it there. The Netherlands took 15 years. One could argue that we are going too fast to be able to ensure that we have met all the problems.
What should we do? First, I think we should pause this process now. We should take stock. The right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal made the good point that we should learn lessons from other countries. We should find out how Estonia managed to do it in three years, how Singapore managed to do it by 2020, and what resilience programming they have. How do they make sure that, if there is a power cut—in particular, one that lasts more than a couple of hours—how do they make sure that people are safe and protected? I do not want that pause to be endless; six months is enough, but I think we should take stock and the Government should come back to us with a clear plan of how we can move forward.
Secondly, we need to identify vulnerable customers and communities, because this does not play out equally in every part of the country. Thirdly—this point has been made by several hon. Members—we really need to improve mobile connectivity. I repeated that point at least 20 times as an MP, but in the words of Browning:
“Hark, the dominant’s persistence till it must be answered to!”
Ofcom says there is full connectivity in the town of Porth where I live in the Rhondda, both indoors and outdoors. That is a complete and utter fiction; I cannot get a mobile signal inside my house, other than through VoIP, and that is not just the case in my house, but in nearly every other house in Porth. Ofcom needs to go back to the drawing board and start again on providing accurate information on mobile connectivity.
We must also do more on enabling shared networks and shared masts. It took us far too long to get the electronic communications code through, and I understand that it still has not been fully implemented, though maybe the Government will be able to update us on that. I worry that it does not quite do the trick for enabling mobile connectivity in the rural areas we are talking about. In the Rhondda, sheep can be seen from virtually every house if one looks carefully enough, so we feel rural; though it is quite a dense community mostly living in the valley floor. We in the valleys community share with many other rural areas across the whole country the same anxieties about being able to develop economically, socially and culturally, and to take part in the full opportunities that a digital world offers when we cannot have reliable mobile connectivity.
Since I might not see you again in the Chair before Christmas, Mr Mundell, I wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Thank you, that is gratefully received. I call the Minister, and remind him that we want to leave a few minutes at the end for Mr Carmichael to wind up.
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
I share the pleasure of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), in seeing you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. Let me start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate on a very important issue, and I am grateful to all those who have contributed and made some important points. The debate has ranged far and wide; we have encompassed the subject of the debate taking place this afternoon in this place, and indeed the debate in the Chamber tomorrow afternoon. This has been a good rehearsal of some of the issues.
This country is on a journey towards a digital economy. The Government have set an ambition that we should be one of the most technologically advanced economies in the world, and we are transitioning very rapidly away from the old analogue past through the roll-out of gigabit broadband. Indeed, I suspect that this afternoon the Government will be pressed to go further on that. We are making real progress, and we will report the latest figures for Project Gigabit on Friday morning. I was delighted to visit the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) not long ago, when we peered into a broadband cabinet in Orford.
As we move towards the most modern technology, we leave behind the infrastructure of the past, which includes the eventual closure of the analogue telephone network. The Opposition spokesman pointed out that it is perhaps not universally known as the PSTN, but it is a term that people will become more familiar with. It represents ageing technology—the first automated exchange was invented in the late 19th century, and the analogue network as we know it has existed since the 1980s. It has done a great job for us, but it is not fit for purpose today. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain: spare parts are difficult to find, the number of outages is increasing and the engineers who work on it are retiring. Not moving away from that to a more modern, resilient network would in itself create risk. The question is how we accomplish the change in a way that is secure, efficient and protects those who still rely on the PSTN network for connectivity. It is vital for Government, industry and Ofcom to work together to make sure the transition is achieved successfully.
As has been recognised by several speakers, the process was decided and initiated by the telecoms industry. The Government did not ask it to do so, nor have they determined the timelines or parameters for the switch-off. However, as the hon. Member for Rhondda points out, the Government have a responsibility to ensure the protection of all citizens, so they and Ofcom are working together to monitor the progress of the migration.
We have a particular interest in the groups in society who rely on their landline the most and might find it difficult to migrate to a new technology. They will include elderly citizens, people with mental or physical impairments or those who suffer from other vulnerabilities. We looked for very strong assurances that the needs of those people would be recognised and protected during any migration that took place.
Despite the assurances that we were given by communications operators, we have recently become aware of serious incidents of telecare users finding that their devices have failed when trying to activate them. That is completely unacceptable. The safety of vulnerable people has to be our top priority. As soon as we learned of those incidents, the Secretary of State and I met the relevant communication provider and requested that it carry out an urgent investigation to identify all vulnerable customers and make sure that their devices are fully operable.
In addition, we have asked the companies to pause forced migrations from PSTN networks and have asked Ofcom what more it can do to monitor the migration process. We have invited all communications providers to attend a roundtable tomorrow to ask them to sign up to a charter of commitments to protect vulnerable consumers through the transition. That will cover the need to protect vulnerable consumers—particularly telecare users—as well as the need to go further than Ofcom guidance on power resilience for the most vulnerable consumers and to agree a cross-sector definition of vulnerability.
I have also had meetings in the last 24 hours with Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to discuss what more can be done to protect vulnerable consumers and to facilitate data sharing between local authorities, telecoms firms and telecare providers so that we can locate every single one of the people reliant on those devices.
Sir Chris Bryant
The Minister might want to speak to the devolved Administrations as well, because many of those responsibilities are devolved.
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and we will do that. Existing telecare devices already in the system need to be digitally compatible, and we are talking urgently to the Department of Health and Social Care about that. I take his point that we need to make sure that all four nations of the UK receive the same information and can give the same assurances.
Consumers can feel confident about the migration only if they understand how the change will impact on them. They need to know what additional support is available to them. That is particularly important for vulnerable consumers. Although the PSTN network is due to be switched off in full by 2025, the approach to migrate customers off the network varies from one provider to another.
Turning to the issue that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised in his opening contribution, network resilience is of particular importance. Telecom is vital critical national infrastructure, and that is never more true than when it is providing a literal lifeline to vulnerable citizens. That is why we have always placed such emphasis on network security and resilience, and why we introduced the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. We published the UK Government resilience framework in December 2022, and the Deputy Prime Minister recently issued the first update to it.
With the PSTN network switch-off, it is vital that operators continue to prioritise resilience and make special arrangements for their vulnerable customers. The power sector takes important action to protect its customers and to ensure that the correct support is given to the most vulnerable customers during power disruptions, including those who are disabled and reliant on electric power devices. Electricity distribution network operators are obliged to maintain a priority services register.
Separately, since 2018 Ofcom has issued guidance to operators to ensure the sector remains resilient to all risks that may affect services. It states that, in the event of a power outage, providers should have at least one telecoms solution available that enables access to emergency organisations for a minimum of one hour. The solution should be suitable for customers’ needs and should be offered free of charge to those who are at risk. In line with that guidance, fixed-line providers offer back-up battery equipment for the required one-hour minimum, and in many cases battery back-up lasts much longer.
Several Members raised the concern that one hour is insufficient. Obviously, we face more violent weather events and potentially greater power outages, so we will keep that under review, and we are asking Ofcom to look at it again. We have never suffered a nationwide loss of power services, and major outages are still quite rare. If we experience a network outage, there are strong response mechanisms in place across all the operators to ensure services can be restored as quickly as possible. Where telecoms services have experienced disruptions, generally caused by severe weather, typically they resume immediately on power restoration.
Distribution network operators are also required to liaise with local authorities, strategic co-ordinating groups and local resilience forums and partnerships, to share information about vulnerable customers and provide welfare support by working together, but we recognise that we need to do more. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to Ofcom last year to request a wider review of telecoms resilience, and to ask whether more can be done to improve the sector’s power resilience. Ofcom has provided new resilience guidelines for communications providers on the measures they are expected to take in relation to the resilience of their networks, as part of their security duties under the 2021 Act. That includes specific measures for electrical power back-up required in fixed-line networks.
The Ofcom consultation on resilience guidance was published last week and is due to close on 1 March. It proposes updating the resilience guidance, including ensuring that networks are designed to avoid or reduce single points of failure; ensuring key infrastructure points have automatic failover functionality built in so that traffic is immediately diverted to another device or site when equipment fails; and setting out the processes, tools and training that should be considered to support the resilience requirements. Throughout the consultation, Ofcom is also inviting stakeholder input on the question of mobile resilience, asking what services consumers should be able to expect during a power outage and what a more cost-effective solution may look like.
It is important to recognise that power resilience is not just important in the context of the withdrawal of the copper network; it is essential to the functioning of all communications networks, including the mobile phone network. Comment has been made about the fact that mobile coverage is still not as great as we would like it to be. The wireless infrastructure strategy sets out a route to extending mobile coverage, and the shared rural network is helping to deliver that. I recognise the complaints that Ofcom’s assessment of the current mobile network coverage does not match the everyday experience of most hon. Members—including myself, I might say. We have asked Ofcom to look at that urgently to try to improve the accuracy of existing mobile coverage statistics. We will continue to prioritise power resilience issues for fixed and mobile networks across the country, working closely with the industry and the power sector. The Government are continuing to work with Ofcom to understand what may be considered appropriate and proportionate as an outcome of the consultation.
It is important that we have telecoms networks that are fit for the modern age. It is right that the technology that underpins the network is updated both now and in future, so that it can keep pace with all the demand that we place on it—from the digital economy, to social connections and contacting the emergency services. It is important that the network is fit for purpose, secure and resilient. In modernising the network, it is also important that communications providers work closely with their customers—especially the most vulnerable—to understand their needs.
It is right that the industry should seek to switch off the PSTN but, in doing so, companies should ensure that the transition is secure and efficient, and that they protect those who rely on the PSTN for their connectivity. As I have said, we remain extremely concerned that some of the understanding and assurance that we had about the protections being put in place appear not to have been fully delivered. For that reason, the Government are acting urgently to consult both Ofcom and all the communications providers to put in place absolute assurances, so that we can guarantee to the public that the transition will be conducted safely.
Mr Carmichael
I thank you for your chairship, Mr Mundell, and all those who have taken part in what has been an even wider-ranging debate than I had anticipated. I might have anticipated that discussion would stray into terms of mobile phone networks and the rest, but not that we would get as far as talking about fax machines and traffic lights. I think I can say that, of all the possible difficulties that will arise, the operation of traffic lights concerns people in Orkney and Shetland less than others.
I thank the Minister for his full and detailed response. This has turned out to be a more timely opportunity to ventilate the issues than we had anticipated. When he goes to his roundtable tomorrow, I hope that he will impress upon the operators to whom he is speaking that vulnerability is a question not just of age or medical condition; occasionally, it is also a consequence of geography. I hope that he will make the point that this transfer—inevitable as it may be—is not good enough for anyone until it is good enough for everyone. If we get that understood by the industry, I hope that eventually we will achieve the laudable ends that the Government and the operators themselves identify of a modern, fit-for-purpose communications network.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the withdrawal of copper wire telecommunications networks.
Sexual Harassment of Surgeons and Other Medical Professionals
(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
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I will call Rosie Duffield to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. There will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of sexual harassment of surgeons and other medical professionals.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of sexual assault against surgeons, nurses, doctors and other healthcare professionals and patients in clinical settings. In April, I used my Prime Minister’s question to mention the report commissioned by the Women’s Rights Network and written by my friend, the sociologist and criminologist Professor Jo Phoenix, entitled “When we are at our most vulnerable”. The report revealed some truly shocking statistics about violent sexual assault, and everyday inappropriate and unwanted acts intruding into the work lives of professionals and disrupting the recovery of the most vulnerable and ill. How dare we call ourselves a civilised society if we turn a blind eye to this and do not do everything possible to support those women, and some men, who are brave enough to come forward, as well as those who do not feel that they can and suffer in silence?
Professor Phoenix found that more than 6,500 rapes and sexual assaults had been committed in hospitals in England and Wales over a period of nearly four years. Some were against children under 13, yet in a mere 265 cases—a minute 4.1%—was anyone known to have been charged. In total, 2,088 rapes and 4,451 sexual assaults—6,539 cases—were recorded by police forces from January 2019, and one in seven of those, or 266 a year, took place on hospital wards. As the researchers at the Women’s Rights Network sent freedom of information requests to 43 police forces across the UK and 35 responded, the figures are, in truth, even higher and even more shocking.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate and on what she does. Those of us who are here have a particular interest. A recent survey of 2,500 doctors by the British Medical Association found that 33% of female and 25% of male respondents had experienced unwanted physical contact in the workplace. Worse still, these are only the figures for those medical staff who felt confident enough to come forward, so unfortunately the figure is probably much larger. Does she agree that provision must be put in place in the NHS and other, private healthcare facilities to ensure that staff members feel not only safe and protected, but encouraged to come forward and discuss instances of sexual abuse and rape within the workplace? In other words, there must be somewhere to go, someone to talk to and someone to sort it out.
Rosie Duffield
Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member so much for raising that important point, which is supported by all the work that the BMA has done, including the report that he mentioned.
The rape of a female child under 13 was included in those shocking statistics, alongside the rape of a female over 16 by multiple offenders in west midlands hospitals, three rapes of a female under 16 in Cambridgeshire, and six rapes of girls under 13 in Lancashire. It is important to note that although the FOI responses do not record the sex of the victims, national data shows that less than 5% of rape victims are men, so it is reasonable to assume that most victims are female. The investigation uncovered 13 rapes of males over the age of 16, however, including one incident involving multiple offenders, and the sexual assault of a male child under the age of 13 in a Cambridgeshire hospital.
We know that hospitals are, of course, monitored by many CCTV cameras, and individual wards usually have safe-door entry systems, which prompts the question of why only a tiny percentage of cases—4.1%—resulted in a charge or a summons. Indeed, five police forces did not issue a single summons or charge a single suspect for any of the 334 reported sexual assaults in their areas. Why not? The WRN report says:
“The damning figures are probably ‘the tip of an iceberg of indifference’ around the safety of NHS patients and staff”,
as some forces gave inadequate information. For example, Police Scotland did not provide any figures, citing cost constraints, and of those forces in England and Wales that did respond, seven forces provided incomplete responses, five did not give information on the number of assaults that occurred on hospital wards, and three did not provide information about the number of people charged or summonsed.
As Heather Binning, founder of the Women’s Rights Network, says:
“These statistics are jaw-dropping. We began this investigation because a number of members raised concerns about the safety of women and children on NHS wards, but we are horrified at what we have uncovered.”
I am grateful to the WRN for highlighting this problem and shining a light on something that has gone almost completely unnoticed in this place before.
The BMA represents doctors and medical students across the UK. It also produced a briefing for today’s debate, as we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It states:
“The BMA is deeply concerned by the overwhelming number of doctors who have experienced sexual harassment at work.”
Its “Sexism in medicine” report of September 2021 found that 91% of women doctors in the UK have experienced sexism at work, with 42% feeling that they could not report it.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The hon. Lady is highlighting a very important issue. She made a point about reporting, which is certainly an enormous challenge. The Women and Equalities Committee heard from Chelcie Jewitt of Surviving in Scrubs, who made the point that when doctors tried to report harassment, they were often told by the General Medical Council that it was a trust issue, yet the trust would say that it was a GMC issue. Does the hon. Lady think that goes some way to explaining why there is a lack of reporting and that, when there is reporting, it seems nothing gets done?
Rosie Duffield
Absolutely. I thank the right hon. Lady so much for raising the work that Surviving in Scrubs does. I know that its evidence was really important for her inquiry.
The survey found that doctors’ experience of sexism and sexual harassment had prevented them from choosing certain specialities and had affected their career progression. Doctors say that the very structure of medical training creates a power dynamic, where perpetrators can have a significant impact on doctors’ opportunities to progress. The scale and severity of sexual harassment in medicine was further highlighted by the working party on sexual misconduct in surgery survey, which found that a third—a third—of NHS female surgical staff had been sexually assaulted by colleagues in the past five years.
These shocking findings led the BMA to launch its “Ending Sexism in Medicine” pledge in March 2023, which over 60 organisations have signed. The pledge aims to help ensure
“a world where doctors and medical students can work in a safe environment free from discrimination, and where gender plays no role in career progression or how they are treated.”
The pledge commits to ending sexual harassment in medicine and ensuring that structures are in place to enable reporting safely.
The BMA has called for the Government to implement legislation that includes a preventative duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment taking place, including from third parties, and to support the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which places an obligation on employers to protect employees from sexual harassment. It stresses that all vital protections, policies at work, legislation and support for staff members must also be applied to students undergoing vocational training rather than just those classed as employees. As someone with a medical school in my constituency, I could not agree more.
I am also grateful to Tamzin Cuming, chair of the Women in Surgery forum at the Royal College of Surgeons, and to Professor Carrie Newlands, co-lead of the working party on sexual misconduct in surgery, for their report “Breaking the Silence”. The foreword is written by Professor Dame Jane Dacre, who says:
“This report shows that we still have a long way to go in demonstrating the respect that our female colleagues deserve in the surgical workplace. The survey findings of sexual misconduct are eye-watering and upsetting. It is difficult to read some of the testimonies, and this work should galvanise all healthcare organisations to make sure the problem of sexual misconduct is eliminated.”
It is an outstanding report that includes shocking data and statistics as well as chilling quotes from those affected. I urge anyone here to read it.
I cannot do justice to this work in such a short debate, but I want to read some of the quotes from those who took part:
“I watched a consultant fiddle with the hair of an industry representative, and kiss the back of her neck, at work. She was in a difficult position and did not want to report the incident.”
Another says:
“He’d frequently rub himself against me repetitively during surgery, grunt and gasp in my ear, then leave the operating theatre before the operation was over. The scrub nurse used to help me close up. She once cried with me after surgery and reminded me that she was powerless to do anything, but that she cared.”
Another states:
“The orthopaedic consultant, during an operation, discussed with his (male) trainee how they like blow jobs. It was my first day in theatre.”
I apologise for the unparliamentary language.
Those accounts are just a small snapshot of some of the report’s findings. It represents a lot of work and I hope that the authors’ recommendations can be given serious consideration by health bodies and the Government, along with the important work of the GMC, which has produced updated guidance on good medical practice and professional standards, which I am afraid I have not had time to give justice to today.
Since entering Parliament, I have focused on women’s health, our experiences of the NHS and maternity healthcare services. The pressures and enormous stress placed on our NHS professionals are well known, but these women who save lives, whether as a surgeon, nurse or a friendly reassuring receptionist, deserve to work in a safe and respectful environment, where they are given the dignity they deserve. Patients must feel and be safe at all times within a clinical setting. I am certain the Minister agrees, and I would be happy to work with him to ensure we get a much better place for all of those who need and love our NHS.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for raising this incredibly important issue. She has been a tireless voice for women in this place, on this and many other matters. Our health service holds a special place in all our hearts. It is appalling that NHS staff face sexual assault. The reports the hon. Lady talked about, “Breaking the Silence” and that from Surviving in Scrubs, make for incredibly difficult reading. I salute the authors for their courage and professionalism.
The first report highlights that up to two thirds of women and nearly a quarter of men had been the target of sexual harassment from colleagues in the past five years. It also states that a third of women in surgery have experienced sexual misconduct in their training, including sexual harassment, sexual assault and even rape. Sadly, there is other such published research about the alarming levels of unwanted sexual behaviour happening to NHS staff and patients, including an investigative report by the Women’s Rights Network, which again the hon. Lady mentioned.
Let me be clear: that behaviour is disgusting and deplorable, and has absolutely no place in our hospitals. Staff who dedicate their lives to helping others need to be able to do their jobs without fear of any kind of abuse, let alone sexually motivated remarks, insults or attacks. NHS leaders have a duty of care towards their staff and patients. Ensuring staff are safe and treated with respect is a crucial part of creating safe and compassionate workplaces.
NHS organisations also have clear policies to deal with reports of harassment or bullying. We know that raising and reporting sexual harassment and misconduct is never easy, particularly when the perpetrators are in positions of authority or are patients. However, victims need to feel confident to raise such issues and be reassured that appropriate action will be taken by their employers.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the Minister for giving way, and welcome him to his new role, appreciating that he has only been in it a few weeks. I gently say to him that there is a real challenge in our NHS when 10% of women in one study reported unwanted sexual conduct in return for career opportunities. That is absolutely about power, and it is going to take a step change to break down those structures that enable such harassment to continue, behind a veil of silence, so that women are still afraid to speak out.
Andrew Stephenson
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who is the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, for her work in this area. I completely agree with her point; there needs to be a serious culture change. We would all recognise that over many years the NHS has been fantastic in treating patients. However, quite often the same clinicians, in many regards, have not been as compassionate when looking after each other.
The workplace culture that has developed in parts of the NHS need addressing. Even though I am new to my role, with only three weeks in post, as part of the NHS long-term workforce plan, I am looking at that culture and the staff leaver rates across a whole range of different parts of the profession. That is important because we must ensure that people have a safe and enjoyable working environment. At the moment, reports such as those detailed by the hon. Member for Canterbury show that in far too many trusts, employers are falling well short of providing that supportive environment, which is the least people should expect.
Turning to what has been happening, most NHS organisations now have trained staff to help colleagues raise concerns in this area. That includes a network of more than 1,000 local freedom to speak up guardians across all trusts, supported by an independent national guardian to help drive positive cultural change. We have also established a confidential helpline for staff who want to speak up but need guidance about what to do and where to turn. That, again, goes to the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North about the experience of people complaining but being passed from pillar to post between the GMC and trust. I hope that the confidential helpline will help make a difference.
NHS organisations must do everything they can to stamp out the unacceptable behaviours at all levels across the health and care system. In April, the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), convened an urgent meeting with NHS England to ensure that NHS organisations are doing more to tackle such behaviours. We have made some progress, although I acknowledge that there is much more to do.
This year, NHS England broadened and strengthened the remit of its domestic abuse and sexual violence programme, which was established in 2022, to address sexual harassment and misconduct on NHS premises. All trusts and integrated care boards were asked by NHS England to appoint an executive and operational lead for domestic abuse and sexual violence. Those leads are reviewing their policies, training and support systems to enhance support for staff and patients.
In September, NHS England launched the first ever NHS sexual safety charter across the healthcare system. There are now 200 signatories, including NHS employers and the Royal College of Surgeons. Signatories commit to taking a zero-tolerance approach to any inappropriate or harmful sexual behaviours in the workplace by implementing all 10 charter commitments by July 2024. The commitments include establishing clear reporting mechanisms, implementing training programmes and providing essential support for those involved in investigations. NHS England will use the new network of domestic abuse and sexual violence leads to share and promote good practice and develop practical solutions in implementing the new charter.
Data capture is also a key commitment in the charter and to gauge the charter’s impact, the NHS staff survey now includes a question related specifically to sexual safety. That systematic approach reflects a commitment to transparency and accountability in creating a safer working environment. The Equality Act 2010 has also been amended this year to include a new duty on employers to take steps to prevent the sexual harassment of their employees. Implementation of the charter will assist NHS employers with meeting the duty when it comes into force next October.
The GMC is unable to consider complaints about registrants that relate to matters more than five years old unless it considers it to be in the public interest to do so, which has been raised during the debate. We are modernising the legislation that governs professional regulators, which includes removing the five-year rule as part of the reforms to regulatory legislation for doctors. It will allow the GMC greater discretion to consider whether a concern should be investigated. Introducing those changes remains a top priority for the Government.
I hope that these measures show that we are committed to addressing the problem with targeted action. However, I acknowledge that there is more to do, and I would be happy to work with the hon. Member for Canterbury and Members across the House to ensure that we get it right. We will not be satisfied until the number of staff facing sexual harassment is down to zero. There must be a collective effort across our health service to enact change. Strong and effective leadership is crucial, and it starts from the top. The Government, with NHS England driving this work, are calling upon all NHS boards to sign the sexual safety charter and ensure that their healthcare settings are safe places for our current and future workforce.
I will close by acknowledging the bravery of all those women and men who have come forward with their experiences of sexual harassment and misconduct in the healthcare workforce. That includes the testimonies in the report from Surviving in Scrubs, some of which the hon. Member for Canterbury read out. It takes incredible bravery and selflessness to come forward. Thanks to those brave women, and some men, we are getting ever closer to ending the scourge of sexual assault in our health service. I thank the hon. Member for putting a spotlight on the issue today. We must not tolerate it.
Question put and agreed to.
Broadband: Rural Communities
(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
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of broadband for rural communities.
It is a pleasure to be here as the Member for West Dorset and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I welcome Members from across the House who are participating in the debate, and extend a warm welcome to my constituents in the Gallery.
“Inequality”, “isolation” and “exclusion” are the three terms most associated with the impacts of poor rural broadband. “Weak” and “ineffectual” are terms often associated with Ofcom, the regulator, which is meant to protect the interests of constituents, both urban and rural. “Ruthless”, “commercial”, “yield maximising” and “predatory organisations” are terms often associated with businesses—often very large businesses—that look to prioritise urban rather than rural areas through maximising revenue. The terms “rural isolation” and “digital poverty” are often ignored, yet they are incredible issues for those of us who represent rural constituencies, not least in the south-west.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. If we are serious about saying we are going to level up, does he agree that there is no reason why a community that is geographically isolated also needs to be digitally isolated?
Chris Loder
Yes, I entirely agree. For far too long the prioritisation has been to connect urban and more densely populated areas, rather than rural areas. We live in a country where we do not value people’s lives more in urban areas than in rural areas; it is important to have fairness across the board, including in terms of investment. Only last week in this very Chamber, I and other Members made the point that rural funding and investment—for rural councils, services or others—need to be prioritised much more. We do not want a turf war; we just want fairness across the board. At the moment, I am afraid to say, I am concerned that my constituents in West Dorset are not receiving that fairness.
I do not know whether colleagues here will appreciate or understand the term “rural notspots”, but they are a big issue. Rural notspots are areas where people are lucky if they can get a mobile signal and extremely lucky if they can get a broadband connection. Vodafone’s report, “Connecting the Countryside”, revealed that 4.8 million people in rural constituencies live in 5G notspots, and 100% of West Dorset is a 5G notspot or partial notspot. That has a huge impact on residents across my constituency and, I am sure, in neighbouring ones as well.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling this debate. He is absolutely right about notspots. We have notspots in the city of Hereford, but in Herefordshire we also have very isolated areas. Does he share my view that the problem is not just with Openreach and the enforcement of Ofcom, but that there is a specific problem related to the reliance on voice over internet protocol, as though that were a solution with batteries for people who find themselves isolated, as my constituents were in Bacton and Abbeydore recently? What long-term solution will we have to address that issue, alongside all the ones my hon. Friend has already memorably raised?
Chris Loder
I wholly agree. In a moment, I intend to talk about the impact of the digital phone switchover, because it appears to be complete madness that we are continuing to progress with that when there are vast swathes of rural Britain—not just rural West Dorset, but other areas, including, I am sure, my right hon. Friend’s constituency—where the decent or functional connectivity that is needed to achieve that switchover is lacking.
On many previous occasions, I have stressed that the statistics provided by organisations such as Ofcom, which is meant to be the regulator, simply do not represent the lived experiences of many thousands of my own constituents, and colleagues from across the House will probably express a similar view. It is totally unacceptable that Ofcom states that every area in and around the village of Stoke Abbott has either good or okay data coverage. Well, I am afraid that the reality is quite the opposite, as anyone who visited would see, and many other villages and parishes have the same issue. It is bordering on a scandal that enormous mobile phone operators can publish data saying that they provide a signal or a connection, and that is backed up by Ofcom, when the reality is that people living in those parishes—although it can also be the case outside, not just inside the home—cannot get a signal at all. Around 75% of the community I surveyed about the issue ranked their coverage in the worst possible terms. Stoke Abbott in my constituency has 0% gigabit capability and a widespread lack of 4G, and I mentioned the 5G notspots earlier.
I want to use this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House e-petition 636502, which is on the funding of fixed wireless broadband for poorly connected areas. Having been elected to this House four years ago, almost to the day, I have become very well aware that when it comes to petitions, it is those with the largest number of signatories that get the biggest hearing. E-petition 636502 has received 1,232 signatures. On the face of it, that may not be a huge number but, my goodness, those 1,232 people are the most affected by the inability of any part of the sector to provide them with the most basic level of connectivity, forcing them into a totally unacceptable level of rural isolation and indeed rural poverty.
We know that there is a huge difference to the economy and people’s wellbeing where there is a fixed broadband connection; we also know that 98% of people in urban areas have a fixed broadband connection compared with just 83% of people in rural areas, and that fixed broadband connection correlates to economic activity. In constituencies such as my own, a third of the population are over 65. That is an unusually high age demographic, meaning that there are many older people who are not familiar with—in some cases, they are unable to become familiar with—the technology required to achieve some of the things that the Government and others might like to see in the evolution of communications; I have already mentioned the digital phone switchover, but I am also talking about basic services. We are seeing record numbers of bank branches closing in market towns. Elderly people are being put in a situation in which they are fearful of using technology because they may not necessarily have the skills to pick up whether a particular correspondence or email is spam; they fear the consequences of doing the wrong thing, often feel that they are between a rock and a hard place, and are not sure what to do.
Some 97% of the businesses in West Dorset are small or micro-sized. Our economy is very rural. Those small businesses need better connectivity than they have. It is really concerning that an attempted change through the digital phone switchover, which has been postponed once, although I understand that BT is going to progress with that. I find it incredible that organisations such as the Local Government Association estimate that 1.7 million people who access technology-enabled care and support will be put at risk because of a potential lack of connection once the analogue lines are switched to digital. How can any moral organisation consider doing that when we are presented with such statistics? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take particular note of this point, because it is a massive concern for Members such as myself who represent vastly rural constituencies with a considerable number of older people; we have many concerns about their care in that situation.
The problem is not so strongly felt in urban areas, but it is important to talk about the extent of the roll-out of improvement across the board. Part of the yield-prioritised approach of many larger businesses is that they look to roll out schemes, in line with Government incentive schemes, that will benefit as many houses as possible in the shortest possible time. That is all well and good, but when an area of the country—perhaps an urban one—that has, say, 100 megabits per second speed is looking to improve still further to gigabit speed, and there are places with barely a 2 megabit per second speed that are still being left behind, something is going quite wrong.
In September 2022, gigabit coverage was 47% in predominantly rural areas versus 79% in urban areas. My constituency and, I am sure, those of neighbouring Members of Parliament will be experiencing the same thing. The Government have set very clear targets, which I appreciate because they are helpful to give guidance to the industry about the Government’s wish and intention. The Government targets of 85% and 99% gigabit availability by 2025 and 2030 respectively sound good, and I appreciate them, but it is really important that the Government hear this message loud and clear: it is no longer acceptable to me that the 15% and 1% respectively are the same 15% and 1% who lost out in previous schemes. Those people are being pushed further and further back in the wider connectivity race than they should be. That is why I called out earlier the pretty ruthless, commercial and yield-maximising approach of some of the largest companies in this space; that approach needs to be challenged, and I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider how we can ensure much better fairness in this area.
West Dorset serves as a particularly good example. The Minister will know that if a provider signs up to one of the various different Government schemes—whether it is the voucher scheme or, for example, a community fibre partnership—that blocks the capacity or capability of a competitor to say, “Actually, we would like to go there.” That business can hold on to the area and get its claws into it for a prolonged period. It appears almost anti-competitive that, as happened in the Bridport area of my constituency, Jurassic Fibre, with the best of intentions, formerly did lots of very good work and was then taken over by AllPoints Fibre, and now the engineering work and the whole approach to making that happen has been put on hold, ad infinitum in many areas. The company feels as though it is okay to put that on hold while it considers the consequences of its reorganisation and takeover. Well, that is not acceptable. When there are other businesses and companies that believe they could provide that service to local people much more quickly, and possibly more efficiently, it is anti-competitive to allow that sort of behaviour.
I could run through so many parishes by way of example, but if there is one thing that I really would like the Minister to come back on and/or action, it is this approach by some providers that, in effect, land grab and say that they will make improvements and meet the Government’s intentions—whether through a voucher scheme or otherwise—but then fail to deliver and block others from showing an interest in doing so. Indeed, the whole bidding process for providing the next level of improvements is hugely affected by this as well, which is a great concern to me. I hope the Government will take action, understand that those organisations that have committed to do something have not delivered, and remove the primacy they have to prevent others from doing so.
I would like to summarise my remarks, because I know that many other colleagues would like to speak in this debate, and I appreciate the time that I have had so far. Overall, I would like the Government to note that, for the last four years that I have been in this place, one of my priorities has been to ensure that we make substantial improvements to address rural isolation and rural connectivity. I know full well that the Government have indeed made a lot of progress in that area, and a lot of my constituents have felt those improvements. But it is also fair to say that the most rural villages and parishes still continue to be left out, just because they might have only 40 or 50 homes, or maybe even 100. That is not acceptable and not part of what we believe is right, in the spirit of fairness across the country for all our constituents.
I warmly encourage my colleagues here to contribute to the debate with their own experiences. I am sure that many colleagues present, especially those representing rural areas, will have very similar stories to mine. That is why it is so important that we have this debate and allow the Government to hear this feedback, I think for the second time today—I understand that there was the copper cabling debate earlier, which I am sorry I was not able to be at, because of other business that I had to attend to in the House. I hope that we will see real, significant improvements to how we support the most rurally isolated people in our society today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to be called first from the Opposition side. I would say it is unique; it may not be all that unique, but that is by the way. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) for leading the debate so well. He set the scene well for his constituency; I will mirror what he said for my own, and others will do the same shortly. I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman has done to improve mobile and broadband connectivity for his constituents. Most of us here share the concern that some cannot access the same technological advances as others. This is very much a UK-wide issue, so it is great to be here to give a Northern Ireland perspective, as well as that of my constituents.
As the Minister will know, back in 2017 we had a deal with the Conservative party, through a confidence and supply motion, to deliver some £150 million of broadband across Northern Ireland. That secured the delivery of broadband to almost 90,000 rural premises across Northern Ireland. While others, namely Sinn Féin, postured and said that we did not need to do that, public money was spent on high-speed broadband for rural dwellers, and the intervention has been the most transformative investment for our rural economy since the electricity network was extended. We should never underestimate the importance of what happened at that time.
One of the most startling statistics of the past five years has been the fact that Northern Ireland, at 82% full-fibre broadband, is already well ahead of England at 67%, Scotland at 60% and Wales at 49%. The Republic of Ireland was way behind us at 40%. Maintaining current rates of progress until 2025 will see Northern Ireland becoming the first country in these islands in which availability reaches 99% of our premises. That is some of the good news. In my constituency of Strangford, we have had 5,000 homes upgraded, which is a massive boost for my constituency. It underlines the importance of what we did, so I publicly thank the Minister and our Government for the partnership we had at that time.
To update hon. Members on where we are now, in June 2023 the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland launched a public review aimed at improving broadband infrastructure, predominantly in rural areas, to catch up that 18% who do not have it yet. Many constituents who have been in touch with my office have been able to avail themselves of the scheme, but others are still unable to resolve the issue.
The public review is part of the planned implementation of Project Gigabit in Northern Ireland. Project Gigabit in the UK is the Government’s flagship £5 billion programme to enable hard-to-reach communities to access lightning-fast gigabit-capable broadband. It is a commendable project by the Government here, and one that I welcome because I see the benefits; I am sure we will see more benefits shortly. In addition, members of the public, businesses, groups, organisations, telecoms infrastructure providers were able to avail themselves of the scheme, but thus far I am aware of a few instances where businesses are struggling to regain better connection.
I will give an example. I spoke to the Minister beforehand about this and gave him a letter along these lines just last week: I am currently dealing with an issue for a constituent whose business is on a rural road in Saintfield, a village in my constituency. I have sent numerous emails to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I handed the case to the Minister through the Whip. Indeed, I have spoken to the Minister.
On this rural road, cables, fittings and nodes have been secured to permit the extension of sufficient broadband to this area. It is frustrating to have all that stuff in place when all we need to do is make that last connection, and then that business will be up and running. The work was halted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and my constituents have received little or no communication on the improvement of their broadband. I am hopeful that the Minister will help to resolve the issue for my constituents, and I know my hope and confidence in him will not be misplaced, but the damage and the hassle for local businesses are extremely destructive to people’s livelihoods.
Another example of where we need to improve relates to card payments and the sending of digital invoices and receipts. Cards are often not charged and there are delays in the processing of payments, which poses an inconvenience for customers and business owners. When broadband is poor, emails with digital receipts will not send properly and online orders cannot be made efficiently. That creates more issues for local businesses, given that we encourage people to invest in them daily. I look again to the Minister, who always responds positively and grasps the issues that we put to him. I am confident that his answers will reinforce my faith in him. I ask him to look at the cases I have mentioned, and I would be grateful if he expedited any work on them for the betterment of my constituents’ businesses.
Many farmers in my constituency—others will probably say this as well—keep track of livestock through online apps. Given that there is so much rural theft, that is to be encouraged, and I encourage it in my constituency. To ensure that the agricultural industry can thrive, we must ensure that rural connectivity is made a priority. Doing so will benefit the local economy, which agriculture plays such an important role in making successful. Like the constituency of the hon. Member for West Dorset, my constituency of Strangford has seen many large high-street bank closures in the past couple of months. In the past couple of years, 11 banks have closed in my constituency, which has meant a huge shift to online banking.
I am conscious that others wish to speak; I want to give them equal time to contribute, so I will conclude. For rural constituents, online and telephone banking are more or less their main ways of accessing banking services. If decisions are being taken to close banks, we must ensure that consideration is given to having the best possible broadband and mobile signal. I am confident that we can achieve that, and I look forward to it. Again, I ask the Minister to chase up the constituency case that I mentioned and to keep in contact with my office. He has already given me that commitment, and I am quite sure that that will happen.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Thank you. That was just the amount of time that I had in mind: seven minutes. I call Selaine Saxby.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) and congratulate him on securing today’s important debate.
On the doorsteps of North Devon, getting broadband done was second only to getting Brexit done when I was elected back in 2019. On my arrival here, I rapidly took over the chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on broadband and digital communication. I was determined to find some positive news for the Minister about rural connectivity in North Devon. When I was elected, 90.3% of my constituents could access superfast broadband and 3.9% could access gigabit-capable. We have come a long way: the figures are now 53.8% gigabit-capable and 94.2% superfast.
That sounds fabulous, and it is an immense improvement to have got to that point. However, being a mathematician at heart, I had a bit of a play around with the numbers at the weekend. My fear is that 5% of my constituents still do not even get superfast broadband. There are still over 1,640 constituency properties—not people—that are below the universal service obligation. There is a real concern about the digital divide, which I have spoken about at many recent events. Some people are completely cut off. Yes, the letters complaining about rural connectivity have stopped, but that is probably because people do not know that there is no connection because they are unable to get online. I am deeply concerned about what will happen with the remaining 5%.
I know what the plan is. In the time that I have been in Parliament, Connecting Devon and Somerset has connected over 2,000 properties. That does not sound like many, but the engineers on the ground—I have had the pleasure of meeting them with Building Digital UK—say that the build in my constituency is the hardest they have ever delivered. When we talk about rural connectivity, we need to understand that until we get 5G and the satellite system sorted, we will not be sending fibre down every little farm track. We must look very differently at the final 5% and how we will connect those people.
I thank the Openreach team and the community of Mortehoe. The little village of Mortehoe in my constituency has undertaken a fibre community partnership. It was combined with work with National Grid, because—to cut a very long story short—in the end they could not actually do the fibre community partnership. It means that gigabit-capable broadband is about to be switched on and that all the overhead cables, right the way through the village, can be taken down in this area of outstanding natural beauty, so that Mortehoe has both a stunning view and gigabit-capable broadband. That is a testament to the work of that community.
I highlight that community because one of my concerns about the plans for the future of North Devon is that, because we are going into what is called the Project Gigabit type C contract procurement round, which will not complete until next spring, we can no longer access fibre community partnerships. Communities that have managed to deliver gigabit-capable in conjunction with Openreach, Airband and other operators cannot have a fibre community partnership until that procurement round has finished. I would dearly like to see that issue addressed.
I am very grateful to Openreach for connecting the village of Westleigh. I am the guinea pig in Westleigh: I am living the dream of connecting to gigabit-capable after an engineer was sent last Friday. I talk about the digital divide, and I am really concerned about how complicated connecting is. Hon. Members might think that it is straightforward once the fibre is in the property, but I was sent a cable—no instructions, just a cable—to try to connect myself to the outside world. I asked how to connect the cable, and I was sent a hub. I decided that I would do nothing, and the engineer very kindly came and sent back the hub because I did not need it and they knew how to plug in the cable. The joy of having an actual engineer in my house is that I could talk to them about what is going on.
I know that this is the wrong debate—I, too, was tied up on other parliamentary business this morning—but I would like to flag the issue of phone lines being switched off. I know people do not necessarily believe my version of events, but the engineer who was sat in my house on Friday explained that when they go round to houses to fix the landline, they ask where the broadband hub is, and they are often told by the elderly resident that they do not have broadband. They then find that there is a pile of hubs in brown boxes in the hallway that have never been opened. People do not understand the technology that is being sent to them. It is hard to explain to communities that have never had broadband that they now do not have a phone either, and that they will get this brand-new technology and a phone at the same time. We need to understand that unfortunately, unlike the Department, which is hugely high-tech and does really exciting things, most of our constituents who have not had access to this technology have a lot of catching up to do.
I am utterly delighted with gigabit. The speed is fantastic and there is no buffering when I catch up on important world events such as who got through on “Strictly”—we keep up with the big issues of the day—but I still cannot make a phone call in the kitchen because my phone relies on the wi-fi and the only way to get it through a cottage wall is with these bouncy discs, which did not come with the cable and would double the amount that I have to pay for my brand-new, super-duper gigabit-capable. I feel that that is wrong, because they will not alter how much I use the connection, so there should be a fixed price.
We need to make connecting easier. I urge all my constituents to check what has gone past their house, because 53.8% of properties in North Devon can now access gigabit-capable, but take-up is a fraction of that. It is a bit complicated, as I discovered, but in the longer term it is well worth giving it a go.
I want to put on the record my thanks for all the work that has been done in my constituency, which I know is hard to get to. I really am worried about the final 5%, and I think that not enough is being done to look at satellite, radio, 5G and the other technologies that remote rural constituencies need in order not to fall further behind. Many are already not one or two but three technologies behind, and we need to help them to get online. People also need the skills to access the services that we all rely on in this technological age.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
The internet has plainly revolutionised the way we live our lives and the world we inhabit, but the trouble is that it is increasingly a tale of two halves: those people who have fast, superfast or ultrafast broadband in urban areas, and those of us who live in rural areas, who go without. In huge swathes of the countryside, people find it hard even to get a mobile phone signal, so this is exacerbating a problem that we have already.
I would like to give the House some examples of situations that I have encountered in Devon. In Northleigh, a small village outside Honiton, fewer than half the residents can access full-fibre broadband. One constituent, a surgeon, has written to tell me that because of the stuttering delivery of the Project Gigabit vouchers, he has wi-fi so bad that he is unable to download crucial scans the day before an appointment. The Government say that they are trying to wrestle with the waiting list of 7.7 million operations that is bringing this country’s economy almost to a standstill. If that is the case, addressing wi-fi has to be one of the places where we start.
The 900 residents of Kilmington have had a dreadful experience. They often use the village hall, so they tried to get a business broadband service for it. When they got in touch with various internet service providers—I have all the correspondence here—they were not informed about the universal service obligation and the funding to which it entitled them.
Meanwhile, the parishioners of All Saints, near Axminster, have taken it upon themselves to appoint a broadband champion. So great is the issue for people in the village that they feel that that is necessary to give the matter some status and authority.
Those are just three examples, but I could give many more from my part of Devon. The south-west in general has dreadful download speeds. The UK average is 111 megabits per second. In the south-west, we have an average speed of about 99 megabits per second, but in my corner of Devon it is more like 57 megabits per second, which is half the national average. Even some of the towns in and around my patch, including Axminster, Seaton and Sidmouth, have some of the worst speeds in the country and are in the bottom 10% for download speeds. The contrast with the urban areas is stark.
Openreach has written excitedly to constituents in Tiverton extolling the virtue of ultrafast fibre to the premises, which it claims will have download speeds of more than 1,000 megabits per second. Yet Devon homes and businesses should not hold their breath, as there is a target of 25 million by 2027. We heard from the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) that it will be difficult to reach that extra 5% and that perhaps those people living in rural properties in those places should simply wait for 5G. I am sorry, but I do not feel that we should accept that. If there is a universal service obligation, we should, as a country, make sure that that is rolled out everywhere. It is not just affecting people’s social cohesion or their feeling of connection to others—
Selaine Saxby
Could I correct that statement? I did not say that people should just wait; I said that we should be looking at how we can connect them. Like the hon. Gentleman, my Devon neighbour, I agree that there is a need to speed up, but I encourage him to speak to Connecting Devon and Somerset to better understand the work that has already gone on and which premises are affected. It has detailed stats available and will be able to update him.
Richard Foord
I am grateful for that clarification. The hon. Member mentions Connecting Devon and Somerset; I have heard from constituents about how CDS did not draw down funding from Project Gigabit and has missed out on substantial sums of money that it could otherwise have garnered.
Chris Loder
Will the hon. Gentleman, my neighbour, join me in welcoming the Government policy to set aside £8 million to help those who are in the most difficult positions—down country lanes and so on—with the satellite options? Does he think that that is a good move that will help his constituents, as it will help mine?
Richard Foord
The simple answer is yes—I welcome any and all interventions that support our rural constituents to get them broadband—but the reality of what our constituents are feeling and finding on the ground is very different. We can talk about any sum of money we like, but the reality is that the pledges that have been made, including in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, are not living up to the reality for our constituents. The Conservative Government have been promising for years that we will see a mass roll-out of gigabit broadband of at least 85% by 2025, yet rural areas are once again left lagging. It is very much true for Devon, and it is very much true for the west country: we are being taken for granted.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) for securing this incredibly important debate. Like others, getting better broadband for my constituents in has been a key focus of my work since 2019. During covid it became clear how isolated some of my constituents could become.
I want to raise awareness of a couple of issues in particular, which are still holding us back. I am afraid I am not as positive as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) about Openreach. The communities of Kilmeston, Bramdean and Cheriton had a gigabit voucher approved by Building Digital UK more than a year ago but, since then, Openreach has delayed things.
First, Openreach told constituents that BDUK was the hold-up on approving the gigabit programme vouchers. When I contacted BDUK, it turned out it had not been given all the information it had requested. I had to ask BDUK to extend the deadline for the previous scheme to get the vouchers approved, and it did so. I am grateful to BDUK for all its hard work and for responding so quickly to my questions.
Since then, Openreach has dithered about installing the fibre. Again, constituents were told SSE was the blocker. I met SSE and it turned out that every other telecoms provider agrees nationwide licences with SSE for its poles to carry cables, but Openreach has not. Openreach has agreed to pay for the licence for this project but there is apparently a delay in getting the payment made to SSE. That nonsense had been dragging on for months, and I understand the sheer exasperation of my constituents.
There are a couple of senior public servants who were given fast broadband very quickly. That is fine but, while doing that, Openreach bypassed many other residents with equally important jobs: the director of NHS emergency services; a consultant orthopaedic spinal surgeon; three GPs; a CEO responsible for vehicle fleet support for 12 police forces, two first-aid services and two ambulance trusts; a project manager for a national mobile telephone company; project manager for SSE, ironically; a senior TV news correspondent; the editor of a national sports newspaper; and many more, which I will not list now.
I complained about this to the CEO of Openreach and I got diverted to the MPs’ complaints department. Does he know how his company is performing in rural areas? I will keep battling on to break this logjam, but perhaps it would be useful for Ofcom to look into how different infrastructure owners work together in practice. Although we have guidelines, it seems more can be done to facilitate getting cables installed.
A second problem relates to constituents who have been abandoned completely by another company. The company, now branded as Trooli but originally Call Flow, has told residents of Woodlands in my constituency that it is discontinuing its services. That has come out of the blue, with minimal information supplied. They are being told to switch to 4G; the trouble is there is no 4G in that area. Although Trooli says it is within its rights to do this, surely it is unacceptable that a company that has had public money to set up its network can simply walk aways from it, when there is no viable replacement.
Chris Loder
Does my hon. Friend agree that some of these unscrupulous providers, who suggest they are going to do things but then backtrack and fail to deliver, should be properly held to account, and that we should find ways to ensure that Ofcom does that?
Mrs Drummond
Absolutely, and I hope Ofcom is listening to the debate. It is disgraceful that public money is being used and wasted. Hampshire County Council supported the installation and has done everything it can to help me across the constituency. This is not any fault of the council, and I am grateful for its support. Trooli’s behaviour has been appalling, and I would welcome the Minister’s advice on how I can put this right. I will also ask Ofcom to look at the matter.
This community will be included in the procurement scheme, with CityFibre hooking it up in future. However, the community cannot be left without provision in the meantime, though I hope it will be prioritised for the future work. The Government-funded Hampshire procurement is fantastic news for Meon Valley. The technology is evolving with 5G on the way. It is vital that we use every means of getting better broadband into our communities. I will keep pushing Government and the private sector on this issue, because businesses, families and schools depend on being able to work at high speed. It is very frustrating for everyone when it takes so long to put in.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Mr Dowd. I give huge thanks to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) for securing this important debate and for making an important and valuable introduction. I pretty much agree with everything everybody has said so far. I want to endorse what is being said.
The reality is that rural communities are not able to access equal coverage—not only broadband, but other forms of modern connectivity. That puts us and our residents at a significant disadvantage. If we think about health, for example, to live in a rural community is to put oneself at greater risk of not being able to access telemedicine. If we think about our general wellbeing, to be more isolated is a dangerous thing. Last week in this place we discussed isolation and loneliness and the impact on the mental health of people of all ages, particularly older people. To be cut off and not able to access modern communications—broadband and other forms of digital communication—is both dangerous and unfair.
When it comes to education in the lakes and the dales, the Eden valley and Westmorland are beautiful and isolated places with schools as small as a dozen or so children in some cases, and high schools with fewer than 200 children. Those young people have to do their homework. They have to be able to access technology at home to be able to research, study and complete assignments on time. That goes for people studying in our area who are at the University of Cumbria, or who are studying elsewhere around the country but living at home in and around the lakes and the dales.
I think about the business community: one in four people of working age in our communities in Westmorland work for themselves. We have a hugely disproportionately high number of people who are self-employed or working for themselves in other ways—freelancing, and so on. It is important not only that people have access to high-quality broadband and other forms of connectivity, but that the access is symmetrical: upload speeds should be as accessible as good download speeds. To say nothing of entertainment, frankly the people of Westmorland and Lonsdale have as much right to be able to witness the indifferent and erratic form of Blackburn Rovers via their television screens as anybody else in the country—hurrah for the three points we scraped last night. To be serious, we are now in a world where it is taken for granted that we have that sort of access. In communities like those of pretty much all of us here today, that is not the case. We are gathered here because we believe that and it is our experience locally.
I have a couple of related non-broadband points that others have also raised. According to Vodafone, my communities are in the bottom 2% for mobile connectivity, so broadband is not the only issue. Others have talked about Digital Voice. I was in the debate this morning led so admirably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). Only a week and a half ago, much of Cumbria was completely snowed in and blocked. We had all sorts of impacts when it came to electricity being down. If your electricity is down, so is your router—you ain’t got no broadband; your digital access has gone. Maintaining that copper backstop is a lifesaver. We are used to extreme weather in my neck of the woods and we toughed it out, but there were people who were not vulnerable at the beginning of that experience but became vulnerable by the end of it, simply because so much depends on digital access. When it is wiped out, people are seriously vulnerable.
Let me say something about Project Gigabit. It is absolutely right that rural communities as a whole are left behind when it comes to connectivity of all kinds, and this Government need to bear a significant amount of responsibility for the failure to tackle that. One broadly positive thing that they are doing is Project Gigabit. I do not want to say that there is anything wrong with what the project is doing; I am concerned about some of what it is not doing. There are 61,000 properties in Cumbria within the scope of Project Gigabit. We know that at least 1,000 of those will not get connected within that in-scope area. Those are the very difficult-to-reach places.
Many people in and around the communities of Sedbergh—Sedbergh town itself, and the communities just beyond it—are now deeply concerned that they will be among the properties that are in scope, but not connected, which seems wrong. To go back to what I said about symmetrical access, we also know that the access and connectivity given to many homes connected by Project Gigabit might mean very high download speeds, but low upload speeds, which is a huge problem for people who are studying or in business.
I want to highlight again some of those people who are likely to be in scope but not connected. Hill farmers will almost certainly be among that group, and they have seen a 41% decrease in their income over the last three years under this Government. The very people who have no money to pay for the connection themselves will be in that tiny fraction, but that is still a significant number of people who will be outside Project Gigabit.
In my last minute, I want to talk about those properties that will be in what is called “deferred scope”. They are not being connected via Project Gigabit now, but they may be in the future—the next two, three or four years. I was at a meeting in Murton village hall on that very snowed-in weekend with the communities of Murton, Hilton, Ormside, Warcop and the surrounding areas, which are places in the “deferred scope”.
Were the Government to be flexible and allow the return of the voucher scheme, a wonderful community interest company, which I mentioned here before, called B4RN—Broadband for the Rural North—will be able to provide £33 a month access, with gigabit upload and download for absolutely everybody and with 100% of properties within scope. All it takes is for the Minister to agree to the ask that I have made of the Secretary of State in the last few days: that the Government would, through BDUK, re-offer the vouchers for those communities and be flexible, so that those communities are connected to the best speed at the best connection as quickly as possible.
There are so many pressures facing rural communities—house prices, the loss of housing stock as second homes and Airbnbs take over, a decline in school numbers, and therefore often a decline in communities themselves. We need to tackle all those things separately, but hyper-fast broadband for all parts of rural communities is one way to fight back against the isolation and deprivation in so many of our communities.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and to speak in this vital debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on securing it.
In the modern world, access to the internet is of the utmost importance, yet I worry that those in the hardest-to-reach areas are being left behind. The digital divide has stark impacts on rural communities and on their education and access to services. I have spoken previously about the impacts of the loss of in-person services on rural communities, yet if the online methods of accessing these services are inaccessible, many of my most vulnerable constituents will miss out.
For example, from March 2024, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services will no longer be available in post offices, which will disproportionately affect rural communities. Many bank branches, as we have heard already today, will close across my constituency, leaving customers having to travel further to access banking services or to rely on their broadband connectivity at home, which is rather lacking.
In Somerton and Frome, 4.6% of people—over five times the national average—have broadband speeds below the legal universal service obligation. Nearly a quarter of Somerton and Frome is in a 5G notspot, and 39 postcode areas in my constituency are in a 3G notspot. Many constituents struggle to access services online given their sluggish broadband speeds. Although I welcome some of the Government’s actions to improve rural broadband and mobile connectivity in rural communities, we need to go further to help those in the hardest-to-reach areas.
In Berkley Marsh, just outside of Frome, one constituent faces the very real prospect of having no internet provision next year. They are dependent on wireless broadband from Voneus and a BT landline, with the latter switching off next year. They will be left with broadband speeds of 250 kbps. Another internet provider wanted to supply fibre to their home, but they are being frustrated by other providers. That highlights the plight of those in hard-to-reach areas. It will affect businesses, residents and consumers alike.
Langport and Long Sutton in my constituency are in the worst 10% of areas in the UK for superfast broadband availability. Businesses in Langport suffer from poor internet speeds and struggle to use new and efficient digital solutions. Somerton and Frome has hundreds of agricultural businesses, many of which suffer from woeful broadband speeds, inadequate for them to carry out the multitude of necessary online tasks. The Government estimate that there will be fewer than 100,000 very hard-to-reach premises, but their delivery costs are likely to be above the limits of commercial investment cases, the gap funding approach to Project Gigabit, and the broadband universal service obligation’s reasonable cost threshold. This makes these premises commercially unattractive, which has been heard already today.
Digital isolation has a debilitating impact on our communities. It stifles growth and often means that vibrant rural businesses move away or simply do not locate to the area in the first place.
Chris Loder
Would the hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, agree that the universal service obligation is often used by some providers as an excuse for not actually having to carry out their commitments? Would she also agree that it appears there is almost some sort of cartel-like behaviour going on with mobile providers and broadband providers? Indeed, we shall be exploring some of these things in a debate in the House tomorrow, which I think is about Vodafone and others. Our constituents are paying the price and not getting what the universal service obligation says they should.
Sarah Dyke
Clearly, given many of the comments heard today, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to put more focus on the very hard-to-reach places, particularly in rural areas, to reduce the digital divide and ensure that no one is left behind. I hope the Government are listening to rural areas, and I look forward to seeing progress happen in Somerton and Frome.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who I know to be an outstanding parliamentarian and a Conservative for whom I have some measure of affection. I will go no further than that.
This is a really important issue. I have no need, much less wish, to cause any more pain to the rural English MPs who have turned up here today to cite the very real challenges faced by their constituents in accessing what is essentially a vital utility like any other in the world that we live in today. However, I want to highlight what the Scottish Government have done, first to demonstrate how outstanding the Scottish Government are, but secondly to demonstrate how much it costs to supplement the woeful service levels of the UK Government. It is the UK Government, not the Scottish Government, who are responsible for broadband in Scotland.
Nevertheless, we in Scotland are not prepared to sit by and watch our communities and enterprise suffer while waiting for Westminster to act. That is why the Scottish National party-ruled Scottish Government’s reaching 100% superfast broadband commitment will ensure that everyone who wants superfast broadband has access to it, extending full-fibre broadband across some of the hardest-to-reach rural communities in Scotland. As I mentioned, this is reserved to the Westminster Government, but the Scottish Government committed to enabling access to superfast broadband—speeds of at least 30 Mbps —to every home and business by 2021, now upgraded to a new commitment to make the connections 30 times faster than originally stated. Connections will be delivered on a rolling basis under R100—reaching 100%—contracts, which are expected to be completed in 2028. Around 99% of the connections being delivered by the Scottish Government through R100 contracts are full-fibre capable and able to deliver speeds of up to 1000 Mbps.
That commitment is being delivered via three strands. First, there is £600 million in R100 contracts, delivered through a partnership with the UK Government. One would think that the Government responsible for delivering that would put in the bigger element, but no: the Scottish Government are putting in £550 million and the UK Government are putting in slightly less than £50 million. I say to the hon. Member for West Dorset, whose pain I feel after his intervention on the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord): £8 million to ensure that hard-to-reach properties are supported to achieve such connectivity is chicken feed. It will not even look at it; we need to invest vastly bigger sums. So that is the scale of the inaction and the challenge that is commensurate with that inaction.
The R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme will help those that want access to the R100 principal scheme. The voucher helps people connect to superfast broadband in northern Scotland. Those not covered by R100 can apply for a one-off £5,000 voucher to help them set up a permanent suitable connection for themselves. Above that, a £400 interim voucher is available to those for whom it is known that R100 will benefit them in time, but not yet.
To date the Scottish Government have invested £1 billion of public funding to transform Scotland’s digital connectivity through the Digital Scotland superfast broadband and reaching 100% programmes, and improving mobile connectivity through the Scottish 4G infill programme. That is not our responsibility. I say that again because it is so important.
The Scottish Government’s Digital Scotland superfast broadband programmes have already connected about 1 million properties across Scotland to faster broadband. It should not be viewed as a cost; it should be viewed by the UK Government as an investment, because it is viewed in Scotland as such. We believe, and can demonstrate, that every £1 invested in the Digital Scotland connectivity programme delivers £12 to the Scottish economy. That same R100 programme has also delivered full subsea cables. The hon. Member for West Dorset and colleagues from the south-west and north-west have demonstrated that their topography and geography is particularly challenging, but so is that of the Orkney and Shetland islands. The roll-out of superfast broadband is taking place there as well.
There is lots of disdain for Openreach, but in response to the investment that the Scottish Government have put in, Openreach is building full fibre faster and further now and reaching around 60,000 new premises every week—equivalent to a town the size of Livingston in West Lothian. That means passing another home or business with ultrafast gigabit-capable broadband every 10 seconds.
It is important to realise that I am here as the SNP’s spokesperson, but also as somebody who represents a rural constituency. Although larger towns and villages are benefiting, it is not the case in my glens. It is not the case in Glen Doll, Glen Prosen or Glen Isla that the digital speeds are being realised, so it is absolutely essential that the UK Government regulations and legislation support the Scottish Government’s ambition to be a truly digital nation.
I rarely get a response from a Minister in Westminster Hall, so I am hopeful that the Minister will break that cycle this afternoon. I should be grateful to know what the Scottish Government will receive from the UK Government’s £5 billion earmarked for investment in gigabit-capable infrastructure, because the Scottish Government continue to urge the UK Government to extend the gigabit networks to Scotland’s rural communities where the challenges remain manifest. As I say again, perhaps for the sixth time, telecoms is an entirely reserved matter.
Economic growth in Scotland’s islands and rural locations is being curtailed by the slowest broadband speeds in the UK. That does not help rural communities in the south-west or north-west, but it is a challenge that the UK Government must step up to.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is universally acknowledged that you are the snappiest dresser in the House, Mr Dowd, so it is great to see you in your place here today. I feel very odd—in the past few weeks, I have been to both the cinema and the theatre with the Minister and I am now in a debate with him for the second time today. There is to be another debate today, though I cannot be there. I do feel as if I am spending more time with the Minister than is good for my marriage. I do not think he will break with any precedent by answering any questions today, but we will try.
I commend the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on securing this debate. This is the second time we have debated this precise issue, but it is important to keep on fighting the battle. He may have caught the Minister and me smiling or laughing a bit because the hon. Gentleman referred to Ofcom and network coverage issues and both I am the Minister made the same point during the earlier debate—that, quite often, Ofcom’s version of reality is so different from the experience of ordinary people that it really is time that Ofcom and the providers looked much more carefully at how they present what they purport to be evidence of coverage.
Likewise, the Minister will no doubt say—he announced it this morning—that he is putting the PSTN switchover on pause, which is a good idea. He referred to several other matters where the Government are taking action because there are very legitimate concerns about how the switchover will affect the provision of quite a lot of services. Indeed, following this morning’s debate, the Minister will be delighted to know that I have tabled questions to ask him how many traffic lights in the UK depend on PSTN. I look forward to hearing his answers.
The hon. Member for West Dorset referred to Stoke Abbott, which was thus described in 1906:
“as pretty a village as any in Dorset.”
I was delighted to be in Bridport a few weeks ago with his predecessor, Oliver Letwin, who has a slightly different view of the present Government from him, I think.
It is always good to have the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We missed him this morning; I believe he was at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. He made an important point about livestock: most farmers must have some kind of digital connectivity simply to do their job. They cannot pretend to be Gabriel Oak and Bathsheba Everdene from “Far from the Madding Crowd”; to make a living in agriculture, one must have a modern farm.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) is absolutely doughty on these issues. I feel as if I have lived in her kitchen now, because this is the second time I have heard the stories about her hubs and her platelets or whatever it is that she had to have installed. She was determined to find some positive news, but mostly came out with negative news. There are real problems for anyone who wants to be able to deliver. As she herself said, no one will lay fibre 5 miles down a lane to a single house, so other options must be available. She referred to satellite. Obviously, we want to see much greater technical innovation in this field so that no one is left out.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) complained about the Government’s lackadaisical attitude. I have heard him make some of his speech before, but there is no danger in repetition—that is the only way one ever gets anything done in politics, so I commend him for that.
The hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) is a wonderful swimmer, as I know because I recruited her to the parliamentary swimming team, and she had a list of people who had been kind of given preferential treatment. If someone in a community needs to have more than superfast broadband in order to do their job but the whole community does not get the same, that can be a problem.
Mrs Drummond
Let me just qualify that: only two public servants, who I did not mention, got fast broadband. The ones I mentioned did not get fast broadband. I was explaining that they were equally important. I did not mention the ones who got fast broadband for obvious reasons—I think they are quite embarrassed about getting fast broadband before their neighbours. There are huge numbers of very important people who also need it.
Sir Chris Bryant
If I got anything faster than anyone else on my street, I think my neighbours would lynch me.
Sir Chris Bryant
No, it is not a good excuse and that is not a very good argument to make.
I concur with the point made by the hon. Member for Meon Valley about the head of Openreach. It is important that major corporations, which broadly speaking have not far off a monopoly position in the UK, respond to Members of Parliament as swiftly and directly as possible and do not simply pass the buck. The hon. Lady also made a very good point about the need for better co-operation between all the different operators in this field, because now, with all the “old-nets”—I fully support competition within the market—there is a danger, which I will discuss a little later, that if there is not co-operation there will be a complete and utter muddle.
I think I have heard some of the speech by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) before, too, and again I commend him for repetition; it is not something ever to complain about in politics. He made two really important points. The first was that being isolated is a dangerous place to be in the modern world. If we think about an elderly person who relies on mobile connectivity to connect to her relatives, who might be on the other side of the world, or to healthcare providers, that is evident, and the point is extremely well made. He also made a point about hill farmers. Funnily enough, when I had a farm in the Rhondda, which was on a hill, I had the best connectivity I have ever had, but that was purely and simply because the mast was almost immediately opposite my house.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) made a very important point about Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or DVLA services no longer being available in post offices. Soon, my constituency will no longer have a bank at all—no bank whatsoever. Of course lots of people are using digital banking services today, but sometimes it is necessary for someone to go physically to a bank, to prove their identity and so on. Banks will need to go a considerable further distance to make some things available online that currently people cannot do online; because of the distances involved in travelling in rural areas, the present situation is simply problematic. However, even if that happens, people need full access to a broadband connection; otherwise, they are simply unable to continue their business.
I think that Vintage Ghetto is the hon. Lady’s business, or perhaps one of her businesses; I do not know. Vintage Ghetto has some very fine things online, if anybody wants to go shopping before Christmas. However, I simply note that it will be difficult for people to pursue that kind of business, which many people in rural areas now do, without having a really strong broadband connection.
Finally, there was the contribution by the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan). I would have laid a bet that he would refer to what the Scottish Government have done and condemn the Westminster Government for not doing what the Scottish Government have done. I could point out that the Welsh Government have often intervened in the same way in Wales to address some of the problems that we have in rural areas. However, the truth is that we need a whole-UK answer to all these issues, and I will give some of the reasons why in a moment.
Broadband is not just important in rural areas but absolutely vital—for building or growing a business; for running a farm or, for that matter, diversifying an agricultural business, for instance by allowing tourism; for doing homework or, for that matter, doing university study; for providing healthcare and local services; and, frankly, for growing up, by allowing children to talk to their friends online, play a video game or download a film.
Members have talked a lot about the haves and the have-nots in this field. Members may not be aware that the phrase “haves and have-nots” originally comes from “Don Quixote”. It is when Sancho Panza says:
“There are two kinds of people in this world, my grandmother used to say—the haves and the have-nots. And she stuck to the haves. And today, Señor Don Quixote, people are more interested in having than in knowing. An ass covered with gold makes a better impression than a horse with a packsaddle.”
I quote that extract because one of my concerns about the way that we are developing in relation to broadband and digital connectivity in this country is that we get a bit too focused on the “having” rather than on the “using”. Indeed, my biggest concern as an MP who represents one of the poorest constituencies not only in the UK but in Europe, is the affordability issue.
I have raised this issue in a previous debate and I know that the Minister has similar concerns. There are social tariffs. They are almost unknown to most of the people who might be able to take them up. One local council—maybe several councils now, but certainly Sunderland City Council wrote to everybody in its area about social tariffs. The council had the information on who qualifies for universal credit and who therefore qualifies for a social tariff, so it wrote to everybody concerned and that drove up the take-up of social tariffs. However, when 18% of poorer homes in the country—in my patch, I suspect the percentage is even higher—do not have any internet to home at all, even when superfast broadband or gigabit capability is available, that is going to be a long-term problem for levelling up, for all the reasons that the hon. Member for West Dorset gave earlier. It is not levelling up if people simply cannot afford to take something up.
Secondly, as several Members have said, many people are not taking up better connectivity, either because it is too expensive or because they simply do not understand what the benefit might be to them. When we and the industry bang on about gigabit-capable, megabits per second, superfast or fast broadband and all the rest of it, that is not a sell to an ordinary household. People want to know what they will be able to do that they could not do previously and therefore why they need it. There is a real marketing problem across the whole of the UK that we need to address if we really are to drive up take-up, otherwise the danger is that all the companies will be making massive investments but getting no return. That is when the whole situation may get into trouble.
I worry about the exclusion of certain areas and categories of people. I have asked the Minister this before and I ask him again: how are we doing on new contracts for Project Gigabit? When I asked him the last time we met, he said that more were going to be let in the next few months. It would be interesting to know precisely how that is going.
My other concern is this: competition is a really good thing, but not if it turns every street into the wild west. In just the last few weeks, in my own patch—particularly in Tonypandy, CF40—lots of different companies have been digging up the roads again and again. People are sick of it. It is happening not just in Kingston upon Hull but in lots of different places in the country. I worry that the system, through Ofcom’s powers, is not strong enough to ensure that there is proper co-operation. One complaint I had said:
“You will have seen road closures without relevant permissions being granted, poor reinstatement of pavements, mud-laden streets, poor communications with residents and tardy workmanship.”
I am fully in favour of companies such as Ogi rolling out gigabit-capable broadband in my patch, but I also want to see rational co-operation between the different organisations.
Finally, the Minister will know that the Government’s digital strategy is now more than a decade old. In fact, the online version has references to websites and programmes that no longer exist, so I think it is time for a new Government digital strategy. After the Government responded to the House of Lords digital exclusion report, Baroness Stowell, who is a Conservative Member of the House of Lords, said that the failure to come up with a new Government digital strategy
“suggests a reluctance to dedicate political attention and departmental resource to this matter”,
and the Communications and Digital Committee in the House of Lords said:
“The Government’s contention that digital exclusion is a priority is not credible.”
I therefore hope that the Government will announce today that they will start consultation on a new Government digital strategy.
I will end with some questions. I have asked these questions before, but the Minister did not answer them. Have I run out of time?
Sir Chris Bryant
I have run out of time. I asked them last time: perhaps the Minister will answer them this time.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, particularly the opening part.
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. The fact that we have had such strong attendance is, I think, an indication of the importance that Members from across the country attach to this issue.
Obviously, I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) for securing the debate. As he knows, I was born and grew up in his constituency, so I am very familiar both with the beauty of West Dorset and with its extremely rural nature—not just that of West Dorset but of Somerton and Frome and of Tiverton and Honiton, both of which I know well from my childhood.
I think we all recognise how ultrafast broadband at the very least, if not gigabit, is becoming an essential of modern life. That applies right across the UK, whether you live in a built-up urban area or a rural community, and the Government are committed to delivering gigabit broadband across the whole of the UK.
That is being done very rapidly by the commercial sector, but the Government recognise that it is necessary to supplement that with public support in order to extend coverage to areas that are not commercially viable. That is why we pledged to achieve 85% gigabit coverage of the UK by 2025 and nationwide coverage by 2030. Already today, more than 79% of premises can access gigabit-capable networks, up from 6% in January 2019. When I took up my position in May, I think we were at 76%, so the figures are still rising every day. Obviously, as we seek to hit the target, it becomes harder, because we are dealing with harder-to-reach premises, but the UK is building gigabit networks faster than any EU country.
The commercial roll-out is key. We are doing what we can to make it easy and attractive for firms to build their networks in the UK. There was reference to Openreach having a near-monopoly. Openreach is obviously the major supplier, but there is also Virgin Media O2, which is the other major fibre network provider, alongside over 100 out-net providers that are investing over £40 billion to roll out gigabit-capable broadband right across the UK. We regard that as the fastest and best value for the taxpayer, because it means that we can focus Government funding on the harder-to-reach areas.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset mentioned cases in which some companies had accepted contracts and then failed to deliver on the terms that they had agreed. We monitor the performance of every supplier, and if companies fail to deliver contracts, the contracts will be terminated and we will seek alternatives. We have tried to ensure that Project Gigabit is designed to deliver coverage in all areas of the UK, rather than leaving the hardest-to-reach areas until last. That adds to the coverage that is already being delivered through the superfast programme.
Our funding has already enabled gigabit connections to over 900,000 premises, and we forecast the figure to be over 1 million by the end of March next year. Of those premises, over 700,000 were classified as sub-superfast, so the vast majority of our investment is going into the communities that need it most. In the last year, we have delivered gigabit-capable broadband to over 160,000 premises, 90% of which are classified as rural. We have already announced 15 Project Gigabit contracts in places such as Cornwall, Cumbria, Norfolk, Suffolk, Oxfordshire and Northumberland, and a further 24 local and regional procurements are under way—plus our cross-regional approach, which includes areas across England and Wales.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) raised the important issue of the public switched telephone network, which, as he mentioned, we also debated this morning. As we move to full-fibre broadband, the old copper network becomes unviable and is being retired. The Government were clear from the start that we would allow migration from copper to voice over internet protocol on full fibre only as long as we were absolutely sure that those customers who relied on copper—particularly the most vulnerable and especially those with, for instance, telecare devices—were properly protected. Unfortunately, there have been a couple of incidents in which telecare customers have found that their devices have not worked, which is completely unacceptable. That is why, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, we said this morning that we are pausing the migration. We are holding a roundtable tomorrow with all communication providers to get absolute guarantees that they will migrate their customers only if they can be certain that the most vulnerable are properly protected.
Let me turn to the constituencies of hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will be aware that, according to the latest statistics, 97% of premises in West Dorset have access to superfast speeds. That is in line with the national average, but I accept that, in terms of future-proofing, we are looking to extend gigabit coverage, which still stands at only 45% in West Dorset. Given that it was only 4% in 2019, we are making good progress. West Dorset is included in Project Gigabit’s Dorset and South Somerset regional procurement, which we launched in May, and we are looking at reviewing bids from suppliers. It is our hope to award a contract for that in the spring, and we estimate that under that contract several thousand premises in West Dorset are set to benefit.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly recognised the extraordinary progress that has been made in Northern Ireland. With 94% gigabit coverage, it is ahead of all the other nations of the UK. Beyond that, we have Project Stratum, which is investing £170 million to reach another 85,000 premises with gigabit broadband. The hon. Gentleman raised some specific points, and I know that he has written to me on them. I will respond to him with a detailed answer to the questions that he raises.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) has been very active in pursuing me and Government. She will be aware that in North Devon at the moment there is roughly 95% superfast coverage and 54% gigabit coverage, but there are still premises in her constituency that are without. She will be aware that we are looking at the cross-regional procurement contract covering West and North Devon, which should ensure that certainly a large number of the 2,500 premises that do not have adequate broadband will be covered. For the hardest-to-reach premises, we are looking at alternatives—such as, for instance, satellite provision.
The situation in Tiverton and Honiton has been raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) not just in this debate, but in the past. Again, I am conscious that there are patches in his constituency that have not been reached. We think that 230 premises do not have a broadband speed of 10 megabits per second or indoor 4G coverage, and those are obviously ones that we are concentrating on, but in the particular case of the village of Northleigh, the voucher scheme there has now been given the go-ahead.
Sir John Whittingdale
I shall endeavour not to delay the House for too much longer, because I am aware that debates are backing up—like a queue of buses or something.
I want to address one or two points that other Members raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) raised a particular issue in her constituency. Again, 72.7% are currently able to receive gigabit broadband in her constituency. A small number of premises are definitely lacking both decent broadband and mobile coverage, and obviously they will be our priority. We will take away the point she raised about Trooli, and BDUK will be in touch with her, once it has looked into that.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has indeed raised that particular issue before, and I will endeavour to ensure that we get specific answers for him. Equally, a small number of premises in the constituency of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke)—again, a constituency I know very well—are also currently outside. The vast majority in each of these cases will, we hope, be covered by either the commercial sector or Project Gigabit, although there will still be some hardest-to-reach premises, for which we will look at the alternatives.
I want to touch on the position in Scotland, to respond to the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan)—who I do not think is back with us yet—and put it on the record that, while R100 is administered by the Scottish Government, Project Gigabit, although funded from the UK Government, is delivered through the Scottish Government. It has taken longer than we would have liked. However, I am in touch with my opposite number in the Scottish Government and can tell the House that, of the £5 billion that the Government are putting into Project Gigabit, an estimated £450 million is to go to the Scottish Government, and we currently have a market engagement exercise under way.
Hon. Members have also rightly touched on the importance of mobile coverage and the efforts made to extend 4G coverage. As the hon. Member for Rhondda observed, the complaint that has been heard—that Ofcom’s estimate of the existing extent of mobile coverage does not match people’s actual experience—is one that we are very much aware of. We have raised it with Ofcom, and we very much wish to improve the accuracy of the existing statistics.
The hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Opposition, raised three issues, on which I agree with him completely. I would like to make it clear that we are disappointed that the take-up of social tariffs has not been greater, and we are working particularly with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to try to draw attention to their availability.
Sir Chris Bryant
One thing that I have suggested to Ministers in that Department is that DWP could simply include a reference to social tariffs in any letter to anyone in receipt of universal credit or any other benefits.
Sir John Whittingdale
I think that is a perfectly sensible suggestion. Indeed, it is one that I hope the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), might already be pursuing; if not, I will draw it to her attention.
The wider issue of take-up is terribly important because, to get expressions of interest and bids from the out-net to obtain contracts under Project Gigabit will depend on being able to attract customers to take that up when it becomes available, and we are looking at other ways in which we can promote take-up.
Finally, the hon. Member for Rhondda raised an issue that features quite a lot in my postbag, which is telegraph poles. I understand the frustration of people who may have existing broadband suppliers but then see another competitor wishing to install telegraph poles. We are talking to Ofcom and local authorities about that. I hope that I have managed to address most of the points raised. It is always a pleasure debating the hon. Gentleman. I suspect this will be the last time I shall do so in my present capacity—
Sir John Whittingdale
I am very touched. That is because my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) will be returning after Christmas.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Kettering Bingo Hall: Community Ownership Fund
(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
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I ask colleagues to move out as quickly and as silently as possible. I will call Philip Hollobone to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Community Ownership Fund and the former bingo hall in Kettering.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank Mr Speaker for his special permission to hold the debate, and I welcome the Minister to his place to hear the remarks I will make on behalf of my local constituents in Kettering. It is a huge privilege to be the Member of Parliament for Kettering, and the subject I wish to raise today is among the most important I have ever had the opportunity to raise in front of a Government Minister. That is because I speak on behalf of my local residents, who are all behind the bid being made by Beccy Hurrell and Lindsey Atkins of the Beccy Hurrell Voice & Arts Axis Hub Community Interest Company. I fully support, 100%, their excellent community ownership fund bid for £2 million, to revive for community use the former Gala Bingo hall building, which is located right at the heart of Kettering town centre. If the bid is successful, it would be transformative for the heart of Kettering.
The 25,000-square-foot building on Kettering High Street opened in 1936 and was once the home of a 2,000-seat theatre and cinema, orchestra pit and restaurant. It has been empty and, sadly, unloved for more than five years. In 2018, when it closed, Tony Smith, the well-known Kettering historian, said the closure of the Gala Bingo hall would
“end another chapter in the history of this unique High Street building. It began as the Regal Cinema, built on the site of Goosey & Sons’ drapery store and officially opened by Earl Spencer on Boxing Day, 1936. The £70,000 super-cinema had 2,000 luxury seats, its frontage dominated by a central tower with a neon halo visible for miles”
on its art deco frontage. He went on:
“Sunday night stage shows in the 1940s featured the legendary Flanagan & Alan, the Crazy Gang, and Vera Lynn. In 1948”
—after the war—
“the Regal was taken over by Granada Theatres and in the 1960s The Who and The Rolling Stones were among the top bands to perform there. The Gala bingo club took over the building after the Granada closed in 1974.”
It ran it until the bingo hall itself closed in 2018.
Sadly, since then, in June 2019, local police found 2,000 cannabis plants inside the empty building, potentially worth almost £3 million—£1 million more than we are asking from the Government to help redevelop the site. The Kettering Town Centre Partnership then had it listed as an asset of community value, giving local groups the chance to put together a bid if it ever went on the market. Earlier this year, its owners notified the council of their intention to sell it, and the BHVA Axis Hub CIC applied to trigger the moratorium. The company is hoping to buy the former bingo hall through the separate CIC structure and then lock it in as an asset for the local community.
Beccy Hurrell and Lindsey Atkins are quite simply remarkable individuals; I am not sure I have ever come across people with more enthusiasm, entrepreneurial spirit or dedication to a cause. Their laudable ambition is to transform the site into a safe, affordable and dynamic space for the local community—for local businesses, aspiring musicians, students, start-ups and families. They want to create a community hub packed with theatre space, performance spaces, a music studio, rehearsal rooms, hot desks, spaces for community groups, crafting areas and a café. Were Beccy and Lindsey’s bid to be successful, it would be simply transformative for Kettering town centre.
I said that Beccy and Lindsey are remarkable. Indeed, they have recently won a number of prestigious local awards. They were crowned the health and wellbeing business of the year at the North Northamptonshire Business Network business awards, recognising their dedication to promoting wellbeing through the arts. They were also named small business of the year at the Northamptonshire business awards, so they are extremely good at what they do.
There is huge local support for this initiative. Beccy and Lindsey engaged with local media to get the message out about their plans for the site, and there was an article in the Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph in February this year. Following that, the newspaper emailed Beccy and Lindsey back and said:
“Just wanted to let you know about the incredible reaction from people yesterday to the story about your plans for the bingo hall. I know you’ve seen a lot of the comments but just wanted to put into context how popular the plans have been! The Facebook post itself reached 116,000 people, it got 1,000 likes and to date 13,000 people have read the story online, with that figure still rising.”
That reaction was in the first 24 hours after the article was published. The newspaper went on to say:
“That’s pretty unprecedented for a story like this—usually those sorts of figures we only see on negative stories/court cases. I hope you’ve also received lots of feedback/comments from people. We quite often do stories about things where people go ‘oh that’s a nice idea’ but then don’t support it, but there’s a genuine buzz about this.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I hope that the campaign to restore and keep the bingo hall will be successful. I am mindful that the hon. Gentleman has laid out the history. Are there are any famous people from Kettering who could be called upon to be philanthropic and give money to help him and others achieve the goal?
Mr Hollobone
That is a very constructive suggestion. I hope that from media coverage generated by this debate, such individuals might well come forward. One of the main ideas about the £2 million funding bid is that it will get the initiative under way and then attract other investment, whether from individuals or the private sector. It is seedcorn capital to get the project up and running. The idea is for it to be self-financing quite quickly so that it is not a further drain on local or national taxpayers, but the £2 million is needed to get the building up and running again. Hopefully, it will start things off. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive suggestion.
As the Minister will know, the aims of the community ownership fund are to support community groups so that they can take ownership of important local assets at risk of being lost, empower their improvement and run them sustainably for the long-term benefit of the community. Beccy and Lindsey’s bid meets all those aims: I doubt whether the Minister will have received many bids of a higher quality. Indeed, Beccy and Lindsey have submitted a 196-page business plan to the Department. I have never seen a higher-quality bid for anything.
Kettering is a priority 1 candidate for levelling-up interventions. A successful community ownership fund award for this bid would deliver not just one but all five of the Government’s ambitions for community ownership fund schemes. Those five aims are to: increase feelings of pride in, and improve perceptions of, the local area as a place to live—tick; improve social trust, cohesion, and a sense of belonging—tick; increase local participation in community life, arts, culture, or sport—tick; improve local economic outcomes, including creating jobs, volunteering opportunities, and improving employability and skills levels in the local community—tick; and, lastly, improve social and wellbeing outcomes, including having a positive impact on the physical and mental health of local people, and reducing loneliness and social isolation—tick. I know that in his new role the Minister will be paying close and diligent personal attention to all the bids before him. I hope that the strength of the application will convince him that it is fully worthy of Government support through the community ownership fund.
The mission of the BHVA Axis Hub is to be the nexus where creativity, enterprise and community all intersect. Importantly, the site is right in the middle of Kettering town centre. Recently, the town centre was blighted by having an asylum hotel at the Royal Hotel, just a few doors away from the Gala Bingo site. Fortunately, that has now been closed down. The hub would be transformative for Kettering town centre and fulfil the Government’s levelling-up objectives were the £2 million to be allocated.
The mission of the BHVA Axis Hub is, first, about unified collaboration—to bridge the gap between creative minds, businesses, third-sector organisations, Government agencies and local communities, ensuring that everyone finds their sanctuary. Secondly, it is about health and wellbeing—to facilitate easier and anonymous access to services, reducing the daunting thresholds that many face. Alongside that, it will foster an environment where health services are more community-centric, eliminating the need for distant health visits. Kettering General Hospital has shown an interest in outsourcing space in the new venue.
Thirdly, the hub is about professional support. It would be a haven for those working remotely, start-ups, established local businesses and other third-sector organisations to connect, collaborate and innovate. Fourthly, it is about educational outreach. It would provide comprehensive programmes for young people not in education, employment or training, facilitating their transition into education or employment. There would be partnerships with local schools and education institutions to provide apprenticeships and vocational training.
Finally, the hub is about artistic empowerment. There is a huge local creative arts scene in Kettering. Beccy and Lindsey hope to establish a state-of-the-art gig venue/theatre that not only showcases local talent but educates budding artists on the intricacies of gig management, theatre production, stage management, lighting and sound. It would be the launchpad for grassroots musicians and theatre artists to realise their dreams.
As I said in response to the hon. Member for Strangford, Beccy and Lindsey are looking for seedcorn capital to get this innovative venture under way. Their aim is to achieve self-sustainability within two years of operation, ensuring that the hub is financially stable. On the back of the Government’s investment, they would be able to secure funding and partnerships from local businesses, other Government agencies and third-sector organisations to provide resources and services to the community from this central town-centre site. They would be able to diversify revenue streams, tapping into rentals, events, gigs, local productions, workshops and collaborative projects. The social objectives of this bid are also impressive. They aim to increase access to services by 30% in the first year of operation, with a focus on bringing services closer to the heart of the community.
Beccy and Lindsey would launch a comprehensive programme for local young people not in education, employment or training, and for socially isolated individuals. It would target at least 200 participants in the first year, and aims for a 70% success rate in transitioning them into education or employment. Beccy and Lindsey aim to create a vibrant community of at least 100 regular remote workers within the first year; this would foster collaboration and reduce isolation. They wish to establish partnerships with a minimum of 10 local businesses and third-sector organisations in the first year, to provide resources, support and services. They aim to launch the gig venue, which would have the capacity to host a minimum of 20 grassroots events in the first year, and to establish training workshops on gig and theatre management, targeting up to 100 participants.
The social outcomes from these endeavours would be impressive: a reduction in the number of individuals feeling isolated or disconnected in the local community; enhanced accessibility of vital services; improved overall community wellbeing; and the creation of employment, educational and volunteering opportunities, leading to personal and community growth. The initiative would also amplify the voices of local grassroots musicians and creative artists, enriching the already rich cultural tapestry of the Kettering community.
I hope the Minister will agree that the bid is impressive. In year one, 2024-25, Beccy and Lindsey aim to secure the Gala Bingo hall site; initiate immediate remedial works, including the removal of the remaining asbestos; and engage with community stakeholders on the final designs, to ensure they meet the diverse needs of the local community and, importantly, protect the delightful art deco frontage. In year two, 2025-26, they would want to celebrate the successful launch of the building’s front section, which would be fully equipped to serve as Kettering’s premier co-working and event destination, with expanded staffing and operational capabilities, so that it can integrate community-centric events and initiatives. In year three, 2026-27, they wish to commence and expedite the rebuild of the back of this massive building in the heart of Kettering, keeping sustainability, accessibility and community needs at the forefront of design and execution. They would aim to launch pilot programmes, tailored towards education, skills training and community health, and strengthen ties with key local businesses, educational institutions and civic bodies.
In year four, 2027-28, with a significant portion of the building revamped, Beccy and Lindsey would aim to streamline operational processes, ensuring a seamless blend of co-working spaces, event areas and community-focused sections. In year five, 2028-29, they would realise the full potential of the site. The entire building will be humming with activity, following the completion of the refit and rebuild.
The site would become north Northamptonshire’s premier hub for work, creativity, collaboration and culture, and that would deepen the societal impact of the project. Programmes would be expanded, and partnerships improved, for maximum community outreach and enrichment. I do not know of any local organisation that is not supporting this bid, but one of the most important, from the perspective of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, is North Northamptonshire Council, which is fully behind this project. NNC fully endorses and supports the vision of creating a hub on the former Gala Bingo hall site. The vision, values and priorities of the council align very closely with what the initiative submitted by Beccy and Lindsey looks to achieve. Importantly, from a growth and regeneration perspective, it would lead the drive for regeneration of Kettering High Street, and would reach out much more widely to the broader North Northamptonshire community.
There are key local wards that DLUHC has identified for levelling up in its “Levelling Up the United Kingdom” White Paper. NNC’s vision is of a place where everyone has the best opportunities and quality of life, and the hub initiative clearly demonstrates an opportunity and displays the characteristics to help achieve the council’s aims and objective. The council’s six key commitments are: “Active, fulfilled lives” for local people, as well as:
“Better, brighter futures…Safe and thriving places…Green, sustainable environment… Connected communities…Modern public services.”
All six of those aims would be delivered by these axis hub proposals.
Importantly, another central Government initiative is family hubs. NNC is one of 75 councils that have been given funding to put family hubs into practice. The one in Wellingborough is already open, but in the Kettering area, NNC is looking to open up another one in the next period of time. The venue we are discussing would be ideal for such a family hub investment.
Also, the hub would help with other council and Government programmes for children’s centres, community wellbeing forums and local area partnerships. It would help the local business community, help with the relocation of NHS services to the heart of Kettering town centre, which would improve access for those who find it difficult to get to their GP surgery or to the hospital, and foment better Workplace-style projects.
I hope that I have given a flavour of how important the bid is to people in Kettering, how important it is to me, and how much it would benefit not only Kettering High Street but the town of Kettering as a whole, and indeed wider North Northamptonshire. I genuinely struggle to imagine that the Minister could have seen any bid among all those submitted to him in recent months that is of higher quality than the one that Beccy and Lindsey have prepared. I urge him, and plead with him; £2 million is not a huge amount of money, compared with the billions that the Government spend every year, but putting £2 million into the old Gala Bingo hall site in Kettering would be transformative for the area.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
For everyone’s attention, this debate will conclude at 16.56.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
It is a pleasure, Mr Dowd, to see you in the Chair, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing this important debate.
We are all too aware of local communities losing beloved assets that foster a sense of community pride and empower communities. That is why, in July 2021, the UK Government launched the £150 million community ownership fund, which forms part of the UK Government’s levelling-up agenda. It supports ambition and builds opportunity through targeted support for places where community assets can make the most difference. The fund helps to safeguard the small but much-loved local assets on which we cannot possibly put a price.
Since the launch of the fund, I am very proud to say that we have awarded £49.3 million to 195 projects across the UK, with £35 million allocated to 131 projects across England, £6.2 million allocated to 28 projects in Scotland, £4 million allocated to 18 projects in Wales and £4.1 million allocated to 18 projects in Northern Ireland.
The community ownership fund has been one of my favourite funds to work with since I became a Minister in the Department, because we get to give the cash directly to the community groups that can really make a difference, as we have heard from my hon. Friend. Recently, I had the privilege of visiting the historical Keighley & Worth Valley Railway. The restoration effort there is not only preserving a piece of history—the railway had a starring role in “The Railway Children”—but enhancing transport infrastructure, supporting local economies and ensuring the wellbeing of more than 250,000 passengers who use this tourist railway line annually. We were able to give the railway funding in the last round of funding from the community ownership fund.
I have even had the pleasure of making it all the way up to the Western Isles, where I visited Laxdale hall. It is using its £300,000 community ownership funding to fully renovate its community space, which it will use to host community sales, supporting local businesses and encouraging social inclusion.
We have made positive changes to the fund for future bidding rounds. We have announced changes in round 3, including allowing applications from parish councils, an extension of the funding cap for all assets, and a match funding reduction for all bids, bringing the requirement down from 50% to 20%. Incorporated voluntary and community organisations, and parish, town and community councils, can make the case for up to £2 million in capital match funding to help a community owned asset that would be at risk of being lost without community intervention. Bidding for round 3, window 2, closed on 11 October 2023, and successful bids will be announced later this month. Once a window closes, all applications are assessed against the assessment framework, which is publicly available on gov.uk. To ensure fairness and protect public money, all bids go through the same thorough assessment and due diligence process before receiving funding.
One of the fantastic things about the community ownership fund is that unsuccessful applicants are welcome to reflect on the feedback they receive, and to apply again in one of our next funding rounds. That is why this is one of the best funds in Government. Unsuccessful applicants are provided with feedback on where their application failed against the assessment criteria, as set out on gov.uk. This feedback signposts to the relevant sections of the guidance document, which applicants can use to strengthen their bid. On top of that, development support is now available to applicants via the My Community website. Our development support provider offers initial support and advice to all interested applicants up to the expression of interest stage, after which certain applicants will be able to access in-depth support for the development of their application and business case. That may also include access to small revenue grants to secure specialist support.
The current round of funding opened a week ago today and will run until the end of January. I encourage all hon. Members to engage with community groups and to encourage them to apply, or at least submit an expression of interest as soon as possible. As I have already said, unsuccessful projects can apply to the fund again in this round. My hon. Friend said that the Gala Bingo hall used to be the Granada theatre, and had brilliant acts, such as the Rolling Stones. In the words of the Rolling Stones, I tell my hon. Friend:
“You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you just might find
You get what you need”.
I hope that that response gives him some satisfaction.
I have heard today about the many merits of the Kettering bingo hall bid, and the impact that the proposal would have on the local community in Kettering. I wish Beccy, Lindsey and the BHVA access hub the very best of luck in this next round of the community ownership fund. As I have said, my door remains open for further discussions with my hon. Friend and any other interested parties on how we can seek to improve bids in future rounds if they are not successful this time around.
Question put and agreed to.
UK Military Action in Iraq: Declassified Documents
(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
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of UK military action in Iraq and declassified documents from 1998.
By way of introduction, I pay tribute to Declassified UK, and in particular its co-founder and editor, the journalist and author Mark Curtis, who has provided an invaluable public service by shining a light on declassified British documents from 1998 at the National Archives. The documents, which run to over 900 pages, reveal what actually went on behind the scenes when the UK Government decided to take military action in December 1998 in what became known as Operation Desert Fox: the four-day bombing campaign in Iraq from 16 to 19 December 1998 by the United States and British militaries. This is important in and of itself, but also because it was the precursor to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Before I turn to the key findings from the declassified documents, let me recap the human cost of military action in Iraq. This House will forever remember the sacrifice of the 179 British servicemen and women, as well as the 23 British civilians, who lost their life during the conflict in Iraq. Yesterday, I joined the War Widows Association for its Christmas gathering; I pay tribute to its secretary, my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituent Sue Raw, and to the amazing women and men who have lost a loved one during a conflict, or as a result of the lasting consequences of conflict.
In addition, there is also the horrific human cost of the war in Iraq. A research study published in The Lancet in 2006 estimated that more than 655,000 Iraqis had died as a consequence of recent wars. In November 2006, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported that 1.8 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighbouring countries, and 1.6 million were displaced internally. As recently as March 2023, the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University estimated that 1.1 million Iraqis are still displaced internally or live as refugees abroad. According to an April 2014 report in The Guardian, the war cost the British taxpayer £9.6 billion. Doubts over the legality of the invasion of Iraq have done irreparable reputational damage to the western world, including the United Kingdom, throughout the middle east and among Muslim populations both at home and abroad.
I turn to the key findings from the declassified documents in relation to discussions involving, and advice given by, the then Foreign Office legal adviser, the Solicitor General, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Attorney General, the Deputy Secretary for Defence and Overseas Affairs.
On 12 February 1998, the Foreign Office’s legal adviser, Sir Franklin Berman, wrote to his Department’s senior civil servant. He said that
“the only valid claim to employ force (in this case) is under the authority of the Security Council…my view is that a new resolution in suitable terms is a sine qua non.”
He added:
“The Ministerial Code requires Ministers to comply with the law, including international law…I cannot believe that Ministers would wish to order British servicemen into action unless their legal advisers were able to assure them that it was legally justifiable.”
The then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was again told of the Foreign Office view two days later, on 14 February, in a meeting with the then Solicitor General for England and Wales, now Lord Falconer. Referring to the UK’s invasion of Egypt over Suez, Lord Falconer told Tony Blair that in the Foreign Office
“some lawyers argued very strongly that it would be the first time since 1956 that the UK had used force without the backing of the Security Council resolution”.
Lord Falconer stated that some lawyers
“might feel strongly enough to resign”,
as they might be expected to implement decisions
“that they believed were incompatible with international law”.
Five days later, on 19 February, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and the then Defence Secretary, now Lord Robertson, attended a briefing by Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Charles Guthrie and Air Marshal John Day on
“targeting plans for operations against Iraq”.
The minutes note that the Chief of the Defence Staff
“mentioned that he was worried about the legal side; he hoped this could be sorted quickly”.
The minutes then state: “The prime minister”—Tony Blair—
“noted that the legal advice was that securing another”
Security Council resolution “was preferable.” They added:
“The prime minister concluded that…he did not want to have everything depending on securing a further Resolution”.
What on earth did he mean by “everything”? What exactly had he committed to? We know that Tony Blair had been told by then—in a communication entitled “The Legal Use of Force”, from Michael Pakenham, deputy secretary for defence and overseas affairs, to John Holmes, principal private secretary to the Prime Minister—that a further resolution was essential, not preferable. Tony Blair’s statement in the minutes of the meeting with the Chief of the Defence Staff implies that he would be prepared to use military force without such a resolution. That is unlawful, yet that is exactly what happened as events transpired.
One note in the bundle of papers, which is undated but likely to be from February 1998, appears to be from officials in advance of a meeting between Tony Blair and Attorney General John Morris. This note suggests that Tony Blair pressed Morris to legally justify the use of force. The “Speaking Notes for the Prime Minister: Iraq—The Legal Position” reference Morris’s memo of 14 November 1997 and say that it “helpfully indicated” there could be “exceptional circumstances” in which the use of force could be justified without a Security Council statement. The note then says:
“I trust that you can confirm now that my description of what would constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’ is correct”.
However, Morris’s memo clearly states the following:
“Such a situation has not yet arisen; and even in such extreme circumstances, the UK could expect to be questioned closely about the legal basis for its resort to military force. The Government would need to have the strongest factual grounds for such action.”
This advice from Attorney General John Morris makes it clear that a Security Council statement was “an essential precondition” to using force.
In July 1998, Michael Pakenham, deputy secretary for defence and overseas affairs, wrote a confidential note entitled “The Legal Use of Force”. That was sent to John Holmes, principal private secretary to the Prime Minister. In it, he said that the Foreign Office legal team were continuing to advise that
“the bottom line remains that in most foreseeable circumstances, a Resolution of the UN Security Council is required before the use of such force can be authorised”.
He added that
“acting against UN principles or without”
UN Security Council resolutions
“may in the short term meet…immediate need but is in the long term wholly contrary to our interests”.
The communication also states:
“the advice given by the FCO legal team, and closely followed by the Law Officers, is that there are certain fundamental rules which any Government must follow, and tests they must meet, before authorising the use of force by our Armed Services. Without such tests being met, there would be a very real risk of members of the Armed Services being subject to criminal prosecution.”
In summary, the then Foreign Office legal advisers stated that the
“only valid claim to employ force”
was under the authority of the United Nations Security Council. The Solicitor General warned Tony Blair that there were lawyers who might resign rather than have to implement decisions “incompatible with international law”. It is absolutely clear that neither the Foreign Office’s legal adviser nor the Solicitor General was willing to advise that military action was legally justifiable.
We have evidence of the then UK Prime Minister pressing the then Attorney General to provide a legal justification for military action. If that was not concerning enough, we also had the Chief of the Defence Staff stating that he was worried about the legal side. Crucially, the deputy director for defence and overseas affairs offered absolute clarity that
“the bottom line remains that”
a UN Security Council resolution is required before the use of force can be authorised. In fact, the communication sent to Downing Street makes it clear that the Prime Minister’s office was told that that was essential.
On 14 November 1998, Tony Blair authorised the strike on Iraq, but UK and US forces were stood down at the last minute, when Saddam Hussein agreed to permit weapons inspections. Just before Iraq’s climbdown, Tony Blair held a meeting with the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, the Defence Secretary, now Lord Robertson, and the Chief of the Defence Staff, Charles Guthrie, in which he affirmed:
“The time had now come for military action to be taken against Iraq.”
According to the minutes of that meeting, there was no consideration of legality, except that it was agreed to justify the use of force
“not because he [Saddam] was in technical breach of UN Resolutions but because he posed a real and imminent threat to peace and security in the region”.
As Declassified UK has stated:
“This was a de facto acknowledgement that the threshold demanded by Britain’s legal advisers—new Security Council authorisation—had not been met.”
On 16 December 1998, the US and UK struck Iraq in a wave of air attacks. Almost 100 sites were attacked by US and British aircraft and cruise missiles from US navy ships and B-52 bombers. General Peter de la Billière, a former head of the SAS who commanded British forces in the 1991 Gulf war, questioned the political impact of the bombing campaign.
It is clear from the declassified documents that Tony Blair misled Parliament. When he announced military action to Parliament on 17 December 1998, he said:
“I have no doubt that we have the proper legal authority, as it is contained in successive Security Council resolution documents.”—[Official Report, 17 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 110.]
But that was clearly misleading, as he had been consistently advised—by the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, the Foreign Office legal adviser and the deputy secretary for defence and overseas affairs—that further UN authorisation was required for the use of force. Thus, British officials justified their action by claiming that other UN resolutions previously passed in 1998 revived the authorisation to use force provided in resolution 678, a remnant of the Gulf war, passed eight years earlier in 1990.
Since the other resolutions did not explicitly authorise the use of force, the UK argument was a spurious one. Of the 15-member Security Council in 1998, only three members supported the action: the US, Japan and Portugal. Five years later in 2003, the UK and US relied on the same resolution, 678, to justify their subsequent invasion when they again failed to secure a further Security Council resolution for the use of force.
These files from 1998 suggest that Tony Blair was motivated more by maintaining relations with the US than by upholding international law—something of which he was again culpable in 2003. On the same day, President Clinton told Tony Blair during a phone call that military action against Iraq might have to be used. Blair replied, saying that he agreed and that Mr Clinton
“could count on our support throughout”.
That commitment of support was not underpinned by international law.
On the point about Saddam Hussein being unwilling to co-operate, Tony Blair said:
“we would have to enforce our will”,
adding,
“even if there were some differences between us on the legal front”.
According to Declassified UK,
“Blair was intimating to the US president he was prepared to override British legal concerns”
and obligations.
On 14 February 1998, as Washington and London were close to striking Iraq, Blair told Solicitor General Lord Falconer:
“it was inconceivable that we would refuse the Americans the use of the base at Diego Garcia. At the very least this had to be legally possible.”
So far, the Government have not declassified all files relating to this period. They have kept secret several of the Iraq files from the Prime Minister’s office, which cover the end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999. Can the Minister explain why these documents have not been put in the public domain and when we can expect publication? The files do not appear to contain the minutes of the meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and Attorney General John Morris. Can the Solicitor General confirm whether that is the case and whether the minutes will be published in full, and if so, when?
These declassified documents show that Tony Blair was determined to take military action against Saddam Hussein in 1998, against explicit advice and in the absence of sound legal arguments or justification. They show that Tony Blair dismissed legal objections to his 1998 bombing campaign. That was the direct precursor to his stance on the invasion of Iraq five years later in 2003, which was also deemed illegal by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, when he said of the war in September 2004:
“From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal.”
Indeed, it was the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who privately warned Tony Blair in 2002 that an invasion of Iraq was legally dubious, stating that
“regime change per se is no justification for military action”,
and that
“the weight of legal advice here is that a fresh…mandate may well be required”
from the UN. Those words chime with, and are foretold in, the declassified documents that I have highlighted.
I want to place on record my appreciation to parliamentarians who have raised similar concerns in the past, including former Labour MP Dennis Canavan, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and the SNP’s Margaret Ewing and Jim Sillars. I recall that Margaret Ewing questioned the Prime Minister directly in the House at the time, and in 2016 Jim Sillars called for a retrospective Iraq war crimes Act to be passed by the Scottish Parliament. It was the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) who stated:
“The second Iraq war was started to liberate the Iraqi people. Instead, it shattered their country. It was intended to stabilise the middle east. Instead, it destabilised the middle east.”—[Official Report, 14 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 530.]
He deserves credit, as does my own party leader, the right hon. Alex Salmond. Mr Salmond was right when he said:
“Through the long debates on Iraq, many of us suspected that the Prime Minister had given commitments to the American President which were unrevealed to this House and to the public. The Chilcot report outlined these in spades. The famous phrase
‘I will be with you, whatever’
will go down in infamy in terms of giving a commitment.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 1531-1532.]
In both instances—in 1998 and in 2003—we know that Tony Blair received legal advice warning that military action was illegal; and, in both instances, he ignored that legal advice and went on to authorise the deployment of British service personnel. Blair pressed officials, in particular the Attorney General, to provide legal justification for the use of force. He received none, but he did it anyway.
Blair misled Parliament by claiming that a legal basis for military force without a UN Security Council resolution existed, when in fact it did not. The consequences have been devastating for Iraqis, for the region and for military personnel and their families. Lives lost in the theatre of war are well understood, but the lives wrecked by the trauma of conflict are less easily quantified, yet every bit as real. I heard such stories yesterday when speaking to the war widows. Such loss and devastation is met with great courage by those affected, but every person’s loss should surely be based on a lawful instruction.
How can it be that a Prime Minister who prosecuted two wars against lawful advice and instruction has been rewarded with a knighthood? It is an insult to every single life lost; it should be withdrawn forthwith and a path to full justice secured. Governments should not lie to go to war, and the truth must now be told.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I intend to call the Opposition spokesperson no later than 5.40 pm. Hon. Members should bear that in mind when making interventions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) for setting the scene so well. I also thank him—I spoke to him beforehand—for his focus, quite clearly, on the truth of the matter and the sacrifice of those who gave their lives. Some of their families, I understand, are in the Gallery today. I convey my sincere sympathies and thoughts to those who lost loved ones and live with the pain of that loss. The hon. Gentleman said that incredibly well in his contribution, and I thank him for that. I know that others will focus on that as well.
As we are all well aware, in April 2023, Declassified UK, a media organisation that focuses on the work of the British military and intelligence agencies, published an article about classified documents that are now declassified. It said, and indeed suggests, that the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was informed that military action was unlawful without UN authorisation, but proceeded with Operation Desert Fox in Iraq in 1998 none the less. I well remember at that time that we had been dealing with the fallout of the troubles, and I did not relish the thought of war, yet I was also mindful that evil triumphs where good men do nothing. I declare an interest as a former solider: for the record, I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Artillery for some 14 and a half years. I enjoyed the service, but I should put that on the record as I speak about these things.
I have not had a chance to read the reports in their entirety, but I have read a number of articles on the issue, and it is clear that things were withheld from the public. In Northern Ireland, there is a circumstance that we are all too familiar with. The taste left in people’s mouths when they see the difference between their lived memory of a timeline, which I and others lived through, and the events and facts behind the scenes is not a good taste. The declassified British documents in the National Archives appear to show that Blair was already set on taking military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime throughout 1998, in the absence of legal arguments to justify it. I find that difficult to grasp, yet I know that sometimes open information is not the same as intelligence passed on. I am loth to comment too deeply on the matter, as I am also aware that documentation does not accurately cover what I lived through in Northern Ireland either.
I will state clearly that opinions on whether Blair’s Government took the right steps in 1998 on the right information do not alter the irrefutable fact that our armed forces acted with dignity, and our pride in them and their actions must be clear. We cannot allow those who have sought to undermine our armed forces for so many years to grasp these documents as part of their war on the honour and integrity of our armed forces personnel.
Forgive me, Mr Dowd, but I omitted to welcome the Minister to his place. He has been in post the past week or thereabouts, perhaps less, and I want to wish him well. He has been a good friend of mine—of us all, by the way—over the years. I very much look forward to what he will say. I also look forward to the contribution of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), because he is a man I have known for a long time and I value his contributions.
To go back to the subject, the presence of our military, our armed forces, was called for by their Government. Their conduct was regimented and measured, and their names must retain our sincere thanks and appreciation. I believe that that must be clear in this debate, regardless of anyone’s opinion of Blair’s decisions and the documentation. If anyone feels that what we now know about the intelligence should call into question the need for the war, we should remember that the presence of the armed forces is not something that can ever be questioned or ever be in doubt. I know that hon. Members all agree with me when I say that.
The deaths of those young men and women were not in vain. The actions they took and the position that our Government put them in lives with them to this very day and they were right and proper. We remain proud of their contributions and actions. History must never forget. It reminds us all of their contribution, their service and their sacrifice. Again, I commend the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath for securing the debate, and to those in the Public Gallery who lost loved ones, my sincere commiserations.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) for securing this debate, because we do not often have debates on things that are historical. It is normal for Parliament to focus on the present day and things that are current, but it is helpful sometimes to look back in history and to learn lessons from our recent past. It is excellent that this information has been extracted from the National Archives, which he and others have reported on.
I congratulate the new Solicitor General on his post. I met the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) shortly before he became Chair of the Defence Committee. He did an excellent job in that role, but his services are now obviously required by Government instead.
Today, I will draw specifically on some of the things that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath talked about in relation to Operation Desert Fox in 1998. I will also make reference to the invasion of Iraq by the US, UK and others in 2003. Finally, I will ask one or two questions about the role of Parliament in a declaration of war, or in the commitment of UK armed forces to going to war.
We have already heard a great deal about how the Prime Minister in 1998 operated with knowledge of what was legal, but perhaps decided to park that, or in large part he put it aside and decided to press on with Operation Desert Fox none the less—hence the four days of bombing of Iraq. Alongside the international law issue, however, it was fascinating to hear from the reporting of that time and from this newly released material what was being said to the Prime Minister from a pragmatic perspective. It was not just legal advice that he was receiving; he was also receiving advice about UK interests. For example, the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee at the time, Sir Michael Pakenham, told the Prime Minister that to engage in military action would be “acting against UN principles” and
“in the long term wholly contrary to our interests”.
Given that the material that has come out of the archive is largely about legal advice, it is fascinating to read that Robin Cook—the Foreign Secretary of the day—and other legal advisers were suggesting that there would have been a serious problem unless the UK acted with further UN Security Council resolution mandates, and that we might instead have sought to get a new Security Council resolution stating that Iraq was in material breach of previous UN Security Council resolutions.
I was also very interested to hear from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath about those fascinating insights of how the Chief of the Defence Staff at that time was saying to the Prime Minister that we really did need legal support for military action if it was to go ahead. That does not surprise me, because Sir Charles Guthrie was an excellent CDS. I had the privilege of having a conversation with him at a bar while he was still serving. Just prior to that, he had written a book, “The Just War Tradition: Ethics in Modern Warfare”. This dealt partly with jus in bello—just war theory as it applies to the conduct of war, which we have been talking about a lot in the House in recent weeks, in relation to Israel-Gaza. He also wrote about jus ad bellum—how wars are initiated. He clearly knew a lot about international law.
Lastly, I would like to talk about the light these revelations cast on the relationship between Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary. Until 2003, it was customary for our armed forces to be committed to war by royal prerogative. Indeed, it is the sovereign decision of the Executive to commit our armed forces to war. On 18 March 2003, something changed. There was not just a debate in Parliament, but a vote on the invasion of Iraq. People will recall that on that day, there was a very large majority vote by MPs in favour of the UK joining military action in Iraq. In opening, Tony Blair offered,
“it is right that the House debate this issue and pass judgment.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 760.]
Clearly, he said those words knowing full well that he had the support of many on his own Benches and on the Conservative Benches. As a footnote, I add that Tony Blair referred that day to the Liberal Democrats as unified “in opportunism and error.” He said that because we were indeed, as a party, unified in opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
The point is that this was a case of Parliament getting an opportunity to have its say on the commitment of UK armed forces to war in Iraq. I raise that because the documents we are discussing today reveal that the Executive were going beyond legal advice and beyond even the advice of really expert opinion, such as the Chair of JIC, and the CDS. They were making an executive decision that essentially came down to the view of the Prime Minister. It is troubling that so much authority was ultimately vested in that individual. What we can take from that period is that, in future, the legislature ought to have greater scrutiny of decisions to commit our armed forces to war. Finally, when the Minister stands to his feet, I would be interested in hearing his reflections on how UK armed forces will be committed to war in the future.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Like others, I pay tribute to my party leader at Westminster and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), for a forensic examination, and I pay tribute to Declassified UK for the information it has provided. It is appropriate that we should be debating this, because it is something we must never, ever forget. It is ironic—I noticed this on social media—that today is the anniversary of Saddam Hussein being discovered in hiding and the dishevelled despot being brought out. I have a moral objection to the death penalty, but like everybody else, I shed no tears for Saddam Hussein. He was a deeply evil man, although it would have been better had he been brought to trial at the International Criminal Court, according to normal rules, than simply hanged.
The consequences of the Iraq war, as was said by my hon. Friend, live with us and reverberate with us to this day. We were taken into war on a false prospectus. We were taken in on deceit and, indeed, on lies. It is important that that be brought to account. The world is a far less safe place from that war. Millions have died, not simply in that country but around the world. A refugee crisis that we now see and live with was kicked off and has continued. Perhaps also more worryingly, the moral authority of western democracies has been lost and we can trace that back to the war in Iraq. I will go on to comment on that.
I have some sympathy for the Minister because he is having to deal with the sins of a different Administration. However, as has been mentioned by others, the Tories were joined at the hip with Labour in the war and have to take account for the consequences, even if the principal villain was Tony Blair.
There were rebels and people’s names have been mentioned. Indeed, there were two in particular who we should thank for their actions. Robin Cook has been mentioned as deeply principled. I knew Robin Cook and stood against him. I disagreed with his position on the constitutional status of Scotland, but nobody should forget not just the courage he had but the convictions he retained. In speaking out against the Iraq war, we should never forget him and it is a tragedy that he is not here with us today.
Equally, Charles Kennedy spoke out against the Iraq war. He was decried for it, but it was principled. I recall marching with Charles Kennedy in Glasgow, when more than 100,000 people in Scotland marched, as they did in London and other cities, not simply across the UK but across the world, to say, “This is not in our name.” Yet Tony Blair took us to war despite the objection of principled people such as Cook and Kennedy and despite the millions marching across the United Kingdom. We live with the consequences today.
Where is the accountability? Yes, we have had Chilcot and yes, we have had some matters put out there, but nobody has been held to account. We were told it was weapons of mass destruction. We were told we were only minutes away from doom and gloom and, indeed, it was portrayed as the death of democracy and almost the death of humanity. That was shown to be a lie. That same lie was perpetrated by the United States about going into Afghanistan, when it said it was all about 9/11 even though it was quite clear that if they were going to deal with the perpetrators of 9/11 they should be addressing Saudi Arabia. As with Khashoggi, people turned a blind eye to an ally or, indeed, as with the United Kingdom, one that is viewed as bankrolling the armaments industry.
That was formed on a strategic lie and done for access to oil and for wider geopolitical positions. The problem is that we have to live with that today and the consequences reverberate. As is often mentioned in political debates, that brings back Santayana’s words about those who cannot learn from history being doomed to repeat it. Repeating it we have been and repeating it we are.
We have seen the disaster that has befallen Ukraine, but we worry and wonder why 85% of the globe has not signed up for sanctions against Russia. I believe there should be sanctions against Russia. I condemned Putin for the invasion, even if I think that some of the actions that have been taken have been wrong and I do not support the actions of the United States. Let us remember that, at the end of the day, the rest of the world does not see this with the same eyes as us. They are saying, “Where is your moral authority when you were prepared to go into Iraq but now you condemn Putin?” We are paying the price for Blair’s folly.
Equally, I have to say that I remember that there was criticism, and rightly so, of the Wagner Group. But what was the precursor of Wagner? The precursor of Wagner was Blackwater. Let us remember that, after Iraq, we privatised war. We saw war privatised and we saw private militias that made a lot of money for individuals basically come in and take over something that would previously have been dealt with by a military that represented the state. Before Wagner came on the scene, it was Blackwater, and that affected us. It was not just a corporation in the United States. I met young Scottish soldiers who told me about colleagues of theirs who were deliberately failing drug tests, because it was better to go and get paid £100,000, as they got for going to be militia or contractors. Let us remember that, when we talk about contractors in places like Iraq, they were not bricklayers or scaffolders; they were soldiers carrying out private work for what America and the UK carried out. That was the precursor. As I said, it started with what Blair did, then it reverberated out, and now it lives with us and we have to face those consequences.
And now we have Gaza. We see western democracies again failing to speak out: we see the UK abstain and the United States object. And people wonder why countries such as South Africa and Brazil look at the western world and say, “Who are you to lecture us? Who are you to go on about Putin? Who are you to go on about the sins of Saddam Hussein, when you are prepared to turn a blind eye to what you are doing by funding and supporting the Israel Defence Forces?” All of that comes back, and that is why there has to be honesty and accountability—because the UK’s action in Iraq has fundamentally damaged not just the United Kingdom but western democracy. We were lied to as a people. The objections of the people, who were vociferous—people marched in their hundreds of thousands—were literally ignored by Executive diktat. That must not be allowed to be repeated. That is why we need to get these documents out there and why those who perpetrated this sin—because it was a mortal sin—must be held to account.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. It is also a great pleasure to welcome to his place the new Solicitor General, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts). We are both relatively new to our roles, although I have had the benefit of this being, I think, my second tour in this particular circuit. I am sure that the tone of our debate will remain as thoughtful and constructive as that which was maintained by the previous occupants of our roles—just as it has been today—and I look forward to those debates in the weeks and months ahead.
I commend the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) on his determination in securing this debate. I know that he has previously made attempts at securing urgent questions on this important issue, and no one can doubt the sincerity of the concerns that have led the hon. Gentleman to pursuing this matter and securing this debate. Whether or not we reach the same conclusions, I applaud and commend him for his persistence in raising this issue.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath argues, powerfully, that there is a through line from the discussions that took place within Tony Blair’s Government in 1998 over the decision to carry out airstrikes against military assets in Iraq, without authorisation from the United Nations, and the decision, five years later, to take military action against Saddam Hussein. The contention is that that decision in 1998 paved the way for the decision in 2003 and that, despite the 12 volumes and more than 2.5 million words of the Chilcot report, we cannot fully understand the process that led to the 2003 decision until the 1998 decision is subject to the same level of scrutiny, including the release of all outstanding papers on the issue.
Let me say that I understand the point that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath is making. As I have said already, I do not doubt the sincerity of the concerns that lie behind his campaign on this matter. It is worth saying, however, that there is another, more immediate throughline from the decision taken in respect of Iraq in 1998, which was the decision taken by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton just a year later in respect of the intervention in Kosovo.
There again, a UN resolution in favour of action could not be achieved because of the permanent Russian veto; there again, as we will surely discover when the relevant papers are released, there were debates both inside and outside Government about the legality of acting without the cover of a UN resolution; and there again, the judgment ultimately made by Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and other NATO allies was that the air strikes they authorised against military assets were justified because of the civilian lives at threat if those assets were left intact.
People may disagree with the air strikes in Iraq in 1998. They may even disagree with the air strikes in Kosovo in 1999. But it is important to recognise that what was going on in that era was not some specific obsession with the regime change of Saddam Hussein, which would lead to the tragedy of the Iraq war in 2003, but a constant debate about whether the world could afford to wait for action from the United Nations following the tragedies of Rwanda in 1994 and Srebrenica in Bosnia in 1995.
I hear what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath is saying, but while he may maintain that the willingness to set aside legal concerns over the 1998 action was the precursor to what happened in Iraq in 2003, we must also remember that if that same willingness to act had not been present in 1999, we would still be talking today about how the world stood by and allowed the genocidal destruction of the Kosovan people.
Karl Turner
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I want the Minister to have the full opportunity to respond to him.
The final point I want to make relates specifically to the issue of which documents have been published in relation to the 1998 action and which are still being withheld from publication. I have no knowledge of how those decisions were arrived at, but I would urge a bit of caution before we leap to any conclusions or encourage any theories that already exist out there about what the still-unpublished papers may or may not contain. In my experience, when officials—in whichever Department it is—sit down and sort through these documents, and decide what to publish and what to withhold, they are always rather more concerned with what precedents will be set for the future and whether there are any security implications for individuals still alive in the present, and rather less concerned with what revelations will emerge about the past.
Personally, I am in favour of maximum transparency wherever possible. I am also in favour of Government Departments being clear about the broad reasons for their decisions when they feel obliged to hold material back from publication. If there are any more concrete reasons that can be provided today as to why the particular papers at issue have not so far been published, then I would welcome that too. That is not because I think there is any great mystery being covered up, but precisely because I think the opposite is true and the Government could dispel a lot of unnecessary and ill-founded speculation if they were clearer about the broad reasons why some material is withheld. If that were to be one positive outcome from this debate, I would welcome it. Another would be to recognise that what motivated much of the action during that period in history was not the desire for regime change in Baghdad, but a compulsion that many leaders rightly felt not to repeat the grave mistakes of Bosnia and Rwanda.
Finally, I offer my sincere commiserations to the loved ones of those military personnel and civilians who lost their lives in these terrible and tragic conflicts.
The Solicitor General (Robert Courts)
It is a great honour and pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Dowd. I thank hon. Members and right hon. Members who have been kind enough to welcome me to my role. I look forward to working with them on this issue and many others, and to serving the House in this role. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and I know each other well from maritime matters already, and I am confident that we will have, as ever, the constructive relationship that the House would expect.
May I start by also extending my commiserations to all those who have been affected—families, friends, British personnel and civilians? We deal with enormously sensitive and tragic historic matters here, and while we will talk about some of the detail of disclosure matters and decisions that were taken, we should never lose sight of the fact that, at the beginning and end of the story, are people whose lives have been irrecoverably changed, and in some cases ended. I know that the House will join me in recognising that.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) secured this debate to discuss the declassification of documents arising from UK military action in Iraq in 1998, and indeed the action itself. He has opened a number of matters before us regarding the merits of that action. Of course, I have to start by saying at the outset that these are historic matters that have been subject to exhaustive and detailed examination in other places, as he will know and to which I refer him. These were matters for many Administrations ago, and not ones that this Government can comment on in the merits. Today, I would like to deal with some of the issues around the disclosure of the documents, which are things that I, as Solicitor General, can comment on. I hope to be able to offer some constructive comments there, and then invite the hon. Gentleman to assist me in some other areas.
I would like to deal with some of the process of the declassification of historic records and to discuss the convention relating to Law Officer advice, which is relatively understood but departed from in some circumstances, such as the ones that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I will also mention some of the changes that have been made post Chilcot. Of course, Chilcot’s terms of reference did not include the area that the hon. Gentleman specifically refers to today; none the less, coming afterwards there were some changes in the way that Parliament and Government approach those matters, and I will address some of them today.
In relation to UK military action in Iraq in 1998, certain documents, including advice from Law Officers, have been declassified and released to the National Archives. I understand that the hon. Member has shared a link with the Department, which covered some documents that he wanted to discuss today. My understanding is that those particular documents have in fact now been declassified and are now open for public review—I think that is the case and I am grateful to him for confirming it. The catalogue goes through an updated process, and I think that is the position with those documents now.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on why some specific documents were not available. I apologise that I am not able to give him the answer to that right now, but if he were to write to me and draw my attention to the specific documents he referred to, I will be able to give him an answer and either point him to where they are or give him an explanation of why I cannot. Of course, it is for the Cabinet Office, rather than the Attorney General’s Office, to take a view on whether documents should be disclosed, and whether in full or with redactions for any reason. I make that request and offer at the outset; I hope to be able to give him some assistance.
I will make some comments on the framework for disclosure, which may be of assistance. The Public Records Act 1958 placed Government Departments under an obligation to identify public records with historic value and to make arrangements for their permanent preservation. It imposed a duty to open these records after the passage of 50 years. That 50-year rule was reduced to 30 years by the Public Records Act 1967 and further reduced to 20 years by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Departments may retain records, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 placed a duty on Departments to justify whether records transferred to the National Archives should remain closed to the public. However, the general rule is that material that is 20 years old becomes public records.
There have been a number of bespoke bodies responsible for the physical housing of this material, but since 2008 it has been the National Archives. As I have mentioned, there is a framework based on the exemptions for disclosure. That is contained in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and determines whether material transferred to the National Archives should be open to the public.
There are several exemptions that are not time-limited. Those include: national security; defence; international relations, or information provided in confidence by other states or international organisations or courts; the economy; criminal investigations; parliamentary privilege; health and safety; and environmental information. A number of those exemptions will require the Department that owns the information to carry out a balancing exercise as to whether it is in the public interest to disclose that material. That requires consultation across Whitehall and other bodies, and the outcome of that test is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is advised by the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives.
There is a separate scheme—the security and intelligence instrument—which is approved by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and which governs information relating to the security and intelligence agencies. That information is retained in the relevant Departments, and information retained by way of the instrument has to be re-reviewed every 10 years. Regardless of how retentions or disclosures are made, anyone is able to challenge such disclosures or retentions by submitting a freedom of information request to the National Archives for closed material or to the originating Department for retained material. I hope that has been helpful to the House with regard to the procedure for the disclosure of such records and gives an overview of the position.
The second point that I would like to spend a minute or two on is the Law Officers’ convention; I know that the House will be familiar with it, but it is worth rehearsing in a little bit of detail. Some of the aspects that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has been speaking about do indeed refer to legal advice that was given at the time, or even to the advice of the Law Officers. In this case, some of that material, as he knows, is available in the National Archives.
As a general rule, there are clear and well-understood reasons for not disclosing legal advice, and there are specific considerations around advice that is given to the Government by Law Officers. They may not be relevant to the context or background of this debate—which is about a historic matter and in any event that advice has been published—but, simply for completeness, it is usual practice that advice given by Law Officers and the advice that has been sought, or indeed the fact that advice has been sought, is not disclosed. That is the Law Officers’ convention and that is reflected in the ministerial code. The fact that Law Officers have or have not advised must not be disclosed outside Government without their authority.
It is only in narrow circumstances that that convention has been waived, and that has been with the consent of the Law Officers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, perhaps the clearest example was the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I know that the House will understand that the very clear reason for the convention is that, as with any client-lawyer relationship, it is to enable the Government to seek legal advice in private without fear of adverse inferences being drawn from the content of the advice or indeed from the fact that advice has been sought in the first place. It means that the Government are not discouraged from seeking advice in certain cases, or pressured to seek advice in inappropriate cases, and it protects that relationship, as with any client-lawyer relationship.
The third point that I will spend a few moments talking about, before I leave some time for the hon. Gentleman to respond, is on Chilcot. There have been a number of changes after Chilcot, which of course was a major inquiry after the 2003 invasion. Operation Desert Fox is outside the scope of the Chilcot terms of reference, but the report does cover the use of military force by the UK and US in Iraq in 1998, including documentary evidence and witness testimony, so some matters can be dealt with in there. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not go into the details that were discovered in terms of the merits, but there have been a number of changes since. There is a Chilcot checklist to support decision making, the National Security Council was established to help with the decision-making process, and Law Officers have to be consulted in good time. There are a number of ways in which the situation has changed since the time he talked about.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) asked me about the Cabinet manual. A convention has developed that before troops are committed, the Commons is given the opportunity to debate the matter, which the Government have acknowledged in the past. Although the general convention remains as it is, there has been some amendment of points since then.
I apologise for running over slightly, Mr Dowd. I want to leave the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath some time to respond, but I hope I have dealt with the questions he wanted me to; he can of course come back to me if not.
Neale Hanvey
Thank you, Mr Dowd, for your assiduous chairmanship. I thank all Members for their contributions. They have been very reflective and quite helpful. I want to pick up on a few points that were made. First, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his sincerity and passion, and his comments on the bravery of service personnel—
Written Statements
Information Commissioner's Office Investigation
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I would like to update the House on the announcement made today, 13 December 2023, by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The announcement follows an investigation by the ICO into an Afghan relocation and resettlement policy scheme data incident involving group emails sent in September 2021. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has fully co-operated in the ICO’s investigations.
On 21 September, the then Secretary of State stated before the House how disappointing it was. While this mistake was the result of human error during a pressured time in the aftermath of the Operation Pitting airlift, it should not have occurred, and better data handling processes needed to be in place.
I take compliance with the Data Protection Act extremely seriously and we are committed to learning from these incidents. To support those who were impacted, the MOD will establish a financial compensation scheme to enable all directly affected individuals to receive compensation in respect of any damage that may have been caused. Work is well under way on designing the scheme and further details will be shared as soon as is reasonably practicable.
The Defence Afghan relocation and resettlement team have worked hard to improve information management practice while continuing to deliver a challenging programme at pace. Process improvements include a new case management system which significantly reduces the need to send mass emails. We have recruited information management specialists into the team and will continue to grow this capability to meet the demands of holding vast quantities of personal data. Training has been delivered to all members of the team and through frequent mandatory training we will ensure that staff are continuously improving their knowledge and practices concerning information security and data protection, and a significant programme of work is being delivered to safeguard best practice in these areas.
Despite this setback, we have continued to deliver the ARAP programme and make good on the commitments we made to those brave Afghans who served alongside us in support of the UK mission in Afghanistan. At the time of writing, my Department has relocated over 13,600 eligible persons and family members to the UK under the ARAP scheme. We will continue to honour our commitment to relocate all eligible Afghans and their families to the UK.
[HCWS118]
NHS Vaccination and Immunisation Services
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
In 2019 the Government’s manifesto committed to continue to promote the uptake of vaccines via a national vaccination strategy. I am pleased to announce that on Wednesday 13 December NHS England published that strategy.
Vaccination saves lives and protects people’s health. It ranks second only to clean water as the most effective public health intervention to prevent disease. Through vaccination, diseases that were previously common are now rare, and millions of people each year are protected from severe illness and death.
Building on the success of our world-leading NHS covid-19 vaccination programme, which has delivered over 150 million vaccinations to date, and learning from many decades of successful immunisation delivery, NHS England, in collaboration with the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency and other partners, has developed a strategic direction for the delivery of vaccination services, focused on improving uptake and coverage of all vaccinations across the whole population while reducing disparities of uptake in under-served communities. To do so, the strategy aims to:
Simplify and streamline access to vaccinations, including extending online booking capability;
improve access for people who are currently under-served by offering vaccination through community-based, targeted approaches; and
deliver vaccination through flexible, integrated, neighbourhood teams that can deliver other preventative interventions alongside vaccination.
The strategy proposes that integrated care boards have the responsibility and flexibility to deliver these aims through local vaccination delivery networks that are tailored to the needs of local people. These local networks will be underpinned by timely, accurate data flows and responsive vaccine supply chains. Local systems will have a robust plan for managing disease outbreaks and surge responses, collaboratively developed with partners including local government, and setting out clear roles and responsibilities.
In developing this strategy, NHS England has sought the views of a wide range of stakeholders, including service users via a public survey, GPs, community pharmacy, NHS trusts and directors of public health. Stakeholder input has been invaluable in developing an ambitious plan for the future of vaccination delivery, as well as describing what should be retained, improved and adapted from the current approach to ensure that it meets everyone’s needs.
The strategy supports NHS England’s ambition to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040, with England among the first places in the world to set this ambition within the next two decades, by making it as easy as possible for people to get the lifesaving human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and increasing cervical screening uptake.
A copy of the strategy will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS122]
Serious and Organised Crime Strategy
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
As Home Secretary, my first priority is to keep the public safe. Today I have published a new and updated serious and organised crime strategy. The strategy has been laid before Parliament as a Command Paper (CP 992) and copies are available in the Vote Office and on www.gov.uk.
Serious and organised crime is a major threat to the national security and prosperity of the United Kingdom. It costs lives, blights communities, hampers economic growth, causes financial loss to individuals, businesses and the state, and corrodes the global reputation of the UK and its institutions.
Since the publication of the previous strategy in 2018, we have invested in strengthening the National Crime Agency (NCA) and policing capabilities, built new comprehensive plans and strategies for dealing with illegal drugs, economic crime, fraud, child sexual abuse and other types of crime, and introduced new powers for law enforcement agencies to respond to the threat posed by organised criminal groups. However, it was a five-year strategy and it is right that we now update our response to reflect changing threats and emerging challenges.
This new strategy sets out our mission to reduce serious and organised crime in the UK by disrupting and dismantling the organised crime groups operating in and against the UK through a comprehensive and end-to-end response to ensure there is no place for serious and organised criminals to hide. The strategy aims to reduce serious and organised crime in the UK through five lines of action:
In-country: We will disrupt and dismantle organised crime groups operating in and against the UK. We will also build resilience in local communities, deter and divert individuals, design out crime and raise barriers online.
UK Border: Strengthening the UK border, including disrupting the exploitative business model of the criminal groups involved in organised immigration crime.
International: Relentless disruption at source of international organised criminals operating against the UK; improving international information and intelligence sharing; and reducing the global drivers.
Technology and capabilities: Ensuring the best intelligence and data collection, analysis and investigative capabilities are in place to identify and disrupt organised criminals.
Multi-agency response: Ensuring all public and private sector partners are working together as effectively as possible with the right capacity, skills, structures and tasking processes.
To support delivery of the new strategy, we are bringing forward legislation in the Criminal Justice Bill, introducing new criminal offences for the possession, importing, manufacturing, adapting, supply and intending to supply specific articles for use in serious crime—vehicle concealments, templates used to print 3D firearm components and pill presses. We will also strengthen serious crime prevention orders to make it easier for police and other law enforcement agencies to place restrictions on suspected offenders.
We will strengthen the UK border and enhance disruptive activity against the organised immigration crime groups who enable people to enter the UK illegally, increasingly through dangerous small boat crossings in the channel. This includes doubling our funding to increase the multi-agency intelligence and investigative response in 2023-24 and 2024-25.
We will continue to roll out “Clear, Hold, Build”, the local policing and partnership response to serious and organised crime, expanding it to every territorial police force by spring 2024 to reduce crime and build community resilience in hotspot areas in a sustainable way.
The Government are also introducing new measures to support closer collaboration between the NCA and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to tackle serious and complex fraud and corruption. We will amend the Crime and Courts Act 2013 to allow the director general of the NCA to direct the director of the SFO on matters relating to the investigation of suspected incidents of serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption, in the same way that the NCA has power to direct the police in relation to serious and organised crime.
The new strategy will refocus efforts in response to new and emerging challenges, including the growth in online crime and the exploitative business model of people smugglers. It brings together extensive work across Government, ensuring all capabilities available to the UK intelligence community, the NCA, policing and at the border are fully focused on disrupting and dismantling organised criminals.
[HCWS120]
Local Government: Statutory Interventions
(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)
All hon. Members will recognise the critical role local councils play in providing essential statutory services to their residents and being accountable to the communities they serve. Where councils do not meet the high standards that we set for local government, it is right that Government intervene in order to protect the interests of residents. Today I am updating the House on three statutory interventions: Woking Borough Council, Nottingham City Council and Liverpool City Council.
Woking Borough Council
In May 2023, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), intervened in Woking Borough Council, using his powers from the Local Government Act 1999 (the 1999 Act), following evidence of extensive best value failure in the external assurance review relating to the exceptional level of financial and commercial risk to which the council had exposed itself, the quality of its strategic financial decision making and concerns over its commercial dealings. As part of this, the three reviewers were appointed as commissioners, given powers over a broad range of council functions and tasked with overseeing the improvement. The Secretary of State committed to consider the skills and experiences required to support Woking on its improvement journey within six months, following the receipt of two reports from the commissioners.
In those first six months, the council has worked collaboratively and co-operatively with the commissioners. That being said, the situation remains grave. The commissioners’ first report, published on 19 October, made it clear that the scale of the challenge at the council “should not be underestimated”. In their second report, published today, the commissioners continue to paint a stark picture of the challenges, noting that the council
“remains in an extremely vulnerable position due to its overhanging debt and historical lack of rigour in its commercial activity.”
Overall, the council has made some limited progress on areas of focus identified by the commissioners in their first report, but there remains a significant deficit in the council’s capacity and capability in some corporate functions.
This second report comes at a key point for the council’s improvement: the coming months will require the council to manage the converging pressures of setting a balanced budget, preparing for local elections and undergoing the required transformation. In the short term, tough decisions need to be made, requiring clear leadership across the council, and a steady hand at the wheel. Following the resignation of the council chief executive, Julie Fisher, the Secretary of State has decided to increase the capacity of the commissioner team by appointing a managing director commissioner, Richard Carr. Mr Carr has more than 25 years of experience and will be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the council and will provide strategic direction and leadership, until such time as a permanent appointment to the post of chief executive can be made. This appointment will increase the council’s capacity to deliver vital improvements and provide stability over the rough road ahead.
Having served as lead commissioner for six months, Jim Taylor has decided to step down from his role for personal reasons. I wish to thank Mr Taylor for the clear leadership and real dedication to his roles as both lead reviewer and commissioner at Woking. He will continue in his role as commissioner at Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. The Secretary of State is appointing Sir Tony Redmond as lead commissioner. Sir Tony is a respected figure with a long career in local government and is currently chair of the Nottingham City Council improvement and assurance board. He will focus on finding longer-term solutions for Woking and promote a clear strategic direction for the council. The next phase of improvement is critical and we are grateful to Sir Tony for bringing his expertise and experience to lead that change. We will keep the intervention under review to determine whether further changes are needed given the challenging weeks and months ahead.
Nottingham City Council
Nottingham City Council has been in intervention since the improvement and assurance board (“the board”), chaired by Sir Tony and made up of independent experts, was first appointed in January 2021. The intervention was escalated in September 2022 by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), with the issuing of statutory directions compelling the council to follow the advice of the board and to increase the momentum with which the necessary improvements were to be made. While the council has made efforts to address the recommendations issued by the board in February this year, the board’s latest assessment, as presented in its two latest progress reports, is that the council is still not acting at the required pace to make the necessary improvements. Weaknesses in finance and transformation, along with an underlying culture of poor governance, continue to manifest themselves. On 29 November 2023, the council issued a section 114 notice due to its inability to balance the budget for 2023-24. The precarious nature of the council’s finances, and its effect on overall transformation, together with outstanding governance issues, are causes of serious concern.
In the light of this evidence, the Secretary of State is satisfied that Nottingham City Council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty and he agrees with the board that improvements are not being made quickly enough. He is minded to escalate the current intervention arrangements in order to secure compliance with that duty and to ensure that the necessary improvements are made for the benefit of the local community. To that end, and in line with procedures laid down in the Local Government Act 1999, officials in my Department have today written to the council seeking representations on the board’s reports and on the proposed intervention package.
I want to place on record that the Secretary of State recognises the rigour with which Sir Tony and his fellow board members approach their work in supporting the council to address the many challenges it faces. Indeed, without their sustained efforts to date, the current situation would be even more challenging. However, a change in approach is now required to secure the necessary improvements rapidly; there are still many difficult and pressing decisions ahead and the scale of the challenge cannot be underestimated.
The Secretary of State is minded to appoint commissioners to exercise certain and limited functions as required, for two years. The proposed move to the commissioner model of intervention represents a significant change to ensure that public trust in the council is restored, particularly as the council has been working with the board since it was first appointed in January 2021. The commissioner team, if appointed, would consist of three appointments: a lead commissioner; a commissioner for finance; and a commissioner for transformation. I am announcing the proposed commissioner team structure to provide clarity to the council around the most pressing priorities, to make it clear that there can be no slippage in making the necessary improvements, and to enable representations to be made before the final decisions.
Our proposal is for the council, under the oversight of the commissioners, to reappraise its improvement plan within the first three months of the intervention and report on the delivery of that plan to the Secretary of State every six months.
The Secretary of State is proposing to direct the transfer to commissioners all functions associated with:
the governance, scrutiny and transparency of strategic decision making by the authority;
the financial governance and scrutiny of strategic financial decision making by the authority;
the strategic financial management of the authority;
the authority’s operating model and redesign of the authority’s services to achieve value for money and financial sustainability;
the development, oversight and operation of an enhanced performance management framework for officers holding senior positions;
the appointment and dismissal of persons to positions, the holders of which are to be designated as statutory officers, and the designation of them as statutory officers; and
defining the officer structure for the senior positions, to determine the recruitment processes and then to recruit the relevant staff.
I hope it will not be necessary for the commissioners to use these powers, but they must be empowered to do so if they consider that required improvement and reforms are not being delivered.
I am inviting representations from the council on the board reports and the Secretary of State’s proposals by 2 January 2024. We want to provide the opportunity for members and officers of the council, and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Nottingham, to make their views on the Secretary of State’s proposals known. The Secretary of State will consider carefully all representations and any other evidence received, before deciding whether to change the intervention, as he is minded currently to do, to make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and appoint commissioners. Our expectation is that the council will continue to work with the board to make the necessary improvements until a final decision is made. We will update the House in due course.
Liverpool City Council
On 10 June 2021 the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), updated the House that he was intervening in Liverpool City Council and had appointed a team of four commissioners and given them oversight of the council’s highways, regeneration and property management functions together with the associated audit and governance arrangements. Their appointment runs to June 2024. This followed a best value inspection, which concluded that the authority had failed to comply with its best value duty over a number of years. On 8 November 2022, the current Secretary of State confirmed that he was expanding the intervention and issuing further directions to appoint a finance commissioner and give commissioners finance, governance and recruitment functions.
On 6 October 2023, the commissioners submitted their fourth report. Since the last report, there has been a change in leadership at political and officer levels. The new leadership team have shown strength and grip as they continue to make improvements, and commissioners believe they are well placed to deal with challenges. Having carefully considered that report, I am announcing that the Secretary of State is minded to make a number of changes to the intervention.
First, the Secretary of State is proposing to reduce the scope of the intervention and return certain functions to the council by March 2024. This would be part of a planned and phased transition towards the end of the intervention. The Secretary of State is therefore minded to amend the current directions so commissioners no longer exercise the following functions:
All executive functions associated with highways in March 2024;
The requirement from section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972, to make arrangements for the proper administration of the authority’s financial affairs, and all functions associated with the strategic financial management of the authority, by March 2024, to include:
the power to amend budgets where commissioners consider that those budgets constitute a risk to the authority’s ability to fulfil its best value duty; and
providing advice and challenge to the authority in the setting of annual budget and a robust medium-term financial strategy for the authority.
All functions in relation to the appointment, organisation and performance of persons to positions the holders of which are not designated as statutory officers, and the designation of those persons for tiers one to three as soon as practicable.
Secondly, the Secretary of State is minded to issue further directions to the council, either to support the proposed return of powers or to address concerns raised by commissioners in their report. The Secretary of State is therefore minded to direct the council to undertake a range of actions to the satisfaction of commissioners, including:
allow commissioners to provide advice and challenge to the authority on strategic decisions related to its finance function, including the setting of annual budgets and medium-term financial strategy;
continue to take steps to rebuild trust with residents, and in particular to improve FOI performance, report writing and systems to record delegated decisions;
have completed a review of the strategic risk management and implement a strengthened mechanism based on its recommendations;
progress significantly the implementation of the corporate landlord model, commence the stock condition surveys to better understand the asset base, develop comprehensive asset management plans and produce a revised structure for the property directorate;
continue to establish and implement a cultural change programme that embeds a customer focus, performance management culture, systems and reporting across the organisation.
While I welcome the commissioners’ comments that the political and officer leadership of the council have made strong progress since May 2023 and there is early evidence of improvement, there remains a lot to do. The new leadership have not yet had the time to demonstrate their leadership of continuous improvement or their ability to resolutely make necessary difficult decisions. In order to provide enough evidence of a well-set trajectory, more time is needed to observe the impact of this new leadership as they drive improvement. The commissioners currently consider a form of statutory intervention is likely to be recommended beyond the current end date of June 2024. Their next report, in March 2024, will be vital to support my decision on how to proceed. I will update the House at that time.
I am now inviting representations from the council on the report and the Secretary of State’s proposals, also by 2 January 2024. We want to provide the opportunity for members and officers of the council, and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Liverpool, to make their views on the Secretary of State’s proposals known. Should the Secretary of State decide to act along the lines described here, he will make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act. I will update the House in due course.
Conclusion
I want to acknowledge the work of the dedicated staff who deliver the important services of councils in today’s announcement on which local residents depend, many of whom have strived to deliver those services over recent years despite the financial, leadership and governance challenges faced by their respective authorities. I also want to thank the commissioners for all they do. They all play a vital role in each council’s recovery. I will deposit in the House Library copies of those reports I have referred to, which are also being published on www.gov.uk today.
[HCWS121]
Planning: Local Energy Efficiency Standards
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State (Baroness Penn) has made the following written ministerial statement:
As a Government, we continue to make progress towards the net zero goal set out in legislation in 2019, including by improving the energy efficiency of homes and moving to cleaner technologies and sources of power within the homes and building sector.
There has been a long-standing debate within planning about both the best method and body to set energy efficiency and environmental standards. For a number of years, the plans of some local authorities have sought to go further than national standards in terms of such efficiency for new-build properties. Equally, there is a legitimate consideration for the Government to want to strike the best balance between making progress on improving the efficiency and performance of homes while still wanting to ensure housing is built in sufficient numbers to support those who wish to own or rent their own home.
In 2015, in reference to an un-commenced provision in the Deregulation Act 2015 which amended the Planning and Energy Act 2008, a written ministerial statement—HC Deb, 25 March 2015, vol 584, cols 131-138WS—stated that until that amendment was commenced, local plan policies exceeding minimum energy efficiency standards should not go beyond level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Since then, the introduction of the 2021 Part L uplift to the Building Regulations set national minimum energy efficiency standards that are higher than those referenced in the 2015 WMS rendering it effectively moot. A further change to energy efficiency building regulations is planned for 2025 meaning that homes built to that standard will be net zero ready and should need no significant work to ensure that they have zero carbon emissions as the grid continues to decarbonise. Compared to varied local standards, these nationally applied standards provide much-needed clarity and consistency for businesses, large and small, to invest and prepare to build net-zero ready homes.
The improvement in standards already in force, alongside the ones which are due in 2025, demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring new properties have a much lower impact on the environment in the future. In this context, the Government do not expect plan-makers to set local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulations. The proliferation of multiple, local standards by local authority area can add further costs to building new homes by adding complexity and undermining economies of scale. Any planning policies that propose local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulation should be rejected at examination if they do not have a well-reasoned and robustly costed rationale that ensures:
That development remains viable, and the impact on housing supply and affordability is considered in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework;
The additional requirement is expressed as a percentage uplift of a dwelling’s target emissions rate, calculated using a specified version of the standard assessment procedure;
Where plan policies go beyond current or planned building regulations, those polices should be applied flexibly to decisions on planning applications and appeals where the applicant can demonstrate that meeting the higher standards is not technically feasible, in relation to the availability of appropriate local energy infrastructure—for example adequate existing and planned grid connections—and access to adequate supply chains;
To be sound, local plans must be consistent with national policy—enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework and other statements of national planning policy, including this one;
The Secretary of State will closely monitor the implementation of the policy set out in this WMS and has intervention powers provided by Parliament that may be used in respect to policies in plans or development management decisions, in line with the relevant criteria for such intervention powers;
The above supersedes the section of the 25 March 2015 WMS entitled “Housing standards: streamlining the system”, sub-paragraph “Plan making” in respect of energy efficiency requirements and standards only. Planning practice guidance will also be updated to reflect this statement.
[HCWS123]
Future Homes and Buildings Standards
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
This Government understand that we must act quickly to reduce the carbon emitted by new buildings while delivering the good quality homes that are needed by communities across the country. That is why we are today launching a technical consultation on the future homes and buildings standards.
Set to be introduced in 2025, the new standards will play an important role in delivering on our commitment to reach net zero by 2050. These standards build on the increase in energy efficiency standards for new homes and non-domestic buildings introduced in 2021. The proposed changes would deliver zero-carbon ready new homes and non-domestic buildings, meaning no further work would be necessary to ensure they have zero carbon emissions once the electricity grid has decarbonised. Furthermore, the proposed changes would ensure that new homes have lower bills than typical existing homes, making it cheaper for occupants to heat their homes. The Government are mindful of the additional burdens being placed on, and the viability of, development and welcome views on this as part of the consultation process. The consultation also seeks views on introducing higher energy efficiency standards for new homes created through conversions—material change of use—and asks whether overheating standards, introduced in 2021, should be amended.
Following analysis of consultation responses, we will legislate for the future homes and buildings standards by amending the Building Regulations in 2024.
The consultation will run until 6 March 2024 and the consultation documents can be found online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-future-homes-and-buildings-standards-2023-consultation.
[HCWS119]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Grand Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bell rings and resume after 10 minutes. I do not think that we are expecting any Divisions.
Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, on 12 May 2023, the Government launched a consultation on three areas that could benefit from reform and where we could remove unnecessary bureaucracy: record-keeping requirements under the Working Time Regulations; simplifying annual leave and holiday pay calculations in the Working Time Regulations; and consultation requirements under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—the TUPE regulations. The consultation sought views on proposals for these areas of retained EU employment law to ensure that they are tailored to the needs of the UK economy.
I turn first to the record-keeping requirements. The Working Time Regulations are derived from the EU working time directive and create various entitlements for workers, including minimum rest breaks and maximum working hours, as well as an entitlement to paid annual leave. While the regulations provide important protections to workers, they can also place disproportionate burdens on business in relation to recording working hours and other administrative requirements. That is why we consulted on removing the effects of a 2019 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which held that employers must have an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured. Our proposed regulations make it clear that employers will not be required to keep burdensome and disproportionate records of daily working hours of each worker. Instead, employers will need to keep adequate records to demonstrate compliance with their working time obligations—I stress that point. This clarification could help to save businesses around £1 billion a year, without changing workers’ rights.
I assure noble Lords that people will continue to be able to enforce their rights under these regulations. Workers can take a case to an employment tribunal where they feel they have not been permitted to exercise their rights under the Working Time Regulations, including the rights to annual leave and to daily and weekly rest. The Health and Safety Executive, other state enforcement bodies and local authorities can also directly enforce maximum working hours and record-keeping requirements. It is important that employers comply with the Working Time Regulations and that they are held to account if they do not.
I turn to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. Before a TUPE transfer, the current employer and the new employer need to consult the affected workforce’s existing representatives or arrange elections for employees to elect a new representative if they are not already in place before the transfer. We want to simplify the process for businesses where worker representatives are not already in place. Currently, micro-businesses have the flexibility to consult directly with workers rather than hold elections. The SI would extend that flexibility to small businesses, with fewer than 50 employees, undertaking a transfer of any size and to businesses of all sizes involved in transfers of fewer than 10 employees if there are no existing employee representatives in place. That means that they will not be required to undertake the time-consuming process of arranging elections for new employee representatives.
This reform will simplify the TUPE process, while ensuring that workers’ rights continue to be protected. It does not erode the role of trade unions in the work- place. We are only proposing changing the consultation process in instances where businesses do not have employee representatives to consult. Where employee representatives, including trade unions, are in place, employers will still be required to consult them. I make it clear that the reforms will not change the requirement for businesses to consult employees on transfers; they will only change the requirement to elect employee representatives if they are not in place. Clear guidelines remain in place for employers regarding what they must consult employees on. Employers who fail to properly consult their employees about TUPE transfers could be taken to an employment tribunal.
The regulations also introduce reforms to holiday entitlement and pay. We have defined irregular-hours and part-year workers in these regulations to ensure that they are clear to employers and workers to whom some of the reforms apply. How a worker is classified will depend on the precise nature of their contractual working arrangements. We encourage employers to ensure that working patterns are clear in their workers’ contracts. We recognise that there are a vast number of different working patterns. The definitions seek to take all of these into account, so that the regulations are relevant for modern working practices. We will keep them under review.
I turn now to the holiday accrual method for irregular-hours and part-year workers. The regulations respond to the 2022 Harpur Trust v Brazel Supreme Court judgment. This resulted in part-year workers being entitled to a larger holiday entitlement than part-time workers who work the same total number of hours across the year. To address this disparity, the regulations introduce a simplified method to calculate holiday entitlement for irregular-hours and part-year workers. This will be calculated as 12.07% of hours worked in a pay period, in the first year of employment and beyond. This accrual method was widely used before the Harpur Trust judgment and better reflects what workers actually work in a leave year. The introduction of this accrual method could save businesses up to £150 million over the long term.
The regulations also introduce a method to work out how much leave an irregular-hours or part-year worker has accrued when they take maternity leave, family-related leave or sick leave. Introducing a 52-week reference period will allow employers to look back and work out an average of hours worked across that period. Employers will need to include weeks not worked and not on maternity leave, family-related leave or sick leave so that leave is proportionate to the time actually worked. This will ensure that workers are not unfairly disadvantaged when on maternity leave, family-related leave or sick leave. For example, if an irregular-hours worker goes on maternity leave, her holiday entitlement is reflective of how much she worked in the 52 weeks prior to going on maternity leave.
We are also legislating to allow the introduction of rolled-up holiday pay for irregular-hours and part-year workers. Rolled-up holiday pay is where an employer includes an additional amount with every payslip to cover a worker’s holiday pay, as opposed to paying holiday pay when a worker takes annual leave. We consulted on introducing rolled-up holiday pay for all workers. However, taking into account stakeholder feedback, rolled-up holiday pay will be introduced as an additional method of calculating holiday pay for irregular-hours and part-year workers only. Employers do not have to use rolled-up holiday pay for these workers if it does not suit their business; they can continue to use the 52-week reference period to calculate holiday pay.
Employers that use rolled-up holiday pay will calculate it based on a worker’s total earnings in a pay period. This will avoid the complexity of applying the rolled-up holiday calculation to different rates of holiday pay. Despite the fact that it has been unlawful since the 2006 European Court of Justice case of Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services, rolled-up holiday pay is already used in a lot of sectors due to the simplicity that it offers to calculate holiday pay for irregular-hours workers. Allowing holiday pay to be paid as an enhancement to a worker’s pay at the time that the worker performed work instead of when they are on holiday will ensure that the worker’s holiday pay is as closely aligned as possible to the pay that they would have received. Rolled-up holiday pay also ensures that a worker receives the holiday pay that they are due even if they work for that business for only a short period of time. For example, an irregular-hours worker who works for a company over a period of three months will receive holiday pay as part of each payslip.
We note the concerns that allowing rolled-up holiday pay may disincentivise workers from taking leave. Compared with full-time workers, people who work irregular hours and part-year contracts are already likely to have periods when they are not working and, as a result, these concerns are less applicable. We also consider that existing safeguards are proportionate in addressing these concerns. For example, employers are already required to provide an opportunity for workers to take leave and we have heard through our stakeholder engagement that this is taking place. We also have safe- guards in relation to the 48-hour working week, where a worker cannot work more than 48 hours a week on average, unless they choose to opt out.
I turn now to the issue of retaining two rates of holiday pay and distinct pots of leave. We consulted on a further reform: the introduction of a single annual leave entitlement with a single rate of pay. We will not introduce this as part of the package. These regulations maintain the two distinct pots of annual leave and the two existing rates of holiday pay, so that workers will continue to receive four weeks at the normal rate of pay and 1.6 weeks at the basic rate of pay, totalling 5.6 weeks. Following a review of case law in this area and engagement with stakeholders, we are legislating to restate the case law in respect of the four weeks of leave. This is to ensure that workers continue to receive pay for those weeks at their normal pay rate, rather than having the whole pot paid at the basic rate, which for some workers can be a reduced amount. The intention is for workers to continue to enjoy the same rates of holiday pay from 1 January as they do now. We would like to assess the take-up of rolled up holiday pay and then consider more fundamental reforms to the rate of holiday pay. This will allow employers to continue with their current payroll systems, while providing clarity on what elements form part of normal remuneration.
I turn to restatements and revocations. In addition to these reforms, the statutory instrument revokes the European Cooperative Society (Involvement of Employees) Regulations 2006 and the Working Time (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. The main European co-operative society regulations were repealed in 2021 and the regulations on involvement of employees therefore no longer have any effect in practice. The Covid regulations referred to in the statutory instrument were introduced as temporary legislation intended to prevent workers from losing annual holiday entitlement if they were unable to take it due to the effects of Covid. Therefore, these regulations are clearly no longer needed.
The scope of the statutory instrument is limited to Great Britain, other than the revocation of the European Cooperative Society (Involvement of Employees) Regulations 2006, which extends to Northern Ireland. Employment law in Northern Ireland is a transferred matter.
In addition, the statutory instrument mitigates the risk that the removal of interpretive effects on employment law could lead to a reduction in workers’ rights by restating the following three principles: the right to carry over annual leave where an employee has been unable to take it due to being on maternity or other family-related leave or sick leave; the right to carry over annual leave where the employer has failed to inform the worker of their right to paid annual leave or enable them to take it; and the rate of pay for annual leave accrued under regulation 13 of the working time regulations.
Northern Ireland has its own employment legislation. Accordingly, any secondary legislation on this would be for the Northern Ireland Executive, or the Northern Ireland Civil Service in their absence, to decide, with support from the UK Government to legislate if needed.
Although interpretive effects will cease from the end of 2023, the Government’s position is that the UK will remain in compliance with our international obligations under Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. The REUL Act’s restatement powers are available until June 2026. Therefore, the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Civil Service will keep all decisions on restatements under continuous review in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
As mentioned, the Government’s approach to restatements seeks to mitigate the risk that the removal of interpretive effects on employment law could lead to a reduction in workers’ rights. We undertook an analysis of the employment law, including domestic and EU legislation and case law, to assess the full extent of the risk that certain principles would be lost. Our assessment concluded that the three principles we are restating carried a high level of risk of being lost because they are largely or wholly dependent on the special features of EU law that are removed by the 2023 Act with effect from 1 January 2024. Therefore, the instrument will restate the three principles before the end of 2023 to ensure these employment rights continue, notwithstanding the removal of the special features of EU law by the 2023 Act. We are confident that these changes comply with our international legal obligations, including those in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
In conclusion, under this Government we have seen employment reach near record highs. The number of payroll employees for September 2023 was 30.2 million, 370,000 higher than this time last year and 1.2 million higher than before the pandemic. Through Brexit we regained the ability to regulate autonomously, and we are using these new freedoms to ensure that our regulations are tailored to the needs of the United Kingdom economy. In addition to providing cost and administrative savings for businesses, these reforms aim to provide clarity on complex holiday pay legislation so that it is simpler for employers to follow and comply. Approximately 5.1 million workers will be affected by the holiday pay reforms. By simplifying the legislation, workers will receive the holiday entitlement and holiday pay that they are entitled to, and the restatements of the three principles mentioned above will retain existing rights. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, this draft statutory instrument is the tip of the iceberg which noble Lords on this side of the House warned would appear over the horizon during the debates on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Workers’ rights are on a collision course with it. We said that the Act would be used to remove workers’ rights. We moved amendments to try to protect those rights, but they were all rejected by the Government. For example, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said:
“I should say straightaway, as my noble friend Lord Callanan already has, that this Government have no intention of abandoning our strong record on workers’ rights, and nor are the delegated powers intended to undermine the UK’s high standards on workers’ rights.
Our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides for stronger protections for workers”.
She then gave some examples.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. It is a particular pleasure to be under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Stansgate. We are long-term colleagues; we worked together many years ago. As I said, it is a pleasure to see him in the chair.
My noble friend Lord Hendy has really said it all. I have very little to add, but I will say something specifically about the TUPE regulations to make it clear to the Minister and the Government in general that people do care, that these provisions are important and valid, and that they deliver real benefits to workers.
No doubt the Minister will tell us in his reply that the changes proposed are very limited, which raises the question of why the Government are bothering to make these changes. There is no evidence presented to us that in any way suggests that there was an upswell of demand to get rid of these provisions. It is as if the civil servants—the officials—were told, “We’ve got to show that we’re doing something with these new powers”. On this provision, the TUPE part—I make no comment on the other parts of the regulations—it is as if they were told, “Let’s work out what’s the smallest change we can possibly make to claim that Brexit is having some advantage”. What is that big advantage? Some people are not necessarily going to be consulted if they had been consulted previously.
The results of the consultation as presented to us were very much as one would expect. When asked, “Would you like to get rid of this requirement?”, some people said “Yes, we would”. Equally, there were a lot more people who said, “No, we still need these protections”. In truth, the consultation told us nothing that we did not already know.
I emphasise that the changes are limited, but I am still against them on the grounds of death by a thousand cuts. If you come back and chip away at workers’ rights time after time, sooner or later you find that there are serious depredations in the protection that we rightly provide for working people. Will the Minister repeat, for the purposes of this Committee, the reassuring remarks that were made in the Government’s response to the consultation? In particular, they said:
“The government agrees that the TUPE regulations provide important protections for employees, and they provide a strong legal framework for staff transfers”
and went on to say that
“workers’ rights will continue to be protected”.
Earlier in that response, talking specifically about the concerns many trade unions had expressed that this was an incremental move against their rights, the Government stated:
“In response to concerns about the TULRCA, the government would like to reassure respondents that the reforms we are proposing will not affect how”
the Act
“works. Employers will still be prohibited from undermining collective bargaining in breach of Section 145B”
of that Act. Will the Minister simply reassure this Committee that the Government stick by those commitments?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I will make two very brief interventions on this. There is not much left to say, following the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Davies of Brixton, but it is important just to note a couple of things.
First, from these Benches, we contest the assumption of the Government that implementing the 2019 judgment to the CJEU, known as the CCOO case, would be
“disproportionate, particularly while the economy is recovering from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the impacts of war in Ukraine”.
I can completely understand the concern about the effect of the pandemic. Having been health spokesperson during the first three years of it, I really understand why that is the case. But I struggle to understand exactly what the effect of the war in Ukraine is on record keeping by employers. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me some guidance on that, because I do not see a logic.
Secondly, the Government keep talking about using artificial intelligence to reduce bureaucracy. Many companies already use such systems. The hand-written timekeeping systems that I used in my youth are long gone. Even the spreadsheets of a decade ago are gone. One now fills in something that feeds straight back into a database that runs the organisation. It takes far more information than just the 15 minutes of work, or whatever it is, on a particular project, and it is then used to assess the progress of the company and the progress of individuals—whether some of that is right or not is another matter, but it is there. It seems to me that a Government who are arguing that we should be focusing on using AI are—by saying, “Actually, we’re assuming there is a massive burden”—not keeping up with what is happening in the workplace at the moment. So can the Minister explain this massive burden, in the light of the way that records are currently kept by most organisations?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations, and all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. It is a pleasure to see my noble friend Lord Stansgate and welcome him to the chair.
As we have heard, this instrument does three main things. It reduces requirements under the working time directive, simplifies annual leave and holiday pay calculation and streamlines the regulations that apply when a business transfers to a new owner. This results from the retained EU law Act removing the interpretive effects of EU law on the UK statute book.
As my noble friend Lord Hendy mentioned, during its passage through the House, many of us on these Benches made it absolutely clear that the Act should never be a vehicle for the removal of important existing rights of British citizens. The Government seek to assure us that these changes do not amount to that, and that they simply remove extra bureaucracy. However, in my relatively short time in this place, I have learned to be wary of such assurances. It is said that the devil definitely lies in the detail. However, accurate records leading to accountability surely should not be seen as an evil in itself.
First, I turn to the change to the working time regulations. This represents the greatest risk to workers’ protection. It means that businesses will not have to keep records of their workers’ daily working hours if they can demonstrate compliance without doing so. Will the Minister accept that removing the requirement for accurate record-keeping, tilting the balance of power away from workers to the employer, in fact removes workers’ rights, not unnecessary bureaucracy?
The Explanatory Memorandum says that the instrument will “remove the uncertainty”, without quite explaining what this actually means. The Government argue that the obligations were disproportionate and could damage relationships between employers and workers. Can the Minister expand on how removing clarity could damage this relationship and do anything but actually increase uncertainty? Can he also explain how businesses will demonstrate compliance without records and how a lack of compliance could be evidenced or enforced? Can he expand on the implied relationship between recording working hours and reducing economic activity, or is he prepared to accept that such a correlation does not in fact exist?
Secondly, the instrument provides a simplification of annual leave and holiday pay calculations. In all my years of owning and managing businesses and employing thousands of employees, I have never seen such a complicated system—so much for reducing unnecessary bureaucracy. Can the Minister guarantee that, as a result of this regulation, no workers will lose out on the annual leave and holiday pay to which they are currently entitled?
Finally, I turn to rights under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations —TUPE. My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton eloquently set out why this change is totally unnecessary. As TUPE transfers currently stand, employers must inform and consult with representatives from a trade union or, if there is none, other employee representatives. Employers can inform and consult directly with employees only if there are fewer than 10 employees in the organisation. This instrument will amend TUPE consultations so that they can take place directly with employees in the absence of existing representation, if either the company has fewer than 50 people or the transfer involves fewer than 10 employees. This clearly represents a reduction in the existing rights of workers in such organisations. Can the Minister confirm whether ACAS has been consulted on these changes? I look forward to his response.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
As always, I thank noble Lords for their valuable input in this crucial statutory instrument debate. I also join in the thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and welcome him to his position.
I will try to go through the various points raised, beginning with those of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy; by answering some of his questions, I will have a chance to answer others as well. The point about rolled-up holiday pay is important because, if you are an irregular-hours contractor and you work for an employer for a very short period of time, for example, it would be impractical for you to take a fraction of a day’s holiday paid in that way. It is much more reasonable, useful and suitable for the employee to have their holiday pay rolled up into the work they are doing.
This is important, and we consulted on whether we should bring it in for all employees in the UK. We decided that that was very much not the right thing to do, precisely for the reasons raised by the noble Lord: it is essential, in many respects—in order to have a good and functioning workforce—that holiday is taken at the right time and that people have the right level of rest, let alone in relation to the implications for health and safety. As a result, this only applies to part-year and irregular-hours workers. Whether the employees wish to receive their pay in that way is at the discretion of the employer, in consultation with them. From my point of view—I have been an employer—this strikes me as eminently reasonable. It does not necessarily change anything significant; it just clarifies the important point about how that can be rolled up. We also brought in important clarifications between part-year workers’ holiday entitlements and irregular hours workers’ holiday entitlements, which now bring them into line. Again, this is about fairness, which I know that the noble Lord is keen on.
On record-keeping, it is relevant to mention the court case that has been referred to: CCOO v Deutsche Bank—I will use the acronym “CCOO”, rather than try to pronounce the full name. It is important to note that we are not changing anything at all. I am not sure whether noble Lords realise that this was never implemented in the UK, so the point is that we will not implement it in the UK and it is currently not implemented. Tomorrow morning, or whenever the statutory instrument comes into effect, there will be no change in employment systems for any company—no one would see any difference—because we are not implementing this necessity to track every minute of every worker’s day. Instead, employers will have the rights that they have today, so if we are comfortable—which we are—with the obligations that employers have to confirm under the working time directive, we should be very comfortable with where we are.
We believe very firmly that bringing in this necessity would in many instances be unnecessary. This does not relate to making sure that irregular-hour workers, workers in part-time roles or those who work complex shifts, and so on, have worked the right amount of time. In most instances, this is for regular office-hours workers who work roughly nine to five; to have them clocking in and out, and having complex systems monitoring them, is entirely unnecessary. We do not do it now and do not see why we should do it. We think that the cost to industry in this country could be much as £1 billion in terms of new systems and familiarisation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned Ukraine. The consultation referred to the fact that in a cost of living crisis, and with other global headwinds and challenges, it would seem unnecessary and wrong to impose burdens on businesses that we are not already imposing on them. There is nothing to lose. It is important to be reassured that employers’ obligations have not been changed. There are no changes as a result of this instrument. It simply ensures that we do not have to conform to unnecessary and restrictive paperwork-oriented activities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also raised an important point about the use of AI and technology. I completely agree with her raising those points. I do not think it is in doubt that employers will want to use AI to ensure that they are conforming to their obligations and that their workforces are properly managed, but we should not forget that it is important that we respect small businesses in this country, which may not have the time or capital to invest in such systems. In most of these instances, we think it is unnecessary. I believe that, collectively, we are doing a sensible act in not implementing this judgment, by keeping things as they are and ensuring that workers are protected. Employers have obligations and we are allowing the system to function appropriately.
The third point covered by noble Lords was on TUPE. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has been described as the barrister champion of the trade union movement, and it is a title of which he should be proud, but this relates to organisations with fewer than 50 employees—currently, it relates to organisations with fewer than 10 employees—who do not have a representative force in place. While he is indeed the barrister champion of the trade union movement, it may surprise him to know that some companies do not have trade union movements or representative organisations in them. We find ourselves in a bizarre situation where small companies with few employees are obliged to have elections for representative organisations that do not exist. Even in the world of the noble Lord, that would seem bizarre, unnecessary and indeed unkind to small businesses. It does not at any point derogate the rights of employers when it comes to TUPE transfers where there are representative organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Leong—perhaps it was the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, or the noble Lord, Lord Davies—rightly raised whether this can be used as a way round, so that large companies transferring small units to other companies could do it piecemeal, say 10 employees at a time. I do not believe that that would be the case. The obligations of an employer under TUPE regulations—the liabilities accruing to them—have not changed in any material way whatever. Tribunals where they could be found at fault would clearly see through such a plan. I am sure noble Lords know that when you buy businesses that are relevant in terms of team transfers to other companies, it simply does not work in that way, so I do not believe there can be an abrogation of rights.
Let me give an example, which I am sure noble Lords will agree is common sense: if you are transferring a small unit of two people, I understand that you are currently obliged to have an election and a representative for two people who are not members of a union and do not have a representative organisation. That does not mean they cannot receive external advice; of course, we would always advise people to receive the advice they need. In this instance, we are clarifying the situation, simplifying it and making it completely reasonable. At no point are we rolling back on any of the workers’ rights that we hold so strongly in this country and which we are committed to, either through trade agreements with Europe or any agreements that we have undertaken.
Genuinely, I have looked very carefully at each aspect of this statutory instrument and think it is a welcome tidying-up of paperwork and bureaucracy, alleviating burdens on businesses while at the same time simplifying the rights of workers and ensuring that the economy can function effectively. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister would care to say something about the trade and co-operation agreement. If he does not want to, that is for him.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am always delighted to talk about the trade and co-operation agreement, as it is one of my favoured specialist areas, but I am not sure what the noble Lord wants me to refer to. If he is relating this back to the relationship with the CCOO v Deutsche Bank SAE case, the important point is that we have not brought this into effect as it stands, in any event, so I am not sure what the relevance there is. I cannot really see how his comments on the need to protect workers’ rights in terms of derogation of input production capabilities in relation to our European colleagues are relevant here. These are paperwork changes; they do not negatively change the rights of any workers in the UK.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2023.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 16 October 2023 under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The retained EU law Act brought about significant changes to the domestic body of law named retained EU law. First, it provided that EU interpretive effects would cease to apply to UK legislation at the end of 2023. Secondly, it provided the Government with powers to revoke, reform and amend retained EU law more easily. Finally, to reflect the loss of interpretive effects, it provided that “retained EU law” would be renamed “assimilated law” at the end of 2023. Therefore, the Government are bringing forward this instrument to ensure that references to “retained EU Law” in primary legislation are changed to “assimilated law”, and to make related consequential changes.
The SI will enact consequential amendments to 107 pieces of primary legislation in order to implement the renaming of retained EU law as assimilated law and to make related textual changes. These changes reflect what has already been agreed to by Parliament as part of the passage of the REUL Act. This SI simply implements consequential changes that both Houses have already agreed. For example, the SI states that, in Section 4B(3A) of the International Organisations Act 1968, “retained EU” should be substituted by “assimilated”. The changes are necessary to ensure that the statute book reflects the REUL Act and to provide legal clarity and accessibility to users of legislation.
The SI will make technical amendments to Acts of Parliament containing areas of devolved competence, including making changes to Northern Ireland primary legislation. I am pleased to confirm that the Welsh and Scottish Governments have provided consent, as has the Northern Ireland Civil Service in the absence of an Executive and Assembly. I thank officials for their close working and collaboration on this matter.
It is worth noting that this SI is a standard example of using a consequential power. These powers are common in many Acts. They simply allow the Government to make consequential amendments to legislation that both Houses of Parliament have already passed. The fact that we are debating such technical changes as this demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring proper scrutiny for all statutory instruments laid under the REUL Act.
Finally, although this SI does not enact reform or make any policy changes, the Government’s commitment to reform remains unchanged. Our priority is to bring forward reforms that will unlock innovation, reduce burdens for business and ensure that our regulations are the best fit for the UK. I am the Government’s lead on smarter regulation, so reforming our regulations is a personal priority for me. I look forward to sharing additional reform SIs with the House in coming months.
With all that in mind, the principles behind the changes we are proposing today have already been agreed by both Houses as part of the passage of the retained EU law Act. These changes are necessary to ensure that the statute book reflects the provisions enacted by that Act and to ensure that the terminology is consistent throughout primary legislation on our statute book. Nothing that this SI does will enact policy changes. I beg to move.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I confess I struggled to find the controversy in this statutory instrument. All it actually does is bring into effect the use of the phrase “assimilated law” instead of “retained EU law”. Paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“This instrument does not result in any change in policy effect, but rather provides clarity to users of legislation that the specific changes made by the REUL Act have taken effect—thereby helping to further modernise our statute book and improve its clarity and accessibility for businesses and consumers alike”.
It is basically a linguistic update. We on this side of the Committee very much welcome any bit of clarity and assistance that can be offered to business. From what we can see, it certainly is not a controversial statutory instrument. On that basis, we will support it.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, as I always do, for his wise words. I will say no more than that.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2023.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations amend the exemptions from the financial promotion regime for high net worth individuals and self-certified sophisticated investors. I note that this statutory instrument was raised as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I will address the SLSC’s comments in the course of my remarks.
The exemptions that the Grand Committee is considering are designed to help small and medium-sized businesses raise finance from high net worth individuals and sophisticated private investors, or “business angels”, without the cost of having to comply with the financial promotion regime. These exemptions allow businesses to make financial promotions related to unlisted companies without being authorised by the FCA or having to follow FCA rules on financial promotions.
The existence of these exemptions reflects the important role that private individuals play in enabling SMEs to raise finance. However, as financial promotions made under the exemptions are not subject to the stringent safeguards of the financial promotion regime, the scope of the exemptions must be designed carefully to reduce the risk of consumer detriment.
These exemptions were last substantively updated in 2005. Since then, there have been significant economic, social and technological changes to the context in which they operate. For example, we have seen the development of an online retail investment market, which has made it easier for individuals to invest in unlisted companies. There has also been significant price inflation over the past two decades. Together, this means that many more consumers will fall within the eligibility criteria to use the exemptions than in the past.
In addition, there are concerns about misuse of the exemptions. They includes the risk of businesses seeking to use the exemptions to market investments inappropriately to less sophisticated ordinary retail investors. This risk was recognised in a report by the Treasury Committee in the other place, and it led to a recommendation for the Government to re-evaluate the exemptions to
“determine their appropriateness and consider what changes need to be made to protect consumers”.
In light of this changing context and that committee’s recommendation, the Government reviewed the exemptions and consulted on a set of reforms. Having considered the feedback to the consultation, the Government are bringing forward a set of amendments to the exemptions to address the risks that have been identified.
I now turn briefly to the substance of the statutory instrument. These regulations raise the financial thresholds to be eligible for the high net worth individual exemption to require an income of at least £170,000 in the last financial year or net assets of at least £430,000 throughout the last financial year. For the purposes of this exemption, net assets do not include an individual’s primary residence or their pension.
The regulations also amend the criteria to be eligible for the self-certified sophisticated investor exemption. They do this in two ways. First, they remove the criterion of having made more than one investment in an unlisted company in the previous two years. Following the rise of online investing, it is much easier for individuals to invest in unlisted companies than it was in 2005 when this exemption was introduced. The Government are of the view that this criterion is no longer an indicator of investor sophistication and that it should be removed. Secondly, the regulations increase the company turnover required to satisfy the criterion related to being a company director from £1 million to £1.6 million. This will mean that directors of companies with at least £1.6 million of turnover will remain eligible for the self-certified sophisticated investor exemption.
These regulations also improve the statements that investors are required to sign when using the exemptions. This should ensure that investors have a better understanding of the protections they lose when receiving financial promotions under these exemptions. The regulations will make minor and consequential changes, including applying these changes to promotions of collective investment schemes that invest in unlisted companies.
Further, the instrument amends the separate exemptions to the regulatory gateway for financial promotions, ensuring that those exemptions apply as intended. This is a rather technical area of policy, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me for taking a moment to explain the effects of these changes. First, the instrument amends the exemption that applies to authorised persons approving financial promotions of unauthorised entities that are part of the same group. Secondly, it amends the exemption that applies to authorised persons approving financial promotions of their appointed representatives in relation to regulated activities for which the authorised person, as principal, has accepted responsibility. The effect of these changes is to allow onward communication of the promotion by any unauthorised person. This brings the scope of those exemptions into line with the approach for the exemption that applies to authorised persons approving financial promotions that they have prepared themselves. This correction intends to ensure that any unauthorised person will be able to communicate a financial promotion where that financial promotion has been approved by an authorised person within the scope of any of the exemptions to the gateway.
I turn to the comments made by the SLSC. In its third report of this Session, the committee highlighted this statutory instrument as an instrument of interest. It encouraged the Treasury to reassess the financial thresholds more regularly in future, and the committee is right to note that these thresholds have not been updated in quite some time. The Government will keep the financial thresholds under review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose into the future.
The changes being introduced through these regulations take account of inflation over the past two decades and amend other eligibility criteria to reduce the risk of capturing ordinary consumers. Overall, these regulations are designed to reduce the risk of consumer detriment while ensuring that SMEs can continue to raise capital as a result of financial promotions made under these exemptions. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, let me say at the outset that we support this statutory instrument and the two that are to follow—but we do have some questions and comments. I note that, last week, the Commons debated all three instruments together, as one group. Why have the Government chosen to take a different approach in this House by splitting the debate into two sections? What does this signify, if anything?
Dealing with the instrument before us, we believe that it contains relatively uncontroversial and appropriate updates to existing legislation, following on from the TSC’s recommendations as made in its report on the collapse of London Capital & Finance in June 2021, as the Minister noted. The committee said that the FPO
“would benefit from reform due to the increasing risks associated with the exemptions that allow customers to self-certify as high net worth or sophisticated”.
It continued:
“The Treasury should—as a matter of priority—re-evaluate the Financial Promotion Order exemptions to determine their appropriateness and consider what changes need to be made to protect consumers”.
That was two and a half years ago. Perhaps the Minister could explain why it has taken so long to address the TSC’s recommendation. It is obvious that the risks addressed by the TSC continue to increase, as even a cursory glance at the inviting investment ads on any Tube train will show.
Some questions arise directly out of the consultation carried out by the Treasury in preparation for the SI. Angel investors had some doubts about raising the high net worth thresholds. They noted that raising the thresholds
“could reduce the potential for broadening angel network participation, including among less represented groups such as women and ethnic minorities. They also raised concerns that lower angel investor participation in the future could reduce SME investment, particularly for younger start-ups”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us why these worries were discounted, particularly for the SMEs.
The consultation report also noted that
“many responses provided suggestions for improvements to the investor statements to ensure greater investor engagement. These included adding additional risk warnings and positive frictions, to encourage investors to engage meaningfully”.
These suggestions appear not to have been taken up by HMT. Can the Minister tell us why that is?
We also note that, in its third report, the SLSC encourages HMT to reassess the thresholds contained in this instrument on a more timely basis, as the Minister has mentioned. It is 18 years since the thresholds were last updated. Why cannot the Government agree to a regular—say, quinquennial—change to smooth out the boundary changes? In closing, I confirm again our support for the clearly necessary updates proposed by this SI.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, we agree with these regulations, but I will ask the Minister just one question, which follows on from the final question of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. As the Minister said in her opening remarks, the exemptions to the financial promotions regime were last substantively updated in 2005, nearly 20 years ago. Given current high inflation rates, and the fact that prices have already risen nearly 5% since the January 2023 data used to reset the thresholds in this instrument, these new figures could arguably be said to be already out of date. I note what the Minister said in her opening remarks, but can I push her to provide at least an approximate timeframe for when the thresholds are likely to be reviewed again?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked why we are doing this in two debates rather than one. I do not know, but I think it was probably decided by the business managers—whoever they may be. If one looks at the two SIs, they are substantially different and deal with different parts of the financial services market, so potentially that is why. Anyway, I for one am delighted to have the opportunity to get up twice and introduce two SIs, because I will be able to focus very much on the questions the noble Lord raised, and indeed the follow-up question from the noble Lord, Lord Livermore.
I only partially agree with the charge made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that the Government were too slow in addressing the TSC recommendation. The Government did take action: we launched a consultation in December 2021 and then took the time to consider the feedback we received. It is fair to say that we received a range of feedback, so we needed to think about the proposals and how we would take them forward. We reflected very carefully on that feedback. There was a balance to strike between better protection for consumers and being able to get much-needed capital into the SME sector. The noble Lord will know there is then that period during which nothing appears to be happening, but lots of lawyers are working very hard and drafting and preparing all the relevant legal and associated documents. So we are in a good place now and I am relatively content with the speed of progress.
The noble Lord asked whether the Government feel that there would be a reduction in investment in angel networks and SMEs. Again, we considered very carefully the various views shared by respondents on the financial thresholds to qualify for the high net worth individual exemption, because we recognise the importance of the angel investment community. We considered the responses and decided to increase the thresholds only in line with inflation, rather than bring forward a more substantial rise—which was advocated by some; obviously, others would not have wanted such a significant rise.
The exemptions will continue to facilitate angel investment in early-stage businesses and enable a broadening of angel network participation. This is the important point: where a person has been a member of a network of business angels for more than six months, they will still qualify for the self-certified sophisticated investor exemption. So there is a route through, provided that an investor joins the angel network, attends it and ensures that they fully understand what they are doing with their hard-earned cash.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, then talked about investor statements; he felt that we had not gone far enough. However, the regulations make significant changes to the investor statements. First, the format of the investor statement is being updated, including making changes to the conditions to be considered a high net worth or self-certified sophisticated investor more prominent, and making it clearer to investors that promotions made under these exemptions may not be accompanied by any protections. So there will be change in what the statements look like.
Secondly, the language in the statements is being simplified: we are removing references to other pieces of financial services legislation, as that is unhelpful. We need to make it more consumer-friendly, such that all the information is in one place in plain English. Lastly, the statements will require greater investor engagement. The updated statements will require a prospective investor to select which criterion they meet. So they cannot just sign it; they will have to say that they meet a certain, specific criterion to be either a high net worth or sophisticated investor.
There has been much discussion about the updating of the thresholds, and I accept that 18 years is probably too long. However, I will not commit the Treasury to a particular date in the future for when the thresholds should be looked at again, because that will depend on what happens to inflation. There will be periods of very low inflation, when one would not want to update the thresholds, because, on the flip side, there would be an awful lot of familiarisation from investors and investee companies to ensure that they are keeping track with the exemptions. There is a balance, but I accept that we should—and we will—keep these financial thresholds under review, such that there is not a significant disconnect in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, asked why we used January 2023 inflation data. This is not rocket science. When we did the consultation, there were people who wanted the thresholds to be higher and those who wanted them to be lower. To a certain extent, that is why we came up with an approximation of the past 18 years’ inflation. Whether we chose January or a slightly later date for inflation probably would not have made a significant difference. It was necessary to choose a moment in time to make the revised calculation and we chose January to provide that certainty. We will watch inflation and review the limits and thresholds again in due course.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these two instruments make updates to financial services regulation to ensure that it remains effective following the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which I will refer to as FSMA 2023.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Benchmarks and Capital Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 make two targeted changes to financial services retained EU law or REUL. FSMA 2023 repeals REUL in financial services, allowing the Government to deliver a smarter regulatory framework for the UK with regulation designed specifically for UK markets and consumers.
The repeal of each individual piece of REUL will be commenced once the Government and the regulators have made appropriate arrangements to replace it with UK rules or determined that no replacement is needed. Until financial services REUL has been fully replaced, FSMA 2023 ensures that it can be kept up to date through a power to modify REUL before its repeal takes effect.
The first change made by the instrument reintroduces a discount factor into the UK Capital Requirements Regulations. The discount factor reduces the amount of capital that small and medium-sized financial services firms are required to hold for certain derivatives activity.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised this SI as an instrument of interest, noting the timeline of the original removal of the discount factor from UK legislation and the Government’s policy on mirroring changes in EU law. The Government removed the discount factor in April 2021 through the Financial Services Act 2021. The EU also removed the discount factor from its version of the Capital Requirements Regulations at that stage before reintroducing it later that year. The Government do not have a policy of mirroring EU law and, through the smarter regulatory framework, will tailor regulation to the UK. After industry raised concerns with the Government about the removal of the discount factor, we acted swiftly to reinstate it through this instrument. This will provide certainty to firms and align regulation to best practice globally.
The instrument also amends Article 51(5) of the benchmarks regulation to extend the transitional period for the third-country benchmarks regime to the end of 2030. Thanks to the transitional period currently in effect, UK users of benchmarks have access to non-UK benchmarks. The third-country regime, once it takes effect, would require administrators of those benchmarks to pass through one of the three access routes—equivalence, recognition or endorsement—for UK users to rely on them. There is a variety of issues with the third-country regime as originally drafted in the EU. For example, some third-country benchmarks are provided on a non-commercial basis, and administrators may therefore lack the economic incentives to come through these access routes. If the transitional period were to end with the third-country regime in its current form, many administrators may be unable or unwilling to use this regime for continued UK market access. Losing access to these third-country benchmarks could undermine the UK’s position as the centre for global foreign exchange and derivatives markets and have further repercussions given the widespread use of third-country benchmarks by UK firms.
This instrument therefore extends the transitional period from the end of 2025 to the end of 2030. This extension will provide time to review the UK’s third-country benchmarks regime and implement any changes in time for industry to take the necessary steps to comply with the regime before it comes into force.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked about any risks posed by this extension. Although extending the transitional period entails some risk by allowing the continued use of lower-quality third-country benchmarks in the UK, those risks are outweighed by the risks that would arise from allowing the transitional period to end with the third-country regime in its current form. Risks arising from the use of third-country benchmarks during the transitional period can be mitigated through regulation in the home jurisdiction of those benchmarks and through international co-operation for jurisdictions where specific benchmarks regimes are not in place.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, we have no comment to make on the second statutory instrument in this group, except to say that we agree with what the Minister said during the debate in the Commons that for the entirely consequential changes brought about by this instrument “consequential” means “necessarily following on from” not “of consequence”.
We support this instrument, but we have a little more to say about the first. As a mathematician by education, I should start by saying how pleased I was to see e—Euler’s number, the base of natural logarithms —make an important appearance on page 2 of the instrument, albeit without any explanation at all for the reader of what it might mean. I think that may be rather odd.
The EM explains that the discount factor—a means of reducing the amount of capital that small and medium-sized firms hold for their trading and derivative activities—was removed in error from the capital requirements regulation, both here and in the EU. Reinstating it via this SI will help ensure that the UK remains competitive with other jurisdictions. We entirely support this remedial measure but note the SLSC’s comments about the matter. The Minister has already mentioned some of them.
The question really is: how is it that the mistake, and it was a mistake, was introduced into the UK after it had already been corrected in the EU? Does this not suggest incompetence or, at the very least, insufficient awareness of relevant activity in key trading partners? What steps has the Treasury taken to eliminate this kind of error?
We also support the extension of the transitional period for third-country benchmark regimes for five years to 31 December 2030. As the Minister said, if we were to lose access to these third-country benchmarks, it could weaken our position as a centre for global FE and derivatives. This SI gives us six years to sort out a new regime, as I believe the EU is also contemplating.
How, when and with what do we intend to replace these transitional arrangements? What steps are currently being taken to make sure that we do indeed replace them, or are we content to extend this supposedly transitional arrangement indefinitely? Are we engaged in discussion with our EU counterparts over the matter? The Treasury told the SLSC that the risks arising from the extension of the transition period were “small, manageable and temporary”. The Minister mentioned and addressed that issue, but I would be grateful if she could expand on exactly what the risks are, how they are manageable and why they are temporary. Having said all that, I close by saying that we support this SI.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, overall, we agree with these regulations. When the first of these two grouped SIs was debated in the House of Commons, my honourable friend Tulip Siddiq, the shadow Economic Secretary, posed two questions to the Minister. Unfortunately, he did not address either of them in his response, so I will ask them again today. Of course, the noble Baroness is welcome to write with an answer, if that is preferable.
The two questions are on changes to capital requirements. First, given that the Prudential Regulation Authority is proposing to remove the SME supporting factor when it confirms its final rule, are the Government not reintroducing a measure that the PRA plans subsequently to abolish? Secondly, if the PRA goes ahead with its plan, what reassurance can the Government provide that the UK’s SME lending market will not be left at a significant competitive disadvantage against its European counterparts due to the increased cost of capital?
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked about the reintroduction of a discount factor, which was mentioned by the Minister in her opening remarks. I note that the discount factor was previously “unintentionally” removed from the relevant regulation in both the UK and the EU. I also note that the discount factor was removed from UK law in January 2022, and that this was identified as an issue only 18 months later, in July 2023. However, apparently, the factor was reinstated by the EU into its own laws four months prior to it being unintentionally removed from UK law back in September 2021. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, observed, it is odd that a mistake was introduced in the UK after it had already been corrected in the EU. The Minister is clearly correct to note that the UK does not mirror changes to EU law post Brexit, but does she think that keeping up to date with developments in the EU, where parallel measures remain part of UK legislation, could help to ensure that avoidable errors such as this do not occur?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Once again, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I will write further on what the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said about the formula—it is not that complicated; I am an engineer by training, and it is not beyond the wit of man to understand this. But we might provide a little more explanation in due course.
I am not sure I can say much more about the timing of the removal and reintroduction of the discount factor. It is not a particularly widely used element within the system, and therefore the industry took a while to notice that the change had happened. Obviously, there are lessons to be learned in these circumstances, and we moved to reintroduce it as quickly as we could. Of course, the regulators are well aware of what happened. I am grateful to noble Lords that we are able to get it back on to the statute book today.
That brings me on to the various discussions we have with the EU, as close trading partners. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked what changes will be next. There will be potential changes to the third-country benchmarks regime, but that is in the context of much wider changes within the smarter regulatory framework, so the repeal of each piece of retained EU law will be commenced once appropriate arrangements are in place with the UK rules—or, as I said in my opening remarks, when the Treasury has determined that no replacement is needed. Alongside that, we are delivering our smarter regulatory framework in order to replace retained EU law as necessary.
It will be a carefully planned and phased approach. We believe that we have given ourselves sufficient breathing room by making the transitional period last until 2030. It may be that we need all that time, or it may not, but we want to make sure that it fits into the wider reform of the programme to ensure that we prioritise those things that we feel are needed first in order to benefit our very successful financial services sector. Of course, we continue to have enduring and sensible dialogue and co-operation with other jurisdictions, including the EU. For example, on 19 October, the Treasury hosted the first joint EU-UK financial regulatory forum, which welcomed participants from not only the European Commission but UK and EU regulators to discuss common issues. It is clear that the UK and the EU regulatory frameworks will change over time and ultimately remain the autonomous concern of the respective parties, but it is also important that we discuss changes for the benefit of sharing our understanding.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked about the risks from the benchmark extensions. It should be noted that systemically used benchmarks pose the greatest risk. These benchmarks are subject to UK benchmark regulation because they are administered in the UK. They might be subject to another jurisdiction’s benchmark regime or be created by a third country’s central bank. That also means that there are some benchmarks that do not fall into those categories—these are possibly the lesser-used ones. But it is the case that UK benchmark regulation places additional requirements on the users of benchmarks that continue to apply where they use third-country and domestic benchmarks. These requirements include, for example, robust fallback provisions in the contract should the benchmark become unavailable for whatever reason, or fail—so there are protections there. As I noted in my opening remarks, we recognise the risks and also the benefits that those benchmarks have in underpinning a very significant part of our financial services sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, asked about the questions raised by his colleague in the other place. I will write with more information. I have lines here on the Prudential Regulatory Authority, Basel III et cetera, but his question deserves a fuller answer about how we see this transitioning into that regime.
Motion agreed.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Benchmarks and Capital Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Benchmarks and Capital Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Motion agreed.
Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
That the Grand Committee do consider the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument was laid on 7 November 2023 and debated last Wednesday in the other place. Its purpose is to reproduce select interpretive effects of retained EU law in order to maintain equalities protections against discrimination. These protections are reproduced by making amendments to the Equality Act 2010. I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its consideration of and comments on the regulations.
It is important to make clear from the outset that the overwhelming majority of our equality law is contained in domestic legislation—the Equality Act 2010, approved and voted on by our own Parliament. The interpretive effects of retained EU law have a bearing on our equality framework in only a limited number of areas.
This instrument uses the powers of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 to ensure that necessary protections are put into our statutes. This will end the inherent uncertainty of relying on judicial interpretations of EU law and instead ensure that strong and clear equality law protections are set out in our domestic legislation. It applies across Great Britain.
The instrument safeguards and enshrines key rights and principles across a range of areas. First, it protects women’s rights: maintaining equal pay protections where employees’ terms and attributable to a single source, but not the same employer; protecting women from less favourable treatment at work because they are breastfeeding; protecting women from unfavourable treatment after they return from maternity leave, where that treatment is in connection with a pregnancy or a pregnancy-related illness occurring before their return; ensuring that women are protected against pregnancy and maternity discrimination, where they do not have a statutory right to maternity leave but have similar rights under alternative occupational schemes; and ensuring that women can continue to receive special treatment from their employer in relation to maternity—for example, ensuring that companies continue to offer enhanced maternity schemes.
I am sure that all of us in this place agree that women should not face discrimination for being pregnant or taking maternity leave. They should continue to receive equal pay for work of equal value and they should not receive less favourable treatment in the workplace because they are breastfeeding.
This instrument reproduces these principles in domestic law to ensure that women can continue to rely on these protections. It also maintains protections for disabled people in the workplace, so that they can participate in working life on an equal basis with other workers. It is of course important that disabled people have the same opportunities as everyone else to start, stay and succeed in work. This amendment will mean that disability protections continue to apply where someone’s impairment hinders their full and effective participation in working life on an equal basis with other workers.
Finally, the instrument maintains two protections that apply more broadly. The first maintains the status quo, whereby employers and their equivalent for other occupations may be acting unlawfully if they make a discriminatory public statement relating to their recruitment practices, including when there is not an active recruitment process under way. This ensures that groups that share certain protected characteristics are not unfairly deterred from applying for opportunities in an organisation.
The second maintains protections against indirect discrimination for those who may be caught up and disadvantaged by indirect discrimination against others, so that they are also protected where they suffer substantively the same disadvantage.
We intend that there will be no time gap and no break in protections between this law coming into effect and the removal of the special status and EU-derived features of retained EU law at the end of the year. By maintaining these important protections, we will ensure that our domestic equality framework has continuity. Importantly, these amendments do not add any regulatory burdens on business, as the legislation reproduces the status quo, meaning that the regulatory environment will not change.
I hope your Lordships will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, those of us who participated in the REUL Bill debates were aware that the Government would need to safeguard important protections derived from EU case law and ensure they were retained—and do so by the end of this month. Indeed, I spoke during the passage of that legislation about my concerns for women and equalities legislation.
We do not regard the SI as controversial. Rather, the protections being restated today underline why this process is so important. People cannot lose rights that are being reasserted in these regulations. As the Minister said, they are massively important to women, protecting them through and after pregnancy, against pay inequality and from discrimination, and are crucial in providing people who have disabilities with protection against discrimination. Of course these vital protections need to be retained, and I agree with the Minister that it is also important that we give people certainty in law by restating these principles.
However, my questions are about the fact that we are getting round to restating these protections only a matter of weeks before they could have disappeared. That is a little concerning. So I ask the Minister about the Government’s wider approach to identifying which bits of important case law they wish to retain and then pass, through regulations, on to our statute book. It worries me that we are doing this a week or so before this law would fall. I just hope that nothing else will be lost in this process. Can the Minister tell us what measures the Government are taking to ensure that important decisions are taken about the interpretive effects of retained EU law? Do the Government have an equivalent to the dashboard—everybody will remember the dashboard that was mentioned during the passage of the REUL legislation—which was introduced to identify statutory instruments for European Union judgments that have an impact on domestic law? “How’s that going?” is, I suppose, what I want to say.
I am not going to go into detail about the regulations, because they are very straightforward and do exactly what we hoped they would do. It is therefore important to note that putting them on to the statute book and ensuring stability about this does not mean that the battle for equality is over. For example, the earnings gap between disabled and non-disabled people has increased. It is over half a century since the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970, so I am sure the Minister will join me in agreeing that we still both have work to do in this area. This is providing us with the legislative infrastructure to do it, but we still have work to do.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, is it possible to ask a point of clarification of the Minister? I came in a bit late, so if it is not, I quite understand.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I apologise to my noble friend; she was late. Forgive me. Perhaps she could do it after the meeting, if possible.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords—or my Ladies— I am grateful to the noble Baroness for speaking in this debate. I would like to recognise her work on women and equalities over many years. Britain has a proud history of justice and fairness, with some of the world’s strongest and most comprehensive equalities legislation thanks to the Equality Act 2010. By setting out these EU-derived protections in domestic law, we will ensure that our equality framework provides clarity and continues to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of people in this country.
I understand very well the spirit of the noble Baroness’s questioning. She asked about the principles that underpin our approach in this area. I seek to reassure her, and the Committee, that the Government remain absolutely committed to upholding the highest standards in equalities and ensuring that the necessary protections are preserved after the end of this year. We are using the powers in the retained EU law Act to ensure that necessary protections are put in statute.
The Equality Hub has considered over a hundred judgments and undertaken legal analysis to ensure that Great Britain maintains that history of equality, and that the necessary protections are clearly set out in our domestic legislation. As the noble Baroness knows, the REUL Act’s restatement powers are available until June 2026; that will allow the Government to keep the position under review within this timeframe. We will publish a REUL progress report in January, in line with our statutory six-month reporting requirements. The REUL dashboard—I think the noble Baroness described it as the beloved dashboard—still exists and is available on GOV.UK. It most recently had a minor update in November, but there will be the regular update in January.
I am also happy to agree with the noble Baroness that the battle for equality is far from over. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this order is to implement the devolution deal agreed between the Government and the councils of York and North Yorkshire on 1 August 2022. Since then we have been working closely with those councils on implementation, and on 3 November 2023 they consented to the making of this order.
This order, if approved, will establish the new York and North Yorkshire combined authority and the office of mayor for the area, with the first election to take place on 2 May 2024. The elected mayor will then take up office on 7 May, with a four-year term ending after the next mayoral election in May 2028. Thereafter, there will be elections every fourth year, to be held on the ordinary election day for that year—that is, on the first Thursday in May. Following the enactment of the Elections Act 2022, these mayoral elections will be on a first past the post basis.
The mayor will be chair of the York and North Yorkshire combined authority, which comprises as constituent councils the city of York and North Yorkshire. The combined authority will be established on the day after the order is made, subject to parliamentary approval, which is likely to be before the end of the year. Until the elected mayor takes office there will be an interim chair of the combined authority. The combined authority will appoint one of its members as the interim chair.
The order also transfers police, fire and crime commissioner functions for North Yorkshire to the combined authority, to be exercised by the mayor. Additionally, the mayor and the combined authority will be conferred a range of other significant powers agreed in the devolution deal. These include a concurrent power with Homes England, powers on regeneration and transport, and powers for establishing mayoral development corporations. Education and skills functions, along with the devolution of the adult education budget, will be conferred on the combined authority at a later date, as agreed with the area. This is with a view to the area being responsible for skills and adult education from the academic year 2025-26. This is subject to the area meeting the readiness conditions and parliamentary approval of the secondary legislation conferring these functions.
The order also contains detail on the governance arrangements of the new combined authority, to reflect these powers and the role of the mayor. Each constituent council will have two members on the combined authority, one of these members being appointed by the mayor as deputy mayor. The mayor will also appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime, who may be any person the mayor considers appropriate.
These governance arrangements include that the PFCC functions and certain other functions—including, for example, the power to designate a mayoral development area or to draw up local transport plans and strategies—are to be exercised by the mayor personally. The mayor may also delegate the exercise of these functions to another member or officer of the authority, with particular specified arrangements for the PFCC functions.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests as a councillor in the adjacent West Yorkshire area and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Devolving powers on local decisions to locally elected representatives has been an aim of the Liberal Democrats for a very long time. It is very important that there is strategic thinking and decision-making across regions and subregions. Perhaps the Minister will therefore expect wholehearted support from the Liberal Democrats for the proposals before us, but she will be only partially right. I will detail the reasons for that.
First, mayoral combined authorities have delegated powers rather than devolved functions. Functions such as transport, housing, regeneration and planning are currently exercised centrally and delegated to the mayoral authority with, as we heard, skills following later. This particular mayoral authority will be granted, from Westminster, the grand sum of £18 million a year, which is specifically referenced within the order, as is the offer from the Government, as part of this deal, of £540 million over the next 30 years, plus additional sums which the Minister referenced. There is no mention of whether these are fixed cash sums, as they appear, or whether they will be index linked. Over 30 years, that potential £540 million will buy a lot less than it will now and be a lot less attractive than it appears within the order. Maybe the Minister can comment on that and say whether it will be index linked.
I acknowledge that this order enables a greater degree of local input in, for example, determining major highways schemes. However, the act of creating a mayoral authority is not a game-changer for more locally determined decision-making, as would occur in comparable local areas across western Europe.
My second point is the loss of democracy. The proposal before us is for the election of a single person to represent the whole of the City of York Council and North Yorkshire Council. The elected mayor will chair the combined authority of the two councils. The Schedule to this SI confirms that two representatives from each of the constituent authorities are required, with a third person acting as a substitute member. No other existing mayoral combined authority that I can think of has so few constituent member councils. It will be interesting to see how effectively this arrangement works in practice. There will be five people making decisions for the combined authority, on these very important functions that have been referred to.
This is a bit of a leap in the dark because of the small number of councils and, therefore, the small number of members on them. My second question is will there be a review of these constitutional arrangements, say within three years, to evaluate its success or otherwise? I think that is important.
The extension of the mayoral model to very rural areas, when the model does not recognise the very significant differences with urban areas, makes this a bit of a leap in the dark. I do not know whether the Minister has been to North Yorkshire. I live next door to it, so I know North Yorkshire and it is a very rural area. It has a population of 615,000, in—importantly—an area of 3,340 square miles, of which 40% is designated as the national parks North York Moors and the Dales. It is huge. With the City of York Council, which deals with a population of 142,000, the mayoral authority will be responsible for just about three quarters of a million people in a vast rural area, from the coast of Whitby to the border with Lancashire, and from the border with Northumberland to the border with Leeds. It is huge. There will be a single person directly elected to take responsibility not just for the mayoral functions but, in this instance, for both the role of police and crime commissioner and fire and rescue, for this vast county and historic city.
Of course, this is too large a range of responsibilities for one person. The arrangements in this order therefore allow for the appointment of a deputy mayor, who will presumably be responsible for police and fire. The upshot of that arrangement is that there is no longer a directly elected commissioner for policing or an elected councillor taking responsibility for the fire and rescue service across this vast county and the city of York. The conclusion I reach is that the Conservative experiment of police and crime commissioners has failed; otherwise, there would still be a directly elected police and crime commissioner for North Yorkshire and the city of York. At the minute, they are going to be appointed. Can the Minister explain whether there is now a policy of gradually removing elected PCCs?
The order states the expected allowances for the mayor, which will be determined by an independent panel. The scale of remuneration packages for combined authority mayors is instructive. In West Yorkshire, the mayor receives £105,000 per year while the appointed—I emphasise that word—deputy mayor receives £72,000 for taking responsibility in West Yorkshire for policing, but with no direct accountability to the people whom they are there to serve. Do not say “scrutiny” to me because it is ineffective.
The order also allows for the employment of a political adviser. I would like some explanation of that. From what I know, those do not exist in other mayoral combined authorities within the orders, so that is an interesting addition here.
In conclusion, a strategic political and democratically elected role is important. However, we Liberal Democrats cannot condone this cynical approach to removing elected police and crime commissioners—they are elected with responsibility for the fire and rescue service—and replacing them with appointed political people where there is no direct accountability through the ballot box, which is the least that taxpayers can expect in a democracy.
Given all that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests as a serving councillor at both county and district level. I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
As a councillor for almost 27 years, a former leader of my council for 16 years, one of the instigators of the Hertfordshire Growth Board and a local enterprise board member since its inception, I am a great believer both in the transformational powers of local government and in far deeper and broader devolution. I see this, as does my party, as the quickest and most effective way of creating economic growth tailored to local circumstances, as well as of providing the levers of economic, social and environmental well-being where they can best be deployed flexibly, speedily and to the greatest benefit of the area concerned.
So, as a passionate advocate of devolution, it would be churlish of me not to welcome an agreement between York, North Yorkshire and the Government where all believe that it is in their interests. If I needed further convincing, it was pleasing to see that one of my local government colleagues—Councillor Mark Crane, the leader of Selby, who had always been deeply sceptical of such a deal for North Yorkshire—now welcomes the proposals; I am pleased to see that. I thank all the leaders and officials from that area who have done so much work to get this deal over the line. My comments concern the principles, with some specific questions about this deal, and are not intended to intervene in this two-year-long process between the councils in York and North Yorkshire, the people whom they represent and the Government.
We have seen highly effective outcomes from devolution in Greater Manchester—with which I worked extensively as part of the Co-operative Councils’ Innovation Network—and in West and South Yorkshire, but no one could argue that the progress of devolution has not been slower than a snail’s pace. It remains fragmented, patchy and piecemeal, with large areas of the country not subject to deals at all, even where they have worked carefully to draw together political, business and social partnerships, because they have clearly not passed the mysterious and indeterminate tests set by the Government. I cite Hertfordshire as an example here. I was very pleased to hear the Minister in the other place reiterate yesterday that a mayor is not the right solution for everybody, but it seems that, if your proposal does not include one, you are far less likely to shimmy under that government bar.
We would like to see a presumption in favour of handing back powers to our towns, cities and communities, with everywhere having the powers and flexibility to turbocharge the growth that works for their area and to attract investment, with the ability to negotiate longer-term finance settlements from government. That would give every area the ability to be ambitious for their residents and businesses and to deliver the real changes on the ground to deliver that ambition.
Too many areas are held back by our antiquated, struggling and definitely not fit for purpose local government funding system. It has been further weakened by years of cuts, use of outdated data that is out of touch with changes in local areas and, more recently, the further blow to finances caused by runaway inflation following the mini-Budget just over a year ago. To authorities in such straitened financial times, a devolution deal can bring some much-needed financial relief, so it is perhaps not surprising that local leaders are tempted. However, we need to see this in context. The York and North Yorkshire deal, for example, apparently equates to £20 per resident of the region per year over the term of the 30-year deal—incidentally, that is more than West Yorkshire but less than Liverpool, the Tees Valley and South Yorkshire, so I hope that local government colleagues working on deals are tough negotiators.
However, IPPR North tells us that the north of England has seen a £413 reduction per person in average annual council spending in each year between 2009-10 and 2019-20, so the deal does not come close to the losses that communities in the north have experienced due to austerity. Does the Minister see this as such a marvellous deal in that context? Is it envisaged that further money might be on the table as plans for the area develop? That was a bit ambiguous in the SI, so I am interested to know whether it is the case.
On the consultation process, I can see from the papers that extensive efforts were undertaken—which the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, went through—to elicit responses from the public on these areas, but does the Minister consider that just over 2,000 responses from a population of almost 1 million people represents a clear mandate? What work have the Government done with the Local Government Association on how we might improve these consultation processes in future? I appreciate that the structure of local government can be confusing, particularly in areas with two or three tiers of local government, but introducing changes of such magnitude on the basis of a mandate of just over 50% of such a tiny percentage of the local population surely suggests that we need more innovation in the consultation processes.
On general questions of governance, the Minister will be aware that we tried very hard to ensure that every place in the area would be represented on the combined authority during the levelling-up Bill, but that was not the outcome. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I remain concerned about so many powers being vested in one person. It has been the practice in mayoral authorities for mayors to appoint deputy mayors and for them not to be elected. This also applies to police commissioners. These are very important roles, so does appointment rather than election impact on accountability? This is especially the case if the mayor cannot fulfil their role, as it is then delegated to an unelected deputy mayor. Why do the Government consider appointment the best model here and, to go back to my earlier point, why do appointed deputy mayors enjoy a role on combined authorities which is denied to locally elected council leaders?
Have the Government given any thought, for example, to local public accounts committees to mirror their function in the other place? This would widen the scope of the police and crime commissioners, which, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, have not proved terribly effective, and would provide joined-up accountability for the mayor.
We note that for this deal the adult education budget transfer is to come later than the introduction of the combined authority in May 2024. I appreciate that this has been agreed with the partners in this devolution deal, but with skills and training so essential to economic growth, why are they not an early priority for all devolution deals?
I have carefully read Part 5 of the order, which means the authority may introduce bus franchising if it chooses to do so. How would the Government, including the Department for Transport, support the combined authority if it chooses to exercise this power? Do the Government envisage any issues arising from the different transport roles of the mayor, the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority and the constituent authorities in relation to local transport plans, bus partnerships and highways and traffic authority functions?
In July, the BBC reported that £1 million would be given to support the set up of the new combined authority in addition to £582,000 already spent. Can the Minister update the Committee on funding the direct cost of the combined authority after the inaugural mayoral election? That is not the money allocated for spend for the authority, but its direct set up cost.
In conclusion, we strongly support the principle of devolution to local areas and congratulate all local areas that have navigated the current complex system to get their deals over the line. We will certainly not be opposing a deal negotiated at local level, however we urge that the Government consider how they will accelerate the devolution process and how some of the questions that have come up under this deal and others are to be answered in future.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their contributions. I will seek to address as many of their points as possible. First, it is worth recognising the in principle support for this deal and the process overall.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, we recognise the work that has gone on among local councils, representatives and others in making this happen. To pick up the point about consultation, it is important to place that consultation in the context of the involvement of a great many people within the York and North Yorkshire area who are representatives of their communities and constituents. Given the diversity of the areas covered, the broad support for it among councils, MPs and others involved means the reach for how we have gone about agreeing the devolution deal process is not represented just by the consultation. However, I think we should always look at how we can better engage local areas and people as we go through this process of devolution, so we would always open-minded about how we can improve on that process.
I will address the other, broader point around the process of devolution about how far this deal goes in terms of delegation versus devolution and how much of the country benefits from either and should in future. We are absolutely committed to having every area that wants it benefitting from more devolved government. Since we set out our ambitions for this in the levelling up White Paper, we have moved at a faster pace than we would expect. I think that more than half of England’s population will be covered by a devolution deal.
We are also keen to reflect that devolution deals can work for rural areas as well as urban areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is right that this deal is in some ways a trailblazer for that. However, I do not think that that is a reason not to go ahead. If we want devolution to be available to every area of the country, we need to find the geographies and structures that work that mean that it can be extended.
The Government are going further: we have the two trailblazer areas of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands Combined Authority as regards moving towards that next stage, where you will get closer to a single settlement for the combined authority with much greater flexibility. Those are intended to be trailblazers for other areas that wish to go further in this process—so I think we agree on the direction of travel as regards those aspects of it as well.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt, but government Ministers continually say that above-inflation grants have been provided to local authorities in the last year or so. However, for those local authorities that have social care responsibilities, the social care precept is an additional burden on council tax payers. It is not exactly the case that more money has been provided; it has, but the Minister should give the addendum that part of it is provided by an additional burden on council tax payers. In my local authority, it costs council tax payers £200 extra a year to provide for the social care precept.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely acknowledge the point made by the noble Baroness. I think I referred to an increase in core spending power, and my understanding of that metric is that it reflects the government grant, the council tax and the additional social care precept. I did not refer only to the government grant. I am sure she will be well aware that additional grant funding has also gone into social care over the last two years to reflect additional pressures in that sector.
I was simply making the point that, since 2019, I believe, above-inflation increases to the core spending power of councils have been made available. The terms of the devolution deal and the money attached to it are as set out. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked about further funding. I will not speculate on that, but I point out to all noble Lords that the Government have made significant amounts of funding available for levelling up through the levelling up fund, the towns fund and the future high streets fund. We are working to simplify that funding landscape, but there is an ongoing commitment from this Government to make funding available for local economic development and regeneration. We have seen that in the significant amounts made available in recent years and the ongoing commitment from the Government in that area.
I am conscious that I have not addressed a couple of the questions, in particular on transport, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked. If both noble Baronesses will forgive me, I will write to them with further details.
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from yesterday, of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Financial Stability: Private Equity Firms
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of risks to financial stability from private equity firms experiencing difficulty in the current high interest rate environment.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee is responsible for identifying and addressing risks to the stability of the UK’s financial system. The committee’s most recent judgment is that the system of market-based finance, which includes private equity, has so far been able to absorb recent changes in macroeconomic conditions.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer; I think the key words in it may have been “so far”. If multiple private equity companies experience financial stress simultaneously, it could have systemic implications. This is especially true if those companies operate in interconnected industries, leading to a potential domino effect of financial distress that could spread to the broader economy. The UK is the second largest private equity market in the world, with nearly £80 billion of private equity going in in the last five years. Are the Government really assessing the situation and considering whether there need to be restrictions on the role of private equity in our economy and society, given how many companies have been taken over by private equity and subsequently closed down?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am afraid I do not recognise the picture the noble Baroness paints, nor do I agree that private equity needs to be closed down. The Bank of England monitors the situation across the entire market-based financial system. The noble Baroness may be interested to know that the Bank of England is conducting a system-wide exploratory scenario, which will be a world first and will look at all the elements of the financial system and stress-test them in quite severe circumstances to ensure that there is no contagion. The noble Baroness is not right to say that there is a massive risk of contagion. The private equity sector is a very small part of our financial system.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I agree with my noble friend’s comments in respect of the private equity industry. I am sure she is aware that the private equity industry raised £70 billion last year but has £145 billion in dry-powder capacity in case of financial instability. Is not the real possible instability for companies in the UK the threatened changes to employment laws, which currently allow firms to respond to market conditions? I refer your Lordships to my registered interests.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. We need the right flexible employment laws to ensure that private equity can continue to steward companies that employ millions of people. Indeed, the British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association estimates that private equity-related companies employ 2.2 million workers.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the Minister should take the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, very seriously. A very large part of the private equity market is heavily overleveraged, although that is often disguised through complex financial engineering; it is not just Thames Water. At the same time, there are serious questions about the condition of the public debt market, with gilt rates so dependent on volatile foreign buyers for their gilt sales. Has the Treasury looked again at the stress tests being used by the Bank of England to see if they encompass potential issues in these two markets? There is a real risk that not just one but both could have serious problems at the same time, with systemic consequences.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that the Treasury works with the Bank of England and other regulators to monitor the system.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, private equity is part of the £131 trillion shadow banking system, which is largely unregulated even though it is much bigger than the regulated retail banking sector. Recently, IOSCO has said that the high leverage of private equity poses a threat to the world economy, so it is hard to see why the Minister is dismissing that. I ask the Minister to do two things: first, apply the banking prudential regulations to private equity; and secondly, end tax relief on corporate interest payments and thereby reduce private equity’s capacity to increase leverage and cause the next financial crash, which will inevitably be caused by private equity.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, there are £250 billion of private equity assets under management in the UK, versus £10.3 trillion of total assets under management. It is a smaller part of the financial system. The noble Lord is not right to say that it is unregulated: UK private equity managers are regulated under the alternative investment fund managers regime. They must also comply with the senior managers and certification regime.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is hardly surprising that private equity is struggling to do deals and sell its portfolio companies in a climate of high interest rates and low growth. In fact, it is zero growth, as October’s dismal GDP figures show that we have seen no growth at all in the last quarter. In view of capital’s recent flight to quality, does the Minister agree that our lack of an economic growth strategy is the biggest drag on private equity in this country?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not agree with the noble Lord. As he will have seen in the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor set out significant tax cuts to encourage growth. That is where we are focusing our firepower at the moment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the original Question about high interest rates, at the last general election the Green Party was committed to borrowing an extra £95 billion to pay for its commitments. What would this have done to interest rates?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I would not wish to speculate; however, I am not sure it would have been good things.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
If private equity is so keen on employing people in this country, how come it is not so keen on paying the pensions? The private equity owners of Boots have just got rid of the pension responsibilities.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord mentions a situation I am not aware of, but I will say that all owners of UK companies must abide by the Companies Act and their obligations therein.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend been following the speeches and articles written by the noble Lord, Lord King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, in which he suggests that it is so important for the Bank to concentrate on inflation and the price mechanism that it does not make sense to add to those responsibilities a green agenda, which will distract it and draw it into political activity?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I have not been following those interventions from the former governor, the noble Lord, Lord King, but I shall certainly look at them.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, the Bank of England has recently warned of the risks to financial stability posed by artificial intelligence and machine learning, with the bank’s Financial Policy Committee identifying the potential for system-wide risk, herding behaviour and increased cyber risk. Does the Minister believe that regulators have sufficient powers, and that existing powers are sufficiently future-proofed, to deal with emerging risks to financial stability from rapid technological advances, including but not limited to AI?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I accept that the AI regulatory system is still in development, but that is not unique to the United Kingdom. The AI summit convened by the Prime Minister made good steps in the right direction.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Can we send our deepest sympathies to Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg on the demise of Somerset Capital Management, and hope that this will now enable him to spend more time looking after his constituency?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not aware that there was a question there—but if the noble Lord wants to send his sympathies, I am sure they will have been heard.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Given the recent problems with the Truss Budget, was the Bank of England informed of the Budget before it was announced—and if not, why not?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am afraid that the noble Lord speaks about things I have no knowledge of.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I declare an interest in that I am involved in the private equity industry. If we in the industry do not calculate the risks properly, build into our modelling the necessary degree of leverage and allow for it, is it not right that we should be allowed to fail? We should not just be kept alive when we have shown incompetence.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I completely agree with my noble friend. Private equity is all about risk and returns, and not all firms will succeed in perpetuity. That is the way of a capitalist market, and it allows the correct allocation of capital within the system.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Young, pays such attention to the Green Party manifesto; it is pleasing to see. On the reference to so-called green environmental investments, does the Minister agree with me that it is essential for the future of the British economy, in meeting the needs of British society, that we invest in renewable energy and warm, comfortable, affordable-to-heat homes in order to effect the transformation we need for a healthy society?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Actually, I would flip that around the other way. I had a long conversation with the head of ESG at the FCA about this, and it is the public and investors in pension schemes who want to see investments in higher rated ESG organisations. That is the key driver: it is ensuring that the capital goes to the places the investors want to invest it in.
Loot Boxes in Video Games
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what measures they are planning to take to mitigate the risks caused by loot boxes in video games.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
We welcome new industry-led guidance to strengthen player protections in relation to loot boxes. We have agreed a 12-month implementation period, during which we expect the industry to work with players, parents, academics, consumer groups and government bodies to implement this guidance in full. We are working closely with academics to support independent scrutiny of these new measures, and we will provide further updates and keep under review our position on possible future legislative options.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. There is a very long list of those calling for tougher action on loot boxes, which computer games players purchase to have a random chance of getting items to help them win—each an expensive gamble. The Government’s own research review showed a
“consistent association between loot box use and problem gambling”,
yet they still leave parents and the games industry itself to deal with these problems. The Select Committees in both Houses and many other people believe that loot boxes should be treated and regulated as gambling. Can the Minister explain why the Government rightly regulate the gambling industry but do not regulate loot boxes, which cause similar harms to individuals and society?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Research has provided evidence that loot box purchases may be linked to a variety of harms. In particular, there is robust evidence of an association with problem gambling, as the noble Lord mentions, but research has not established whether a causal relationship exists. There are a range of plausible explanations. We have developed and published the video games research framework to support high-quality, independent research into video games, including into loot boxes. If new evidence becomes available, we will consider it.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I heap praise on the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who has been a great supporter of the video games industry, although I do not agree with him on loot boxes. I am sure that he and the Minister will have seen the recent report from the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment, the trade body for video games, showing how this industry, which is bigger than film, television and music put together, has huge benefits for our wider economy, including the automotive and health sectors. Does the Minister agree with me that it is important not to overregulate such a successful industry? I refer to my entry in the register.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right to point to the huge success of the UK consumer games market. It is currently valued at more than £7 billion, which is more than double its size in 2013—during my noble friend’s heyday as the Minister responsible for it. The industry employs 27,000 people across the country, with nearly 80% of those people based outside London; there are video games clusters in Dundee, Sheffield, Manchester, Guildford and Royal Leamington Spa. The growth has of course been accelerated by generous tax reliefs, including those on which my noble friend worked in government. We are very proud of the impact that it has on our wider creative industries.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his careful Answer to this Question. Is it not a fact that this research has been done at Loughborough University with, I think, only 42 families participating, with children from five to 17? We know from other studies on computer games in general that long-term harm is not clearly established with most of these games. It may of course be different with loot boxes, but I rather think that it is important to continue research before one comes to legislation.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. As I said in both my original and subsequent replies to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, we are working closely with academics to support independent scrutiny of the industry-led measures that are being taken, and we want to see how those work and bed in. We have developed and published a research framework so that there can be independent and rigorous analysis to give us the evidence that we need to inform policy-making.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, players who buy loot boxes, including young people, are often victims of well-known psychological techniques to nudge them towards purchasing ever-greater features in the loot boxes. These include special, time-limited offers, price anchoring and the obfuscation of costs. Is the Minister satisfied that self-regulation will stop these behaviours in the loot box market?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Viscount will know, we have taken action more widely to ensure that people at risk of gambling harm, including children and vulnerable people, are protected. We want to ensure that people are able to play video games safely online and to enjoy them, but also to be protected against any harms that may occur. That is why we are keen to see the industry-led guidelines being implemented and why we will monitor their impact closely.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, has any action been taken to prevent the gambling industry targeting compulsive gamblers who are trying very hard to stop?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, we have taken action including strengthening the land-based age-verification regime; we have taken steps to target online adverts away from children; and, of course, we have increased the minimum age to participate in society lotteries and football pools to 18. The Committee of Advertising Practice also updated advertising rules last year, so that gambling adverts cannot be designed in a way that has a strong appeal to children.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred to research at Loughborough University that focused on a sample of children from five to 17. Is my noble friend aware of research on older age groups? We know that people continue to play games well into their 40s, 50s and 60s, and that will have an impact on potential addiction not only to games but to loot boxes.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am not, but I shall take my noble friend’s very good question back to the gambling team at the department and encourage it to make sure that we are pursuing research that will add to our understanding of the implications for all age groups.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, whether it is the two-year gap between the Government’s call for evidence and their response, or the further year-long wait for the games industry to announce guidelines, efforts to tackle child access to loot boxes and other in-game features with gambling-like features have been far too slow, in our view. Like others, we hope that voluntary arrangements will work, but if they do not, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have a specific regulatory approach in mind? If so, how long might implementation take?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We think the industry-led guidance on loot boxes has the potential, if fully implemented, to improve protections and to meet the Government’s objectives. We expect the games industry to implement the guidance in full and we will monitor that carefully. If the industry is unable to meet our objectives, there are a range of options that the Government may consider, but we would like to see how they bed in first.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister give us a little opinion? If he had to buy something else via a lucky dip, such as shirts or socks—it may happen at Christmas, we may think—would he be happy? The fact of the matter is that we are actually saying, “You are not buying what you think you are buying; you may have to go back again and again to get that product”. Even without the gambling element here, or the gambling similarity, that cannot be right.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Under the terms of the Gambling Act, gambling is defined as
“playing a game of chance for a prize”
of money or something of money’s worth. The prizes that can be won via most loot boxes do not have a monetary value; they cannot be cashed out and they are of value only within the context of the games. They do not meet the definition, and I do not think they quite meet the analogy that the noble Lord made.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, is the issue of loot boxes not just part of the wider issue of in-app purchases in games? Does the Minister agree that we need more transparency on the whole idea of games and how they are funded?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, we are committed to ensuring that video games can be enjoyed safely and responsibly by everyone. To support that, we are working closely with the Games Rating Authority, which ensures that all games are appropriately rated. That includes information for those who buy them on what they can expect from their purchases. We have also, as I say, developed and published the video games research framework to support high-quality, independent research into games, and that is an important tool to augment our understanding of the impact of playing video games.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, sadly I do not have any relevant interests to declare in the way that my noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot has. He is right about the importance of the video game industry but, as a parent of three children, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has raised this issue, because my son, at not much more than 10 years of age, suddenly spent several hundred pounds on a video game precisely because of this sort of entrapment. We need to keep a weather-eye on this. I encourage the Government to realise that when your child plays a video game, you expect them to play a video game, and when they gamble, you expect them to gamble. At the moment, the lines are too blurred.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I point my noble friend to the response the Government issued to the extensive call for evidence on loot boxes. We were very clear that loot boxes should not be purchased by children unless enabled by a parent or guardian; that all players should have access to spending controls and transparent information about what to expect; and that better evidence and research should be developed to inform future policy-making. We are taking all those steps forward as we look to see the industry implementing the guidance over the next 12 months.
Refugees: Homelessness
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps, if any, they will take to mitigate the prevalence of homelessness among refugees, and its impact on local authorities, over the Christmas period.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, in line with the practice every year, individuals who have received a decision on their asylum claim will not be moved out of asylum accommodation over the Christmas period. For this year, the dates are 23 December to 2 January inclusive.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. My concern was with recent Home Office data showing that around 90,000 outstanding decisions on older cases are forecast to be made before the end of December. Quite clearly, that would have a significant impact on certain councils, so will he please inform me, either now or in writing, what has happened in respect of that cohort? Does he agree that, with the demand for temporary accommodation at an all-time high, any increases are likely to overload the system and increase street homelessness? Will the Government consider increasing the notice time given to people in hotels from 28 days to 56 days, as in the Homelessness Reduction Act? Will there be a cessation over the Christmas period and in the colder weather so that plans can be put in place with the councils that are most impacted by this? Asylum distribution among councils is not equal; some councils are severely impacted.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness has asked me a number of questions. The Prime Minister committed in December 2022 to clear the historical asylum backlog by the end of this year. Those are the legacy cases, and provisional data to the end of November 2023 suggest that 80% of them have already been dealt with. It is nowhere near the figure that the noble Baroness suggested. I will write. I am reluctant to give provisional figures for obvious reasons—they still need to be verified.
On extending the 28-day move-on period, the asylum accommodation estate is under huge strain, as the House is well aware, so increasing the move-on period would exacerbate those pressures. There are currently no plans to extend the prescribed period of 28 days for how long individuals remain on asylum support once they have received the grant of asylum. We are engaging with the Department for Work and Pensions and DLUHC on ensuring individuals can move on from asylum support as smoothly as possible.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, what are the Government doing about the increasing antagonism between UK people who are homeless and people who are refugees? We need to address this, because we do not want the outbreak of racism and all those other chauvinisms that are happening down at the bottom end of society.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord; we absolutely do not want those. The Government work closely with police forces and other agencies to ensure that sort of thing does not happen.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister talked about a period over the Christmas holidays when refugees would not be thrown out on the streets. How many are going to be thrown out on the streets when that period is over?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, obviously, I cannot predict what that number will be, as those asylum cases are still being processed.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who will be hosting a Ukrainian family for consecutive Christmases in our family home with my wife, and they are very welcome. It does, however, raise a medium-term problem: like many Ukrainian families, they came here on a three-year visa, and after 20 months, they are understandably thinking about what comes next. Our Ukrainians are happily settled here, working and contributing to the economy, and, if I am honest, probably do not want to go home, like many. President Zelensky desperately wants them to go home and contribute to the reconstruction of Ukraine. What will the approach of the Government to them be as they come towards the end of their three-year visa?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I commend my noble friend for his generosity in hosting the Ukrainian family and I associate myself with the remarks on how they are needed back in Ukraine—they will be needed when the reconstruction efforts in that country commence. Regarding what the Government are planning for the Ukrainian visa system, I do not have that information to hand but will come back to the House as and when it is available.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, given what has already been said about the inadequate notice period, can the Minister give an assurance that no notice to vacate will be implemented when a severe weather emergency protocol has been announced?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I would take slight issue with the right reverend Prelate on whether the notice period is inadequate. I think that 28 days is more than enough, and there is huge pressure on our asylum system. As the House will be aware given that we talked about it the other day, the asylum and immigration system is costing this country £4 billion a year. However, ministerial agreement has been given to pause evictions for up to three days when a local authority has activated its severe weather emergency protocol due to poor weather conditions. This reduces the risks to life and enables the individual and/or local authority to find alternative accommodation arrangements.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the biometric residence permit gives successful asylum claimants access to public services, including, crucially, access to cash and funding for housing. What progress has the department made in bringing the notice to vacate closer to the time when it provides the permit? Bringing those closer together would give people the full time available to them to find appropriate housing because they would have the cash available. Without it, they cannot find the cash. I know the Government intended to make progress on this; what progress has been made in bringing those two dates together?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The move-on period is linked to when a biometric residence permit is issued and received because, as he points out, individuals generally require that BRP to access mainstream support—benefits, local authority housing, right to rent, bank accounts and so on. They are linked.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, during the Covid crisis, a lot of homes were made available for homeless people. Why have the Government let that slip and gone backwards rather than forwards?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Covid presented a very different set of challenges to those we face today. We are attempting to relieve the pressure on the enormously overburdened hotels, and all the rest of it, that are costing this country £8 million a day and £4 billion a year.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend’s question, the Minister is correct that the Government are trying to align the permit period but, once a permit is received, it takes at least another five weeks before universal credit and housing benefit applications can be dealt with. Will the Minister go back to the department and look at the broader picture to align the two timescales so that people are not made homeless because they cannot claim those benefits?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will take that up with DWP colleagues, as it sounds very much like it is for their department. I cannot answer the question.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in the spirit of Christmas, will the Minister reflect on his answer to the right reverend Prelate that 28 days is “more than enough” for a recognised refugee about to be evicted, whose knowledge of English may be minimal, who may have children and who might have suffered trauma back home?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Yes, I think so, because the refugee will have been processed under a legacy asylum case and will therefore have been in that accommodation for a very long time—over a year. They would have had ample time to learn English and embed themselves to some extent into British society. An extra month is perfectly generous.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, some of those in Home Office asylum care will be under 18. How confident is the Minister that none of those under-18s will ever be made homeless and that they will find their way into some form of social care provided by local authorities?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Obviously, there have been a number of recent examples where things have gone wrong, but I am as confident as I can be that they have now been fixed. As has been said many times from this Dispatch Box, we are working carefully and closely with the local authorities concerned.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, this morning, I had the privilege of attending a fundraising effort by voluntary organisations, which help so much, especially at this time of year, with refugee problems. What acknowledgement do we give those many voluntary organisations and all the people involved for all the effort they give at this time of year to make refugees feel at home and able to enjoy Christmas?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very good point. I am happy to add my congratulations, thanks and general appreciation to all those organisations involved in charitable activities of whatever sort at this time of year.
Limiting Global Temperature Increase
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether (1) the position of the OPEC states, and (2) the lobbying of fossil fuel companies, at the Dubai COP 28 have made it more difficult to achieve the goal of limiting global temperature increase by 2050 to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government do not comment on the positions of different groups and countries. The UK worked tirelessly with all parties to push for an ambitious outcome at COP 28 that keeps 1.5 degrees within reach, and we welcome the deal reached this morning, which is the first time that there has been a global agreement to transition away from fossil fuels. It maintains the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I join with the Minister in accepting that the current draft is a darn sight better than the dreadful draft presented two days ago, but it is still, sadly, deficient. In the run-up to the COP, we not only saw the petrostates and fossil-fuel companies trying to derail any reference to fossil fuels in the agreement; we also saw the IPCC and the scientists warning us that we were well off the Paris trajectory towards 1.5 degrees, to which we are all supposed to be signed up. Perhaps we also ought to acknowledge that any improvement due to the UK Government’s intervention was down to our own Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, with the actual leader of the British delegation being called back from saving the world to saving the Prime Minister. Is not this Government’s moral authority to persuade smaller, more vulnerable and poorer nations to adopt a net-zero policy sadly undermined by our continued licensing of oil and gas extraction in the North Sea and other retreats from our green policies? Can the Minister give us a date for abandoning those polices?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There was a whole series of questions in the noble Lord’s statement. This was an international agreement, involving almost 200 countries. Is it perfect? Is it everything we would have wanted? No, but it is certainly a great achievement by our extremely hard-working negotiating team. I do not agree with the noble Lord on the second part of his question about licensing and increased production in the North Sea. Even if they come on stream, the output in the North Sea will still continue to decline and we are still committed to phasing out oil and gas production.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Will my noble friend reflect that it is not just carte blanche? There will be situations where an oil company finds a new field, perhaps like the one 200 miles north of the Falklands, where the quality of the oil is far better than the oil that we produce in the North Sea, and it would make economic sense to substitute one for the other in the future. Then at some stage, that field will be reduced. It is not absolutely static, is it? We now want a situation where the industry decreases but at the same time improves the product.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend is right, in that different circumstances will apply to many countries, but we are very clear about the trajectory that we are on. We need to bear in mind that this is a transition. It cannot happen overnight, but we are clear on the direction in which we are travelling.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, do the Government now regret their decision to recall our Climate Change Minister 6,831 miles to London, putting party before planet? As a nation, we were not adequately represented at the crucial point in these negotiations. Is it not the truth of the matter that the Conservatives have prioritised their own local difficulties over crucial negotiations to tackle the climate emergency?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry, my Lords, but that really is a nonsensical question. Graham Stuart is a Member of Parliament and has duties to perform in Parliament. The negotiating team were in constant contact with him, all the time. He flew back out to COP last night. Our own Minister, my noble friend Lord Benyon, was there as well, occupying the UK chair, alongside the fantastic team of negotiators, who held the pen for many of the negotiations and secured some far-reaching commitments in line with UK’s policy objectives.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
Now that we have reached an agreement in Dubai, is the Minister sill completely confident that the UK will reach our target of a 68% reduction on NDC by the end of 2030? As has been mentioned often in this House, we have rolled back on some of our commitments, such as those on electric vehicles and various other things, and I cannot believe they will not have an impact on that target. Can I have the Minister’s reassurance that he will publish the Government’s evidence base that the things which have recently taken place, in terms of rollback, will not affect the crucial outcome?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can happily tell the noble Baroness that we remain committed to all our targets.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I assume the Minister will be aware of the large amount of lobbying taking place, not only at the COP but around the COP through social media. One oil company is estimated to have spent $1.8 million on TikTok videos alone, seen by millions of people across the world, and helping to spread climate disinformation. Does the Minister think the Government should be doing more through the Counter-Disinformation Unit to challenge climate disinformation, given the scale of what is happening and the risk to the world of the failure to curb emissions?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understand the point that the right reverend Prelate is making, but one person’s disinformation is another person’s free choice and free speech. There is always robust debate about all of these issues. There will be continue to be robust political debate about it, and I think that is right in a democratic society. We are very clear on the policy that we should be following and that we are committed to. We are committed to net zero; it is a legal obligation. The Government are committed to that trajectory.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the agreed wording of COP 28 in the small hours of this morning does not go far enough, given that scientific consensus is strongly in favour of a phase-out of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, this is what we have signed up to. Can the Minister say whether the Government will publish a plan to say how they will meet our commitment to
“Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just … and equitable manner, accelerating”
—and that is a key word—
“action in this critical decade”.
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are into semantics and wording, but a transition away with clear deadlines is, in our view, a phase-out in all but name. It is not the language that we would have preferred, but in a multilateral negotiation there has to be compromise. We are very clear on the trajectory we are following. We have published numerous plans about our transition. We are accelerating the rollout of renewables and reducing our use of oil and gas, and that will continue.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I too recognise today’s COP agreement as an important moment for the world. It is the first time there has been a global commitment to a transition away from fossil fuels. There will always be those vested interests pushing back, as there was at COP. The reality is that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees still requires much to change. Despite the Minister’s attempts to reassure us, it was disappointing that, when their leadership was most needed at COP, our Government put their party infighting first. To keep 1.5 degrees alive, they will need to do better and lead by example. Therefore, as a result of the statement released this morning, what plans do the Government have to show strong international leadership and to make sure that we bring in the changes of direction needed? Are there any plans for changes at this moment in time or not?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I repeat the answer I gave earlier: these statements demean the noble Baroness. The UK provided fantastic leadership. We have an official, Alison Campbell, who co-chaired a number of the panels. She was the penholder on a number of these negotiations. We succeeded in all of our aims. There was robust political leadership; Graham Stuart was there. For a lot of the time, our own Minister, my noble friend Lord Benyon, was there. There were many other Ministers who were also there. There was no gap in UK representation or in the agreements that we achieved.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, whatever about the lobbyists from the fossil fuel companies, do the Government have any assessment of the cost in terms of CO2 used to travel to Dubai, or in terms of public money paid to facilitate the tens of thousands of pro-net zero lobbyists, NGOs and consultants who attended COP 28? Can the Minister reflect on the impact for developing countries of not using fossil fuels when they are so essential for enabling their citizens to achieve the prosperity of western economies?
Lord Callanan (Con)
On this issue of lobbying, tens of thousands of people were at COP, representing a whole series of different shades of opinion. Of course, there were lobbyists from all sides, but that does not mean you have to agree with the position that they take. A wide range of views were represented; I said to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, when he asked me something similar last week, that you listen to the views, and there are lots of people having meetings around it, lobbying groupings and so on, but the negotiation is done by committed teams of officials who probably do not watch any of the TikTok videos that the right reverend Prelate referred to. However, as I said earlier, the needs of countries are also different in different environments. We are fortunate, being a relatively wealthy country, that we can transition away from fossil fuels. It is much more difficult for some third-world countries, which is why we are offering them considerable amounts of finance—we have £11.6 billion of international climate finance with which to help them with the transition. We are leading on initiatives such as the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which helps developing countries to move away from coal-fired power stations as well. So we are taking a range of different initiatives in collaboration and co-operation with a number of different other countries.
Data Protection (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Swinburne
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 November be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 December.
Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 6 December.
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 13th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 View all Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (11 Dec 2023)
Lord West of Spithead
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would specify that the only exceptional circumstances in which the Prime Minister would be permitted the use of a designate is when he or she is unable to make a decision due to incapacity (ill-health) or lack of access to secure communications.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, this is the first of three amendments I have tabled to Clause 21 relating to the so-called triple lock for targeted interception and targeted examination of communications relating to Members of the relevant legislatures. These changes are replicated in the three amendments which I have laid to Clause 22, which we will come to later, which relate to the triple lock around the targeted equipment interference warrants.
The communications of Members of the relevant legislatures, including noble Lords in this House, should not be intercepted and read unless it is absolutely essential to do so in the most serious of circumstances. That is why Parliament added a third layer of safeguards to approve of any such warrant in the IPA, ensuring that these warrants will not only be issued by a Secretary of State and reviewed by a judicial commissioner but approved by the Prime Minister personally. This is a robust and necessary oversight mechanism, and it is important that any changes as a result of this Bill do not undermine the central three layers of approval.
Nevertheless, the ISC recognises that, on occasion, the requirement that a warrant be approved by the Prime Minister personally may disproportionately affect the operation of the intelligence agencies, where they are seeking a targeted interference or equipment interference warrant that is very time sensitive. We therefore support the intention to provide some resilience, whereby in truly exceptional circumstances, an appropriately empowered Secretary of State may temporarily deputise for the Prime Minister on these matters. However, the clauses before us go too far.
My three amendments seek to ensure that decisions are delegated only in the most exceptional circumstances, that the decision may be designated only to a limited number of Secretaries of State who are already responsible for authorising relevant warrants, and that the Prime Minister retains oversight of all warrants which have been authorised in their name through a retrospective review of the decision.
The first of those relates to the circumstances in which a decision may be delegated by the Prime Minister to a Secretary of State. This should be clearly defined and limited only to situations where the Prime Minister is genuinely unable to take a decision. My amendment specifies that the Prime Minister must be “unable”, rather than simply “unavailable”—which is a rather subjective test—to decide whether to give the necessary approvals. It sets out that the only situations in which this applies are due to incapacity or inability to access secure communications—for example, if the Prime Minister is extremely ill or is abroad and unable to securely access the relevant classified documentation. This provides what the agencies require, but, when combined with the requirement that there is an urgent need for the decision, also provides the necessary assurance to Parliament that the Prime Minister’s responsibility will be deputised only in specified exceptional circumstances, and ensures that the use of a delegate does not become routine.
My second amendment to Clause 21 is to specify those Secretaries of State who can act as a designate for the Prime Minister in these circumstances. As currently drafted, the Bill includes all Secretaries of State as potential designates for the Prime Minister in relation to triple-lock warrantry. However, only a limited number of Secretaries of State have any statutory responsibility for warrantry for investigatory powers: for example, the Secretaries of State for the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Given that the authorising of a warrant that relates to a Member of the relevant legislature must be taken seriously, it is both sensible and desirable that any Secretary of State deputising for the Prime Minister on these matters should already be familiar with the process and framework for targeted interception and targeted equipment interference warrants as part of their routine responsibilities, as those are the warrants we are talking about.
This amendment therefore limits the Prime Minister to up to two designated Secretaries of State and specifies that they should be Secretaries of State who are already required in their routine duty to issue warrants under Sections 19 or 102 of the IPA. I note that my noble friend Lord Coaker has tabled a similar amendment, which would list a number of specific Secretaries of State who could be designated as deputies to the Prime Minister. We wholeheartedly support the intention behind this amendment, and our amendment seeks to achieve a similar outcome. However, I note the possible scenario whereby the evolution of departmental names, seen relatively recently with the renaming and restructuring of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, may sow confusion as to which Secretaries of State are included under Clause 21. My amendment seeks to avoid any such confusion by linking the role to existing statutory responsibilities for warrantry in the original Investigatory Powers Act. In this way, it should achieve a very similar outcome to that which was wisely proposed by my noble friend Lord Coaker.
My third amendment to Clause 21 would ensure that the Prime Minister retains ultimate responsibility for any targeted interception and targeted examination warrants which involve communications to or from Members of the relevant legislature. As I outlined earlier, the Intelligence and Security Committee considers it essential that the three planks of the triple lock not be weakened by any changes made by the Bill. Therefore, we must ensure that the Prime Minister’s overall oversight of and involvement in these warrants is retained, even if, in designated cases, it could be retrospective. I have therefore tabled an amendment to provide that the Prime Minister review the decision taken by a designated Secretary of State on their behalf as soon as the circumstances have passed which prevented the Prime Minister approving the warrantry in the first place.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 44 and 51A, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I have added our names. They very neatly follow on from Amendment 43, which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and are based on a recommendation in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in which he says at paragraph 8.20:
“I recommend the use of a deputy to be permitted for the purposes of the triple lock when the Prime Minister is unable”—
I stress the word “unable”—
“to approve a warrant to the required timescale (in particular through incapacity, conflict of interest or inability to communicate securely)”.
These amendments are prompted by the fact that, instead of the word “unable”, which was that chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for the recommendation in his report, and which is also used in Amendment 43, the word that appears in Clause 21 for condition A in the new subsection (3) of Section 26 is “unavailable”. The same point arises with the wording of the triple lock in relation to equipment interference which Clause 22 seeks to introduce, under Section 111 of the 2016 Act. The word “unavailable” would be replaced with the word “unable” in both places by the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.
This is all about the meaning of words. The aim must surely be to find the right word to use for describing the situation in which the Prime Minister’s function of giving the necessary approval must be passed to another individual, other than the Secretary of State who has applied for the warrant. This is, of course, a very sensitive matter, and that in itself indicates the importance of choosing the right word.
The question is whether the phrase
“unavailable to decide whether to give approval”
covers all possible situations. The word “unable” includes “unavailable”, but “unavailable” does not always mean the same as “unable”. The word “unavailable” sets too low a bar. The Prime Minister could be unavailable simply because he or she is doing something else—whatever it might be—that is occupying their mind or demanding their attention elsewhere.
On 11 December 2023, the Minister sent a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, in response to points raised on this Bill by the Constitution Committee, which gave examples of prime ministerial unavailability. Attached to that letter was a commentary on the proposed amendments to Sections 26 and 111, in which the point is made that the word “unavailable” should be understood to mean situations—of which two examples are given— in which the Prime Minister is “genuinely unavailable” to consider the application. The introduction of the word “genuinely” demonstrates the problem with the word “unavailable” on its own, to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, draws attention: it needs to be narrowed down and clarified. That is what the word “genuinely” does, but it is not in the Bill.
It is worth noting that, in each of the two examples given in the commentary, “unable” is used to describe situations Prime Ministers may find themselves in which they cannot perform the function to which the statute refers:
“5.1 The Prime Minister is overseas in a location where they are unable to receive the warrant application due to the security requirements and classification of the documents.
5.2. The Prime Minister is medically incapacitated and therefore unable to consider the warrant.”
The fact that “unable” is used here suggests that the word the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, used in his report really is the right one for the situations referred to in these two sections.
There is a further point that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would make: “unavailable” does not cover the situation in which there may be a conflict of interest. This surely is a reason why a Prime Minister, although available, should not exercise the power. Here especially, the greater clarity that the word “unable” brings to the situation really is needed.
I know that the Minister has discussed this issue of the wording with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, perhaps several times and will, no doubt, refer to the position he and his Bill team have adopted so far during these discussions when he replies. But I hope he will feel able, especially in view of the points I have made about the commentary attached to his letter of 11 December, to agree to another meeting with the noble Lord, and possibly myself, before the Bill reaches Report. I hope that, when he comes to reply, he will be able to respond to that request.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord West and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. They have raised some important questions for the Committee to consider and for the Minister to respond to.
It may be helpful to remind the Committee and others present that Clauses 21 and 22 amend the section of the IPA that deals with targeted interception and examination warrants regarding Members of both Houses of Parliament and the devolved legislatures. These are clearly very important pieces of legislation. The safeguard on such warrants is referred to as the triple lock. As with other warrants in the IPA, the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner must approve the warrant. But with respect to this issue, the Prime Minister must also approve warrants for the communications of Members of UK Parliaments, hence the difficulty that my noble friend, the noble and learned Lord and others have referred to. What happens with the triple lock if the Prime Minister is not available to authorise that warrant with respect to the communications of parliamentarians, not only in Westminster but the devolved legislatures?
One can see the seriousness of this problem. The Government have rightly felt it necessary to bring this measure forward, given the unfortunate situation when the Prime Minister was dangerously ill in hospital with Covid; thankfully, he recovered. This is clearly a very important issue which we need to consider.
My noble friend Lord West outlined an issue, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that I will speak briefly to. I say respectfully to all noble Lords that the points the noble and learned Lord made are not dancing on the head of a pin: they are very real questions for the Minister about the difference between “unavailable” and “unable” and what that means. The Government need to clarify that for us. My noble friend Lord West’s amendment and my Amendment 47, on which Amendment 45 is consequential, question the wide scope the Government have within the legislation, whereby it almost seems as if any Secretary of State will be able to deputise for the Prime Minister. My noble friend Lord Murphy made the point at Second Reading, which my noble friend Lord West has just made again, that it would surely be better if that scope were narrowed to Secretaries of State with experience of dealing with warrants. My and my noble friend Lord West’s amendments seek to narrow that scope to Secretaries of State who have that experience.
I take the point of my noble friend Lord West. His amendment as it stands is probing. Maybe drafting improvements could be made. The thrust of what he and others said, however, is that we need to do something to deal with the issue.
I have just a couple of questions before I move on to Amendment 55A. Who decides whether the Prime Minister is available or unavailable, or if indeed we have the Bill amended? Who decides that the Prime Minister is unable to take the decision for that triple lock? What is the process by which the decision is made that this is the case?
On Amendment 45, it is unclear to me who the senior officials are that could also make the decision. We have other Secretaries of State who could take the decision if the Prime Minister is “unavailable” or “unable”—if an amendment is passed—to take the decision. Then we have senior officials who might be allowed to take this decision. It is not dancing on the head of pin to ask “What does a “senior official” mean?” and “Who are the officials?”, hence my probing Amendment 45 on who they are and in what circumstances they could take these permissions.
In preparing for Committee, I asked about what sorts of situations might arise. Of course we can think of different situations, and the Government, in the code of practice that they publish, outline a couple of scenarios that may require urgent warrants and the Prime Minister to be involved and so on. In 2011, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, apparently did a helpful piece of work on Prime Ministerial powers. He talked of what happens if the Prime Minister is unable to take a decision with respect to shooting down a hijacked aircraft or an unidentified civil aircraft. What happens in those circumstances? Is that the sort of circumstance that the Bill seeks to deal with as well? What we are discussing is obviously also really important because this may involve the authorisation of the use of nuclear weapons. The Minister will be limited in what he can say about that.
I do not want to create a TV drama-type situation, but these are really important questions and the Government are right to address the situation of a Prime Minister being unavailable or unable to take these decisions in some of these circumstances. Again, this gives us the opportunity to think about what areas of national security the Bill would cover.
As is said in the explanatory statement, Amendment 55A
“is designed to probe the extent to which powers in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 have been used in relation to Members of Parliament”.
As I have mentioned, I was particularly disturbed that, under Section 230 of the Investigatory Powers Act, the Prime Minister can deal directly with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to keep under review the discharge of the functions of the Armed Forces with regard to intelligence activities. Can the Minister say what the role of Defence Intelligence is in all this? The reason that I raise the matter in this debate on parliamentary communications is due to the report in the Mail on Sunday on 25 November, which spoke of Defence Intelligence being involved in in the Government’s response to Covid. It was involved in looking at communications—and, according to the report in the Mail on Sunday, some of the communications involved parliamentarians.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in my name in this group. First, I shall make some brief and broadly supportive comments regarding the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Coaker.
As we have heard, all these amendments are designed to tighten up or clarify the triple lock and the changes introduced in the Bill. As your Lordships know, the triple lock relates to circumstances where UKIC and law enforcement may obtain and read the communications of MPs, et cetera; we will talk about the “et cetera” in a minute. Currently, the usual double lock is supplemented by an unqualified requirement that the Secretary of State may not issue the warrant without the Prime Minister’s approval.
As we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the report from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, explores the circumstances in 2020 when the Prime Minister was hospitalised and the triple lock was therefore rendered unavailable. The noble Lord recommends the use of a deputy for the purposes of the triple lock when the Prime Minister in unable to approve a warrant in the required timescale, particularly through incapacity, conflict of interest or an inability to communicate securely. As we heard from the noble and learned Lord, “unable” has been substituted with “unavailable” in the Bill. I really am not sure why—perhaps the Minister can explain why—but that is a different context. In his normal, forensic way, the noble and learned Lord explained the difference between those words; that is why I was happy to sign Amendment 51A, which reverts back to the originally recommended “unable”.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord West, are more probing but interesting. We will be interested to hear how the Minister responds to them; I look forward to that.
Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, seeks to limit the number of Secretaries of State who can be designated in that deputy role. This seems a reasonable suggestion. Others may want to change the list, but a senior group of Ministers should be listed; surely having three or four of them on that list should be sufficient to deal with the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, spoke to Amendment 55A. There are elements of reporting there that are reflected in my Amendment 55, which I will come to shortly.
I will now speak to Amendments 50, 54 and 55 in my name. Amendments 50 and 54
“would require that members of a relevant legislation who are targets of interception are notified after the fact, as long as it does not compromise any ongoing investigation”.
Amendment 55 seeks to ensure that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner reports annually on the operation of surveillance warrants and safeguards in relation to parliamentarians. This should include records in the annual report of the number of warrants authorised each year to permit surveillance of the Members of relevant domestic legislatures. This would ensure transparency, at least over the rate at which the power is being used.
Before talking a little more about this, it is worth recapping the history of political wiretap legislation. I am sure there are others who know it better than I, but it was helpful for me to understand the context. As we have heard, the IPA permits the interception or hacking of parliamentarians or the Members of other domestic legislative bodies via this triple-lock system, whereby the Secretary of State can issue a warrant with the approval of the Prime Minister, as per Sections 26(2) and 111(3). Until October 2015, it was widely understood that the communications of MPs were protected from interception by the so-called Wilson doctrine. This protection extended to Members of the House of Lords in 1966, and was repeated in unequivocal terms by successive Prime Ministers. Tony Blair clarified in 1997 that the policy
“applies in relation to telephone interception and to the use of electronic surveillance by any of the three security and intelligence agencies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/1997; col. 321W.]
Despite this clear and unambiguous statement that MPs and Peers would not be placed under electronic surveillance, an October 2015 decision by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal held that the doctrine had been unilaterally rescinded by the Executive. We pick up from there, so it is an interesting evolving power and we are part of that evolution in this Bill.
This evolution has also coincided with the meteoric rise in electronic communication that now offers the possibility of vastly more information being unearthed than was the case with a simple wiretap back in the Wilson days. First, there are clearly times when this sort of interception is necessary, and that is why the triple lock is such an important safeguard. But I have a couple of modest suggestions contained in these amendments. I must say now that I am in a state of deep trepidation, as not only has the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, given me notice that she is on my case but she has actually moved five Benches closer than she was on Monday, so my boots are shaking.
These amendments would introduce a post-notification procedure to inform parliamentarians where they have been affected by targeted surveillance powers, but only if it does not compromise any ongoing investigation. Clearly, they would have to be deemed innocent or beyond suspicion for that notification to happen. I agree that it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if, for example, the announcement of any investigation revealed confidential sources that led to the initial investigation. I had hoped that my wording implied that, but I will be very happy to work with the noble Baroness on improving the wording on Report if she deems it necessary.
We got to the fourth group of amendments to the Bill without my raising the European Convention on Human Rights. Now is the time. Happily, I am sure that the Minister has been reading up on this for other reasons, and he will no doubt be familiar with this important bastion of freedom. I refer in particular, in this case, to Article 8: the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. I feel sure that most surveillance interventions would meet the terms of Article 8, which are summarised as:
“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
As I say, it is unlikely that the activities we have been describing will break that.
In the unlikely event that they do and there is a misstep, in order to bring a case under the Article 8 right it is necessary for a person to know that their privacy was breached in the first place, hence Amendments 50 and 54. I refer the Minister to two Article 8 rights cases heard by the European Court of Human Rights: Klass v Germany in 1978, which was reiterated in Weber and Saravia v Germany in 2006.
Amendment 55 is a bit simpler. It would ensure that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s annual report provides information about the operation of safeguards in relation to surveillance of Members of Parliament et cetera, as is already required for journalists. It would mandate that
“information in particular about warrants … considered or approved”
that are targeted at MPs et cetera is included, further to the requirement to provide information on general targeted interception and hacking warrants. I believe that is not a controversial ask, and I hope the Minister agrees.
I would like to use these amendments to do some probing as well as changing words, by confirming the “et cetera” part of MPs et cetera. My understanding, which I am sure is correct, is that as things stand that includes Lords and elected Members of the devolved authorities. But our democratic system is changing and evolving as we go. We now have very powerful elected mayors with very large electorates—much larger than any MP’s. I wonder whether there is an argument that they too should be included within the triple-lock umbrella going forward. I have one additional question in this vein. Once out of office, do all these individuals no longer attract triple-lock protection? Are ex-First Ministers, ex-MPs and ex-Prime Ministers all no longer subject to the triple-lock safeguards?
This sort of legislation breeds suspicion. The two measures I propose here are sincere attempts to help tackle some of these suspicions and create sufficient transparency to allay the fears that there is widespread and extensive activity of this type—assuming, of course, that this activity is indeed a rare occurrence.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is quite safe; I am not going to come and hit him, but I am going to try to demolish a few of his arguments.
I will start with the word “transparency”, which appears again in some of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. The work of the security and intelligence agencies can never be transparent. It is in the interests of those agencies that as much as can safely be known of what is done in their name is known, which is why my organisation sought law in the 1980s. But there will always be things that cannot be made public because, if they are, we might as well pack up and go home.
Appealing as the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, might be on the surface, for a start, telling people that they have been subject to interception would require us to alter earlier parts of the IPA because it would be illegal. To do so would also risk sources and methods. Of course, they would not be itemised, but let us consider a speculative case of a Member of the other House who has a relationship with a young Chinese lady. Let me emphasise strongly that this is not based on any knowledge of anything. Indeed, when I was director-general of MI5, we still operated the Wilson doctrine. Somebody in that MP’s office approaches my former colleagues and raises concerns with them. A warrant is obtained, signed by the Prime Minister, and subsequently it becomes clear that the concerns of the individual in the office—the source of the information—were absolutely justified. Now, we cannot tell that individual at any stage whether he or she is acquitted of any wrongdoing or ends up care of His Majesty’s jails. We cannot at any stage tell him because it risks sources and methods.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
No, this is what I want to establish. Just saying that he has been intercepted will lead that person to wonder how, so we cannot act covertly if there is any danger of sources being revealed or future operations being compromised.
Additionally, it raises the question of why Members of legislatures should have the privilege of being told that they have been subject to interception when members of the public never are. It is wrong, as it was, to treat parliamentarians as a particularly special case. Of course, such cases are highly sensitive, hence the triple lock; hence, I suggest, the rarity of this, but I think Amendments 50 and 54 are potentially damaging. I will shut up now.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I apologise that I did not speak at Second Reading, but I was here. Perhaps for the same reasons, I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, has just said. It is secret that telephone interception is in place. If someone is aware, directly or indirectly, that the only way the Security Service or the police will discover a certain piece of information is by a telephone call, then it could be revealed, so it would require the law to be changed.
I have four worries about this amendment. First, at the point at which an interception is stopped, it is very difficult to predict whether the investigation will continue and/or be resumed. If the suspect is advised of the existence of the investigation, it gives them the potential to destroy evidence, which may frustrate the investigation in the long run, so I do not think it is wise to advise any suspect that they have been under investigation.
Secondly, there are two types of investigation: overt ones, where the person knows they are under investigation, and covert ones, where they do not. There is a general convention whereby if an investigation concludes without a charge, we have never told the person that they were under investigation. I am not sure why we would breach that principle merely because intrusive surveillance was in place.
Thirdly, as the noble Baroness mentioned, why would we do that only for Members of the legislature? It could be put in place, but there have to be some strong reasons. I do not think Members of a legislature can just say, “We deserve extra protection”. There has to be a stronger reason, because, otherwise, the rest of the public could rightly say, “Well, why can’t we have that protection?” For that reason alone, you would have to think very seriously about it.
Finally, sometimes Members of the legislature might be under investigation for things in their private capacity and sometimes for a mixture of the two; it might overlap into their legislative acts. Before anything like this was considered, I would take an awful lot of persuasion and I do not think the argument was made for why this needed to happen only for Members of the legislature.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I support the points the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, made about Amendment 50 regarding the revelation of whether someone who is in a legislature has been tapped. I do not think that is possible. I think it has all sorts of practical difficulties which she rightly outlined, and that situation is something that I could not in any way support.
I want to come back to the issue of “unable” or “unavailable” with regard to the Prime Minister. I think that it is right that it should be “unable”, because of the gravity of the business of tapping the phone of a Member of Parliament or a devolved legislature. I suspect that such a possibility is hugely remote; it might not happen for years and years. However, when it does happen, it is exceptionally serious, because you are not only depriving that Member of Parliament of liberty—you are in many ways saying that the person who has been elected by his or her constituents as a Member of Parliament or of the Senedd, or whatever it may be, is now in some doubt as a public representative. That is hugely serious, so the triple lock is important, but the word “unable” is more serious a word than “unavailable”, and I support changing the word in the Bill.
I also very much agree with the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Coaker, about the nature of the Secretaries of State who should be the substitute for the Prime Minister if the Prime Minister was unable to perform his or her duty with regard to tapping the phone of a parliamentarian. I tapped phones for three or four years almost every day, except at weekends—occasionally at the weekend, but mainly on weekdays—and I took it very seriously. I knew that I was depriving someone of their liberty and privacy; generally speaking, they deserved to be deprived of their liberty because of the horrible things that they might do. Sometimes, although very rarely, I would not sign them, because I was not convinced of the argument put to me.
Someone who has the experience over the years of dealing with warrants has an idea of the nature of the act of signing the warrant and how important it is. It is not simply about reading it and putting your name at the bottom—you have to think about it very seriously. Your experience develops as time goes by. In fact, when I was unable or, more likely, unavailable to sign warrants as Northern Ireland Secretary—if I was on the beach somewhere in the Vendée, as I occasionally was—somebody else would sign the warrants that I would normally have signed. It was generally the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who was then the Home Secretary—and when he went on holiday somewhere, I signed his. The point about that was that, technically, almost every member of the Cabinet—because by then nearly every member was a Secretary of State—could have signed. But I knew, when the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, signed mine, that he knew what he was doing—and vice versa, I hope. Therefore, there should be some way in which we designate Secretaries of State who are used to signing warrants to be a substitute for the Prime Minister.
The other issue, on which I shall conclude, is that the debate so far is evidence of why it is so important that the Intelligence and Security Committee puts its views to this House, through the noble Lord, Lord West, and that the committee should look carefully at these matters.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which was fascinating. I shall start by addressing the amendments and points raised on the circumstances in which the alternative approvals process would be used—that is, for urgent warrants when the Prime Minister is not available. First, it is worth reminding noble Lords that we have set out a non-exhaustive list of such circumstances in the draft excerpt of the relevant code of practice published last week. I shall come back to that in a moment.
I start with Amendments 44 and 51A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, which seek to widen the situations in which the alternative approvals process could be used to include situations where the Prime Minister is “unable” to consider a warrant—not only when they are “unavailable”. As the noble and learned Lord indicated, the amendments would extend the circumstances where the alternative approvals process could be utilised to expressly include instances where the Prime Minister has a conflict of interest in considering a warrant application.
I remind noble Lords that the Prime Minister, like all Ministers, is expected to maintain conduct in line with the Nolan principles in public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership. When a Prime Minister has a conflict of interest in approving a warrant, due to any personal or professional connection to the subject of the warrant, they are expected to continue to act in the public interest. Therefore, in these situations, the Government consider that the alternative approvals process is not required.
When drafting the Bill, the Government considered at some length whether to make further provision for conflict of interest, along the lines of the noble Lord’s amendment, and concluded that they should not. The primary reason is that, in order for a conflict of interest provision to function, a Secretary of State or unelected official involved in the warrantry process would have to be granted the ability, in certain situations, to take from the Prime Minister a personal power given to them alone by Parliament. Unlike the provisions in Clause 21, which permit the Prime Minister to delegate their power to approve these warrants if they are unavailable, this would require a subjective decision to be made on whether the Prime Minister could, in theory, be judged able to approve the warrant. A conflict of interest provision would also have significant implications for Cabinet hierarchy and the constitution. This is because a Secretary of State or an unelected official would have to determine that the Prime Minister had a conflict in approving the warrant and was therefore “unable” to be made aware of the warrant request. It is for these reasons that the Government decided that a conflict of interest provision should not be included in the Bill.
I have referred to the draft code of practice, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, referred to my letter. I can confirm that many of the words in that letter appear to have reappeared in the code. Paragraphs 5, 5.1 and 5.2 state that:
“Prime Ministerial unavailability should be understood to mean situations in which the Prime Minister is genuinely unavailable to consider the application. For example (non-exhaustive) … The Prime Minister is overseas in a location where they are unable to receive the warrant application due to the security requirements and classification of the documents … The Prime Minister is medically incapacitated and therefore unable to consider the warrant”.
I am very happy to share the code of practice further with all noble Lords, if they would like to see a copy.
I have noted that this conflict of interest provision is specifically not included in the similar Amendments 43 and 51, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord West, which seek to limit the circumstances in which the alternative approvals process can be used due to
“incapacity (ill-health) or lack of access to secure communications”.
As the code of practice sets out, these are two of the key scenarios for which the measure is required, but an amendment of this nature would not cater for unforeseeable events and would leave an unacceptable level of vulnerability in the system. Given that the aim is to increase the resilience of the process, these amendments feel opposite in intent. The moment that a circumstance arises in which the Prime Minister is unable, for a reason other than the two given, to authorise an urgent warrant application, the system would provide a blocker to the intelligence agencies being able to conduct their vital work, which is of course keeping parliamentarians and the public at large safe and secure. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments. However, I note the views expressed today and am very happy to continue discussions and to meet the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, again to discuss this further.
I turn to Amendments 48 and 53, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord West. These would introduce a review by the Prime Minister of warrants authorised via the alternative approvals process for interception and equipment interference. Clauses 21 and 22 are set up in such a way that the Prime Minister’s power is afforded to the Secretary of State for the purposes of triple-locked warrantry in specific circumstances; in effect, they are acting as the Prime Minister for the purposes of the Act, not as a deputy. As such, including a requirement for the Prime Minister to review the decision after the fact would not provide additional meaningful oversight beyond that which is provided by the alternative approver on their behalf. The decisions made by the initial Secretary of State and the alternative approver would still be subject to review by the judicial commissioner, so would have already been subject to significant scrutiny. The Government therefore cannot support these amendments.
I turn to the issue of to whom the Prime Minister can delegate this process. Amendments 47 and 49, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and Amendments 46 and 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord West, all seek to limit the Secretaries of State whom the Prime Minister can designate as alternative approvers. Directing the actions of the current and any future Prime Minister by limiting the Secretaries of State to only those mentioned in statute is short-sighted, in that it does not consider potential changes to the machinery of government, as the noble Lord, Lord West, noted.
Furthermore, I invite noble Lords to consider the scenario where, for example, the Home Secretary has provided the initial approval for the application before it is considered as part of the alternative approvals process. The Home Secretary should not then consider the application on behalf of the Prime Minister; this is because it would remove a stage of scrutiny in the triple lock process. Additionally, given the potential for there to be concurrent overseas travel of the Prime Minister and at least one other relevant Secretary of State, limiting the process in this way could fail to provide the necessary resilience. While there should not be an unlimited number of designates, it is important that there are enough alternative approvers to be prepared for these scenarios.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am anticipating the Minister sitting down shortly. I remind the Minister that I asked a specific question on directly elected regional mayors, their rise, and the role that they play in democracy, which is so different to when the IPA was originally conceived. The Minister may not have an answer now, but a written answer would be very helpful.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am happy to acknowledge that the noble Lord is right: their powers have expanded, as have their influence and celebrity over the years. I do not have an answer now, but I will come back to the noble Lord on that.
The objective of these clauses is to provide greater resilience in the process. It is critical that we do not undermine this from the off. I therefore hope noble Lords feel reassured by the explanations given, and the information set out in the draft code of practice, which is the appropriate place to set out the detail of this alternative process.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
May I say to the noble Lord that the answer he gave to me with respect to the Mail on Sunday story was a really good answer? I am seeking transparency, which we will come on to in the next set of amendments, where Ministers can provide it without compromising operational security, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, rightly pointed out. The Minister went as far as he could to say that the story needs to be looked at, it raises particular issues and I can pursue those outside of the Chamber. That was an extremely helpful comment and shows what I am trying to get at with respect to transparency—rather than just dismissing it and saying we cannot talk about it. I am very grateful for the response and thought it was very helpful.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I absolutely support what my noble friend has said. I was about to leap up and say that this should not be discussed in this forum because some of it is so sensitive. The Minister handled it extremely well, but we are getting quite close to the margins.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their thanks. I have forgotten where I was, but I had pretty much finished.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(3) After paragraph 24 insert—“25 “(1) Nothing in section 56(1) prohibits—(a) a disclosure to a relevant coroner conducting an NI investigation or inquest, or(b) a disclosure to a qualified person—(i) appointed as legal adviser to an inquest conducted by the coroner, or(ii) employed under section 11(3) of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (c. 15) (“the 1959 Act”) by a relevant coroner to assist the coroner in an investigation conducted by the coroner,where, in the course of the investigation or inquest, the relevant coroner (“C”) has ordered the disclosure to be made to C alone or (as the case may be) to C and any qualified person appointed or employed by C as mentioned in paragraph (b).(2) A relevant coroner may order a disclosure under sub-paragraph (1) only if the coroner considers that the exceptional circumstances of the case make the disclosure essential in the interests of justice.(3) In a case where a coroner (“C”) conducting, or who has been conducting, an NI investigation or inquest is not a relevant coroner, nothing in section 56(1) prohibits—(a) a disclosure to C that there is intercepted material in existence which is, or may be, relevant to the investigation or inquest; (b) a disclosure to a qualified person appointed by C as legal adviser to the inquest or employed by C under section 11(3) of the 1959 Act to assist C in the investigation, which is made for the purposes of determining—(i) whether any intercepted material is, or may be, relevant to the investigation, and(ii) if so, whether it is necessary for the material to be disclosed to the person conducting the investigation.(4) In sub-paragraph (3) “intercepted material” means—(a) any content of an intercepted communication (within the meaning of section 56), or(b) any secondary data obtained from a communication.(5) In this paragraph—“the 1959 Act” has the meaning given by sub-paragraph (1);“coroner” means a coroner appointed under section 2 of the 1959 Act;“NI investigation or inquest” means an investigation under section 11(1) of the 1959 Act or an inquest under section 13 or 14 of that Act;“qualified person” means a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland);“relevant coroner” means a coroner who is a judge of the High Court or of a county court in Northern Ireland.26 (1) Nothing in section 56(1) prohibits—(a) a disclosure to a relevant person conducting an inquiry under the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (2016 asp 2) (“IFASDA 2016”), or(b) a disclosure to a qualified person appointed under section 24 of that Act to assist a relevant person in the inquiry,where, in the course of the inquiry, the person conducting the inquiry has ordered the disclosure to be made to that person alone or (as the case may be) to that person and any qualified person appointed to assist a relevant person in the inquiry.(2) A relevant person may order a disclosure under sub-paragraph (1) only if the person considers that the exceptional circumstances of the case make the disclosure essential in the interests of justice.(3) Nothing in section 56(1) prohibits—(a) a disclosure to a relevant person conducting an inquiry under IFASDA 2016, or(b) a disclosure to a qualified person appointed under section 24 of that Act to assist a relevant person in the inquiry,that there is intercepted material in existence which is, or may be, relevant to the inquiry.(4) In sub-paragraph (3) “intercepted material” means—(a) any content of an intercepted communication (within the meaning of section 56), or(b) any secondary data obtained from a communication.(5) In this paragraph “relevant person” means—(a) a sheriff principal,(b) a temporary sheriff principal, or(c) a sheriff or part-time sheriff (but not a summary sheriff or part-time summary sheriff) designated as a specialist under section 37(1) or (3) of IFASDA 2016.(6) In this paragraph “qualified person” means an advocate or solicitor; and “advocate” and “solicitor” have the same meaning as in IFASDA 2016 (see section 40 of that Act).”” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts into Schedule 3 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (exceptions to exclusion of matters from legal proceedings etc) exceptions about disclosures to inquiries or inquests in Northern Ireland or Scotland into a person’s death. The exceptions are similar to existing provision in relation to England and Wales.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to government Amendments 56, 59 and 60. As I set out in my letter to all noble Lords on 4 December, these small amendments will ensure that the legislation works effectively.
Government Amendment 56 amends Schedule 3 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to provide exceptions for disclosures of intercepted materials to inquiries or inquests in Northern Ireland and Scotland into a person’s death. This will create parity with existing provisions for coroners in England and Wales by putting relevant coroners in Northern Ireland and sheriffs investigating deaths in Scotland on the same footing as their counterparts in England and Wales. Where necessary in the interests of justice, intercepted materials can be considered in connection with their inquiry or inquest.
Government Amendments 59 and 60 will maintain the extent of the IPA 2016, as set out in Section 272 of that Act. They amend this existing power to ensure that the measures in the 2016 Act, as amended by this Bill, can be extended to the Isle of Man or the British Overseas Territories, thus ensuring consistency across the legislation. If the Government sought to extend any provision to the Isle of Man or any of the British Overseas Territories, this would require an Order in Council and the Government would, of course, consult the relevant Administrations well in advance. I ask noble Lords to support these amendments.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 57 and 58. They are obviously probing amendments but may generate a little discussion because they are none the less important.
Let me begin by saying that I accept absolutely what the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said about the important of ensuring the secrecy of much of what our security services and others do. That is an important statement of principle, and it was reinforced by my noble friend Lord Murphy when he recounted, as far as he could, some of the responsibility he had in his posts, particularly as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is important to establish that I accept that principle.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I want to make a couple of comments in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has just said. I can speak only for MI5, but, for many years, it certainly has been a desire of the organisation that, as far as safely possible, the British public—it needs their support every day of the week to do operations—have an understanding of what is done in their name to protect democracy.
I want to counter slightly the comment—I cannot now remember who made it—that there was much suspicion of this sort of activity. I may have misheard, because I am rather deaf. In my experience, when members of the public are approached by MI5 for help—such as, “Can I sit in your bedroom with a camera?”; something I would have deep suspicion of—they nearly always say yes and agree to co-operate. In my experience, when we are talking about transparency in this area, the public who I have encountered completely understand the role of secrecy. They do not want their role exposed, and, in particular, the identities of those brave men and women who we now clunkily call covert human intelligence sources need to be protected for ever. I want to counter the idea about public opinion. Of course there are concerns, but a lot of people are extremely supportive and deserve our thanks on a day-to-day basis.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, when I started life in politics a long time ago—50 years or so ago—when the general public, or people who had political ideas, thought about the security services they were generally criticised because they were spying on people who should not be spied on, such as political activists and all the rest of it. By the time the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and myself worked together with the intelligence and security agencies, the criticism that would come was whether the intelligence services had not done enough to protect us. That is the way in which things have changed over the last 40 or 50 years, so we have to be very careful how we balance this idea of accountability on the one hand and inevitable secrecy on the other. How do we do it?
There are reports by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the intercept commissioners. When I had to intercept, I was overseen by a commissioner every year. I had a meeting with him—a former judge—on whether I did this or that right, and on whether this or that was important. I come back to the point I have made in the last two days of Committee about the Intelligence and Security Committee itself. That is the vehicle by which Parliament holds the security services accountable. My noble friend Lord Coaker has been making that distinction all the time: the services being accountable to Government for what they do is very different from being available to Parliament.
Of course, details of who has been tapped and details of intelligence operations cannot come here, to this House or the other House—of course not. However, they can go through the committee which both Houses have set up, which meets in private, is non-partisan, and which has Members of both Houses who have great experience on it, to deal with these issues. That is why I appeal to the Minister—we had the debate on the issue on Tuesday—to think again about using the ISC to answer some of the issues that my noble friend Lord Coaker quite rightly raised.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief. Just on the subject of suspicion, which I think I raised it, I was thinking—perhaps I did not articulate it well—that it was at the political-class level. It is not hard to construct a suspicious scenario where a Westminster-based Executive are hacking an Edinburgh-based politician—I am sure that suspicion would apply there. However, the noble Baroness is right about the public.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is important, not because this sort of thing needs to go into primary legislation, but because his point around emphasising public understanding and support which has come out is really important. He picked out the fact that a number of officeholders have worked hard at generating a positive profile for the services, and for that they should be thanked and congratulated. I would add GCHQ, the public profile of which probably did not even exist a decade or so ago. I have several very sad friends who can hardly wait with excitement for the annual GCHQ quiz to arrive. Things like that essentially draw attention to the nature of the work that such organisations do. I laugh at those friends but then I cannot solve it and they can, so perhaps they are the winners there. Those sorts of things do not shed light and throw open the doors on the things the noble Baroness and others fear should not be public, but they create an ambience around those services which is important.
Nobody has mentioned the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which I guess is exactly what he wanted, and I have nothing to add to them either.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Committee very much indeed for the points raised in this short debate, which eloquently explained the fine balance that needs to be struck in this area. As this is the last group, I take this opportunity to thank all the men and women in all the security services, who do so much to keep us safe.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
It is nice to hear that the Committee reflects that sentiment.
I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, but the Government cannot accept them. He is right that public trust and confidence in public authorities’ use of investigatory powers is of course essential. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner, along with his judicial commissioners, fulfils that very important function, as does the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The IPC provides independent, robust and transparent oversight of public authorities’ use of investigatory powers. The safeguards in the Act are world-leading in that regard. The IPT, meanwhile, provides for a redress mechanism for anyone who wishes to complain about the use of investigatory powers, even if they have no evidence of potential wrongdoing.
As the noble Lord is aware, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is already required to produce an annual report, which is published and laid in Parliament. One of the purposes of this public report is to provide transparency around how the powers are used, any errors that have been reported on public authorities’ compliance with the legislation, and where he considers that improvements need to be made. Amendment 57 would not really provide meaningful or additional oversight over and above what is already in place, and would in many areas be duplicative.
On Amendment 58, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is seeking to introduce a similar requirement to that in the original Act, in that case requiring a report on the operation of the Act to be produced five years after it entered into force. That report was published by the Home Secretary in February this year and formed the basis for the Bill, along with the report from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. As set out in the Home Secretary’s report—and noted by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—it is the Government’s view that future legislative reform is likely to need to keep pace with advancements in technology and changes in global threats.
It is not necessarily helpful to put a time limit on when these updates should be made. The Bill makes urgent and targeted amendments to the IPA, and it is important that there is adequate time to implement those changes and assess over an appropriate period whether they are sufficient. As I said, the Government are well aware that future legislative reform is likely and, if I may channel my inner Ronan Keating, “Life is a rollercoaster”. I hope that my explanations have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the existing process in place and invite him to not press his amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 45, line 14.
“(3) The power under section 272(6) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 may be exercised so as to extend to the Isle of Man or any of the British overseas territories any amendment or repeal made by or under this Act of any part of that Act (with or without modifications).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the power in section 272(6) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (extent) to be capable of being exercised so as to extend to the Isle of Man or any of the British overseas territories any amendments of that Act made by this Bill.
Agriculture (Delinked Payments and Consequential Provisions) (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 November be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interest as set out in the register. This instrument is part of our agricultural transition in England away from the common agricultural policy towards our environmental land management schemes. It introduces delinked payments in 2024, which are a simpler type of payment, in place of direct payments under the existing basic payment scheme in England.
Unlike the basic payment scheme, delinked payments will not be based on the amount of land someone has. Instead, they will be based on the basic payment scheme payments, made in a reference period. This will reduce administrative burdens as we phase out the payments by the end of 2027. There will be no need for an annual application form, as the Rural Payments Agency will already hold the data needed to check eligibility for the payments. This will mean that farmers have to spend less time filling in forms compared to the current scheme.
Delinked payments will be made to those farmers who claimed and were eligible under the basic payment scheme in England in 2023. The payments will be based on a reference amount. This will be the average payment made to the business for the 2020-22 basic payment scheme. To provide flexibility for farmers, we are allowing reference amounts to be transferred between businesses. They can do this during a transfer window from February to May next year.
This will particularly help businesses that have changed their structure since the start of the reference period. For example, if two or more businesses have merged, the reference amount could be transferred from the original businesses to the current business. Special rules apply to inheritance cases. The Government intend to reduce the payments each year by applying percentage reductions to gradually phase the payments out. This will continue to free up money to be invested in our new farming schemes. The reduction percentages will be set in future secondary legislation, which will be debated by the House. We intend to make the payments in two instalments each year to help cash flow. Ending the basic payment scheme also means that the associated cross-compliance system no longer applies; this is a system that our farmers have widely disliked as being over-bureaucratic.
I will move on to the regret amendment. When cross-compliance ends, farm standards will be maintained through existing and ongoing domestic regulations that protect the environment, the public, animal and plant health and animal welfare. These regulations will be enforced in a fair, consistent and proportionate way by our existing regulatory authorities. The rules within cross-compliance that are not in underlying domestic legislation will have cover through existing and forthcoming guidance, regulation or incentives. We will deliver a fair, clear and effective system to regulate agriculture. Defra is working with regulators to implement a more preventive, advice-led approach to monitoring and enforcement.
The introduction of delinked payments is an important step in our transition to payments that deliver better environmental outcomes. For example, we have used the money freed from direct payments to establish the slurry infrastructure grant to help livestock farmers tackle pollution from slurry. This includes committing to spend more than £200 million in ongoing grant support for equipment and infrastructure. We are also funding our expanded sustainable farming incentive, which rewards farmers for practices that help produce food sustainably and protect the environment. This includes funding for grass margins for protecting our rivers, for legume fallows to improve soil health and for grassland without fertiliser inputs. We continue to fund our successful Countryside Stewardship scheme and our landscape recovery scheme, which is already funding the restoration of more than 400 miles of rivers.
In conclusion, by introducing delinked payments, this instrument enables us to pay former basic payment scheme recipients for the rest of the agricultural transition but without the bureaucracy associated with the current scheme. It does not mean an end of protections for the environment, animals and plants. Our agricultural reforms are about delivering better outcomes, so that the countryside and wildlife that we all so value can be protected for future generations. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations 2023 will revoke Basic Payment Scheme cross-compliance provisions regarding environmental, animal welfare and other standards before a new compliance scheme has been completely established; and notes the risk of (1) regulatory gaps, and (2) increasing uncertainty for farmers and landowners.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has explained clearly in his introduction that the draft regulations propose to introduce the delinked payments to replace direct payments, so I will not go into the detail of that. They also propose to revoke the law relating to the basic payment scheme, including the associated cross-compliance requirements, which is what much of our discussion will be about. The delinking of agricultural payments was clearly advertised in the agricultural transition plan, so this is no surprise to anybody. We also believe that it is a necessary step to move to a new, fairer system of payments based on the principle of public money for public good, so we will not oppose this instrument.
However, I have brought forward the regret amendment because I am concerned, as is the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, about whether all relevant cross-compliance requirements that will be revoked by this instrument are replicated fully in domestic legislation, and whether there will be any regulatory gaps. Existing cross-compliance policy is being removed prior to the complete establishment of the new regulatory framework, yet some elements of the new compliance regime are still work in progress, and other cross-compliance requirements will be set out in guidance, codes of practice or, indeed, incentive schemes. To us, this raises questions as to whether they can be enforced as effectively as the current statutory requirements. Is the Minister confident that this will be the case?
Regarding concerns about the regulatory gap related to the legacy payments element of the changes, Defra has stated, as the Minister has just assured the House, that the majority of rules under cross-compliance are already in domestic law. We suggest that this still means that, with the removal from 1 January, there will be regulatory gaps across hedgerows, soil cover and watercourse buffer strips that will not be covered by the farming rules for water. We are also concerned that it risks enforcement gaps on compliance with regulations, such as the domestic public rights of way, that benefit from the conditionality for payments. Again, that falls away from 1 January.
I acknowledge that Defra has made some really good progress on hedgerows. There was a consultation on new protective requirements in summer 2023, but this has not been undertaken in sufficient time to prevent the regulatory gaps between 1 January next year and the enactment of additional protections. We also do not believe that the consultation on hedgerows was expansive enough to cover other gaps in cross-compliance such as soil and watercourses protection. In its August response to the SLSC, Defra notes that there are existing measures to provide ongoing protections, but there have been continued delays, lack of clarity and uncertainty, and we believe that these undermine the potential effectiveness of these measures.
I will briefly look at the impacts if these gaps are not dealt with. From January, agriculture hedgerows will be left unprotected from inappropriate management, removing the obligation to leave a buffer between hedgerows and cultivated areas and to cut only outside bird nesting season. Our concern is that this could endanger threatened hedgerow-reliant farmland species—the corn bunting springs to mind—and risk carbon release through hedgerow damage.
I am aware, as I said, that Defra has consulted on the gaps relating to hedgerow protection, but it has not yet introduced the provisions to avoid any potential damage next year, including during the bird breeding season. Defra has said that there are no other gaps, but this has been disputed by a number of groups, including in a report produced by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, which also points out:
“It is notable that many of the identified gaps (i.e. in relation to soil management) have implications for water pollution”.
I am sure that the Minister would not want to see further water pollution.
That brings me on to rivers. There will no longer be a requirement to create buffers that protect rivers and streams from agricultural pollution or to keep a farm map that marks water sources, apart from in the nitrate-vulnerable zones. We are concerned that this could expose already overloaded watercourses to increased nutrient and chemical pollution and, again, further have the impact of degrading habitats and wildlife.
Finally, most requirements to prevent soil erosion could also be lost, with only minimal protection afforded by the farming rules for water. Removing the obligation to keep green cover such as crops and grass on soils over winter risks increasing the amount of soil lost through wind erosion and leading to degrading overall soil health, on which our farmers depend. Many of these domestic standards are guidance and voluntary frameworks that do not apply to all farmers, so we do not consider them to be appropriate replacements for enforceable rules under regulatory conditionality. We are also concerned that an unlevel playing field will be created between farmers, with a risk that those who comply with voluntary standards are then disadvantaged commercially.
Earl Peel (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the manager of an upland estate in North Yorkshire. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the new regulations, although, like many other people, I still find them vague and difficult to comprehend. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raises some fundamental issues. Under the previous regulations—under the basic payment scheme and Pillar 1—there was a general standard of environmental well-being throughout the countryside, which was generally welcomed by most farmers. Under the new ELMS arrangement, that will be lost. It strikes me that a lot of public money has gone into Pillar 1 under the original system that will now be lost, and I cannot see that that is good value for money. My question is this: under the new ELMS system, is there any way to have a basic standard of cover, like the original standards under the basic payment scheme, so that that money is not perceived to be lost and the general standards are maintained throughout the countryside? There are some interesting developments under the new scheme, which will be worthy of the countryside, but my main concern is around this loss of basic standards throughout under the new scheme. If the Minister could give us some assurance that that could be covered through the new ELMS, I would be extremely grateful.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing these regulations before us this afternoon in what has been a particularly busy week for him at COP 28. Most of the concerns that I was going to raise regarding the potential for regulatory gaps have been covered at some length; I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for that. I am delighted to follow the noble Earl, who also resides in North Yorkshire.
I am a frequent visitor to the mart at Thirsk. I have a small number of shares in it; no one else was going to buy them so I thought that they must be good value and that I should buy them. I suppose that I must declare an interest: I have one lot—not a lot but one lot—of shares in Thirsk mart, of which I am immensely proud. North Yorkshire has one of the two largest fat-stock marts in the whole of England and plays a pivotal role in livestock production, not just in the north of England but in Scotland and other parts of the UK. The message that I get from farmers when I visit the mart and other parts of North Yorkshire is that they are deeply concerned about one aspect of the changes being made. In preparing for this SI, I consulted the Tenant Farmers Association in particular, which believes that the Government have carried out what they committed to do in implementing the regulations in a way that protects the value of payments to tenant farmers. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that that is one of my main concerns.
Increasingly, however, whether they are landowners, tenant farmers or farmers on small family farms, farmers need certainty and clarity—this is the point that I think my noble friend the Minister must tell us—about when we are going to have more detail on the sustainable farming initiative. That is what is holding back a lot of investment that might otherwise be made. In his introductory remarks, my noble friend clearly stated that the delinking and the new payments that he is bringing forward through these regulations, which are welcome for the most part, mean that farmers face a situation where direct payments will be phased out before they know the real content of the SFI and all the other payments. I leave my noble friend with a thought—indeed, a plea. Can we have this information and the details at the earliest possible stage, either in another SI or just in some document that he can release to all the farmers affected?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, set out her arguments extremely well and I agree with the comments she has made. While the Government gave sufficient notice of their intention to delink payments from the BPS, there are some issues which need probing. Having said that, I support this SI. I am grateful to the Wildlife and Countryside Link, ClientEarth and the NFU for their briefings. I have also read the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s third report, which covers this issue.
The whole thrust of the Government’s funding for agriculture has been to move away from BPS and on to ELMS. I welcome this, as a system which rewards farmers simply for the amount of land they manage does little to encourage innovation and environmental schemes. However, I was slightly concerned to find in the Explanatory Memorandum that delinking payments from ownership of land could, in Defra’s words, mean that:
“There will be no requirement for the recipient to continue to have land”.
I understand that the delinked payment relates to activity that has been conducted in previous years, but if the farmer does not have or rent any land, how is he or she contributing to agriculture and thus entitled to a payment into the future? The SLSC asked Defra the rationale for delinking financial assistance from ownership or use of land. Defra’s answer covered phasing out the BPS and referred to the consultation conducted in 2018. However, I am afraid I did not feel that the question asked by the SLSC had really been answered.
The Rural Payments Agency is calculating the delinked payments, as it has all the information to hand on what farmers have been paid during the relevant years. I was somewhat dismayed to see that, should a mistake in calculating the delinked payments be made, Defra would recover any overpayments with interest. It is not so long ago that farmers were really struggling to make ends meet, due to the RPA being extremely tardy in making payments to farmers, sometimes with extremely lengthy delays. I do not remember that farmers received any interest on their income which was delayed by the RPA, despite it causing severe hardship in many cases. While it is important to taxpayers for overpayments to be recovered, the mistakes are likely to occur with the RPA calculating the payments, not with the farmers. A level playing field is needed for this new system to operate fairly.
I turn to the removal of cross-compliance, which has been covered very adequately by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. This had been clearly trailed in the agricultural transition plan. However, there are concerns that there could be regulatory gaps in this cross-compliance, including soil, water, air and landscapes with hedgerows and stone banks. All these are key elements of the rural environment and farmland. I am sure the Minister will tell the House that the majority of rules under cross-compliance are already in place in UK law. However, to quote the Wildlife and Countryside Link:
“‘Majority’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this explanation”.
Defra believes that the code of practice for plant protection and the sustainable farming incentive are sufficient to protect cross-compliance, but many of these do not apply to all farmers. While many farmers will wish to comply voluntarily with the code of practice, there will be others for whom their economic situation may mean they choose to ignore compliance. As Defra was not able to produce a full transition plan on farm regulation on upholding regulatory protections, can the Minister please tell the House just how environmental protections will be secured, especially when hedgerows and stone banks are key habitats for those species of mammals, reptiles and birds that are at risk and on the list of possible biodiversity loss?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions today. I will try to respond to all the points raised. I welcome that there seems to be unanimity of understanding that we need to make the transition we are making. That is of great comfort to the farming community. Regardless of the electoral cycle, there is a basic understanding that the payment system under the common agricultural policy had malign incentives.
As has been said, I have just come back from COP, where one of the things we were trying to do was remove the malign incentives and malign subsidies on production and move more towards incentives that will support nature and carbon sequestration, and lower carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. What the Government are trying to do is very much in that context. At the heart of that is having a farming sector producing food of high quality, in a regulatory framework it can understand, and which trusts the sector to make the right choices, but which also has a regulatory framework for the odd occasion that someone does break the rules. I will come on to talk about that in more detail.
As I have said exhaustively at this Dispatch Box, this Government have set rigorous targets on nature restoration. By 2030, we will see no net loss of species in England. That is in our environmental improvement plan; it is written into law. That is something we are determined to achieve. Six years is a heartbeat in nature, and we have set ourselves a target that is stretching but possible. We will not achieve it, even if we double the number of people employed in our agencies and double the amount of money available for regulation, without working with the farming community. They are the people who will deliver the reversal of the decline of species and deliver on so many of our targets.
We think now is the right time to introduce delinked payments. By 2024, we will be over half way through the agricultural transition period, during which direct payments in England are being phased out. The rules and administration currently associated with the land-based basic payments scheme would be entirely disproportionate. I note that there is an understanding of that in this House.
Replacing the scheme with delinked payments reduces that administrative burden for farmers and, undoubtedly, a serious burden for the taxpayer. The basic payment scheme did little for food production. In fact, decoupling of payments from food production took place over 15 years ago. Delinking will free up farmers to focus on running their businesses and feeding the nation while protecting the environment. It will have no impact overall on the food security of our country. The Government committed to broadly maintain the current level of food we produce domestically, in the food strategy White Paper published in June 2022. We want to see our food security increase and the proportion of food we consume that is produced here increase. The next UK food security report, which will include updated information on where food consumed in the UK is produced, will be presented to Parliament by the end of 2024.
I would also say that the basic payment scheme did little to encourage farmers to take meaningful environmental action. The introduction of delinked payments and the end of cross-compliance is a further step in directing government spending in England to deliver more environmental benefits through our new farming schemes. When cross-compliance in England ends, farm standards will be maintained. Existing regulations will continue to protect the environment, animals and plants, and we have consulted on new hedgerow protections. We will continue to assess the impact of farming activities on the environment.
We are working closely with regulators to make sure that the regulatory system is fair, more supportive and effective at changing farmers’ behaviour. For example, the Environment Agency has been working with farmers to support them back to compliance, expanding from around 300 visits per year to over 4,000 from 2022-23. We have also written to all basic payment scheme applicants so they are clear on the need to continue to meet farm standards when the cross-compliance system ends. The rules they need to meet are on the “Rules for farmers” page on GOV.UK.
I will come back later to the point the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised about whether this was going to see an inexorable move to larger farms, but the basic payment scheme did nothing for small farmers as over 50% of the money went to 10% of the largest farmers. If anything, it has seen that drift away. We feel that the system can now support small farmers and that they will have a continuing vital role. Whether they own the land or rent it—as was raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh—they will have a future in our farming sector.
Our expanded 2023 sustainable farming incentive has attracted over 15,000 expressions of interest and, in the two months since the application window opened for the 2023 scheme, there have been over 4,000 applications. This is more than were submitted in the whole of last year. Now with over 32,000 agreements, a 94% increase since 2020, our Countryside Stewardship scheme continues to be popular. This shows that our schemes are working for farmers and delivering for the environment. The first round of our landscape recovery scheme had 22 schemes and 34 schemes are shortlisted for our second round, many of them having food production at the heart of what they seek to do.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, raised an important point about standards, and I will come on to talk about that. I know that the way he manages land knocks the environmental improvement plan targets out of the park by precisely the kind of management we want right across the country. It is vital that he and others understand that these standards will be maintained. In response to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I say that compliance with farm standards will be monitored by the existing statutory bodies. We are working with the Environment Agency to support farmers to undertake farming activities in a way that minimises risks to environmental outcomes; with Natural England to help farmers protect and enhance protected sites and biodiversity; the Rural Payments Agency and the Animal and Plant Health Agency to protect the health of our plants and animals and to maintain biosecurity; and the Forestry Commission to help farmers protect and enhance our trees and woodlands.
Hedgerows have been mentioned in this debate. There are existing legal protections for them outside of cross-compliance. The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 prohibit the removal of countryside hedgerows without first seeking approval from the local planning authority. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 contains protections for nesting birds—precisely the point that the noble Baroness raised. We have also recently consulted on the best way to maintain and improve protections after the end of cross-compliance, as well as our approach to enforcement. We will shortly publish a document summarising responses, including our next steps.
It is worth noting that in many areas there are now more hedgerows than there were before farmers got paid to take them out, in the 1970s. In our lifetime, that extraordinary perverse incentive in a drive for production is now being reversed, mainly driven by schemes, whether Countryside Stewardship or others. We are seeing farmers planting hedgerows on a grand scale—and they are vital for carbon sequestration and biodiversity.
The farming rules for water will continue to protect watercourses. This includes provisions for not applying fertilisers and manure 2 metres from a watercourse. The Code of Practice for Using Plant Protection Products also requires land managers to not apply pesticides within 2 metres of a watercourse. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 protect against a land manager causing water pollution.
Our domestic farming rules for water require farmers to take reasonable precautions which prevent soil erosion, such as establishing cover crops and grass buffer strips. This helps to prevent or limit agricultural diffuse pollution of inland or coastal waters from farming and horticultural activities. Added to that, the sustainable farming incentive scheme rewards farmers for sustainable farming practices. This includes introducing herbal leys and grass-legume mixtures or cover crops that help to provide soil cover and prevent soil erosion by binding the soil, in a way that perhaps was not happening before.
The question of an impact assessment was raised, but one has not been prepared for this instrument because it is not a regulatory provision. However, the Government have already published evidence providing in-depth assessments of the impacts of removing direct payments and assessments of delinking. This includes the farming evidence compendiums published in 2018 and 2019, and our 2018 assessment of the impact of removing direct payments. We also published 2021 and 2022 Agriculture in the UK evidence packs.
A very good question was also raised about public money going to farmers who are not actually farming. Delinking the payments from the land means that there will be no requirement to continue to be a farmer to receive the payments as they are phased out. However, the vast majority of delinked payment recipients will continue to farm. Delinking the payments will benefit those who continue to farm, as well as those who choose not to. For example, recipients will not have to worry about the basic payments scheme land eligibility rules and associated paperwork. When farmers choose to leave the industry, this should create opportunities for other farmers who wish to expand and for new entrants.
It is vital to make this point. A few years ago, the average farmer was me. My friend the Farming Minister Mark Spencer burst out laughing when I said that, and he said, “No, you are not the average farmer”. What I meant was that I am 63. But actually, in recent years, that age has started to fall, and it is a welcome fact that we are now seeing a younger and more dynamic group of people starting to look at farming as a career. We need to assist that.
We have a new entrant scheme. We are working hard to see whether we can develop that hand in glove with an exit scheme that assists those who feel that the new world is not for them. They need to be allowed to retire with dignity and to feel that their contribution has been made but now is the opportunity for new ideas, new techniques and new innovations to come in. Our farm innovation grants, new entrant schemes and much of the support that we are providing are targeted at those groups of people who want to see a sustainable, profitable farming business in their lives. That is what we are trying to do.
We are developing our new scheme so that there is an offer for all farm types, including smaller farms. I have already stated why the system that we are moving away from militated against smaller farms. For example, there is no minimum amount of land that can be entered into the sustainable farming incentive. From January 2023, we introduced a new management payment for the sustainable farming incentive which gives £20 per hectare for the first 50 hectares and supports the administration costs for entering the scheme.
I have done my best to address the points that have been raised, and I hope that I have answered the point about a regulatory gap. There is plenty of provision to make sure that the small minority of farmers who break the rules are still able to be sanctioned. Where we think there may be a gap, and to be absolutely sure, we are very happy to have a belt-and-braces approach—for example, in the protection of hedgerows—and we will make those changes if they are necessary. We want to work with the farming community and want to see farmers succeed in an environment of trust that allows them to run their businesses in a way that has the least impact, compared with the bureaucratic systems that have operated hitherto.
Introducing delinked payments is an important milestone in our agricultural reforms. It reaffirms the Government’s commitment to move away from untargeted subsidies and to continue with our planned reforms, which will better support farmers and the environment. I commend these regulations to the House and hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness not to press her regret amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise, as I should have declared my interest as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust at the start of the debate. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part and thank the Minister for his very thorough response. I also congratulate him on his resilience and commitment in coming straight from COP to this debate.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
In-patient Mental Health Care: Learning Disabilities and Autism
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollins
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of progress towards achieving the target in the NHS Long Term Plan to reduce the number of people with learning disabilities and autism in in-patient mental health care by 50 per cent by March 2024, relative to 2015 levels.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, this debate follows quickly on the heels of the topical debate about my report, My Heart Breaks, and the debate from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the state of children’s mental health a couple of weeks ago. This debate should be more optimistic than earlier ones, because it is about the Government’s flagship programme, Building the Right Support, which launched back in 2015, and their 2022 action plan. I declare an interest, as I have been asked to continue as a member of the action plan delivery board, which I previously attended as chair of the Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews oversight panel.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have signed up to speak and to the Minister for responding to all these debates, for writing to Members about issues raised and for arranging very helpful round tables for further discussion.
To give some background, in 2015, there were 2,905 people with a learning disability and/or autism in hospital. The target in the NHS long-term plan was for this number to be halved by March 2024. There has been a 30% reduction. Also, local commissioning systems were to have no more than 30 adult in-patients with a learning disability and/or autism per million of the adult population by the same date, but for some of the 42 ICSs, more people are now in hospital than were previously recorded. Recently, His Majesty’s Government have highlighted welcome progress in reducing the number of people with a learning disability in hospital. However, Mencap suggests that at the current rate of discharge it will be 2029 before the 2024 target is reached, and data shows that the number of autistic people without a learning disability has increased since 2015. So, what is the plan post March next year?
In August this year, 5,025 restrictive interventions were recorded among this group of people, 1,140 of which were used with children. That is physical, chemical and mechanical restraint and the use of solitary confinement, as described in my recent report. Lengths of stay are unacceptably high and much longer than for the general population. The average length of stay is now 5.2 years. NHS Digital data shows that 310 of the 2,035 people currently in hospital have been there for between five and 10 years, of whom 70% have a learning disability, and 360 have been detained for over 10 years, of whom 80% have a learning disability.
Let me tell noble Lords about Ash—not their real name. Ash was admitted to a psychiatric ward two years ago at the age of 14 and diagnosed with autism after admission. Ash can take joy and pleasure from activities but on the same day become very distressed. Ash is biologically female and, like so many autistic young people, has been identifying as transgender for the past two and a half years. In primary school, Ash was described as being shy, anxious and having low self-esteem. It was challenging for Ash to move to a large secondary school, with lots of transitions to manage —moving between classes, for example.
In primary school, there had been good support from teaching assistants, but Ash felt isolated in secondary school without this support and was bullied by peers in year 7 and overwhelmed by the challenges of travelling to and from school on the bus. Ash did not share this with their parents, finding it difficult to communicate the feelings they were experiencing, and the impact of Covid-19 restrictions led to more feelings of isolation and loneliness. Ash started to self-harm and made several attempts to end their life. After being reviewed in A&E and discharged with some community support, unfortunately Ash made a further serious attempt to end their life, was admitted to the psychiatric ward and has remained an in-patient since that time.
Ash continues to engage in regular head banging and does not want to engage in therapy. Understandably, Ash’s parents do not feel they can have Ash home, due to ongoing safety concerns and worries about the lack of support for them at home, despite asking for help in the past. The hospital says that it has been trying to find a new “placement” for Ash for at least 18 months—but calling it a placement may be part of the problem: it is a new home that Ash needs. Meanwhile, Ash is stuck on the ward and the uncertainty about their future just leads to further anxiety and more attempts to self-harm. One child too many is spending their teenage years on an adolescent ward, missing out on opportunities to develop independence during adolescence.
Could this admission have been prevented through earlier autism diagnosis, earlier recognition and support at school, and robust community mental health support from the start? Are current waiting lists for assessment setting the scene for more stories like Ash’s for years to come, and more long admissions to hospital? The action plan summarises several cross-agency commitments, as well as providing guidance for commissioners to help them to commission for people’s lives, not just to commission services for people to be fitted into.
Long-term hospitalisation is a result of failures in our social care system, in the flexibility of our community health responses and in our education system—which is too ready to exclude children with complex needs—and of a lack of suitable housing. It often follows traumatic experiences in a person’s life, such as the death of a close family member or being the victim of an assault. This debate allows us to question why the target has failed and, indeed, whether it was the right target in the first place. Is it the number of people in hospital that is the issue, or the purpose of the admission and the quality of assessment and treatment that they receive in hospital? I have consulted a few leaders in the learning disability world. One suggestion is that a better target would be based on equality. For example, the proportion of people in in-patient settings and their length of stay should be no higher than it is for the rest of the population.
The truth is that there has been insufficient focus on improving community support to prevent admission. The measure of success is not about what action has been taken or what has been spent; it is about people’s experiences. What is being done to address this? What investment is being made to pilot new ways of working in the community? Are evidence-based models from other countries being piloted in the UK and, if so, where?
There is significant concern that there has been a lack of focus on people providing direct support who are not part of any professional body and do not have necessary training and experience to support people in crisis. Too often, people in crisis with high support needs are supported by agency staff with minimal experience of supporting people with learning disabilities and autistic people. What is being done to improve the quality and suitability of support for people who need more specialist skills?
One central reason why the March deadline will not be met is the failure to tackle perverse incentives in the system. Social care is underfunded, and this is creating conditions in which people with a learning disability and autistic people cannot access the right support, and can then move quickly towards crisis. Very few integrated care systems have created safe spaces to avert crises, and avoid either criminalisation or hospitalisation.
My letter to the Secretary of State regarding my report set out the need for pooled budgets between health and social care providers. These are needed to break down the bureaucratic barriers that too often prevent discharge. The RedQuadrant report Building the Right Support: An Analysis of Funding Flows makes the same crucial point:
“Strong partnerships, pooled budgets, and joint commissioning arrangements significantly improve performance on achieving discharges for people”.
We are not short of evidence. The issues are clear, as are the solutions. Action and will are needed to bring about change. Some of that is cultural change: a willingness to include people who are different in our communities, and to go the extra mile to help them to stay at home. The financial cost would be less, and just think of the improvements in the quality of people’s lives. We need the change, and I very much hope the Minister will show us his will in concluding this debate and responding to the questions that I know noble Lords will ask. I beg to move.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hollins for securing this important debate; we are so fortunate to have her expertise in the House, and I pay tribute to her tireless work over so many years. I have had the privilege of participating in other debates in her name on this subject since I joined your Lordships’ House. I do so not as someone with personal experience or expertise in this area but as someone who cares deeply about fairness, equality of opportunity and the protection of human rights for the more vulnerable in our society.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has made clear that the detention of individuals in the absence of individualised, therapeutic treatment risks violating their right to liberty and security. It found that rights to private and family life and to freedom from inhumane and degrading treatment are frequently under threat for people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people detained in in-patient units.
The Government’s 2019 manifesto committed to addressing this through reform of the Mental Health Act 1983—an important Act, but one that has failed to keep pace with changes in understanding of and attitudes towards mental health since it passed into law 40 years ago. Like other noble Lords across the House, I was deeply disappointed that the Bill failed to find a place among the legislative priorities for this Government’s last Session. In its absence, we need to know what urgent action they will take now and in future to end the human rights scandal of this inappropriate and unnecessary detainment in in-patient care.
NHS data from October 2023 reveals that there are 2,035 people with a learning disability and/or autistic people in in-patient mental health units. Over half have been there for more than two years, and under half had a date planned for them to leave hospital. As my noble friend told us, Mencap’s analysis of the data suggests that, at the current rate, the ambition to reduce the number of in-patients by half will not be met until 2029—a full five years after the target date.
The statistics are startling, but they are also sterile. Each number represents a person locked away from family, friends and the day-to-day opportunities and experiences that most of us are privileged to take for granted. With an average stay for current in-patients of 5.2 years, inappropriate detention in mental health hospitals is devastating not just to the person locked away but to the people who love them and want to see them thrive. The reality, as we have heard, is that too many autistic people and people with a learning disability are held in mental health hospitals not because they need in-patient mental health treatment but because of the sustained failure over many years to invest in the right community support.
The shape of the support required for those individuals to return safely to community life is set out clearly for commissioners in NICE guidance and in Building the Right Support. For example, it requires care providers with the right skills, suitable housing, intensive support services to help prevent and manage crisis situations and appropriate respite. Having a service model is one thing, but implementing it is another. Eight years on from its introduction, too many families still face issues in accessing the support that will enable successful discharge into the community or, better still, prevent the need for admission in the first place. The future of Building the Right Support is unclear. Looking beyond March 2024, can the Minister say what will happen to the associated action plan, the delivery board and the national targets? How is this being communicated across the health and care system?
At yesterday’s Oral Questions, we heard once again about the woeful underinvestment in social care and the social care workforce. One effect of this is that people with a learning disability and/or autism struggle to access the right care packages and the support of staff with the appropriate skills and expertise for their needs. During the passage of the Health and Care Act, I was part of a cross-House coalition arguing for the importance of reforming and fixing social care for working-aged disabled adults and addressing the issues facing the workforce. Our amendments to address this did not make it into the Bill and, on top of this, the Government have delayed implementation of much of their social care reform programme. The hard-working and overstretched social care workforce remains on its knees. Will the Government commit to creating a national workforce plan for the social care sector that identifies and addresses the skills and the funding gap, so that people with a learning disability and/or autistic people can receive the care and support they need in the community, and reduces the likelihood of their being admitted to an in-patient unit?
Lack of suitable housing is also a key factor, and it is the other main reason cited in NHS Digital data each month for delayed discharge. What assessment has been made of the capital funding required to enable the discharge of people from in-patient units? Are the Government monitoring the provision of suitable housing to meet their needs? Without the right housing, alongside social care, too many people will continue to end up in crisis situations that see them inappropriately admitted, or readmitted, to in-patient units.
I have no doubt that we all share the same ambition: that people with a learning disability and autistic people should be able to live fulfilling lives in the community without fear of being admitted, potentially for long periods of time, to in-patient units—places where there is often excessive use of restrictive interventions, including physical and chemical restraint, and increased risk of abuse and neglect.
The 2024 target to reduce the numbers in in-patient care by 50% is an important step, but it is a step towards a broader ambition. However, I struggle to see how real progress can be made unless we get social care reform back on track. This means making sure that the social care system works for all those who need it, not just those who develop care needs in later life but working-age adults with long-standing needs, who rarely find themselves front and centre in discussions about social care reform.
I noted earlier that, in October, there were 2,035 people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people in in-patient mental health units. I am sure we would all agree that that is an unacceptably high number, but it is also surely a low enough number that, in a civilised, compassionate and relatively affluent society, if the will was there, the development of individualised pathways back into community-supported living could be an achievable goal. The right to enjoy a “gloriously ordinary life” should not be too much to ask.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, we have heard two quite outstanding speeches, and I am fairly anxious about putting my toe in the water. Some years ago, I had the privilege to chair a national charity called Hft, founded in 1962 by a group of families with a vision for creating a better life for their relatives who had learning disabilities. They pioneered the idea that everyone could have choices about how they live. They called it Home Farm Trust, and it became known as Hft. This role changed my perspective and understanding of learning disability.
At present, there are around 2,000 learning-disabled adults being held in mental health in-patient units. These individuals are detained under the Mental Health Act, even though they do not have a mental health condition, in a secure hospital setting, often far from their community, and they can be subject to restraint and overmedication. Today, Hft supports more than 2,000 people across England and Wales, from those living independently in their own homes to day-care opportunities from a few hours a week right up to 24 hours a day. For every person it supports, it is committed to working with them to realise their best life possible.
Despite repeated commitments from the Government to transform care and end this practice, they have repeatedly missed their targets over the past 12 years. The latest commitment set out in the NHS long-term plan—to reduce the number of people with learning disabilities and autism in in-patient mental health care by 50% by March 2024—is likely to be missed again. The Government must bring forward a mental health Bill which prevents the inappropriate detention of learning-disabled adults under the Mental Health Act. It was highly distressing that this was not included in the King’s Speech and is not on the Government’s legislative agenda, despite a 2019 manifesto commitment to
“make it easier for people with learning disabilities and autism to be discharged from hospital and improve how they are treated in law”.
Ensuring social care is funded properly, so that everyone can receive the right care, is also critical. This will ensure that everyone who needs social care can receive the right support at the right time, and should prevent admissions to in-patient units.
Social care faces financial challenges, from poor quality and unmet need to low pay and high turnover. Central government grants to local authorities fell by 37% in real terms between 2009-10 and 2019-20, from £41 billion to £26 billion in 2019-20 prices. This results in local authorities with less to spend on adult social care despite demand, and therefore costs remain high. In 2019-20, local authorities had to meet a funding gap of £6.1 billion to meet the cost of care, resulting in £4.1 billion of cuts to adult social care at local authority level.
Ultimately, the impact of financial pressure is felt by those who draw upon and work in the sector. The consequences of this are numerous. It causes unmet need: with funding squeezed, social care is more often being commissioned only for those with the highest needs, leaving those with lower needs without essential support. The number of adults waiting for social care is still incredibly high, estimated at 400,000 people.
There is an impact on the NHS: a lack of suitable social care can affect health services, for example, by delaying discharging people from hospital or not having suitable or any care in the first place leading to admission. According to the Care and Support Alliance, one in seven people have needed hospital treatment due to a lack of care.
The financial pressure also contributes to workforce pressures: 81% of providers reported that local authority fee increases did not cover the rising cost of the national living wage, let alone a higher, more competitive wage. Pay of social care providers is uncompetitive. This is largely due to the fact that, in general, the amount local authorities pay providers to deliver care does not allow for substantial pay increases.
The knock-on impact of this is high vacancy rates, due to the necessary use of expensive agency staff and turning away of admissions due to insufficient staffing. We are aware that the twin impact of funding cuts and the pandemic has had an impact on commissioning trends. We have seen instances where commissioners are using the closure or reduction of day services as a reason not to recommission, consequently saving money.
The importance of the social care workforce cannot be underestimated. For many of the 1.5 million people in the UK with a learning disability, it provides support to ensure they remain healthy, can remain in employment and be an active member of their community. Tackling longstanding recruitment and retention issues within the social care workforce is one of the most fundamental challenges for the sector. It impinges on both the viability of services from a health and safety perspective and can have a huge impact upon the care received by people with a learning disability.
During 2022, the adult social care sector saw an average vacancy rate of 21%. Some 42% of providers saw a decline in the number of applications for care staff in 2022, which saw an average turnover rate for the sector of 25%. The Government have taken several steps to address this, including pledging £500 million to support and develop the social care workforce. While this will fund positive initiatives such as a new knowledge and skills framework and a portable health certificate, it will not address the most pervasive cause of high turnover and vacancy rates, which is uncompetitive pay. When surveyed, providers told us increases in pay would make the biggest difference to workforce challenges. Invaluable social care staff should be paid a wage which remunerates them for their skill and recognises inflationary costs. The increase in the national living wage is therefore a welcome step.
Yet, too often, this is not sufficiently reflected in local authority funding, with 80% of learning disability care providers stating that the fees they receive to deliver care do not cover the increased cost of wages. This requires providers to make up the shortfall, adding to existing financial pressures—such as energy and agency costs—and precluding any ability to pay a higher wage to alleviate the recruitment and retention crisis.
What changes are needed? First, we need a reform package for the social care system to deliver high-quality, person-centred care but which also supports and appropriately remunerates those who work within it. It must provide long-term and sustainable funding for social care. This must factor in a fully funded minimum pay rate for social care to reflect the complex and demanding role the workforce plays, as well as the increased cost of living. The Government must publish a comprehensive social care workforce strategy akin to the NHS workforce plan, co-produced with people who use the service and those who work in social care. The Chancellor is aware of the chronic underinvestment in the social care sector and the required national action to prevent further pressures on the NHS. To support the sector, we should see the introduction of a fully funded minimum pay rate for social care, as recommended by the Migration Advisory Committee and which is already in place in Scotland and Wales. Can the Minister confirm that this is on his wish list too?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on securing this important debate today, particularly as it comes so soon after the publication of her report, My Heart Breaks, which focuses on the fact that solitary confinement in hospital has no therapeutic benefit for people with a learning disability or for autistic people. However, I also want to congratulate her, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, did, on her tenacity in ensuring that this House and the Minister cannot overlook what is in fact a disgrace to our society. That disgrace is the damage caused to those with learning disabilities and/or autism, with often misunderstood and challenging behaviour, whose needs tragically continue to be unmet. The noble Baroness herself, along with many of us in this House, has made many times over the strongest of cases for reform of the Mental Health Act, which will be crucial to attending to this.
In her introduction, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, set out a number of disturbing statistics, which were amplified by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Jolly. If I had to pick out just one of those tragic statistics, it would be this: at the end of October this year, over 2,000 people with a learning disability and/or autism were in mental health hospitals, of which 210 were children. Even more shockingly, within that number, some 670—that is nearly one in three—had been in in-patient units for over five years, and the average length of stay for those in this group is 5.2 years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, repeated a call I have heard a number of times before, and I would rather not keep hearing it, because, as she reminded the Minister, while this is a shocking number, it is not so large that it cannot be dealt with by a focus on it. She called, as has been called for many times in this House, for individualised plans. Can the Minister inform your Lordships’ House what progress has been made in this regard? I emphasise the point that the noble Baroness made that these are not just statistics. Every one of the people we are talking about is a real person who is part of a household, a family, a community and an organisation, and they too are very much affected.
Perhaps the key point in the debate today is, as the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, pointed out, that long-term segregation lacks any therapeutic or rehabilitative benefit for the most vulnerable in our society. I was particularly struck that the report described long-term segregation as just one part of a four-stage failure. The four failures include a lack of community-based support. We have heard a lot today, and I endorse the comments, of major failings in adult social care and the need to provide for a properly trained and rewarded social care workforce that is planned in the same way as we have in the NHS workforce plan. The second failing is where there is a failure in the hospital to provide the support needed by the individual, because without providing that there is more trauma, disorientation and restrictions for the patient. The third failure is in the use of restrictive practices, including solitary confinement. The fourth failure is a lack of clarity about responsibility for commissioning and funding the skilled support in case management that is needed, which goes back to the accountability called for in the report. I emphasise those four points to the Minister in order to ask whether this four-pronged approach will be taken in addressing the situation before us, to reduce the number of people with learning disabilities and autism in inappropriate settings.
As has been said not just today but on a number of occasions, the Government had promised to tackle this shocking ongoing scandal through the reform of the outdated and discriminatory Mental Health Act 1983, yet that was nowhere to be seen in the King’s Speech, which was the last opportunity for this Government to bring this much-needed reform forward in this Parliament. That opportunity was missed. Once again from this Dispatch Box I say that, should Labour be in government after the next election, we will bring it forward in our first King’s Speech. I hope that commitment will provide some small comfort when looking forward, because it has been devastating to all those who were so involved in developing the discussions on improving mental health care, including all the charities, the other organisations, the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill and many others who contributed so much to the draft Bill.
It is highly unlikely that the Government will meet their target of halving the total number of people with a learning disability and/or autism in mental health hospitals by March 2024 from the 2015 levels, and analysis by Mencap, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, suggests that the target will not be met before 2029. There is no plan at all for this after next March, so I find it hard to see what change will be made.
If the Government are still committed to a reduction in the total number of people with learning disabilities and/or autism in mental health hospitals, what is the future beyond March 2024 of the Building the Right Support action plan, which previously set out these targets? The noble Lord the Minister and Minister Caulfield held a welcome meeting with noble Lords yesterday and referred to changes that might be made in the absence of government legislation. I put it to the Minister that the culture and practice reflected in a Mental Health Act that is some 40 years old are so far from what we now need that any changes must have at their heart ensuring a change of culture, as well as practice, to make any difference. It would be helpful if the Minister could give that reassurance, not just about the focus on change of culture and practice but about how this will be reported to this House, so that noble Lords can be updated and continue to take a very focused and important interest in this.
I will conclude my comments by picking up some points in a recent letter from the Minister, dated 8 December. Can he provide further detail on the pilot models of culturally appropriate advocacy that this letter said would provide tailored support to people from ethnic-minority communities being treated under the Mental Health Act? The Minister’s letter also highlighted the patient and carer race equality framework launched by NHS England. How will the Government evaluate its impact, not only on the wider scale but on how it is implemented across different mental health trusts? This is, as we always say, an important matter to debate; it is today and has been on previous occasions. I hope that the Minister will once again hear the wisdom that has been put forward and that we will have a response, in the absence of the legislation we have been promised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I too add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her terrier-like qualities—I hope that is seen as a compliment—in getting and maintaining our attention. I feel that this has been an excellent series of debates that have complemented each other and added to that basis of knowledge. I had useful feedback from the round table yesterday, and I hope the feeling from it is that this is a not a one-shot deal: it is an ongoing conversation with ongoing engagement.
One of the things that probably struck me the most —the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned it as well—was the change in the culture. When we think of where we were in the 1980s, and of all the things that we know need updating from the Mental Health Act 1983, we need to make sure we are reflecting that change of culture in all this. I will not pretend that we have an answer to that, but I think we are all committed. We need an Act; I understand everyone’s disappointment in that. We know we need to correct this at the earliest opportunity, but the round table was a good way of starting to talk about the things that we could do. We saw some very promising examples, particularly the Somerset model, which I am looking forward to hearing more about.
The point we need to reflect and come back better on is how we are changing those cultural attitudes as well. The example of Ash, given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, sets out very clearly that these are real people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said. Thankfully, in some ways, they are not a large number of people, but this brings home what needs to be done. The figure of 5.2 years as the length of stay really struck us all.
It is a good question and challenge: are we setting the right target with 50%? It is a round number, and I am not saying that in any way to try to move away from it, but is it the right target? As we have said, we all care about whether we are building the right support going forward. To answer the question raised, I can confirm that there is commitment to this beyond March 2024. In some ways, the figure of 50% by March 2024 has almost created a false sense of “That is a deadline, and what happens beyond it?” Candidly, we all know that this is an ongoing problem, which will work only if we have the supply.
It is well recognised that adult social care is a crucial component to the supply of places, as mentioned at Questions yesterday. Post pandemic, we had first to put in place action to stabilise adult social care. That is what the investment has been about, so that we are finally at a place where we have managed to increase the supply of places and increase the staffing there. It is only when you are on that stable footing that you can then look to the reform action that needs to come in, of which the care excellence certificate is very important. I will freely admit that we are at the start of that journey to completion.
The second part of that is the individualised mental health supply. That is what the £2 billion investment is all about, with the 2 million extra places that we need to provide in the community for people, including 300,000 young people. In that, we all have experience that a stitch in time really does save nine. If we can get there early, then that really helps and supports people.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, while progress is being made on the number of people who have a learning disability without the autism diagnosis, the real challenge is the autism diagnosis in-patient numbers. That is the one where we need to really understand what action is needed. That is why, as I say, the Building the Right Support delivery board is an ongoing thing, not something that stops in March.
On that supply, that is what the £121 million investment in community support people is about, and making sure that every integrated care board has to have an executive lead on learning disabilities and autism. Those are the people we are really holding to account in all of this, to make sure that support is there at a local level.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, the dynamic support registers are all centred on the individualised plans that need to be given to these people, so we can make sure that dynamic support is there for them all. A national development team for inclusion has been commissioned to work in 20 areas to give the bespoke support that is needed.
I reassure the House that we will continue to take forward non-legislative commitments to improve the care and treatment of people detained under the Act, as the noble Baroness mentioned, and in particular to pilot models of culturally appropriate advocacy, which will provide tailored support to hundreds of people from ethnic minorities to better understand their rights when they are detained under the Mental Health Act.
The importance of the right workforce has rightly been raised, to make sure that people with a learning disability and autism get the right support at the right time. That is what the strategy to put people at the heart of care is all about. Comments have been made about whether we have got that strategy right and whether it is covered in the long-term work force plan. It is harder in this area, as we know; as I mentioned yesterday, there are 17,000 independent providers in the adult social care setting and so co-ordinating across it is harder. But again, that is what the reforms and the care certificate are all about, and the digital platform that has been put in place to provide the qualifications and the payment mechanism is key to all of that.
I hope from these comments we are showing that we are alive and responding to the ongoing conversation and dialogue that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has set in place and which will continue. I will not pretend for one moment that we have got all the parts in place. That is why it needs to be a continuing dialogue, to which I am committed. As noble Lords saw yesterday, Minister Caulfield is definitely committed to this as well. We look forward to further round tables in the new year and increasing our knowledge from them. Noble Lords can rest assured that the Building the Right Support action plan is an ongoing live document that does not stop at March. It is key to everything going forward.
At this point, I thank all noble Lords, and especially the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her continued dedication to this.