House of Commons
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for supporting my maternity leave. The chance to raise a tiny child is fleeting and precious, and his superb stewardship of my portfolio granted me that gift. One of my big worries on standing for election and then becoming a Minister was that it might prove incompatible with starting and now expanding my family. I simply say to other women who want to get involved in public life, “Do not be afraid. There is a lot of talk of barriers, but service and motherhood are compatible privileges.” As my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) said so encouragingly to me, you can do it.
Grassroots live music venues are the talent pipeline of our music industry. We are supporting them with funds and rate relief. We have no plans for a Government-mandated ticket levy, but we encourage industry discussion.
Christine Jardine
I welcome the Minister back to her place. In Edinburgh, we benefit from a plethora of small venues that depend on the Edinburgh Festival to survive. We also have big events every year. At the moment all the excitement, even in my household, is about Taylor Swift coming to the city in June, but we recognise that small venues—the Music Venue Trust says 10% currently struggle to survive and depend on grants from it—do not get any benefit from big gigs. Will the Government consider a levy to support smaller venues, because without them we will never have the Elton Johns, the Queens and the Taylor Swifts who use them to learn their craft, develop and benefit our economy and culture.
Julia Lopez
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that grassroots venues are the talent incubators of the music industry. She will be aware that the Chancellor gave a substantial amount of money at last year’s Budget—up to £7 million for a new hub for the Edinburgh Fringe because of that talent pipeline—for the Edinburgh Fringe and the Edinburgh Festival. We are doing what we can with various different pots of money, but we also think there is room for the industry to find a solution on ticket levies. We think it is probably best for the industry to do that, rather than mandate it as a Government.
Damian Green
I welcome my hon. Friend back to her place. In 2023, across the country, not just in Edinburgh, live music boomed, with some 22 million people attending gigs, yet 76 small venues closed—more than one a week. I draw the Minister’s attention to an analogy with another hugely successful leisure industry, football, where a small amount of the enormous riches gained by the Premier League is allowed to trickle down to the grassroots so that the future of the sport is preserved. Just as with football, we have hugely profitable large arenas where the superstars of today perform and create huge revenues. A levy on the tickets from those sorts of shows—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I am very passionate about this—would help small venues to produce the superstars of tomorrow, so will the Minister take a positive attitude towards a levy?
Julia Lopez
My right hon. Friend has made his point well, if not briefly. We agree about the importance of grassroots music, which is why we have given another £5 million to the supporting grassroots music fund, but we are also in close touch with the Music Venue Trust, which has a great initiative called “Own Our Venues”. Arts Council England is helping with the purchase of some of the freeholds of these venues. We support that as well, but we think there is more scope for the industry to lead a solution, and we are backing talks between different parts of the industry.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The music industry is just about the most unequal sector in the whole of society. Those at the bottom—the vast majority—earn an absolute pittance, while those at the very top have unimaginable earnings. Surely we should be doing everything possible to try to change that. It is the sensible option: they do it in France, and the Scottish National party Government are considering doing it in Scotland. Will the Minister support that effort and initiative in Scotland, and if it shows that it can help redistribute some of this money, will she follow that example?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Gentleman for telling us what the Scottish National party is doing. I had understood that it was cutting a substantial amount from the arts budget. We have been supporting, for instance, the Edinburgh grassroots hub. I think there is a great deal of appetite in this place for a solution; I also think that the best option is for those in the industry to get together, and we are backing discussions of that kind. Indeed, before I went on leave I talked to Mark Davyd of the Music Venue Trust about the issue.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I, too, warmly welcome the Minister back to her place. She mentioned the £5 million for the supporting grassroots music fund, and that is greatly welcomed, but let us be clear: festivals, rehearsal spaces and independent promoters are also eligible for the fund. That is a lot of mouths to feed. They are all important parts of the ecosystem, and they all need funds. In real terms, this is a tiny amount of money for grassroots music venues. Is my hon. Friend pushing the Treasury to expand that funding to ensure that it can go further?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for drawing on her expertise in this regard, and for the work that the Select Committee is doing. I am going to provide that dreadful answer: ahead of the Budget, we will be discussing all these matters with the Treasury.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
Let me begin by welcoming the Minister back to her place. Since 2012, the Conservative Government have introduced tax reliefs for the creative industries year on year. That is one of the reasons why the creative industries are growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy, and why they are world leading. The Labour party opposed every single one of those tax reliefs, and despite its warm words it offers no substantive action.
Stephen Metcalfe
As my right hon. and learned Friend says, since we came to office we have introduced a number of tax reliefs that have supported children's television, video games, production, galleries, orchestras, theatres and museums. It is for the Chancellor to decide on tax policy, but can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what more she can do to make this go further, to ensure that we remain one of the world’s leading production venues?
Lucy Frazer
We have indeed introduced many tax reliefs, and since we came to office I have instigated and backed the introduction of tax reliefs and other support for the sector. Independent film making has been supported with more than £60 million of Government and national lottery funding, and I have recently spoken to representatives of the independent sector to establish how we can provide further support. However, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, matters of tax are ultimately matters for the Chancellor.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I have a suggestion for the Minister. When I met several film, television and advertising companies in my constituency recently, they pointed out that Malta and Mauritius have a 40% rebate which also covers commercials, and that Ireland will be following suit with a 40% rebate on reality TV and game shows. These are the bread-and-butter products of the industry, and they have a huge impact on local areas where filming takes place. The UK is falling behind in this respect. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Treasury and other colleagues about the matter?
Lucy Frazer
I assure the hon. Lady that I have regular discussions with the Treasury and the industry about how we can continue to support this vital sector. We are not falling behind. We are world leading, and we need to maintain that competitive edge. Our screen sector tax reliefs are estimated to have delivered over 200,000 new jobs and more than £13 billion in economic output.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
The Government are committed to ensuring that every community has the facilities it needs to make sport and physical activity accessible to all, with over £320 million being invested by 2025 to develop thousands of state-of-the-art community football pitches and multi-use sports facilities across the UK.
Munira Wilson
Udney Park playing fields in Teddington, in my constituency, have gone to rack and ruin over the past decade as successive developers have bought the site and, quite rightly, failed to build on it. The Udney Park Community Fields Foundation, led by Jonathan Dunn, has campaigned tirelessly to bring those fields into community use, because we desperately need more sports fields in my constituency. Now the site is back on the market, will the Minister join me, local sports groups and the local authority in backing the community’s bid for the site? Will he also put in a friendly word with relevant Ministers on the bid to the community ownership fund?
Stuart Andrew
I commend the hon. Lady for her commitment to improving sports facilities in her local area, and I commend all the volunteers, like Jonathan Dunn, who do a tremendous amount of work. Frankly, without them we would not have so many people being physically active. The Football Foundation and Sport England are always ready to discuss potential investments, and I would be happy to provide the hon. Lady with those contacts. Of course, I will raise this issue with my colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The community sports area on Tithe Farm Road in Houghton Regis is about to get an amazing new all-weather facility funded by developer money, town council money, Central Bedfordshire Council money and Government money. Will the Minister come to open the facility? It is much needed and should be celebrated.
Stuart Andrew
How could I possibly resist such an invitation? It is always a great honour to open facilities in this role, and I am delighted that we are so busy that we are opening thousands of them.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
We recognise that local media face serious challenges to their sustainability. Our digital markets legislation will help to rebalance the relationship between publishers and platforms, and the Government have been exploring the role of the BBC in local news through the mid-term charter review. We continue to consider all possible options in the interest of promoting and sustaining local newspapers, because we think they are vital pillars of the community and of a thriving democracy.
Liz Twist
Low pay and job insecurity are rife in local journalism. There have recently been big redundancies at my local paper, the Evening Chronicle, which has lost a third of its news reporters and half its sports reporters over a two-year period, meaning that my constituents get less local news, less coverage of emergency incidents and less coverage of their beloved sports teams. What further steps will the Minister take to address the issue of retaining careers in local journalism?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for raising these issues. I know that sustaining a good, financially beneficial career is a concern for many people working in journalism. Before I went on leave, I met Reach and other local newspaper groups to talk about some of the challenges they face. The Government are doing what we can through our ad spend, and we have looked at various things over the years, including zero rating of VAT, rates relief and so on, to try to help the sustainability of the local newspaper model. Ultimately, sustainability is at the heart of the challenge of giving local journalists places to have good careers. We are encouraging the BBC’s local democracy reporting service, which gives journalists opportunities beyond local newspapers.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister back to her place. The Government are one of the biggest advertisers in the UK yet, when it comes to placing adverts and campaigns, local papers such as the Barnsley Chronicle can be overlooked in favour of buying ad space online. Many people in this country do not have digital access or still rely on print media as their primary source of news and information, and our local papers are struggling. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the Government’s policy on placing adverts supports the interests of both our press and the public?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting this issue, which the Cabinet Office leads on. The DCMS has been in talks with the Cabinet Office about that spend. As I say, I have spoken to groups such as Reach about this previously. I was in the Cabinet Office during the pandemic, when some large adverts were used and some of the issues faced were about regularity; the Government spent a large amount of money with local newspapers because of that audience reach, because of older readership and so on. So the Government do a lot in this area, but I appreciate that there is always more we can look to do and I understand the point she is making about online advertising.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
As I mentioned a moment ago, the Government are investing in facilities up and down the country. I am pleased to say that the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme has invested, through the Football Foundation, more than £766,000 since 2022 across Devon and Cornwall, supporting 79 projects so far with equipment.
Kevin Foster
Groups such as the Torquay athletics club do great work in coaching and encouraging young people across Torbay to participate in sport, yet there are no synthetic 400-metre track and field athletics facilities suitable for high-level training in our bay. What opportunities does the Minister see for getting such a facility in Torbay to address that need?
Stuart Andrew
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. It is vital that communities have access to the right facilities, in order to help us meet our target of having more than 3 million more people being active by 2030. Sport England has provided more than £20 million to support grassroots projects in the region. I would be happy to share a full list of the available funds that are open for him to have a look at. Let me also add my thanks to his constituents for the work they are doing in getting people more active.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
Since the tackling loneliness strategy launched in 2018, the Government and their partners have invested more than £80 million in tackling loneliness. The 2023 annual report included 60 new cross-government commitments, and updates on progress on things included in that report are due to be published in March.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Severe cuts have left a £600 million gap in adult social care funding. More than 1 million lonely and isolated elderly people now rely on charities such as Re-engage, which I volunteer with, to plug that gap. I know that the Minister does care about this, but surely he must recognise that those cuts and their leading to that rise in desperate loneliness are because of this Government.
Stuart Andrew
First, let me pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work she does with those charities. The partnership between Government and charities has made the UK one of the world’s leading countries on tackling loneliness. That is why in the Budget in 2023 we announced £100 million of support for charities and community organisations, recognising the challenges they face and paying tribute to them for the work they are doing in tackling this important issue.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
When the Government released their national strategy in 2018, we had a far more limited understanding of loneliness, its consequences and the effectiveness of interventions than we do now. However, despite six years of hard work and good initiatives, the problem has got worse; the level of loneliness has risen by half a million since 2020. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) said, the pandemic and now the cost of living crisis have created new pressures, and with charities and local authorities facing higher demand and rising costs, it is increasingly difficult for them to respond. Given all those challenges, what has the Minister done to prepare for a refreshed national strategy to tackle loneliness?
Stuart Andrew
This is a complex area and a lot of the research done since the strategy was launched in 2018 has helped us to understand the issue in a lot more detail. Chronic loneliness has remained at about the same level, but there is still more work to be done. That is why we are now taking very targeted approaches to specific demographics within our society. I am also convening a cross-government meeting of Ministers from across Departments to see what more we can do to make sure we are meeting our strategy ambition.
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
DCMS welcomes applications through Historic England for local heritage assets to be considered for designation. We are also committed to supporting communities to care for their local heritage assets, including through Historic England’s repair grants for heritage at risk and the National Lottery Heritage Fund’s grants for heritage.
Steve Tuckwell
With both RAF Northolt and the Battle of Britain Bunker in the heart of my constituency, the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip share incredibly deep ties with the second world war, especially in the context of the Royal Air Force. As the 84th anniversary of the battle of Britain approaches, would my hon. Friend meet me and other local groups dedicated to preserving the important fabric of both of these valuable heritage sites, to ensure all is done for them to continue to stand as testaments to the bravery of the few who preserved our freedoms?
Julia Lopez
My constituency shares deep ties with my hon. Friend’s, as RAF Hornchurch is in my constituency. Some RAF fighters based there joined in the battle of Britain, protecting London and our nation at a time of deep terror. We have a fantastic local museum at RAF Hornchurch, if I may just give it a plug, that is run by volunteers and is an absolute treasure trove; I recommend it. I understand that my hon. Friend has met with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who is responsible for arts and heritage, but I understand that we will also have an opportunity to debate the subject in greater detail next week, and I look forward to that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Hadrian’s Wall runs through the heart of Newcastle’s west end, but it is little celebrated or signposted, and the Hadrian’s Wall national trail does not actually follow the wall’s path through my constituency. What help can the Minister offer to local communities keen to celebrate this history, which is literally in their backyard?
Julia Lopez
I was not aware of this outrageous oversight on paths and signage, so I will raise it with Lord Parkinson at the next opportunity.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will the Minister help the heritage of Victoria Tower Gardens and the voluntary organisations London Parks & Gardens Trust and the Thorney Island Society by getting the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation to unredact the minutes of December 2018, so that I can quote them when I appear at the hybrid Bill Committee on Wednesday?
Julia Lopez
I confess I am not sure about the issue my hon. Friend refers to, so I will do some investigation and we will see what the Department can do to facilitate his request.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her positive answers; it is good to see her back in her place.
We have some incredible heritage in Strangford, which goes back long before Ards and North Down Borough Council was brought together. The council has some ideas for promoting first and second world war heritage at the Somme Museum at Conlig. Have any discussions taken place with Ards and North Down Borough Council to ensure that our heritage is retained for everyone, culturally, historically and visually?
Julia Lopez
I have just been informed that my ministerial colleague had a very positive visit to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—I am sure he always offers a good time in Northern Ireland. I will ask if there have been any discussions with his local authority on that basis.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
I am still feeling slightly embarrassed by my answer to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)!
We have engaged with EU member states to clarify guidance and, where possible, improve arrangements when for EU touring. The vast majority of EU member states—23 of the 27—offer visa and permit-free routes to touring. We are always looking at what more we can do, including through the music export growth scheme, which is being tripled to £3.2 million over the next two years.
Patrick Grady
Glasgow North is home to many talented musicians, some of whom play in Scotland’s world-class orchestras, but the Association of British Orchestras has warned that the removal of tax credits for performances in the European economic area is a direct result of Brexit and could make touring in Europe unviable for orchestras. What is the Minister’s message to my constituents, whose ability to tour in Europe is being sacrificed on the altar of Brexit fundamentalism?
Julia Lopez
Unlike the SNP, we actually listen to what people say in referenda, so I am afraid we will not be rejoining the EU and therefore we cannot have special tax privileges on that basis. DCMS is aware of the concerns of touring orchestras. We are facilitating discussions with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs so the orchestras know precisely where they stand on some of the issues they have raised.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
We have seen significant growth in the film and TV industries. The support that we have taken includes reforms to audiovisual tax reliefs, uplifts for animation and children’s TV, and £28 million of investment in the UK global screen fund. As I have said, the Labour party voted against all our tax reliefs and, as far as I am aware, has offered no funding to those industries.
Michael Fabricant
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her answer. She will know that there is now more studio space for feature film production in the home counties than there is in Hollywood. However, there is a vulnerability. We found that out at the time of the American writers and actors’ strikes, when a number of my friends, and many other people who are not my friends, were made redundant temporarily because film production halted. How can we make the British film industry more independent of the American production machine?
Lucy Frazer
I know that my hon. Friend is himself a veteran of the silver screen, appearing in the brilliant British “House of Cards”. Our film industry is world leading. He is right that the strikes caused disruption. We work very closely with our partners in other jurisdictions. One example is the international hit film “Barbie”, which was filmed in the UK, supported 750 jobs, added £80 million to our economy and earned more than £1.1 billion at the global box office. We needed to ensure that the film industry could continue to thrive after the strikes, which is why we are continuing to support the industry with tax incentives, funding pots and, importantly, the development of a skills pipeline to ensure success long into the future.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
The BBC has a duty to deliver its impartial and accurate news and current affairs coverage under its royal charter. It is editorially independent, which means that editorial policies are a matter for the BBC, but both the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the BBC’s leadership team. We have discussed the important issue of impartiality on multiple occasions. It is also a key focus of the Government’s mid-term review of the BBC’s governance and regulation.
Rob Butler
As a former BBC journalist myself, I completely believe in its editorial independence from the Government, but, just as strongly, I consider it essential that the BBC, across all its programming and from all presenters, should be absolutely and unequivocally impartial. Given the concerns that we have heard about the current coverage of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the reporting of the resignation of the president of Harvard and examples of where Ofcom has found significant editorial failings, does my hon. Friend agree that the BBC needs to work consistently, constantly and visibly to enforce that requirement on impartiality?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right: trust is the BBC’s currency. That is especially important in relation to its international coverage, particularly during conflicts, so it must use its words with care. With regard to the events in Israel and Gaza, the Government have been clear that the BBC should reflect on its coverage and learn lessons for the future, but, of course, we again emphasise impartiality and the highest editorial standards. That is a strategic priority of the BBC’s leadership, and we are talking to them about this in relation to the mid-term review and licensing renewal.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
As an ex-BBC reporter, I am in awe of my former colleagues’ bravery and impartiality when they cover world affairs. We have all followed with horror the Israeli bombardment of Gaza. Reporters Without Borders says that it appears that Israel is now directly targeting journalists. The Al-Jazeera bureau chief has had three children killed, including his journalist son—what unimaginable pain. Another Palestinian journalist, Ayat Khaddoura, said:
“When will this war end? Who will tell the world what we went through and what we saw?”
I bring her question to the House as she is no longer alive to do so. Can the Minister share with journalists across the world how the Government’s refusal to call for a ceasefire is advancing the cause of journalistic freedom or peace in the region, and can she tell us who the Government’s position has persuaded apart from those on the Labour Front Bench who remain limpet close to the Tory position on Gaza, as on so many other issues?
Mr Speaker
That question was a long way from the impartiality of the BBC. We must ensure that we stick to the subject of the question. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that topicals would have been a much better place for his question. Minister, can you pick out the part that you need to?
Julia Lopez
I simply wish to pay tribute to every journalist who puts their life on the line to bring truth to the public’s attention. They play an incredibly important role. We are proud of what the BBC journalists do in particular. They have also done some awesome things in Ukraine. As a Government, we just want to say that we support their work and pay tribute to them.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
Women and girls should have exactly the same access to sport as boys and men. That is why we supported the recommendations in Karen Carney’s excellent report. It is why we are investing £600 million to boost equal access to sport, and why we recently announced £30 million for the Lionesses Futures Fund to deliver 30 pitches across the country with priority access for women and girls, with further opportunities for 8,000 women and girls.
Andrew Jones
We have had fantastic success with women’s football, particularly the Lionesses, including Harrogate’s Rachel Daly, who has been a great inspiration locally, but what steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to ensure that sports with a smaller following can sustain a competitive grassroots environment for girls?
Lucy Frazer
I recognise Rachel’s success as the top scorer in the women’s super league last year. We support sport at every level. Sport England’s This Girl Can campaign, funded by the Government, inspires millions of women and girls to get involved in all sports. The School Games programme, also funded by the Government, encourages children to take up sport and get active.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Unfortunately, in recent weeks there has been a spate of disgusting sexist, misogynistic abuse directed towards sportswomen just for being at the top of their game. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), has been on the receiving end just for standing up to it, which I commend him for. I agree with him that vile, misogynistic comments are dangerous. The reality is that they are putting women and girls off sport. Does the Secretary of State agree that every sporting organisation should have a strategy to eliminate all forms of sexual harassment and abuse?
Lucy Frazer
I agree with the hon. Member: we should not have misogynistic, bullying behaviour in sport, and all governing bodies should be looking at what their sports are doing. We set out in our sports strategy how we should have fair competition and integrity in sport.
Thangam Debbonaire
The Secretary of State mentioned the Carney review, but I am afraid that the Government seem to be failing women’s football on that, with a complete lack of detail about how the implementation group to put into practice the Carney review recommendations will work. Without senior leadership, that group will not have the teeth that it needs, and all the hard work will be put at risk. Fans, players and clubs deserve urgent action and leadership from the top. If the Secretary of State does not reform the women’s game and give it the same prominence as the men’s, I will. Will she commit to chairing the implementation group, and reporting back to Parliament so that MPs can hold her to account?
Lucy Frazer
I completely dispute what the hon. Member says about our support for women in sport, and women in football. I have had the pleasure of meeting Karen Carney on a number of occasions. Her report is excellent. We endorse all its recommendations, many of which are for the FA, which I have also spoken to on this subject. I will ensure that the recommendations are fulfilled. The implementation board will have all the governing bodies on it. Its first meeting is in March. I will keep a very close eye on the board, and will work very closely with my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on that and every other issue.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
As 2023 drew to a close, official statistics highlighted that under this Government the creative industries continued to thrive. They now employ almost 2.5 million workers, a growth of 4.4%, so we are well on our way to meeting our objectives to grow the creative industries by £50 billion and increase employment by 1 million by 2030.
Peter Aldous
Local commercial radio, whether in Lancashire or Suffolk, can fill the gap left by the reduction in BBC local radio coverage, but in the Lowestoft and Waveney area it is constrained in doing so, as the local digital audio broadcasting network has not been extended to cover the area. Please can my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for that important infrastructure, which is available throughout most of the UK, to be extended to north-east Suffolk as soon as possible?
Lucy Frazer
I completely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of local radio to listeners across the UK, and I know that he is an effective campaigner for his local area. The BBC and commercial radio are responsible for the operation of their respective radio networks, including the DAB radio networks, but I have asked my officials to engage with local DAB multiplex operators and broadcasters to look at whether there is a desire to increase local DAB coverage further.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Lucy Frazer
The right hon. Member is absolutely right about the importance of protecting the original work of the creative industries. I have held a number of roundtables to ensure that we protect that originality. The Intellectual Property Office is working on that very issue, and I have been liaising with it and with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Lucy Frazer
It is absolutely right that a deal should be done. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and I have been encouraging all the authorities to come to an arrangement. We have been clear that if no arrangement is reached, there will obviously be a backstop in the legislation for the football regulator that we will bring forward to the House shortly.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
As probably one of the few Members of this House who have actually set up a charities lottery, I understand the importance of them. It is right to say that we did a significant review of them not so long ago. I know the hon. Member is probably referring to one particular lottery, and I have written to that lottery with suggestions, having consulted with the Gambling Commission, of ways it may be able to expand within the current remit. But, as a Department, we are extremely busy at the moment dealing with the gambling White Paper—that has to take priority. Once we have done that, we will consider what further work may need to be done on society lotteries.
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of football clubs like Wealdstone and Uxbridge. They are incredibly important in providing opportunities for people to become physically active, but are also integral parts of our communities. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State just mentioned, we have been urging the football authorities to come up with a deal, so that that money can flow down and we can ensure that our great football sport that we have in this country continues to flourish.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stuart Andrew
I am glad that people in Scotland will be able to watch their national team. I believe that our current list works well. It is important that we strike the right balance, because we have to ensure that the sport rights holders use the income they get to benefit the whole of that sporting environment. That is something we look at constantly, but I think that at the moment we have the right balance.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Given Ofcom’s comments that it is considering whether its proposals for regulation of local radio are still appropriate in the light of the BBC’s changes to local radio provision, does the Minister agree that the BBC’s mid-term review is a good opportunity to look at how the BBC delivers for older audiences, particularly in its local radio provision?
Lucy Frazer
The mid-term review is a very important point where we can look further, and indeed have looked further, at a number of issues, including competition, complaints and impartiality. We will be publishing the results of the mid-term review very shortly.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister will know that Warwick and Leamington—Leamington being also known as Silicon Spa—enjoys the greatest concentration of games companies in the world. I appreciate what was said in the autumn statement, but there is a skills shortage. Can the Minister update us on what is being done to address that?
Lucy Frazer
The gaming industry in this country is world leading, and I have had the pleasure of visiting a number of gaming companies to see how they are thriving. We have a creative industries skills package, which we committed to in the creative industries sector vision, to ensure a pipeline of talent all the way from primary school right up until someone’s second or third job, and there are measures at every single one of those steps.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Wallington FC is an amazing local football club in Roundshaw, in Carshalton and Wallington, but it is having trouble maintaining its lease with the new owners and its very old sports pavilion needs an overhaul. Can the Minister set out what support is available from the Department or other organisations to help with that?
Stuart Andrew
The volunteers that my hon. Friend mentions are absolutely the lifeblood of community sport and it is vital that they have those facilities, as I mentioned earlier. Again, we are investing more than £320 million, and any team can have discussions with the local authority and the Football Foundation. I am happy to meet him privately to discuss that and perhaps give him some pointers.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Performers in the UK are having their images, voices or likenesses reproduced by others using AI technology, without their consent. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which regulates performers’ intellectual property, does not account for AI. When will this Government act to protect the rights of artists, performers and other creatives in the UK, or are they content to see this continued exploitation and violation of people’s intellectual property rights?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member will know that in the UK we have world-leading protections for copyright and intellectual property. We want to make sure that, as we move into a new technological age with generative AI, we continue to protect creative work. I assure her that we are working closely with the industry and the Intellectual Property Office to ensure that we get the best protections we can, and I know that an update on the IPO’s work will be published shortly.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
One of the key recommendations of the Carney review into women’s football was the need for an improvement in mental health provision in elite women’s sport. I think the Government have accepted most of the recommendations of the Carney review, so can the Secretary of State give us an update on how she thinks mental health provision needs to be improved in women’s elite sport?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that important piece of work in Karen Carney’s review. I know that football authorities such as the FA, for example, are starting work in this area, but that is precisely why we will be introducing the implementation group, because we want to ensure that pressure is put on to do the work that is needed, and to do it quickly.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Labour has a programme for a new generation of youth hubs, because we know that our young people are struggling with mental health challenges, school, themselves and others, and some are being picked off by criminal gangs. In contrast with our programme, the YMCA has identified a 70% cut in funding since 2010 and a loss of 4,500 frontline youth workers. When will the Government invest in our young people and in a comprehensive youth service?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question, because this is something I feel very passionately about. I am very proud that we are investing £500 million in our national youth guarantee, and that we already have in place a programme to build youth clubs—we have already built 87 throughout the country, spending £300 million. We want constructive things for people to do, which is why we are spending £300 million on our sports pitches. I have strengthened the statutory guidance in relation to what local authorities are required to do, and we are working across Departments to ensure that our young people have something to do, somewhere to go and someone to talk to.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church Commissioners provided £1 million to support music in cathedrals during the pandemic. That sum was match funded by the Cathedral Music Trust. The commissioners are extremely grateful to the trust for doing what it did to help ensure that worship in our cathedrals remains of the highest calibre.
Michael Fabricant
My hon. Friend will know that cathedral schools, such as Lichfield Cathedral School, play an important part in providing young choristers for cathedrals, but they are very concerned that if they have to charge 20% on their fees, and possibly lose their charitable status, they may no longer be viable and will go bust. What assessment have the commissioners made of the effects of such a change?
Andrew Selous
I can tell my hon. Friend that there is a concern that cathedral schools may not be able to afford to pay business rates. If the payment of business rates and the addition of VAT on fees cause choir schools to close, that would be an issue for a number of cathedrals.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Andrew Selous
Many parish churches provide shelters and support for rough sleepers. The Church of England is working to provide long-term secure housing for those who need it, and piloting projects to build housing on Church land to enable that to happen.
Kevin Foster
Church buildings and congregations can work well with local councils to reduce rough sleeping by providing not only a bed and a meal, but the opportunity for lasting spiritual and emotional support through membership of the Church family. What further support can the Church of England offer parishes in Torbay that are undertaking such work?
Andrew Selous
I warmly congratulate all the churches in Torbay on the provision of the night shelter, and I single out in particular Mark Gridley and Gary Mitchell, who I know have been instrumental in leading that work—I am sure that the whole House is grateful for what they are doing. It is also typical of my hon. Friend that, as I understand it, he provides a Sunday evening surgery at the shelter. I am sure that churches across England could learn from that excellent initiative. If any churches would welcome conversation with the Church of England about housing on Church land, I ask them to get in touch with me directly and I will enable that to happen.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In my constituency, unfortunately, at this time of year we are witnessing a number of people who are homeless—we have not seen that for some time. The story of Christmas tells of Mary’s journey before the birth of baby Jesus, when they too were homeless. I am very keen to hear from the Church Commissioners what can be done not just here on the mainland, which I understand is the responsibility of the Church of England, but in Northern Ireland, where the Church of Ireland and other churches also wish to participate.
Andrew Selous
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. In the first instance, I suggest that he and churches in Northern Ireland might want to look at the joint archbishops’ commission on housing, which came out last year. The commission was widely praised for its work, and we are taking that work forward in the Church of England, but I am sure that churches in Northern Ireland could learn from it as well.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The committee has not had any recent discussions with the commission on the matters raised. The commission publishes information about donations to ensure transparency, and has powers to sanction political parties that accept impermissible foreign donations. However, it has also highlighted that the political finance system is vulnerable to unlawful influence from donations both overseas and in the UK. It has recommended that parties should be required to know where donations come from, and to have policies in place to manage the risk of receiving money from unlawful sources.
Patricia Gibson
Last year, the parliamentary National Security Strategy Committee revealed that the Russian state attempted to interfere with the 2019 general election. This Government have made it easier for overseas donors, including those living in Russia, to donate to UK political parties. Does the Electoral Commission share my party’s concern that this Government are opening up UK democracy to even greater influence by hostile nations?
Cat Smith
It would be a matter for the security services, rather than the Electoral Commission, to make a full assessment of whether unlawful foreign money has been used to campaign at UK general elections—in 2019, for example, as the hon. Member has pointed out. However, political parties must report when they are given an unlawful donation and return it to the donor. In addition, the commission carries out permissibility checks on a sample of donations, and has the power to sanction political parties that accept impermissible foreign donations. The commission will continue to recommend changes to ensure that voters can have greater confidence in the political finance system.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
I am very pleased to be able to tell the hon. Lady that the Church of England has transformed its use of digital and social media in recent years, including through Instagram and TikTok, and our digital team has won over 30 prestigious awards for its work. That has led to hugely increased online engagement—as the hon. Lady and I were learning about earlier this morning—not least among those who have difficulty attending church.
Rachael Maskell
In a multimedia age, there are 2 million people in the UK who are housebound, and globally many Christians across the persecuted church are unable to gather with others. With good Christian online content such as services and podcasts, and popular series such as “The Chosen” through to the Alpha course, how is the Church equipping people to navigate that content safely and easily, in order to extend its mission with the equipment and skills needed to access it?
Andrew Selous
I commend the hon. Lady for such an important question, which takes in the housebound in England and people persecuted across the world who cannot attend church safely; she is absolutely right to raise those issues. For those who are not online at all, the Church of England offers DailyHope, which is a free telephone line providing 24/7 worship, prayer and talks. Of course, our digital content can be followed not just around England but across the world, to help make Jesus known.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The committee has not had any recent discussions with the Electoral Commission on the matters raised. The commission’s regulatory remit is focused on ensuring that political finance is transparent and that campaigning materials include an imprint showing voters who has produced the material. The commission does not have a role in regulating the content of election material, but it does encourage all campaigners to undertake their role responsibly and transparently. It has called for changes in the law to improve transparency and safeguard the UK’s electoral system.
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Lady for her answer. The imprints are going to be important, but we have already seen an attack on our system through cyber-attacks at the last general election. At this general election, we face the increased, insidious threat to our democracy from artificial intelligence and fake news circulating false audio from politicians during conference season, so is there anything else that the commission is considering, or that it could do, to attack that sort of insidious approach?
Cat Smith
The commission shares the hon. Lady’s concerns about some of the threats that new technologies, deepfakes and AI-generated content could pose, ultimately taking away voter confidence in the electoral system. While the commission does not have a role in the regulation of the content of campaign material, it is working with other organisations to try to support responsible and transparent campaigning. If the hon. Lady would be interested, I would be very happy to arrange an opportunity for her to meet with the Electoral Commission, perhaps to discuss this matter further.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne)
The wine sold in the House of Commons is reviewed annually, with the next review due in the spring of 2024. The right hon. Gentleman’s question specifically relates to Australian wine; I understand that a Chardonnay and a Shiraz are available, compared with three English wines, so Australian wine is represented on the wine list in the Palace of Westminster.
John Spellar
As part of a dispute over covid, China imposed particularly punishing tariffs on Australian wine, damaging that industry. May I urge the House of Commons Commission to stand with our Australian friends and allies, and prioritise buying Australian wine and encouraging its use in our venues to make it clear that bullying does not pay?
Sir Charles Walker
Of course, if colleagues here wish to prioritise the purchase of Australian wine from the wine list, I encourage them to do so, but I also remind them that we have very good English wines on the wine list as well. More generally, I am sure the nation has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s call to arms, so when we are out in the supermarkets stocking our own shelves, perhaps we should all be mindful of buying two or three bottles of Australian wine as well—seriously—to show solidarity with our Australian friends and their growers.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
Back from wine to God, Mr Speaker. Sadly, vandalism and theft are persistent issues for parish churches, and I was sorry to learn about thefts at churches in Stanmore, Hendon, Edgware and Bushey in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I can tell him that advice from the diocese has been circulated to all parishes in the area. Of course, the best way to deter thieves is to have a high footfall in and around churches, keeping the building open to welcome people. I also know that the police will be providing crime prevention advice to the churches concerned.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He is right that St John’s church in Stanmore was the subject of a burglary just before Christmas, Christ Church in Hendon was the subject of another burglary, and St Andrew’s church in Kingsbury was robbed during the mass itself. Will my hon. Friend use his powers to encourage the police to take extra action, particularly around Christian festivals when it seems that there is more action by burglars and a pattern of behaviour?
Andrew Selous
I think the whole House is very sorry to learn what has happened to my hon. Friend’s local churches. A theft during the mass is really quite extraordinary. I will make sure that the Church of England nationally gets in touch with the Metropolitan police to pass on his concerns about that case. On general security advice, alarm sensors and attaching safes securely to the building will help, as will making sure that there is an accurate record, and pictures of valuables can help to secure their return. We certainly do not want a repeat of what my hon. Friend has experienced.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Andrew Selous
I commend the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief for yet again bringing this issue before the House. It is extremely concerning that the Cuban Government continue to control religious activity so tightly by using surveillance, harassment, forced exile, fines and ill-treatment of prisoners. The Church of England works multilaterally through the United Nations, the World Council of Churches and other bodies to advocate vigorously for freedom of religion or belief for everyone in Cuba.
Fiona Bruce
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The Open Doors 2024 world watchlist will be launched in the Palace of Westminster on 17 January, and I urge all colleagues to attend. I anticipate that once again it will, sadly, indicate a deteriorating picture of freedom for Christians around the world as autocratic regimes seek to suppress dissenting voices.
On Cuba, I thank the Church Commissioner for sharing my concerns about reports on the worsening situation, particularly for religious leaders there. As he mentioned, many are subject to harassment, fines, forced exile, detention and ill-treatment in prison. Will he join me in calling for the release of religious prisoner of conscience Pastor Lorenzo Rosales Fajardo?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the case of Pastor Lorenzo is all too indicative of a worsening climate of freedom of religion or belief in Cuba. The Church of England calls on the Cuban Government to release Pastor Lorenzo immediately, along with all those others detained in relation to the 11 July protests. The international community must continue to follow this case closely and hold Cuba to account bilaterally and multilaterally. My hon. Friend has put Pastor Lorenzo’s name on the record in this House. I also endorse everything she said about the Open Doors event in the House next Wednesday.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The committee discussed the matters raised at a private meeting with the Electoral Commission in November. The commission has said that the UK Government’s recent increases to spending limits and donation reporting thresholds represent significant changes to the UK’s political finance controls. The commission has published updated guidance to support parties to understand and comply with the new limits; however, it is concerned that increased spending limits risk significantly more scope for higher-spending parties to campaign.
Mr Carmichael
The Daily Mirror reported at the weekend that the Conservative party is already spending more on the Prime Minister’s Facebook page and adverts than Donald Trump is spending on his, so the motivation for doubling the party spending limits is pretty clear already. If this cannot be stopped, can the commission at least do more to increase transparency, so that people can see this shoddy attempt to buy democracy for what it is?
Cat Smith
The commission has said that any changes to spending reporting thresholds should be supported by rigorous analysis—which of course is for the Government to publish—including of the likely impact on public confidence and transparency. The commission continues to make the case for changes to the political finance system to further improve public trust and confidence.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The House may not be aware that the Anglican Church is one of the largest providers of healthcare and education globally. The al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza is an example of this. Before Christmas, the hospital was severely damaged again and a tank demolished its front wall. Most of the hospital staff were taken away by the Israeli Defence Force and the Church of England has asked the Government here to inquire about their wellbeing and whereabouts and to request that they be released.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Intimidation by hard-line settlers has prompted the Patriarch to say that clergy are fighting for their lives, and that the Armenian quarter faces a violent demise. Is a Christian presence in Jerusalem still viable?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for bringing this issue before the House. He is right: a century ago, a quarter of Jerusalem was Christian; now, just 1% of the population is, and in the Armenian quarter of the old city, the Christian presence has come under intensified threat from intimidation and aggressive property acquisition by settlers. The Church of England is very concerned that the rule of law should prevail in Israel and the status quo be maintained. It is unconscionable that Christians should be driven from the holy land.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
That would normally come after business questions.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I am grateful. When I referred to December 2018, I should have made it clear that that was the date of the freedom of information request by Dorian Gerhold. I shall write to the Minister explaining what information I want.
Business of the House
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House give us next week’s business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 15 January will include:
Monday 15 January—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill.
Tuesday 16 January—Committee of the whole House on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill (day one).
Wednesday 17 January—Committee of the whole House on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill (day two).
Thursday 18 January—Debate on a motion on the loan charge, followed by a debate on a motion on HS2 compensation. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 19 January—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 22 January includes:
Monday 22 January—Second Reading of the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill.
Lucy Powell
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, to staff, to Members and to those watching. It might be a new year, but I am afraid it is the same old story: a Government who have run out of road and ideas, and who are not fixing the problems we face but making them worse. Many on the Leader of the House’s own side have reached the same conclusion. Yet another MP has resigned having lost trust, another has admitted that over their 13 years things have got worse, and a former Immigration Minister is taking to the airwaves to say that their Rwanda plan will not work—and it is only the first week back.
But some things have changed. The Prime Minister seems to have had a dramatic reversal in strategy. Despite just months ago rather laughably saying that he was the change candidate, his latest reset confirmed what we all know: he is now just offering more of the same—more of the same low growth, more of the same high taxes, more of the same backlogs and broken public services, and more of the same historically low living standards. Only this hapless Prime Minister would set himself targets that were hard to miss and then miss them.
We had further confirmation today, with new figures from the BBC showing every NHS target missed, and not just this past year, when the Government want to blame the strikes, or since the pandemic, which might be a little understandable—no: key NHS targets have been missed in each and every one of the past seven years. That is the second half of their time in office, after all their decisions and policies took effect. That is the record of this Government. Let us have that debate in this election year about the choice the voters will face: more of the same failure from the Conservatives, or change and hope with Labour.
Turning to the sub-postmaster scandal, we welcome the Government’s announcement of emergency legislation to quickly pardon those wrongfully convicted, and we stand ready to work with them. What has now come to wider public attention is the travesty, injustice and two decades of struggle they faced. Will the Leader of the House give us more details today and assure us that as the spotlight inevitably moves on, the Government will not take their foot off the gas in getting urgent justice, redress and accountability?
The issue goes wider. It follows a pattern similar to other injustices in which the state or corporate cover-up has wronged ordinary people, such as Windrush, infected blood, building safety and Grenfell, Hillsborough and more. All those cases, transpiring over decades, came to public awareness after the notable efforts of Back Benchers and dogged journalists working with the victims. Today’s Government should be learning wider lessons.
Recourse and redress proves every time to be incredibly difficult, lengthy and costly, fighting against powerful organisations that employ smoke and mirrors, expensive lawyers and enjoy the protection of the establishment, leaving victims facing years and years of frustrating battle. No amount of money can compensate for a life ruined. How are the Government collectively reviewing these recent scandals to make it easier for group action against vested interests?
Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government also expedite compensation for the Windrush scheme and victims of infected blood, who are still being frustrated; pay out for the remediation of building safety where innocent leaseholders are still left in limbo; and bring in a legal duty of candour, as demanded by the Hillsborough families. Is justice delayed not justice denied?
Another big learning is for accountability. Time and again, we see those responsible rewarded for failure and not held accountable for their failings, with more Government contracts, bonuses, gongs and peerages and the cost picked up by the taxpayer. I have asked the Leader of the House this before, but will she make it easier for Parliament to strip people of honours and peerages when they are found responsible for serious failings? Will she also condemn the practice, as we saw over the new year, of honours being awarded for failure?
Will the Leader of the House bring forward proposals to go after those responsible to pay financially and face the consequences? Will she put an end to the revolving door of awarding Government contracts? In the case of Fujitsu, the contracts are apparently worth several billion pounds. Is it any wonder that trust in politics has been so eroded when people do not see any accountability and when ordinary people pick up the bill while those responsible get off scot-free?
Penny Mordaunt
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all colleagues. This week, I was delighted to welcome holocaust survivor Mala Tribich to the Commons, where she viewed the exhibition in Portcullis House. I encourage all Members to see it.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that our thoughts remain with the hostages still kept captive in Gaza—next week sees us pass the 100th day since they were taken—just as our thoughts remain with all the innocent people caught up in those events.
May I also give a shout out to the Royal Navy’s rowing team, HMS Oardacious, who are rowing across the Atlantic for mental health support? With just 500 nautical miles to go, they may land before next week’s business questions, and they are currently 100 miles ahead of the next team.
I turn to the substantive issue that the hon. Lady raised: the Post Office scandal. She will know about the existing legislation announced on 29 November, but it is to be welcomed that we are now taking unprecedented steps to quash convictions. That work is well under way, and we want to bring it to the House swiftly. The House will be aware of the risks outlined by the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), but I think we will find them necessary.
While the inquiry will look at some of the issues raised in this place, the hon. Lady is right that we should reflect now on what we could learn, and in particular what we should conclude about the powers given to arm’s length bodies of the state and what operational independence should mean for those organisations. Subsequent Conservative Administrations have been right in gripping and trying to resolve some difficult and long-running issues, from Windrush to the apology given by the noble Lord Cameron to the Hillsborough families, the apology given by the current Prime Minister to former members of our armed forces who had been shamed and driven out of service for being gay, and the 2017 infected blood inquiry and the later compensation study, which will make some amends for the decades of injustice and suffering that those people have endured. I am optimistic that we will reach some justice for those affected this year; I know that the Paymaster General is working hard to do that.
We were right to have a full public inquiry into the Horizon Post Office scandal, and we have rightly heard much about that this week, including in statements and urgent questions. I pay tribute to all right hon. and hon. Members and to the noble Lord Arbuthnot for the work they have done on this issue. I also pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. In 2021, as a Back Bencher, he was fighting hard for sub-postmasters, and he has diligently pursued this issue in his ministerial role. That is his record on this issue and on much else, too. I remind the House that when he was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, he helped people whose businesses had been deliberately and cynically destroyed by their lenders, winning compensation from Lloyds, HBOS and Royal Bank of Scotland to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. He is a very good man, and I know that he will bring forward legislation on this issue quickly.
The hon. Lady mentioned NHS performance data. Monthly performance data shows that in November overall waiting lists fell by more than 95,000 from October, down to 7.6 million. There were also 60,000 fewer patients waiting for care in November than in the previous month, and 112,000 fewer than in September. We have some difficult issues to deal with post pandemic, but the Prime Minister’s plan is working, and the new Secretary of State for Health is bringing forward further measures. As the hon. Lady will know, we have stood up an enormous number of new services and new healthcare professionals as well as immense numbers of new diagnostic centres, and we are vastly increasing the number of operations that can take place.
I do not wish to take any lectures from the hon. Lady on performance in the NHS. I point her to what Labour is doing in Wales, where I think the current situation in terms of waiting lists is four times worse than in England. Nor will I take any lessons on tax from a party that is clobbering British citizens where it is in power. It is doubling rates in Wales, and its London Mayor is clobbering hard-working people and charities with the ultra low emission zone. He has just capitulated to the militant trade unions on transport but does not know where to find the money to do that. Labour is soft on crime; the Met’s £70 million black hole in its budget demonstrates that. Time and again, where Labour is in power, it shows that it is not on the side of the British people.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned the holocaust exhibition, and you, Mr Speaker, will lead the holocaust service in a few days’ time. Recently, I met holocaust survivor Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, who said that the proposed memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens was too small for its purpose and too large for the park.
The hybrid Committee will meet on Tuesday and Wednesday next week. Will my right hon. Friend consider talking to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to see whether they could put up scaffolding on a temporary basis to show the amount of space taken by the box of the so-called learning centre, and perhaps some plywood boards to illustrate the 23 fins that are supposed to be there? Then, we could go round the outside of the park to see whether it is visible, and see from inside how much damage it does to that well-loved park.
Penny Mordaunt
I know that my hon. Friend continues to press on this particular project. He will know that I am limited in what I can do to assist him, but I will write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to make sure that he has heard, again, what my hon. Friend has said.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Bliadhna mhath ùr—happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone in this place and watching.
Some positive news to start our first business questions of 2024: recent data from the Office for National Statistics and the Scottish Parliament Information Centre—the Commons Library equivalent—shows that Scotland’s gender pay gap is at a record low, and almost half that of the UK as a whole. Women’s weekly full-time pay has risen more than 10% in the last year. Any gap is, of course, too high, but I am sure that the Leader of the House would like to acknowledge the Scottish Government’s gender pay gap action plan, the first in the UK, which undoubtedly has helped to achieve those welcome results.
The Leader of the House’s Government could take several steps to help end the gender pay gap and advance equality right across these isles. After repeatedly shelving the employment Bill, they could finally act to make workplaces fairer, particularly in the current cost of living crisis, which we know impacts women more. They could legislate for mandatory gender and ethnicity pay gap reporting. They could finally deliver compensation for WASPI women—Women Against State Pension Inequality —who have waited far too long to receive justice. More broadly, they could tackle the gender pension gap, as yearly incomes among pensioners are on average more than £7,000 lower for women.
While the Leader of the House considers her response to those suggestions, could she also respond to reports in the media that her Government blocked a minority ethnic woman from joining the board of Channel 4 without offering a reason? I am curious to hear what action she took in response to the recent comments by the Home Secretary, and whether she will condemn them now. They do nothing to dispel perceptions that a culture of misogyny in the UK Government is hampering progress on these issues. As she is a former Minister for Women and Equalities, I am sure that these matters are close to her heart, so will she support a debate on them, where perhaps some solutions might finally be agreed?
Penny Mordaunt
I also wish the hon. Lady a very happy new year. I do welcome the good news on the gender pay gap in Scotland. It is nice to see the SNP championing some good progress in Scotland and giving credit where it is due.
With regard to the UK Government’s record, we are making good progress: since 2010 we have an additional 2 million women in work. As the author of the women in work road map, which looks at every aspect of a woman’s life and tries to address the reasons why she is financially disadvantaged right through her life, from when she leaves school, through raising a family to the pensions gap, I know that this Government are committed to delivering on those disparities.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of Channel 4. I do not know the answer to that today, but I shall certainly ensure that the relevant Department has heard what she said.
The hon. Lady will know what the Home Secretary has said about the other matter she raised. I hope she also knows that the Home Secretary is a very decent fellow who loves his wife greatly. They have been through a lot in recent years as a couple and the hon. Lady will also know that.
I will conclude by adding some further good news about Scotland, which I hope the hon. Lady will welcome. I am delighted that part of the Stone of Destiny has been recovered from SNP headquarters. I am sure that is a great relief to all Members. It is easy to lose things, I know, like a couple of billion quid from your budget, but I am sorry to hear that the SNP has taken as much care of it as it has taken as the steward of Scotland’s public services. Happily, the Tupperware container it was stored in has protected it during its stay and the police raids on that premises. I join my Scottish colleagues in encouraging the SNP to find a more suitable home for it.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Traditional craft skills provide jobs and sustain businesses. They also emphasise our shared history: everything from wheelwrights to weavers, and from corsetry to carpentry. It was therefore very good news that, after a long campaign by the all-party parliamentary group for craft, which I chair, the Government announced that our country will now join the UNESCO convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Will the Leader of the House bring a statement to the House saying when we will join, which will allow colleagues across the Chamber to question what further steps the Government might take to promote the expertise and experience that epitomises the best of Britain?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend both for his question and for the diligent work he and his colleagues have done in raising the profile and shining a spotlight on the incredible heritage of crafts and skills that we ought to celebrate retaining and to educate others about. I shall certainly write to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Given that my right hon. Friend has just missed departmental questions today, I will ask her to inform him about the timetable.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I wish you and Members across the House a very happy new year.
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing the Backbench Business for next Thursday. I give her advance notice that we have a heavily subscribed application for a debate on Holocaust Memorial Day on Thursday 25 January, if we are allocated the time. Holocaust Memorial Day itself is on 27 January.
The Backbench Business Committee would very much welcome applications for debate slots in Westminster Hall. We can secure for Members debate slots on Tuesday mornings and Thursday afternoons. While we have a glut of applications for the Chamber, we very much welcome applications for Westminster Hall debates to be submitted as soon as possible. I am also glad to report that application forms for Backbench Business debates can now be attained from the Vote Office, so Members can now just pick up a form, fill it in and submit it.
On a local issue for my constituency, the Tyne bridge between Gateshead and Newcastle has been earmarked for funding from the Department for Transport to give it a much-needed repair job and upgrade. I am afraid, though, that the money has been promised but has not been forthcoming, and the work very much needs to start as soon as possible. Indeed, if we do not get the work done, it will not be sound, solid and pristine for its anniversary in four years’ time. Will the Leader of the House check what is happening with the Department for Transport and see whether the funds can be released so that we can get on with the work?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his very helpful advert for future Backbench Business debates. In particular, it is good to hear that the Holocaust Memorial Day debate will be very well attended. It obviously has particular poignancy this year. I congratulate him on his innovation with the Vote Office. That is indeed welcome progress.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned a very important constituency matter. As well as celebrating a landmark anniversary, the bridge is a vital thoroughfare for his constituents. Given that the next session of Transport questions will not be until February, I shall write to the Secretary of State on his behalf.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
As a Lancashire MP, Mr Speaker, you will be aware that salmon stocks run on a knife edge in our rivers. [Laughter.] I know that there are many famous salmon rivers near your home, Mr Speaker. May I ask the Leader of the House if we can have an urgent debate on the decline in this iconic species in England? Part of that debate will have to cover the impact that cormorant predation is having on salmon smolts.
Before I sit down, I must draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a former, very undistinguished, chair of the Angling Trust.
Penny Mordaunt
I know that this is a matter of concern for many Members around the country. In my own county a number of rivers are suffering particularly as a result of the issues raised by my hon. Friend. Given that the next relevant questions session will not be until February, I will write to the Secretary of State to make him aware of those issues.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
May I wish you and your staff a happy new year, Mr Speaker?
As my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House pointed out, the handling of the Post Office scandal and the delayed justice involved will be familiar to many people, including my constituents, who have been caught up in similar outrageous scandals from Grenfell to Windrush to contaminated blood. In each case Ministers tell them that there is nothing they can do, until they are forced into action by public shame. Will the Leader of the House please allow Government time in which we can make progress for the victims of those scandals?
Penny Mordaunt
I know that many Members have constituents who are still waiting for compensation or the resolution of issues on a number of fronts. I shall not repeat what I said in response to the shadow Leader of the House, but I will say that I shall ask the Cabinet Office what more the head of the civil service can do to ensure that lessons are learnt from the last few weeks in particular. I know that the Cabinet Office evaluates inquiries to try to improve the quality of subsequent work. That has certainly happened in connection with big public inquiries, when it has looked into what constitutes good practice in respect of everything from looking after witnesses to ensuring that those inquiries take place speedily. However, I will ensure that the relevant people in the Cabinet Office have heard the hon. Lady’s concerns, which I am sure are echoed by many other Members on both sides of the House.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
On Friday 23 February my private Member’s Bill, the Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill, is due to be debated, but sadly it is No. 5 on the Order Paper, and I fear that we may not have much time in which to debate it. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could allocate Government time for a debate on the constitutional sexism which means that an eighth of the seats in the other place are reserved for men. Through such a debate we might be able to seek Government support, and also demonstrate the strength of feeling on both sides of the House that this constitutional sexism needs to end.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend will have heard that expression of support for her Bill from Members in all parts of the House. I congratulate her on her diligence: I know that she has been working with the Cabinet Office for several years to ensure that any impediment to her Bill’s progress is dealt with. It is a very narrow Bill, which does not deal with any other issues such as inheritance.
I will certainly ensure that the relevant Minister at the Cabinet Office is aware that the Bill is on the Order Paper. I know that my hon. Friend is having discussions with many Ministers about it, and if I can facilitate any of those conversations, I stand ready to do so.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
More than 10 hospitality venues close each day in the UK. Before Christmas, I visited the wonderful Abbey deli in Bath to hear about the challenges that hospitality businesses face in my constituency. I was told that one solution might be a sliding scale of VAT, which could result in both more tax revenue for the Government and higher profits for small businesses. Can we have a statement from the relevant Minister on what the Government will do to support hospitality businesses in 2024?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. She will know that the Treasury, in particular, has been very concerned about this sector, to which it provided particular support through the pandemic years. Since then, it has continued to support the sector through rates relief and so forth. I fully appreciate that VAT thresholds are a particular problem for these types of businesses, and I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has heard what she says. The hon. Lady is a very experienced parliamentarian, and she will know what she can do as we approach the Budget to ensure that these issues are addressed.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has referred to arm’s length Government agencies, of which the Post Office is just one. I am sure that Members across the House will have experience of tracking down decision makers within these organisations to hold them to account on behalf of our constituents. Can we have a debate on the accountability of these agencies? It may emerge from that debate how we can make them more accountable.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that suggestion. I think it would be a very timely debate indeed. I have already expressed my views on the subject, and I know that, on Monday, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), spoke about how accountability is key to ensuring good oversight of arm’s length bodies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) knows how to apply for a debate, and I am sure it would be well attended.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
My constituent, Mr Richard Troote, had to wait over 18 months to receive from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs a national insurance refund worth more than £1,300 for the tax year 2021-22. HMRC still has not responded to his complaint, or indeed his request for a complaint, on the refund. Could the Leader of the House ask for a written statement on what Treasury Ministers will do to provide more support to HMRC civil servants to try to deal with these backlogs? In a cost of living crisis, none of our constituents can afford to wait 18 months for these refunds. It is not acceptable.
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Money owed by HMRC accrues interest, but that arrangement is not reciprocal. As Treasury questions will not be until later next month, I will write to the Treasury if he gives me details of the case. Hopefully we will be able to get this resolved swiftly for his constituent.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Can we have a debate on bus priority measures so that I can express my constituents’ strong opposition to the proposal by Barnet Council and the Mayor of London to introduce bus lanes on the A1000 in High Barnet and Whetstone? They will cause huge congestion, they will damage local businesses and they are not needed or wanted.
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend is right that any such proposal should really be developed with input from the local community, and something has gone wrong if the community is so galvanised against a scheme that is due to come to the area. The next Transport questions are not until 8 February, but I will make sure that the Secretary of State knows about her concerns. I am afraid that the Mayor of London is the decision maker, and I hope he will listen to her and her constituents.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When we ask written questions and when our offices require information from Government Departments, our constituents expect a comprehensive response. However, we are getting standardised responses from UK Visas and Immigration, in particular. We have desperate people who fear for their future, so will the Leader of the House talk to the Home Office about how we can have comprehensive responses so that we can know the timelines, the details and the reasons for the delays in processing cases?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady and perhaps other colleagues are not getting the quality of replies that they need. She will know that we took some measures with the Home Office to try to improve its correspondence services to this House, including getting the permanent secretary to come in to see me. She will also know that Home Office surgeries are available for hon. Members, but I will certainly make sure that the permanent secretary has heard again what she has said. I will also make sure that my teams who work with the parliamentary clerks in those Departments have heard what she has said and will pass that back.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Yesterday, at Prime Minister’s questions, it was a real pleasure to welcome the former Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General Sir Chris Tickell, now the Chief Royal Engineer. The Royal Engineers are a key part of community life in the Medway towns and their ranks make up 10% of the British armed forces. The Leader of the House knows from her own experience that the UK has some of the finest armed forces in the world, but there is a real question about recruitment and retention in the British armed forces. May we have an urgent statement from the Ministry of Defence setting out what concrete steps the Government are taking to address that? I declare an interest, in that I used to be a reservist in the British armed forces.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question and for his previous service. Unfortunately, the date of the next Defence questions has yet to be finalised, so I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard what he has said today and the fact that he has raised this issue.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The strong rationale for HS2 was always about the capacity on the west coast line, rather than speed. The Select Committee has now learned that when HS2 starts to run from London to Birmingham it will actually mean fewer seats on trains further north to Manchester, thus reducing the capacity. Given that the Government created this mess by cancelling HS2 to Manchester, may we have a statement or debate in Government time on how we increase capacity on the west coast main line, so that Manchester is properly served by rail services?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important matter. Given that Transport questions are not until 8 February, I will certainly make sure that the Secretary of State has heard what he has said today. I am sure that this will be about not just rail lines, but rolling stock being purchased and many other issues.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I am sure the whole House will be relieved to hear that the takeover of Southend United football club was finally settled over the festive period. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Conservative leader of Southend City Council, Councillor Tony Cox, on his exceptional efforts in getting that across the line and, of course, Justin Rees, the new owner? Will she also update this House on when the football governance Bill is going to be debated? Many Members want to contribute to that debate, to make sure that we have a more secure future for English football.
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that we are delighted to hear that Southend United is alive and kicking. As a Portsmouth fan, I very much appreciate how much that will mean to the local community. I congratulate everyone on all that they have done to ensure that that happened, particularly Councillor Tony Cox, as I understand he played a major role. I believe that the football governance Bill has support in all parts of the House; we will bring it forward swiftly and further business will be announced in the usual way.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Across the House, I think we all welcome the Government’s action this week on the Horizon scandal, the biggest miscarriage of justice in the UK. Does the Leader of the House think it will take an ITV drama for the Government to act quickly on the infected blood scandal, which is of course the largest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS? As we already have the final recommendations on compensation from Sir Brian Langstaff, why can the Government not bring forward a statement next week setting out that compensation will start to be paid from next week?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising this issue yet again. I am in regular contact with the Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), and I am confident that it will not take an ITV drama for us to resolve the issue. He is working through what the right hon. Lady will know are some very difficult issues. He has the final shift in this particular story, and I am confident he will deliver on it.
We were all shocked by the layer on layer of injustice that was levelled against those who suffered in the Post Office Horizon scandal. Terrible and shocking as that was, the right hon. Lady and I know that the infected blood inquiry is on another level. We want to ensure people get justice, whether they were infected directly or were affected in some way. We are determined to do that, and I know that the Paymaster General is going to deliver.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I have met with several families in my constituency whose children have education, health and care plans, yet they still experience difficulties finding special educational needs and disabilities support. I have taken up their cases with senior council officers, who tell me that SEND is the No. 1 financial challenge for the council. Can we have a debate on the changes made in the Children and Families Act 2014 and the effect they are having through increased demand for services in local authorities? In North Yorkshire alone, the council believes 1,000 cases last year were attributable to changes made by that Act.
Penny Mordaunt
My normal answer would be that my hon. Friend needs to apply for a debate and that I am sure it would be well attended, but that is not required because there is such a debate this afternoon. My hon. Friend is always first out of the blocks, and he has got the points he wishes to raise in Hansard before anyone else, I congratulate him on doing so.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Leader of the House is always keen to talk about competent government, yet her Government pay £318 million every day in debt interest and national debt is £37,730 for every man, woman and child in the UK. The Government have burned £4.2 billion worth of personal protective equipment and have wasted £66,600 million on HS2, which is now just a rail link from London to Birmingham. In the spirit of her interest in competent government, will the Leader of the House make a statement on which of those achievements she feels most clearly illustrates the competence of her Government?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady is right that we have been through some very difficult challenges; responding to a global pandemic was one of them. Despite all those difficulties, we still manage to have people in England paying lower tax than people in Scotland and we have managed to have a balanced budget, as opposed to the Scottish National party, which is £2 million adrift over the next four years.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
St Helier Hospital has been saved, thankfully. Accident and emergency and maternity services are now protected within the London Borough of Sutton, and a second state-of-the-art hospital is being built in our borough as well. Work is already under way to prepare the land and improvement works are happening at the hospital, but can we have a debate in Government time on the progress in delivering the Government’s new hospital programme and the benefits it has for my constituents in Carshalton and Wallington?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all he has done to secure the new facilities—I think he has two new healthcare facilities in his local area. He will know how to apply for a debate; I envisage that it would cover not just capital infrastructure, but the massive uplift in healthcare professionals, as it is no good just having bricks and mortar. He will know that we have smashed our manifesto target of recruiting 50,000 new nurses.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
A ceasefire in Gaza is desperately needed—one that begins with humanitarian pauses and becomes sustained, so that the remaining hostages can be got out and, crucially, aid can be got in. Given that UN agencies are critical to getting aid into Gaza but have secured only half the $1.2 billion needed to implement their response plan and support the immediate humanitarian needs in Gaza and the west bank, can we have a debate in Government time on what more Britain can do to galvanise international efforts behind the UN’s flash appeal to support the Palestinians?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter and, in doing so, for providing an advert for that unmet need. He will know that, as well as stepping forward and providing aid to support people both in this particular humanitarian crisis and prior to October, the UK has played a considerable role in not just providing funding but getting others to pledge and deliver finance. I shall make sure that the Foreign Secretary has heard his concerns in that area. I will also write to the international development Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), asking him to contact the hon. Gentleman’s office to update him on what more is being done.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Can we have a debate on the UK Government’s support for Nigeria to defend freedom of religion or belief in light of the appalling atrocity that took place on Christmas eve in Plateau state? At 4 o’clock in the afternoon, a co-ordinated attack by Fulani militants saw 15 villages attacked and approximately 200 people killed, in one of the largest mass attacks in recent years. Christians appeared to be specifically targeted, as militants went from door to door seeking out church pastors to kill. A debate would enable us to join calls for justice, restoration and humanitarian support for the thousands who have been displaced.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that appalling atrocity. It is one of the largest mass attacks that we have seen in recent history and will have brought absolute terror to that community. She will know that the Foreign Office is doing considerable work through the “Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria” programme. The Department will have been very shocked and disappointed to see this take place. I shall make sure that both the Foreign Secretary and the international development Minister have heard what she has said.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Leader of the House said that she would take no lessons on the NHS, yet in the past four years alone the number of patients waiting more than four hours in Barnsley A&E has risen by 400%. Why, under this Conservative Government, do my constituents have to wait so long for basic healthcare?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that we are dealing with the unprecedented challenges arising from the pandemic. She will know that we have invested record amounts in the NHS. She will know also that there has been an unprecedented uplift in the number of healthcare professionals. She will know also from the figures out today that those waiting lists are coming down, and we will continue with that work. It has taken a huge amount of investment in diagnostic centres and in providing 2 million more operations to crack through that backlog. Although covid itself is over, we are still dealing with some of the issues that were caused by that pandemic, but we will get through it, and we will return to normal business in the NHS.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The ombudsman concluded that there was official maladministration in relation to those in the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, who were not properly informed about changes to their state pensions. We have been waiting for its further report on whether this caused injustice to the victims. I understand that a provisional version of that report is now written, with a final vision therefore imminent. Given most people expect that there will have been an injustice in many cases and given the scale of redress that will be required where it is found, can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government are aware of these provisional findings and let us know when Ministers will bring forward details of a redress scheme for Parliament to debate and properly approve?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend raises a very important matter. This is a critical piece of work. I will make sure that both the relevant Minister and the ombudsman’s office have heard his concerns today, and I will ask the Minister to give an update on timing.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Schoolchildren in south-east Northumberland have always enjoyed the ability to choose which school they want to attend, but a change in the oversubscription criteria has meant that many kids, mainly in rural areas, are separated from the people they used to go to school with, and their friends and family. They also often have much longer journey times to get to a different school. Can we have a debate in Government time about student allocation in schools in south-east Northumberland, please?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It is really important that we have genuine school choice. That is part of the way that we can drive standards. Of course, we can only have that if there is good local planning on school places and people anticipate the need. I will certainly ensure that what he has said is heard by the Secretary of State for Education. The next Question Time is on 29 January, if he wishes to raise the matter directly, but it is an issue of local planning and decision making.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I am very much looking forward to welcoming the Leader of the House to Bracknell on Saturday. While there are many challenges out there, and sadly some negativity and vitriol on social media, will she reinforce her customary positive narrative by giving a shout-out for all that is good about east Berkshire—notably, our fantastic education and employment opportunities, our superb sense of community, and all those who are doing so much to help others?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very much looking forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency. We have been through a rough few years, but the people of this country and his constituency have been absolutely stoic. I know that his local area enjoys nearly full employment and high average wages. I think that all 40 schools in his area are rated good or outstanding, and his business community has attracted unprecedented foreign investment. I know that he is eager to do more for his constituents, but I look forward to learning more about what his community is delivering when I visit shortly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I gently point out that it is quite important to ask the Leader of the House something that relates to business in the House, rather than for shout-outs, which are not quite appropriate for business questions.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I invite the Leader of the House, and in fact all hon. Members, to join me and Samaritans on Monday for a brew. Blue Monday may have been a term invented by the travel industry to encourage us to book holidays, but we have converted it to Brew Monday, when we can talk about the importance of talking to each other in an effort to prevent suicide. To back that up, can we have a debate in Government time on the national suicide prevention strategy, and look at what else we can do besides Brew Monday to prevent suicides?
Penny Mordaunt
On behalf of all colleagues, I thank the hon. Lady for all the work that she has done over a long period to raise awareness of the issue, and particularly of Brew Monday. We know that the week in the wake of Christmas is a difficult one. Credit card bills arrive and all sorts of things happen to add further stress to individuals. I thank her for raising awareness of Brew Monday and encouraging everyone to take part in it. She will know how to apply for a debate, but I hope that she will recognise that the Chancellor committed in the last Budget to provide an extra £10 million over the next few years to support the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector through the suicide prevention grant. We have that strategy, and I am sure that if she applied for a debate it would be well attended.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Last Friday, I visited residents affected by the floods in Leighton Buzzard. I have also had communication from the leader of Central Bedfordshire Council pointing out the great upset about damage to residential properties and highways in the local authority area. Although we were severely affected, we are not a local authority designated under the Government’s flood recovery framework, so could the Leader of the House give me some guidance on how we can get more investment from water companies, the Environment Agency and internal drainage boards to ensure that we protect properties and highways and prevent such an awful event from affecting people in the future?
Penny Mordaunt
May I first say how sorry I am that my hon. Friend’s constituents have been affected? He will know that, through the Government’s long-term policy statement published in 2020, there is a methodical plan to protect properties. We have protected about 600,000 homes from flooding over the past few years with an unprecedented investment, but clearly some areas are not eligible for particular schemes. Given that the next questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will not be until next month, and that this will be an imminent issue for his local colleagues, I will write to the Secretary of State and ask that someone from the Department contacts his local authority to discuss the issues they are having and see what support can be provided.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
In the wake of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, could a Minister from the Cabinet Office make a statement and announce an immediate investigation into all Fujitsu IT systems in use by the Government, and those that have been used historically, to establish whether they have bugs and glitches? We need to look particularly at the Child Maintenance Service, which I am aware used a Fujitsu system until at least 2021.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I refer him to Hansard, where he can see what has been said already in the statement and urgent question earlier this week. I shall certainly ensure that both the Post Office Minister and the Cabinet Office Minister with oversight of procurement have heard what he has said today.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Watermouth Valley camping park in my constituency, which has been named the best campsite in the UK in the camping and glamping awards? May we have a debate in Government time about how we could better support tourism and hospitality businesses by reducing VAT, enabling more businesses to enjoy similar successes?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I congratulate Watermouth Valley camping park on its achievements. My hon. Friend will know that, as we approach the Budget, the Chancellor’s door will be open for lobbying—I know that other hon. Members have mentioned VAT rates, in particular. It is surely one of the upsides of our new-found freedoms that we are able to vary rates on products and services. I know that this sector, as well as the hospitality sector, will be keen to ask for things in the forthcoming Budget. I will certainly ensure that the Chancellor has heard what she has said.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the upcoming business. Residents of the town of Sherburn in Elmet, in my constituency, have faced a wave of awful crime in recent months, with cars stolen from driveways and homes burgled. I am sure that she can appreciate just how stressful and traumatic that is for residents, who feel unsafe in their own homes. That is compounded by the fact that Sherburn, like many rural towns in Britain, does not have its own manned police station. May we therefore have an urgent debate on how we can support residents and local police forces, such as mine, to tackle the growing and pernicious issue of rural crime?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. We have a good record and have halved crime since 2010 with roughly the same resource—once online fraud is stripped out—but some areas and issues remain stubborn. I very much appreciate that it is particularly challenging in rural areas. I will certainly ensure that the Home Office has heard his concerns. I know that, in other areas, there is good practice where even if there is not a physical police station, there is a physical police presence, and a lot of good practice is being shared across police areas, but I will ensure that the Home Office has heard what he has said.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the chaos that would have ensued had the RMT gone ahead with its strike on the underground over this past week. The strike was called after all the other trade unions had accepted the 5% pay offer, and the RMT and other unions were told there was no more money left. However, at the very last moment—literally hours before the strike was due to start—the Mayor of London magically found £30 million. He proposes to increase the council tax share in London by 8.7%. He refuses to give the Metropolitan police the funding it needs, and indeed he can find money for his vanity schemes, yet he still carries on with the ULEZ expansion, which is hated across London. May we have a debate in Government time on the chaos that seems to ensue in City Hall, and on its finances?
Penny Mordaunt
Londoners are enjoying the worst of all possible worlds. On the Mayor’s own assessment, he has had spectacular failure with regard to strikes—under his tenure, Londoners have had to endure 139 transport strikes, I think. My hon. Friend is right that this is not just capitulating to unions, while not protecting basic public services; it is rewarding people for taking strike action. I am not sure whether the Mayor has found £30 million, as there is some scepticism and questions are being asked about his budget, but he certainly has not found the £70 million shortfall in the Met’s budget to allow it to continue its reforms and good work. It is a sorry state, and I hope it will not be too long before they will have someone in City Hall who will look after their interests, have the backbone to stand up to militant trade unions and realise that clobbering hard-working people and charities through ULEZ is not a good idea.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
In November the Carrbridge Centre, which does important work with children and other residents in Woodchurch in my constituency, had its Barclays bank account closed without warning, despite the fact that there was a very large amount of money in the account. It is one of many charities across the country that have experienced the same thing. The closure placed the centre in an extremely difficult situation, as it could not pay in or out of the account. It had an impact on the running of the centre and the payment of staff wages and was especially problematic during the run-up to Christmas with the special activities that the centre had planned. I am pleased to say that those events eventually did go ahead thanks to the determination and commitment of the staff and trustees, but none the less it is wrong that they have had to go through this. May we have a debate in Government time on the impact of such arbitrary decisions by banks such as Barclays on charities and on possible action that can be taken against banks acting in that way?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about what has happened in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I applaud the staff and trustees who continued undeterred to provide those services and support to their local communities. In such cases, I always hope that the public affairs departments of businesses—in this case Barclays—are listening in to business questions. If Barclays has not already made redress for this situation, I hope that it will get in touch with her office. I will ensure that the Minister has heard what has been said. The difficulty in these situations is not just that something happens and an account is frozen or closed, but that people are incapable of finding out why that has happened or trying to get it resolved. It is a shoddy situation and I hope Barclays will phone her this afternoon.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
In August last year, Partington post office in my constituency closed, following the retirement of its long-serving postmistress. Partington is an isolated community, with low levels of car ownership and appalling public transport, and of course its town centre banks have long since closed. It is several miles to the nearest main post office—or, for those without transport, a multiple-hour round trip. May we have a debate in Government time on the support available to post offices in isolated communities that do not qualify for the rural support services grant, but where it is incredibly challenging for those communities to reach other post offices, to ensure that those services remain in communities such as Partington?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. He will know that it is covered by work undertaken by the Post Office Minister and by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which runs a successful scheme looking at how services might be retained in the local community, even if the bricks and mortar of the post office have been stood down. The next questions to the Department, which I think runs that best practice scheme, are on 22 January, so the hon. Gentleman might wish to raise the matter then, but I will also ensure that both relevant Ministers have heard his concerns and ask their offices to get in touch with him.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House for another opportunity to ask a question on the state of freedom of religion or belief. In the persecution of Christians in Ukraine under Russian control, one pastor, Dimitry, suffered under Russian interrogation because of his evangelical faith. Russian soldiers have removed crosses, stopped services, fingerprinted everyone in the congregation and taken possession of church buildings. The Russian actions against Christians in Ukraine must stop.
At the same time, a new religious law has been introduced in Belarus. In 2023, Belarusian authorities bulldozed and liquidated the New Life Pentecostal church, detained and fined dozens of Christian religious leaders for perceived political activities, and blacklisted human rights organisations working on religious freedom issues. Last week, on 3 January, Belarus signed into law provisions imposing more restrictions on religious communities. Will the Leader of the House join me in denouncing that Belarusian law, and will she ask the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister to take up the matter with the Belarusian authorities?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for again shining a spotlight, this week on two appalling situations: one in Belarus and the other in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory. In the Orthodox calendar, Christmas was just last Saturday, so the events will have been particularly concerning for many in those communities. I will certainly ensure that the Foreign Office has heard his concerns. He knows that it will take those matters seriously, and I thank him again for bringing them to the attention of the House.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the increasing incidence of flooding events, as we heard earlier from the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), which are having a huge impact not only on the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people in so many of our constituencies across the country, but on businesses, on infrastructure and on our farmers’ winter crops, which could have a huge impact on food prices as we get into the summer and autumn. I urge her to grant a debate on flooding in Government time.
Penny Mordaunt
That is a concern for many colleagues across the House. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have invested unprecedented amounts in flood defences—the last tranche was £5.2 billion—and have protected many communities, including 600,000 properties. He will know that some flooding is planned—land is set aside where we expect floods to take place—but he is right that we are facing more extreme weather events. I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State has heard his concerns, which he may also wish to raise directly with the Secretary of State on 1 February.
Civil Nuclear Road Map
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on civil nuclear power in the UK. Today, we have published three key documents that reinforce the UK’s position as a leader in the civil nuclear renaissance: a civil nuclear road map, a consultation on alternative routes to market, and a consultation on a proposed policy for siting new nuclear power stations. That sets us on a path towards deploying up to 24 GW of nuclear power in Britain by 2050 as part of a cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy system for the future. It is the biggest investment in more than 70 years.
In the civil nuclear road map we are setting out our overarching strategy for the deployment of new nuclear reactors in the UK, and how His Majesty’s Government intend to work with the nuclear sector to deliver that ambition. The road map establishes our vision for a vibrant British nuclear sector, providing detail on the policies that we are pursuing to enable delivery, covering areas such as siting, regulation, financing, the joint work that we are undertaking with Defence nuclear colleagues to develop the required nuclear skills and supply chain in the UK, and how we are taking care of our nuclear legacy through policies on decommissioning and waste management.
Announcements in the road map include a commitment to reform the regulations, financing and decommissioning of civil nuclear to make it more agile, thereby streamlining regulation while retaining the UK’s world-class standards of safety. For example, the measures that we are announcing today could cut by up to 50% the approval times for reactors that are already approved by overseas regulators.
We are also announcing our commitment to reduce global dependence on Russian fuel and to grow the UK supply chain by investing £300 million, alongside industry, in the British production of clean, green high-assay low-enriched uranium fuel for innovative new reactors, thereby offering a commercial alternative to Russia for ourselves and our allies and partners.
The road map also sets out our long-term ambition for nuclear, providing high-level timelines and key decision points for a wide range of nuclear technologies over the next decades. Those technologies include small modular reactors, advanced modular reactors and gigawatt-scale projects, including a new commitment to explore a further gigawatt-scale nuclear project after Sizewell C. Advanced nuclear technologies, such as SMRs and AMRs, present the opportunity to decarbonise across the energy sector, from grid electricity through industrial heat to entirely new industries such as the production of hydrogen and synthetic fuel.
Last year, we set up Great British Nuclear as an arm’s length body responsible for helping to deliver new nuclear projects and lead our energy revolution, but we are also keen to harness innovation in the private sector and help developers to bring forward new nuclear projects outside of GBN’s ongoing SMR selection process. We are therefore today also launching our alternative routes to market consultation. That consultation, which will run for 12 weeks, aims to understand where the Government could support the private sector to bring forward advanced nuclear projects.
Finally, in recognition of our enhanced nuclear ambitions and the exciting potential offered by advanced nuclear technologies, we are launching a public consultation on a proposed new policy for the siting of new nuclear power stations. That consultation marks an important first step in the process for developing a new nuclear national policy statement for England and Wales, and will run for eight weeks. The results of the consultation will be used to inform the drafting of the national policy statement document, which we intend to publish for further consultation.
The proposed siting processes announced today would, of course, apply only to England and Wales. Although our ambition is for a whole British nuclear revolution, the current Scottish Government sadly remain committed to blocking any planning application for new nuclear in Scotland under their devolved consenting regime. However, we continue to invite the Scottish Government to join us and more than 30 other countries around the world to allow for reinvestment in, and the renewal of, our nuclear capacity across the whole UK in order to meet our net zero and energy security objectives. Our intention is to designate the NPS in 2025—subject, of course, to parliamentary processes. For the first time, we intend for the NPS to provide a planning policy framework for SMRs and AMRs, as well as the traditional gigawatt-scale power stations.
To achieve the UK’s nuclear ambitions, the Government believe that additional sites will be required for new nuclear projects, along with greater ongoing flexibility in the site selection process to enable new technologies. We are excited to introduce a positive shift in approach in the siting consultation: the new NPS will empower nuclear developers to identify potential sites for development, fostering developers’ innovation and, indeed, flexibility. Although the existing designated nuclear sites may possess many inherent positive attributes that potentially make them a consideration for future development, the change allows for the exploration of diverse new locations. By entrusting developers with that responsibility, we aim to streamline the process, encourage creative solutions and enhance the overall efficiency of nuclear development, ultimately contributing to the growth and sustainability of the industry.
We propose that the siting of new nuclear would continue to be constrained by robust criteria that determine where development can occur. Developers would be empowered to undertake the initial screening of sites based on those criteria, with advice from regulators and statutory agencies. Of course, it is our intention that safety will remain paramount, with the highest safety, security and environmental standards overseen by the independent nuclear regulator and environment protection agencies. Public consultation and community engagement will also remain essential parts of the process. This package —this vision, this announcement—represents the biggest investment in nuclear in the UK for over 70 years, ensuring our energy security, keeping us on the path to net zero and delivering the jobs of the future: our nuclear future.
I commend this statement to the House.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
The energy bills crisis of the past two years has exposed the deep vulnerabilities in Britain’s energy system and the urgent need to build more home-grown power in this country so that we can cut energy bills and have real energy independence from dictators such as Putin. In that context, we support the Government’s commitment to new nuclear power. Labour supports new nuclear, which must form a critical part of our future energy mix. Nuclear power is a long-term project for any country, and I want to give the industry and nuclear workers clear assurances that there is a cross-party consensus for nuclear power in this country.
It was the last Labour Government who identified 10 sites for new nuclear in 2009, and in the time since this Government’s record has been one of continual delay and false dawns. Yesterday, I met people from west Cumbria who have been waiting six years for a decision on nuclear since the last plan collapsed on this Government’s watch. The road map published today is two years later than they promised, and it still leaves a number of unanswered questions about how the Government intend to turn warm words into practical action, so I shall ask the Minister a number of questions.
First, I am glad that the Minister has woken up to the urgent fact that we need to generate more cheap, clean electricity in this country. In which year will any of the policies announced today actually cut bills for people? Secondly, it is all well and good talking about commitments to new stations in the next Parliament, but what is the timetable for the final investment decision for Sizewell C? The Government promised to have a final investment decision by the end of this Parliament, so will the Minister give a categorical promise today that that will be done? Time is running out. Thirdly, will he update us on the timetable for Hinkley Point C, originally promised to be delivered by 2017, and when will it start supplying power to households?
Fourthly, on SMRs, what is the timetable for concluding the competition? Just yesterday I met representatives trying to site SMRs who were complaining of long delays from Government and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in getting the project moving. How will the Minister unblock that and wider SMR development? Fifthly, what steps are being taken to ensure that the UK retains critical skills in our nuclear sector? Nuclear jobs are high-skilled, well-paid and unionised jobs, and Labour supports the workers and unions in the nuclear industry in calling on the Government to ensure that investment in the industry supports good jobs and apprenticeships right through the supply chain. Finally, will the Minister address the ongoing concerns about the safety and security of our nuclear decommissioning process, given the disturbing revelations about Sellafield? What steps are being taken to ensure that every nuclear site is secure?
Labour supports new nuclear for Britain after 14 years of inaction under the Conservatives. The wider lesson is that this country needs a Government going full pelt for clean power. We should be investing as a country in nuclear, offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and all forms of clean power that can help to cut bills and make our country energy independent. That is what we need, and that is what a Labour Government will do.
Andrew Bowie
I am so pleased to hear the hon. Lady’s support for the Conservative party’s policies regarding nuclear, given that we are investing in all of the above and more. I do welcome the support of the official Opposition and their recent damascene conversion to the benefits of nuclear power, but we should never forget, in this place and beyond, that any nuclear projects in this country and any nuclear power stations have been delivered only by a Conservative Government. It is a record of which were very proud. Labour was in power for 13 years and delivered nothing.
We are very proud today to be publishing our civil nuclear road map. As I say, it is important for the industry that there is cross-party consensus and agreement that investment in nuclear is to the benefit of this country, the economy and the environment and, indeed, will provide energy security and wean ourselves and our allies off our reliance on Vladimir Putin for our energy needs.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that delivering new nuclear power stations will yield results for the British people and deliver cleaner bills. In Finland, where nuclear power stations are now delivering more than 40% of energy on to the grid, bills have dropped by an incredible 70%. She asked about the final investment decision on Sizewell C; we remain committed to making that decision by the end of this Parliament. On Hinkley Point C, we are in fact very proud of the progress that is being made. Just last month we saw the dome being lifted on to the top of reactor 1. I have nothing but admiration for the workforce and everybody involved in delivering that first-of-a-kind project at Hinkley, and we continue to support it.
The hon. Lady asked about the next phase of the small modular reactor competition. It will be launched within weeks, so I ask her to bide her time and keep her patience. We are very excited to have six fantastic technology companies bidding to deploy in the United Kingdom, and we are moving faster than any comparable programme around the world, to ensure that Britain and the British people benefit from investment in small modular reactors and the benefits they can bring to the energy mix and to local economies.
The hon. Lady asked about skills. One of the things that the nuclear industry can bring, and indeed delivers at this point, is high-skilled, high-wage jobs throughout the country, and indeed in many places where those jobs are at a premium. It is absolutely right that we look at how we can encourage more people, and make the spaces available within industry and in our educational institutions to get more people into the jobs of the future in the nuclear industry. That is why I, along with my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, have launched the nuclear skills task force, chaired by Sir Simon Bollom. It will publish its initial findings and recommendations in the very near future.
As I said, I welcome the new-found support, optimism and positivity for nuclear demonstrated by the Labour party, and when we as the Conservative party go on to win at the next election, I am sure that the hon. Lady will continue to offer that support from the Opposition Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Committee that I have the privilege of chairing published a big report on the future of nuclear power last year, calling for a comprehensive strategy for new nuclear, so I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and the publication today, which responds very comprehensively and substantially to many of the recommendations we made. In particular, I welcome the commitments to new gigawatt-scale nuclear as part of the 24 GW target; to streamline the regulation, which is extremely important; to small modular reactors; and to the security that comes from investing in our own domestic source of nuclear fuel. Those are very big steps forward. May I ask the Minister specifically to say whether the new site approval mechanism will allow these sites to be used for SMRs by the 2050 deadline or target?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for all the work he has done to champion nuclear, not only in his capacity as Chair of the Select Committee but in his time as Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, when he was in charge of getting this ship moving. To answer his question directly, yes it will. The new siting strategy will cover the possibility of the deployment of all technologies —SMR, AMR and gigawatt-scale reactors. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s support.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. He is absolutely right in one respect: the Scottish Government do not support the development of new nuclear power in Scotland. The reasons for that are simple: beside the environmental concerns, the economics do not lie. Nuclear power is slow to deliver and horrendously expensive, and the policy of recent years under Labour and Conservative Governments has been simply to allow private companies to privatise the profits while the risks are socialised for taxpayers. We on this side of the House—at least, on the SNP Benches—all know that Scotland’s comparative advantages lie in hydrogen and renewables, both areas in which the Scottish Government’s ambitions appear to considerably outstrip those of the current UK Government.
May I ask the Minister two simple questions? First, despite his disagreement with the Scottish Government’s stance on planning and nuclear, will he and his Government respect the devolution settlement as it stands? Secondly, will he give an undertaking, as none of his predecessors over the last half century or more have been able to do, that when the multibillion-pound decommissioning liabilities become live for any new generation of nuclear power stations, they will lie squarely on the private companies that have benefited in the preceding decades and will not fall on the taxpayer?
Andrew Bowie
The Scottish National party, like almost every nationalist party in the world, has a misplaced belief in its own exceptionalism, and nowhere is that more true than on nuclear. At COP28, we saw over 30 countries come together to pledge to increase civil nuclear capacity around the world by a third, so clear and obvious is it that nuclear is essential not just in ensuring our energy security, benefiting local communities and driving forward our economy, but in reaching our net zero goals and ensuring that we have a cleaner energy baseload in the future. Indeed, there is no net zero without nuclear.
It pains me, especially as a Scottish Member of Parliament, that the Scottish Government’s wrong-headed position on this remains extant. I would very much welcome a change of direction within the Scottish Government. I urge the Scottish National party to look around the world at the countries joining with us in this nuclear renaissance and revival, and to think of the huge benefits that could be brought to Scotland, with its proud history in nuclear going back many decades, if it were to join us on this journey.
Of course we respect the devolution settlement. We are absolutely committed to maintaining it. What I urge, though, is a change of direction, a change of approach and a change of position by the Scottish Government, so that the Scottish people, the Scottish economy and the Scottish environment can benefit from future investment in nuclear that will be felt in England and Wales, and indeed in so many other countries around the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Today’s statement provides welcome clarity about the Government’s road map for the delivery and revival of new nuclear energy capacity, and I will be writing on behalf of my Committee to the Minister shortly to raise some points about the SMR competition that he has touched on today. Notwithstanding the grudging support from those on the Opposition Front Bench, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to build the broad consensus behind this essential component of the delivery of net zero, so that the road map does not fall victim to the short-term thinking that bedevilled the delivery of a safe and effective renewal of nuclear capacity in the past, notably under the previous Labour Government?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support of this document and for the work that he has done in chairing the Committee to drive forward the arguments for further investment in nuclear. I know he shares my belief that if we are to reach net zero, nuclear will play a large part in the mix of energy solutions that we invest in.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to build a broad consensus. I genuinely welcome the support of the official Opposition for new investment in nuclear. As I said, when we look around the world, the pace at which the mood is changing and the broad acceptance of nuclear as a key benefit in reaching our net zero goals is incredible. It will take a lot of hard work on the part of all of us who believe in the benefits that nuclear can bring economically, to our energy security and, ultimately and most importantly, to the environment, to keep the pressure up. I look forward to his writing to me, and to discussing the issues that he has raised further, and I thank him once again for his broad support for what we are trying to deliver.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
May I welcome the statement? I was going to commend the Minister on the work that I know he has done, until he unfortunately became petty political—I think he spent a bit too much time in Scottish politics. He will be aware that the small modular reactor assessment is already behind the Government’s own timetable. That is undermining Rolls-Royce, which builds small reactors for the Royal Navy and has done for many decades. Meanwhile, the formidable American political industrial machine is hoovering up customers around the world. Can we not learn from the vaccine taskforce how to accelerate process while maintaining safety? Will he now get a move on so that we can build British modular nuclear reactors using British workers?
Andrew Bowie
I know the right hon. Gentleman would never stoop to petty politics in this Chamber or anywhere else, but I have to disagree with him. I share his passion for small modular reactors, and I share his belief that Rolls-Royce is a world-leading company that is delivering for this country right now and will continue to do so in future.
We are proud of the small modular reactor competition, which we launched in July. We have already completed the first process. We have six world-leading technologies competing to get investment from the UK Government for deployment here domestically, of which Rolls-Royce is of course a part. We will be launching the next phase in a matter of weeks. It is world-leading, and faster than any comparable programme in the world. The right hon. Gentleman says to get a move on, but we have not stopped to draw breath since we first launched GBN and the small modular reactor drawdown competition in the summer. However, I welcome his support for what we are doing, and I hope that he can encourage more of his colleagues to support it.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Today I am fighting back tears of joy and jubilation for this road map, because it is absolutely clear that we have a Minister and a Government who are utterly committed to nuclear—whether that is civil, defence, safe storage, medical isotopes or the entire supply chain. May I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the road map clearly refers to the A595, the road between Barrow and Workington, where the journey began? Will he give his absolute assurance that he will remember where the journey began —with the commitment from my community and the community across Furness and west Cumbria—and ensure that that is at the forefront of his decision making on future missions?
Andrew Bowie
My hon. Friend—she is a friend—is rightly proud of the contribution that Cumbria has made to our nuclear journey over the last century. The journey began at Calder Hall and has continued. She is right, and at the forefront of our decision making will be the experience, expertise and learning that has developed in and around her constituency, which will of course be at the forefront of our nuclear renaissance.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement, which is probably the most significant statement on energy policy for at least a decade. I welcome in particular the intention to streamline planning processes and regulation to reduce unnecessary costs and delays. May I ask for an assurance that if there is to be new nuclear development at Bradwell in Essex, it will be of a type that does not affect the marine protected area of the Blackwater estuary, a historic oyster fishery on which many of my constituents depend?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his support at this exciting moment. Of course, many sites will be looked at for future nuclear development, and in every case they will have to adhere to the stringent, strong and gold-plated environmental standards that we expect of nuclear licensed sites across the United Kingdom.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I do apologise for having called two Members in a row from the same side. I shall immediately correct myself by calling two from the Opposition side.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I took no offence at all; it is fully understood.
The best route to affordable energy security is renewables. Nuclear power is blighted by delays and rocketing costs, and the Government are never honest about its much higher costs compared with renewables. On the Government’s watch, renewables have faced long delays and the costs for offshore wind development have increased by 40%. Will a renewables road map soon follow the statement to address those challenges and ensure that the Government do not lose their competitive advantage in offshore wind development?
Andrew Bowie
I lose track of where the Liberal Democrats sit on nuclear. I know that their current leader was against it, then he was for it, and then against it again. Right now, I am not quite sure.
I do take issue with the hon. Lady’s insinuation that we are not leading the world in renewables. We have the first, second, third, fourth and fifth—and, soon, the sixth—largest offshore wind farms in the world generating power right now for Great Britain. We are investing at pace in solar and in a host of new and emerging technologies because, unlike some parties, we believe that we should not invest all our time and money in one technology. We need a broad range of technologies if we are ever to meet our legally binding net zero commitment. I look forward to the day when the Liberal Democrats can hold a policy for more than five minutes and come to the House and actually support us on the journey to our net zero future.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. However, what lessons will be learned from previous and current projects on value for money? The National Audit Office was scathing about some of the decisions that had been taken on those projects. What more can be done to support manufacturing in this area right across the UK?
Andrew Bowie
Building up the UK’s supply chain is essential. One of the huge benefits that will be accrued through this biggest-in-70-years investment in new nuclear is the ability to build up our manufacturing base in the United Kingdom, creating those high-wage, high-skilled jobs that we want to see in more communities around the entire country. Of course, lessons will be learned from previous projects. We are always looking at value for money for the British taxpayer, which is why, for example, we are using the regulated asset base model for funding Sizewell C.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s announcement today, because when the advanced gas-cooled reactors are decommissioned by 2030, we will have a dip in nuclear production. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I have the honour to be deputy chair, has done a lot of work on this. We recently had a follow-up visit to Sellafield. I agree with my hon. Friend that they do fantastic work there, but it is our largest single project, with a minimum cost of £200 billion over the next 100 years. Will he undertake to renew our efforts to get a better handle on the decommissioning costs, so that they can be properly allocated and we can have a true estimate of what nuclear generation costs?
Andrew Bowie
I agree with my hon. Friend on the amazing work being conducted at Sellafield in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison). The lessons being learned through the decommissioning process at Sellafield will yield benefits. We are leading the way across the world on the decommissioning of sites and are very happy to be advising other countries on their decommissioning efforts. We need to ensure that any projects run by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority are proved to be value for money, and that we learn from the lessons of the past.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
My party’s policy is to support the development of the present nuclear sites in Wales, one of which is Trawsfynydd in my constituency. The Welsh Government have funded Cwmni Egino to develop Trawsfynydd, and £20 million was allocated only last autumn for that purpose by the north Wales growth deal to enable critical development and planning, prior to the final investment decision to be made anon. Given the strategic developments and investments in Wales, can the Minister confirm that the entirely publicly owned Trawsfynydd, with its potential 550 jobs, remains a possible location for an SMR in the near future? Will he please visit Trawsfynydd?
Andrew Bowie
I would be delighted to visit the right hon. Lady’s constituency. Trawsfynydd has exciting potential as a site for an SMR, and for other nuclear licensed activities. It and many others are potential sites for the deployment of these new technologies in the years ahead.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, I warmly welcome today’s publication of the long-awaited civil nuclear road map, in particular the exploration of alternative routes to market for SMRs and AMRs outside the Great British Nuclear scheme. On the delivery of large-scale projects, I am curious to know why the road map states on page 20 that the Government will need to wait for the Sizewell C final investment decision before they can set out timelines and processes for a new large-scale project in the UK. That formal work and engagement in the Minister’s team need not wait on the work of another team over which he does not have control or oversight. In the spirit of speeding up delivery, might he begin this work now in readiness for maximising the time we have left before 2050 to get this done?
Andrew Bowie
The hon. Lady can be assured that work is already beginning on identifying future sites for large-scale gigawatt power stations. We are committed to announcing more in due course.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
May I add my intense excitement for this announcement and, in particular, for the inclusion of advanced modular reactors in the road map? Finally we have a way forward for them. My hon. Friend knows how important it is to me to get an AMR in Hartlepool. He was with me on his first ever visit to Hartlepool on the day that we announced a two-year extension for our reactor, which takes us to 2026. Does this announcement mean what I think it does—the guarantee of a future for nuclear at Hartlepool? Is it only a matter of time before he comes back to announce not only what we will build there, but who will build it and when?
Andrew Bowie
I remember that visit distinctly—my first as the nuclear Minister. I thank the hon. Lady and everyone who hosts nuclear power stations in their constituencies for championing that industry, the sector and the workforce. The workforce and the sector have been widely castigated in the popular mindset over many years, but now are reaping the rewards of continued support from people such as my hon. Friend and others in this House. I am delighted that Hartlepool got the extension. The road map that we set out today will deliver a clear identification of what can be delivered, where and how. That means a bright future for nuclear in Hartlepool.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Nova Innovation in my constituency recently announced the wonderful news that it had won €20 million of investment from the EU to lead a pan-European consortium to create the Seastar tidal energy farm in Orkney, the largest tidal energy site in the world. Why does the UK Government continue to largely ignore this safe, lower cost, reliable form of energy? As Greenpeace points out, the energy industry itself knows that the economic case for slow, expensive nuclear just does not add up.
Andrew Bowie
Tidal received money for the very first time through the last auction round in the contracts for difference process. This Government are investing in tidal technologies, wind, solar, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, continued exploration for oil and gas—which the hon. Lady’s party opposes—and nuclear. Of course, it is fantastic news for her constituents and the businesses around Scotland that are winning contracts to invest in renewables. What, to their shame, Scottish National party representatives in this place never mention is the hundreds of thousands of jobs in Scotland that depend on the nuclear industry—manufacturing, construction, education and the fantastic work going on right now in Torness, the only generating power station in Scotland currently delivering power to 1 million homes. Perhaps the Scottish National party will come to the Chamber and explain how, when that power station closes down—as sadly and inevitably one day it will—they will replace the power generated for Scottish homes under their plans to completely ignore this safe, secure and clean option for secure future energy.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I welcome the civil nuclear road map, in particular the recognition that we will need additional nuclear sites to those in the existing policy framework. Does the Minister agree that there is one big difference between a gigawatt reactor and an SMR—gigawatt reactors are very big, and SMRs are comparatively quite small? Therefore, does he believe that we need to consider smaller sites such as Dungeness in my constituency, which could be very suitable for such technologies as SMRs?
Andrew Bowie
Again, I welcome my hon. Friend’s support and I thank him for hosting me on a visit to Dungeness—the fish and chips were exquisite. I agree that we will look at every site and possible site and judge them on the basis of what type of technology could be built there. That will benefit his community, communities around the country and the United Kingdom more widely.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. It is great that the Government have outlined plans for the biggest expansion of nuclear power in 70 years to reduce energy bills, which so many of our constituents struggle with on a daily basis. Minister, I ask you this question because you admitted that Northern Ireland—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not refer directly to the Minister. Let us have another go.
Jim Shannon
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. What provisions does the UK civil nuclear plan include to involve Northern Ireland? How will it ensure that the region’s perspectives and concerns are adequately taken into account in the development and implementation of nuclear politics and policies, so that we can create jobs and strengthen our economy at the same time as other areas in the United Kingdom?
Andrew Bowie
As ever, the hon. Gentleman champions his constituents and the people and economy of Northern Ireland. It is essential to me that every part of our United Kingdom benefits from this once-in-a-generation investment into new nuclear. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss how Northern Ireland and his constituents in Strangford could benefit from investment in skills and the supply chain. Deployment of nuclear capabilities is a devolved competency, but I would be happy to meet him to see what his constituents can get from this historic announcement.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
From Anglesey, all the way up the coast to the tip of Cumbria, the north-west nuclear arc will be, as some Members have already suggested, dancing a little jig today. Springfields in Lancashire is the geographic and, I would argue, fuel production heart of that north-west nuclear arc. I welcome this announcement to secure the future £300 million investment to ensure that Vladimir Putin does not have his hands on the taps of advanced nuclear fuels. That is so important for the hundreds, if not thousands of people who live in South Ribble and work in the adjacent Springfields. This investment helps Lancashire support the UK domestic nuclear industry, but can the Minister tell me if there are opportunities for exporting Lancashire nous, skills, capability and fuel to the world?
Andrew Bowie
Absolutely. Lancashire, like Cumbria, is at the heart of the vision we are announcing today. The £300 million investment in new nuclear fuels means that the United Kingdom will remain among a handful of nations committed and able to work across the entire fuel supply chain. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is visiting Springfields as I speak, demonstrating our commitment to that plant and its people. Moving forward, we will be central to our allies and partners around the world being able to move away from and wean themselves off relying on hostile foreign actors like Vladimir Putin for their energy baseload. Lancashire will be key to doing that.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Nuclear is hugely important for our energy security, so I welcome today’s statement. Missing from my atomic Friend’s extensive list of the benefits of nuclear is how much kinder nuclear is on land use, with a small modular reactor needing just two football pitches to produce enough power for around 1 million homes, compared to 2,000 acres of solar that will power only 50,000 homes. Does the Minister agree that nuclear is so much kinder and does not involve destroying vast swathes of the British countryside and impacting our food security?
Andrew Bowie
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the footprint and the comparable impact on land of nuclear compared to other technologies, but it is very important that we have a wide range of energy technologies moving forward. We will benefit from investment in wind, solar, hydrogen, CCUS and the nuclear we are announcing today, but I welcome his support for what we are announcing.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I welcome the statement and the publication of the three documents. With Sizewell C, as well as offshore wind and hydrogen, East Anglia, Suffolk and Lowestoft will play a vital strategic role in enhancing our energy security, keeping bills low and driving forward the transition to net zero. To enable the local area to play this lead role to the maximum advantage of local people and local businesses, does my hon. Friend recognise the vital importance of investment in skills at East Coast College and investment in infrastructure, such as in the port of Lowestoft?
Andrew Bowie
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is spot on. I was very happy to visit East Anglia last year and see for myself the investment Sizewell C is making in the local community and in local colleges, supporting young people who want to get into the new high-skilled jobs that will be produced through the development of projects such as Sizewell C. I am very happy to announce that I will be visiting East Anglia again on Monday to see the progress that has been made at Sizewell C. He is absolutely right that the benefits that accrue locally through investment in nuclear, at large scale and at small modular scale, are unprecedented. That is one of the things that I hope comes out of today: yes we are talking about our energy security and yes we are talking about reaching net zero, but the impact locally to communities through investment in new nuclear is unprecedented. I am very excited to see what it brings in the years ahead.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Clearly, nuclear will have a major part to play in energy generation in coming years. A number of companies have already looked at sites in my northern Lincolnshire constituency, which he will know is a major centre for the renewable energy sector. He spoke of encouraging developers to identify potential sites. Does he agree with me that it is also important that local authorities play a part in encouraging this type of development? I can assure him that North Lincolnshire Council and North East Lincolnshire Council will welcome such developments.
Andrew Bowie
I completely agree. Local authorities have a key role in driving forward interest and investment in small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors, and indeed in any new technologies that come through as the result of today’s announcement and the investment we are making in nuclear. I would be delighted to visit his constituency and see the potential of possible sites for small modular reactor deployment in the area he represents, because he is absolutely right. The potential for these technologies is huge not just, as I have said, for our energy security moving forward, but for the benefits they bring to communities up and down the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
Backbench Business
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
SEND Provision and Funding
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I would just like to explain to colleagues how we intend to proceed this afternoon. We have two very well-subscribed debates and I will try to ensure that all Back Benchers have a fairly equal opportunity across the afternoon. The guidance is that the opening speeches are to be between 10 and 15 minutes. I advise that, in order to be fair to everybody, we will start off with the guidance that six minutes will allow everybody an equal opportunity from the Back Benches. If people cannot stick to that, I will have to put on a time limit, but I think that will ensure that everybody gets a good chance to contribute.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls for a review of funding for SEND provision.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try my absolute best to stay inside your guidance. We have 24 applicants to speak in the debate, which I think is a record, so forgive me if I do not take interventions. Nearly 100,000 people signed petitions relating to these subjects and I am pleased to say that they will have their voices heard in the Chamber today.
The debate about how best to cater for those with special educational needs and disabilities is often dominated by hard numbers: money, places, headcounts and so on. That is obviously a vital part of the discussion, but the real heart of the matter is the human impact, and the children and families behind the figures. My part of the world, the East Riding, has the lowest per capita funding, which is about a third of the highest-funded areas.
I declare an interest, or more than an interest: a prejudice. I have a grandchild who suffers from something called SYNGAP-1, a genetic disease that makes her non-verbal and gives her daily fits and seizures, so she has a very high intensity of requirement. In the two years of covid, she missed 40 days of teaching, over and above lockdown requirements, because of a lack of resources. That is eight weeks of schooling lost, causing enormous distress to a child who needs continuity and stability. We can see immediately how that has an effect. Chloe has complex needs and meeting those needs is a daily challenge for her parents and teachers. For her to miss so much school is simply awful and puts huge pressure on Chloe herself and on the rest of her family.
As important as Chloe is to me, the point is that her case is not unusual. Many of her classmates had and continue to have the same experiences, as do thousands upon thousands of children across the country. Parents, teachers, teaching assistants, mental health workers, carers and a host of others do incredible work to ensure that children get as much help as possible, but they are struggling to provide adequately for everyone. At the moment, the resources are simply not there.
A bit of background here is important. Education, health and care plans—EHCPs, as they are known—were introduced in 2014. This was a well-intentioned reform that sought to provide holistic support for young people in need. But what the reforms failed to do was provide resilience in the system to deal with future changes to demand for services. In recent years, there has been a huge increase in that demand: population growth, better detection of conditions such as autism, and longer life expectancy because of medical progress all put pressures on the system. As a result, the total number of EHCPs and statements of special educational need has more than doubled since 2015. That is a rise of more than a quarter of a million cases, with large increases in every age group, but the funding from central Government simply has not kept pace.
Part of the answer is to update the funding formula. The existing allocation of funds is based on an out-of-date assessment of each area’s special educational needs. Of course, some level of differentiation of funding makes sense, as not every area has the same needs. For example, rurality has a huge impact, as staff, campaigners and families in my area know only too well. Those national pressures lie behind the call by the f40 group, representing local authorities with some of the worst rates of SEND funding, for £4.6 billion in additional annual funding from central Government. The figure is based on that huge growth in the number of EHCPs local authorities have to support, as well as significant inflationary pressures. Each EHCP, tailored to the specific needs of a child requiring additional support, costs the local authority cash, so the more EHCPs are needed, the more local authorities have to cough up and the greater the pressure on their already tight finances. We should remember that in the past two years, six local authorities have already declared themselves effectively bankrupt.
The impact of these pressures on SEND provision is clear for all to see. In 2022, less than half of EHCPs were issued within 20 weeks of application. In other words, one in two children waited more than five months. Given that 13% of children have special educational needs, that is a huge number of kids waiting for help, and many have to wait a lot longer to get the support that they need. In some cases children have to be sent to schools far away owing to a lack of local places, and families struggle, over and above their normal needs, to get appropriate support.
Parents and carers have supplied me with many illustrative examples. One, Jennifer, said that
“we have been on a waiting list for 22 months for my son to see a Speech and Language Therapist...The lack of SEN schools needs addressing as a matter of urgency”
as children are being
“let down and are suffering”.
Another, Esther, said:
“My son hasn’t had his EHCP met in four years in an SEN school... he has not had speech therapy for over three years, nor has he had his physio, occupational therapy, sensory or educational needs met...There is urgent need for more funding so that SEN schools can have appropriate class sizes with therapists and enough qualified and skilled support staff.”
According to one special needs specialist teacher, Louise:
“Services such as speech and language therapy have been reduced dramatically. In my Autism Spectrum Condition Resourced Provision class, we used to have three hours per week and now have three hours per half term.”
Another teacher, Catherine, said:
“We have large numbers of children who require specialist support to allow them to thrive and stay safe”.
Owing to a lack of resources, however, other children are
“receiving minimal support as we are firefighting, just to keep the children…safe.”
The financial impact of all this is, of course, enormous. The cumulative deficit in local authority high needs budgets is estimated to be £2.3 billion, and is expected to reach £3.6 billion by March 2025. There are more than 80 local authorities with large high needs deficits. Currently those deficits are being kept off local authority balance sheets by a statutory override, but the override is time-limited and will expire in 2026 if it is not extended. If and when it does expire, many councils will be bankrupted overnight, with huge implications not just for education but for all local services. That is why the f40 group considers the expiry to be a sword of Damocles hanging over the entire sector. Fifty-five local authorities have had to sign up to the Government’s Delivering Better Value in SEND programme and 34 have had to sign up to the Safety Valve programme—both set up to meet the challenge of dealing with the rising demand and costs—which means that nearly 90 authorities have already had to go to the Government for help.
Of course, it is also crucial that we are able to plan for future challenges so that we can meet them when they arise, rather than constantly firefighting with limited resources. To that end, there needs to be a substantial increase in capital funding to allow local authorities to invest in SEND projects. I say to the Minister that the recent announcement of £2.6 billion for that purpose is welcome, but more is needed. Without the start-up cash, we will simply find ourselves in another crisis in five years’ time. The numbers may sound big, and we all know that these are straitened times for the economy after covid, but in reality, failing to invest is a false economy. We might save some money in the short term, but the long-term costs, both to the budgets and to the children concerned, are huge.
Let us take an example. A child suffering from poor physical and mental health, suicidal ideation and poor school attendance spent a great deal of time refusing to engage at all. Special needs staff, having set out an action plan, gave him one-to-one mentoring support, thrice-weekly pastoral sessions, regular counselling and organised work experience. As a result his school attendance improved, he began to develop friendships with peers, and he was able to manage a full school timetable. His life was transformed.
The reverse scenario, however, happens all too often. As Mo, a speech and language therapist, put it:
“It is widely acknowledged that early intervention is key. However, due to a lack of funding, staffing levels and subsequent long waiting lists, we are unable to provide”
that intervention. A child might, say, have autism and anxiety, and might be struggling to get into school and struggling to cope with the day’s work. Without help, those things get worse. The children come to school less, they find it harder and harder to carry out basic tasks, their friendships suffer, and it is then more difficult for special needs staff to get through to them. Ultimately, they will need a much greater—and more expensive—effort to reintegrate them into schooling, and will require much more long-term care. Intervening early is transformative, and that requires resources to make it possible to act before problems spiral out of control.
A further problem is the severe workforce difficulties that SEND employers face. Specialist teaching assistants, for example, now cost employers about £24,000 each, up from about £16,000 10 years ago. However, the place funding has been not changed from £10,000 per child, so we are not matching that extra demand. Many SEND workers would be better remunerated in less skilled jobs, and in a challenging economic climate, they may be forced to vote with their feet. One therapist, Hayley, said that she had seen
“a huge decline in skills and knowledge of the workforce.”
That will not come as a surprise to anyone in the sector. Of course Ministers say they value the work that SEND staff do, but it must be backed up by funding. Otherwise the workforce will continue to dwindle, with dire consequences for those who rely on their support.
There are many other aspects that I should like to mention, but you wanted me to be sharp, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not deal with most of them.
These challenges extend to further education. Young people aged 16 to 25 make up 27% of those with EHCPs, and I know that some of my colleagues will want to touch on that. Moreover, as I have said, this is not simply a matter of funding. Just this week the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), recognised the need for “systemic reform” because families were waiting between nine and 13 months for a hearing after appealing against EHCP decisions.
I am sure that some of my colleagues will go further into these issues in their speeches, and will mention their own experiences of helping families in their constituencies. My right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) cannot be here this afternoon because of a constituency engagement, but I know that he agrees with all the points I have made. Front Benchers who cannot contribute to the debate also have their concerns. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) has, like many others, been contacted by numerous constituents about this subject, and has taken their worries on board. The same is true of other Ministers who did not particularly want me to mention them; I cannot think why!
The bottom line is this. The support that a society provides for its most vulnerable is a measure of its compassion, and, to my mind, a measure of its civilisation. That is the key. I am sure that the Government share those principles, but now we must find a way to deliver the change that is needed to make them a reality.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis), who did a superb job of setting out the strategic argument for more funding for those with special educational needs. I hope that we will get some hint from Ministers that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has heard the calls from parents across the country, and that more revenue funding and, crucially, more capital funding will be made available.
I want to raise a series of parochial issues that are nevertheless relevant to the more strategic arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. Let me say at the outset that I entirely recognise from my own casework the stories of parents and their difficulties in obtaining support for their children with special educational needs. I am sure that is the experience of everyone in this House.
At the outset, I acknowledge the skill and commitment of those who work with and teach children with special educational needs, both in my constituency and across the country. Teachers are remarkable at the best of times but, like other school staff, they are not valued enough. They are fundamental to the future of our country and to the future of the vulnerable young people we are talking about today.
I am fortunate that Harrow is blessed with good special schools. Alexandra School in south Harrow, in my constituency, is particularly good, but Shaftesbury High School, Kingsley High School and Woodlands School are also very effective. I commend their staff to the House. I also acknowledge the impressive performance of special educational needs co-ordinators and other staff who support young people in Harrow’s mainstream school settings.
There is a clear need for a new 300-place special school in Harrow. The four special schools I mentioned face serious financial difficulties, and more investment is needed for the young people in Harrow’s mainstream schools to get the support they need. Harrow has seen a 55% increase in the number of young people with EHCPs over the last five years, and Harrow Council estimates that the figure is likely to increase by about 100 a year. The four special schools in Harrow have just under 500 places between them, but 700 young people a year from my community are being placed in special schools. The council already relies on finding placements for vulnerable children with special educational needs in out-of-borough schools and private special schools that are further away from their family settings.
As I understand it, Harrow already has a much greater reliance on private SEN schools than the national average. There is very little space to expand the borough’s four special schools, and Harrow is unfortunately surrounded by neighbouring boroughs that are also seeing very significant increases in the number of young people with significant special educational needs. Pressure is also rising fast on the private and independent schools catering for those with special educational needs on which Harrow might draw.
That means that a much higher proportion of Harrow’s high needs budget is being spent on significantly more expensive placements than would be spent if an additional special school were built in the borough. As I understand it, my council is now worried that there will be further significant fee increases for those schools, placing even greater pressure on the existing special needs budget.
The Department for Education has turned down Harrow’s application for a special school three times, even though the Department accepts that it was an effective bid and worthy of funding, had funding been available—hence the urgent need for more capital funding.
Finally, I underline the point that special schools in Harrow, and I suspect across the country, are already facing serious financial problems. I understand that the National Network of Specialist Provision has revealed that 80% of special schools responding to its survey reported a budget deficit in year one of their financial cycle, rising to 90% in year two. The average size of that deficit is £145,000 in year one, which has huge implications for school budgets. That needs to be urgently addressed in the forthcoming Budget.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this hugely important debate. I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing time, and to the Petitions Committee for organising and managing many of the important petitions to which it relates, some of which I hope to address.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) on championing this vital campaign. Having worked alongside him on one or two challenging issues over the years, I now have the pleasure of doing so again. I support his motion for three key reasons. As we have heard, Members across the House have huge case loads relating to special educational needs. As Chairman of the Education Committee, and as a long-standing and committed supporter of f40 and its campaign for fairer funding, I think that getting the right support to children with special educational needs and disabilities is a vital challenge, and we have to be frank that it is a challenge with which successive Governments have struggled.
The Committee praised the aims of the 2014 reforms, but it concluded in 2019 that their implementation had not been effective and that funding was “wholly inadequate”. It is to the Government’s great credit that high needs funding has since increased substantially, more than doubling since 2015 and increasing by 60% since the start of this Parliament.
There has been a real focus on providing more specialist places but, while it is undoubtedly true that this Government have prioritised the needs of SEN children in spending reviews, it is also true that the real and substantial increases have not been enough to meet demand. The vast majority of local authorities are facing high needs deficits. Worcestershire is by no means among the worst, but it has told me that it expects its deficit to rise from £34.5 million at the end of March 2024 to £44 million next year.
Not only are specialist and mainstream settings in every constituency struggling to meet the demands of the parents and families that they do accommodate but, as my right hon. Friend made clear in his granddaughter’s case, too many children are not in those settings when they ought to be. The Education Committee has heard that non-elective home education is too prevalent in this space. It is therefore right that we use this debate to press for more resource for what is, legally and morally, a meeting of basic need and the fundamental right to education.
I pay tribute, as others have, to the incredible work happening in every single school in my constituency to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. I say every single school, because it is clear that SEN children and children with EHCPs are spread across the entire school estate—mainstream as well as specialist. I hear from teachers and leaders in mainstream primary schools, early years settings, secondaries, sixth forms and colleges, and, almost without exception, they speak about observing rising levels of need and complexity of need.
That is even more acute in specialist settings, which some years ago were dealing with a few highly complex cases of children with multiple and severe conditions, alongside larger numbers of children with a single diagnosis. Today, an increasing proportion of their intake is taken up by those with multiple and severe conditions, and both Regency High School and Fort Royal Community Primary School in my constituency have described the pressures that creates.
We should all be supporting the incredible parents and carers who support SEN children, while recognising, as the Government’s Green Paper and White Paper have, that the current system has been a source of frustration and confrontation for them. We should be supporting the aspirations of the Green Paper and the White Paper to deliver the right support in the right place at the right time, but to do so will require the scale of resource and investment in training, infrastructure and needs-based funding for which this debate is calling.
There are brilliant people providing support to SEND children across the country, but the rising tide of demand for specialist support needs to be acknowledged from the start. That is why the case for more funding, as well as fairer funding, is really important. Ahead of this debate, f40 prepared a detailed and instructive briefing setting out that the areas that have among the lowest overall school funding also have among the lowest extra funding for high needs. For the record, Worcestershire has the 30th lowest overall funding and the 32nd lowest high needs funding. That position has improved since 2010, but it still puts our school pupils, and particularly our special needs pupils, at a huge disadvantage compared with those with exactly the same needs in better funded areas.
I know that the Department for Education drafted legislation to take the next step in delivering on our manifesto promise of a fairer funding formula by making dedicated schools grant payments directly to schools, rather than through local authorities, but that the legislation fell victim to the demise of the late Schools Bill. I ask the Minister for an update on when the Department plans to take that crucial next step.
Today, f40 is calling not for reallocation but for growing the size of the pie, and for doing so with urgency. That call has been backed by the National Education Union, the Association of School and College Leaders, the National Association of Head Teachers, the Early Years Alliance and the National Governance Association, which all agree that the high needs block requires an extra £4.6 billion a year just to prevent the current crisis in high needs from getting worse. That has been estimated through the growth in the number of EHCPs since 2015.
The substantial revenue funding ask in today’s motion is only part of the solution. We also need to reduce lengthy journeys, which have placed huge strains on home-to-school transport budgets but do nothing for the welfare of children. My local authority, like many others, is seeing huge increases in its home-to-school transport budget. That is contributing to another growing deficit, putting more pressure on local families and other services. Although I appreciate that the Department for Education is not the funder for those budgets, joint working with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure that they are properly funded and effectively used is vital.
We need to ensure that the worthy aspiration set out in the last spending review settlement—the £2.6 billion to provide new places—is not just dealt with as a one-off; it needs to be continued in future spending reviews. With that in mind, I am very grateful for the investment that has gone into a new all-through specialist autism school in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). However, I know that my primary special school, Fort Royal, and my secondary special school, Regency, are desperately in need of expansion. We need to see that capital continue to come and we desperately need a new specialist assessment centre for the early years in Worcester.
Spending to save in this area is very important, and the Government have rightly set out to halve the disability employment gap. My Committee’s inquiry on careers education highlighted how SEN children could benefit from more support in advice and guidance on their careers. I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said about the importance of speech and language therapy and investment in that area. I supported the calls for SEND in the specialists campaign last year, and I am glad that the Government have responded positively to a number of those, but we also need to look at auditory verbal therapy, teachers of the deaf, and the number of child psychologists and paediatricians in our health and care teams. Some areas that go beyond the education budget need to be looked at in this respect.
I briefly wish to touch on some of the petitions in support of this motion that related to training for SEN. They are very important, and I welcome the fact that the Government have made some moves to include more SEN content in the initial teacher training curriculum. I urge them also to look at the early career framework in that respect, and that echoes some of the calls that my Select Committee has made. Petition 591092 called for greater qualifications for SENCOs and for us to set a higher bar for their expertise and training. My Committee has welcomed the Government’s commitment to national professional qualifications for SENCOs and heard some positive information on the number of people taking the level 3 qualification. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), who is on the Front Bench today, wrote to us in October to say:
“We have increased funding for an additional 2,000 SENCOs to be trained, taking the total up to 7,000… The project is on track to train a minimum of 3,000 SENCOs by August 2024.”
Can he confirm that that trajectory is being maintained?
This is a hugely challenging and important area. It would not only ease a large and growing financial burden affecting every local authority up and down the country, but particularly benefit children with SEND and their families if the aspirations set out in this motion could be delivered. I therefore commend it to the whole House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the two opening speakers for being nearly within time. I remind Members that my guidance is that they should speak for six minutes. I call Ian Lavery.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
We can be said to be a decent and humane society only if we have done our utmost to provide help and support for the most vulnerable children in our communities. We should be able to proclaim not only that we provide for reasonable levels of material wellbeing for such children, but that we are also allowing them access to the education they need to better their lives. On both counts, this Government have failed, but one of their most glaring failures is the failure to provide the necessary funding for the educational requirements of children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the regional inequalities in respect of both the prevalence of EHCPs and the inadequate resourcing that reflects this particular need?
Ian Lavery
I thank my hon. Friend for that very clear intervention, and I will deal with that point later in my contribution.
As a nation, we generally fail to make education provision the priority that it deserves to be. We can develop a modern and diverse economy only if we have people with the necessary skills and knowledge that such an economy requires. Most importantly, our working-class children will continue to be held back if we do not prioritise the proper funding of our schools and further education colleges. Shamefully, the UK spends only 4.2% of our national income on education, compared with the average of 5% spent by OECD members.
When one considers the financial resources provided for the educational needs for pupils with SEND, one sees that the underfunding is even more pronounced. According to the f40 organisation, which represents the 40 local authorities with the lowest amount of education funding, an additional £4.6 billion for baseline funding is required to make up that shortfall. Without this additional spending, children with SEND will not find the places they deserve in either mainstream or specialist schools. Yet at a time when more SEND funding is so desperately needed, the funding is actually decreasing.
In September 2023, my local authority, Northumberland County Council, reported that the number of EHCPs in Northumberland is increasing by 10% per year. Increased need should, of course, be met by increased funding, but central Government have increased the element for SEND funding within their grant to the council by only 8.84%. Indeed, over the past four years there has been growth of 72% in the number of EHCPs, while funding from the DfE has increased by only 42%—it is unbelievable.
In 2023-24, for the first time, the Northumberland schools high needs block will overspend. Expectations for April 2025 are even worse, and there will be a minus 12% deficit at the minimum. On a positive note, there are more learners with SEND having their needs well meet in Northumberland schools than ever before. That is testament to the fantastic work of the school and local authority staff, who are finding way to continue amid the chaos, but they are being stretched to the limit. I want to pay tribute to the staff, pupils and parents at The Dales School, Cleaswell Hill School, Collingwood School and Castle School, among others in my constituency, which continue to do a fantastic job. Shockingly, however, the amount per SEND child per year allocated by the Government is £10,000—an amount that has been frozen for 11 years. Costs pressures on all schools have increased greatly, yet the amount per child with SEND has remained frozen for more than a decade—that is astonishing.
Many children with SEND can only attend schools that have the physical environment that is appropriate for them. That requires ensuring that their schools have, at all times, the adjustments in layout and means of access that these children must have. Some students with SEND also need specialist electronic education equipment and IT provision. Those needs can be met only with adequate capital spending. Last summer, the Government announced £2.6 billion of increased capital funding for the support of specialist provision, yet that has to be assessed within the context of the 80% cut in devolved school capital funding that was made in 2011-12, at the time of the Tory and Liberal Democrat coalition Government, which of course has led to the current school repair bill of £11 billion. This increase also does not reflect the recent inflation in construction costs and it is grossly inadequate.
It also has to be remembered that when local authorities are unable to provide their own places for children with SEND, they often have to pay for expensive private schools to take them, putting further strains on their budgets. Students aged 16 to 25 with SEND need access to further education in order to enrol in the courses they want and to maximise their full potential, both academically and in their future employment prospects. There are specialist further education colleges for some students with SEND, which are more costly for local authorities and do not have adequate places to meet demand. Those FE colleges may be best for some, but many would benefit from enrolling in mainstream further education.
There are wider social issues at stake. Parents who cannot find specialist places for their children with SEND are often forced to care for their children at home. As recently reported by the BBC, that can take its toll on such families, in terms of both finances and mental health. The parents can find themselves isolated, stressed and depressed. Moreover, they are unable to work and, in many cases, are forced to rely on benefits. Instead of concentrating on helping families by increasing funding so that children can attend schools that meet their needs, the Prime Minister this weekend seemed to be interested only in depriving the sick and disabled of their benefits.
In conclusion, we have to address the lack of fair funding for SEND schools. There cannot be any further cuts or delays.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It may be helpful if I actually put the clock on, or else other Members wishing to speak will have their time cut down.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I am sure the clock will be very helpful, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing this important debate.
I will start with something that is unusual in this place: a mea culpa. I served on the Bill Committee for what became the Children and Families Act 2014. We debated education, health and care plans at length and how we aspired to their making a real difference. We thought they would make a difference by bringing together education, health and social care funding, enabling the children we are speaking about to have the opportunity to thrive and achieve everything that we know they can and need to achieve.
Sadly, I remember the word “fight” recurred again and again in that debate. Parents were tired of fighting for the right school place, for a statement, which would later become an EHCP, or for the right transport to get their child to the education setting they needed. We thought that Act would see an end to the fighting, but it simply has not, because that has again been the recurring word that parents from my constituency have used in emails to me when I told them that I planned to speak in this debate. They are still tired, still fighting and still seeing children making no progress in a range of settings across our constituencies, whether they be specialist or mainstream provision, as the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), said. The sad truth is that those parents are worn out.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
To reinforce that point, a lady called Jill Mothersdale in Sedgefield came to me and said exactly that. They are so tired of trying to fight the system and get results. It is not anywhere, but everywhere, and I endorse the comments made by my right hon. Friend.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is right that it is everywhere. A mother contacted me about her two daughters, one of whom she says has made no progress in her school setting for years and is being allowed to sit at the back of the classroom, making no contribution. She will not pass her GCSEs and, more than likely, will never move into employment. It is about transition: children have to be given the opportunity to achieve the maximum they can, so that they will go on to perform useful roles in society and in work, and so that the children of today are not the problem of the Department for Work and Pensions tomorrow or, worse, the problem of the Ministry of Justice. That is the stark reality. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, we need change.
I do not want my contribution to be entirely negative, although I fear I may get a bit pokey and political at some point. I want to talk about a brilliant school in my constituency: St Edward’s School in Melchet Park, a specialist school for boys with emotional and mental health challenges, with particular social needs. It is a private school the sole customer of which is local education authorities. Any increase in the fees of that school will be an increase for local authorities and the hard-pressed taxpayer.
St Edward’s School does a brilliant job. The year before last, I visited the school on International Women’s Day, and a 12-year-old boy asked me what I was doing to celebrate the day. I, in my role, had forgotten it was International Women’s Day, which is absolutely shameful, but he had not. I planted a tree at the school with a young man called Jacob, who made me properly laugh, despite all the challenges he faced, because he was in a setting that was safe, secure and appropriate for his emotional and behavioural needs.
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee was right to refer to transport, because that school transports children in every single morning and out every afternoon, over massive distances. They come from across the whole of Hampshire. Some of the kids are sat in taxis for well over an hour at both ends of the day. The school wishes to extend the residential offering, so that the children can have the same stability and security in the extended day as they get in their school hours. It is particularly important for children with social and emotional needs to have consistency and certainty about how their day will pan out. It might be awkward for those of a different political persuasion to recognise that a charitable part of the private sector is producing the goods for young people and making sure that those boys are getting the security they need, but we have to face up to that.
I will finish on a point about special educational needs that is often overlooked, and a challenge that we all face. Girls on the autistic spectrum are often much better than their male counterparts at mirroring the behaviours of their classmates and masking their condition. As a result, they are less likely to get the EHCPs that they desperately need. We have to make sure that we do not overlook that, and recognise that there can be differences across the sexes in the way conditions present. We have to make sure that diagnoses are easier to get for girls, who in too many instances will be stuck in mainstream settings because their EHCP has not been granted because they have been much better at masking their additional needs.
To conclude, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. It is important that we recognise that the changes we made in the 2014 Act have not given us the change that we need, and we must do better.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee, on which I served many years ago, and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for bringing forward this important debate. That so many Members are present shows the importance of SEND education to our young people.
People are disabled by barriers in society, not by difference. Children with special educational needs and their families in Leeds North West are consistently made to feel that they are the problem. The system is a complete mess. There is a huge shortage of specialist provision and enhanced mainstream provision, so children are forced into schools that do not have the expertise to manage their needs. That leads to exclusion, isolation and children being withdrawn. Support staff do not have adequate training or care, and many are paid less than those working in supermarkets.
The number of children with special educational needs and disabilities who are either excluded or waiting for a place at a school has jumped by almost a third since 2020. The severe delay in children receiving EHCPs means that families in Leeds North West have been left in the dark for months about which secondary school their child will attend. That is especially distressing for children with autism, who often struggle with routine changes and would benefit massively from knowing where they will be placed.
One of my constituents told me that it took until the end of year 6 for their child to receive an EHCP, which is far too late to secure a place for specialist provision for year 7. Only this December, in year 9, has my constituent’s son been able to secure a place in specialist provision—that is three years too late. He will never be able to get back those years of his childhood spent struggling with no support for his complex needs.
Early intervention is non-existent. In many hospitals, an initial appointment at a child development centre has a waiting list of more than 18 months, but after waiting 18 months, it is not really early intervention any more, is it? Health visitors are unable to identify children who need speech and language therapy interventions, because they only have time to visit for child protection. Although child protection is vital, we need a holistic approach for children.
Child and adolescent mental health services are on their knees. Leeds CAMHS is taking on only the most egregious cases, as it has huge waiting lists, massive underfunding and a workforce crisis. It is estimated that only one in four children who need help for mental health issues obtain access to CAMHS services.
I wish to look briefly at some positive examples of provision in Leeds. I recently visited two settings with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). We went to a specialist Lighthouse School for young people with autism in my constituency and to the Vine, which is part of Leeds City College, in my right hon. Friend’s constituency. I had one of the most challenging and interesting question and answer sessions with a group of young people. The first question put to me was: what is the meaning of life. As I am sure all Members here know, that is not the normal question we would get when we go to school Q&A sessions.
Alex Sobel
My answer was 42, referencing Douglas Adams, which all the young people understood far better than me. They were a very bright and articulate bunch, but they were there because of the school and the additional support that it provided. Lighthouse is struggling for funding. It is a charity so, as well as the funding that it receives, it gets additional funding and support from charitable means, but that should not be how a school operates. It should be able to survive and thrive on statutory funding.
The Vine is a specialist facility for profound and multiple learning difficulties, with a very challenging cohort of young people, many of whom are non-verbal. The families we spoke to were so grateful for the provision, but we need so much more. Its facilities include a hydrotherapy pool, rebound facilities and sensory perception rooms. It is the only place in Leeds that offers such facilities, so it attracts people from miles away.
Making sure that we have suitable schools and services for these children should be a priority, but, unfortunately, due to the Government’s abandonment of funding for local authorities, Leeds City Council does not have the budget to manage and enhance these school places. This is not just a systematic let-down. To knowingly force children into school placements that we know are not right for them, or simply to accept the fact that they will not receive any education at all, is neglect, and I am afraid the neglect of vulnerable children amounts to abuse.
Sir Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
What a pleasure and privilege it is to have the opportunity to speak today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing the debate.
Like many, I wish to start by thanking not just our specialist schools—Tor View, Belmont School, Cribden House School and Crosshill School in Darwin—but all the schools in my constituency that support children with special educational needs. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) in his place; he is the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, so he will not get the opportunity to speak today, but I know that he is a huge campaigner on this issue in his adjoining constituency. Many of those schools will be shared between us to support our constituents.
I come to this debate as a parent of a non-verbal six-year-old who has an EHCP. The experiences we are talking about today and the struggles that parents face have been the experiences and the struggles of my wife and I as we try to navigate the system on behalf of our son, which is why I am so grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.
I want to ask every colleague in the Chamber to do a favour for me, my son and other parents with children who have autism and other additional needs. There is a brilliant organisation in my constituency called Spectrum of Light, which is run by Julie Nixon, who has given so much of her time to supporting the parents of children with additional needs. We teamed up to hold an additional needs, autism and special needs fair, bringing together all the councils, including Lancashire County Council and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, and the support groups into one room, and asked parents of children with additional needs to come along. It was the most fulfilling and rewarding thing I have done as a Member of Parliament for at least a decade.
It is our job to help people—to help parents. I know that many colleagues across the House support apprenticeship fairs and job fairs. We all try to support our constituents. We had 400 parents attend our fair. I had parents contacting me from Cumbria who wanted to attend. This is something that we, as MPs, can do. We can all support parents who, like me and my wife, have really had to struggle to get the support that they need for their child. As Members of Parliament, we can make a difference by coming and talking in this debate—it is a hugely important debate. We can also make a difference by using our offices to support parents.
The fair that we held made such a difference to all the parents who attended. I just hope that this is something that we can all do on a cross-party basis. It does not matter what party we are from; this is just about doing good work and rolling it out across our constituencies. If anyone wants to contact me about how to do it, I am more than happy to deal with the inquiries.
That autism, special needs and additional needs fair in Lancashire demonstrated to me that we have a real challenge in servicing the demands of people like me and other parents. I recently visited east Lancashire adolescent centre at Burnley General Teaching Hospital, because it had been given a national Quality Network for Community CAMHS accreditation award. The lead psychiatrist told me that there has been a 300% increase in the number of children presenting with a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder since the covid lockdown. The centre is trying to service that additional need without any additional funding, and that, in particular, is why this debate is so important. It speaks to the challenge that other councils face. I do not criticise anyone at Lancashire County Council or Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council; they are doing a brilliant job, but they are very, very pushed.
Spectrum of Light and I recently held a teleconference for parents who are struggling to receive an EHCP. I will talk about some of those conversations. Sarah, a Rossendale resident, said that the deadline for the completion of her EHCP was 8 December. She has had no appointment with the educational psychologist. Her seven-year-old son is rarely at school—he has attended school for only 20 hours since September. Hannah, another Rossendale resident, has three children who are currently trying to get an EHCP. Her daughter has ADHD and is struggling in school through isolation, but she cannot get an EHCP. Her son has autism and cannot get an EHCP. They both attend a school in my constituency—in fact, all three of her children attend schools in my constituency. The challenge, or the blockage, seems to be the lack of availability of educational psychologists to push through these EHCPs to support parents.
As well as asking every colleague to contact my office, which my staff will not thank me for, I want each of us to hold a fair to support parents who, like me, have a child with additional needs and really need help. My big ask of the Government—not just for Lancashire but for authorities across the country—is to find a way to increase the number and availability of educational psychologists. We cannot ration EHCPs through waiting lists; that is not the intention. It is not what the Government want to do, but it is, in practice, what is happening on the ground because of the lack of educational psychologists.
My ask of the Minister—I hope he will deal with this in his summation at the end of the debate—is to please find a way to support councils to fast track EHCPs. That would make a difference. EHCPs do work when people get them. I know that it works for me, my family and my son. The challenge is that people just cannot get them in a timely manner.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Sir Jake Berry). While I cannot speak from personal experience in the way he movingly has, I hope to shed light on some of the issues through examples that I have come across around the country and in my constituency.
One of the reasons I am in this place is that I am passionate about children and firmly believe that every child, no matter their background or needs, can achieve great things. As we have heard, too many vulnerable children are not getting the support that they need to thrive and achieve their potential, and too many parents are fighting an adversarial system because of the growing demand and the lack of resource. EHCPs are inevitably being rationed in the way that we have heard. We have heard about the growing number of councils with high needs deficits. That is why the Local Government Association says that the Government have not gone far enough in addressing the cost and demand pressures.
Since 2016, there has been an upward trend in the number of children with special educational needs, but in the same period the number of speech and language therapist vacancies has soared. In my constituency, special schools tell me that they just cannot recruit the teaching assistants they need. There is also a lot of pressure on staff in mainstream schools. I hear that week in and week out from schools in my constituency. I went to visit Coppice Valley Primary School in Harrogate in October, where I had a long chat with the leadership team about SEND issues. Heartbreakingly, the school’s SEND lead, who is passionate about his job and brilliant at it, is leaving his job because he does not feel that he can meet the needs of the children he has been hired to serve, due to the problems that the school is having in accessing the resources that it needs from North Yorkshire Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who cannot be here today, wanted me to share the story of a 16-year-old boy in her constituency, who has a life-limiting degenerative condition and is totally reliant on the care of others. He has attended a specialist school for many years, but has been unable to attend since September 2023 because he has now moved into post-16 education, and his parents’ travel allowance to get him to and from school was cut by 62%. His parents are now unable to afford to transport him.
I heard of a set of twins in Guildford, one of whom is going through the local secondary school while their sibling has languished at home for years, getting little or no education. The lack of contact with children their own age and of a school routine is making the situation far worse. Imagine how devastating it is for the parents to see one child thrive while their twin suffers. That cannot be right.
In my constituency surgery just a few weeks ago, I saw a parent whose year 10 child was getting a handful of hours of medical tuition at sporadic times through the week, which was a logistical nightmare for the parent, because the school that offered the alternative provision that they needed, and that was suitable for them, simply did not have the space.
With the growing number of children who are being identified as having SEND, there is insufficient provision and funding to keep pace. In particular, there are not enough spaces in our special schools. Unfortunately, the gap is often being filled by some who are just out to make money. Let me be clear: I have no ideological issue with private SEND schools. Many are brilliant, not-for-profit charitable schools, delivering an excellent education, but there is profiteering, often by private equity companies. One company last year had a turnover for SEND of £134 million, and a £25 million profit after tax. Far too many SEND schools are making obscene profits, while the sector struggles to provide basic education for so many. That is putting huge pressure on local authority budgets, as are some independent children’s homes that are also run by private equity firms.
We already have 34 local authorities under the safety valve agreement with the DFE, and we expect more to go on to that list. We are being held to ransom by people making money from those in need. We are all asking for more money to be put in by central Government, but there is definitely a case to be made that there is a saving to be found by having more state-funded specialist provision and giving local authorities the power to open special schools when no other provider is coming forth to set one up.
Briefly on tribunals, I think everyone will know from their casework that local authorities won only 1.7% of appeals but spent over £100 million fighting them. Again, that money could go into the system. Every child matters. They deserve the very best. I am afraid that reform on SEND from the Government has been very slow. There has been delay after delay, not helped by the political chaos at the top of Government. Even the latest reforms that were announced last year will not work without adequate funding. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing the debate and shining a spotlight on the issues. I hope that the Minister will listen, and I look forward to his comments.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
It is striking that there is such strong cross-party support for the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis). I congratulate him, and agree with every word of his speech. The Minister is a very smart man. I am sure that he will welcome the cross-party pressure, because he cares a lot about this subject, and it will help him in his battles within the Department and with the Treasury for the much-needed increase in funding in this area.
Suffolk is also a member of the f40. We are underfunded, even compared with Norfolk, which I can tell the House makes us in Suffolk feel particularly bad. Some 27% of the local funding formula is still based on 2017-18 spending, and because that was low in Suffolk, it is a drag anchor. While that drag anchor remains, it is explicit in the formula that the funding is unfair between different counties. That needs to be fixed so that counties such as Suffolk get fair funding. Despite the very tight funding, Suffolk County Council works incredibly hard. There are some excellent examples of best practice—for instance, at St Mary’s in Mildenhall, Exning Primary School and others that I have visited—but they all suffer terribly from the very tight funding.
In addition to the points that have been made already across the parties, I want to put a slightly uncomfortable truth on the table. Having served in the Department, and elsewhere in Government, I think I know a bit about what is going on. The challenge is that when EHCPs were introduced in 2014, they improved the system by making statementing more consistent across the country, but that did not resolve the fact that ultimately the budget is limited. I want the budget to be bigger, but however big it is, it will always be limited, so it is also about how the budget is allocated.
Thus far, we have had a discussion about how the budget is allocated between different counties and regions, led—he was rather humble about it—by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who was not only part of f40, but is f40 and has led f40. We have also discussed who individually gets a diagnosis, and therefore who gets an EHCP. Here there is a bigger social injustice that needs to be named and then dealt with: the silent scandal of access to diagnosis. I come at the issue from the point of view of dyslexia. I am dyslexic and it is the area that I am most expert in; until recently, I was vice-president of the British Dyslexia Association.
A study in November by the London School of Economics found that 15% of children with specific learning difficulties are in the most affluent decile and 6% are in the least affluent. That cannot reflect reality. It is simply not true that 15% of those in the most affluent decile have specific learning difficulties, and only 6% in the most deprived. The truth is—this is just a fact of life—that in the most affluent decile are parents who can pay the £600 for diagnosis outside the state system, and more parents who are articulate and able to fight, and go to their MP and to the council to make their case, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Sir Jake Berry) does for his child. That means that there is an unjust allocation of diagnosis within the system, with relatively too much diagnosis among those in the upper echelons of the demographic scale, and relatively too little for those who are less well off. That is unfair. Ultimately, that is an affront to universal education.
I believe in universal education because it underpins universal equality of opportunity in this country. However, what leads to the disparity we see in the data of who gets a diagnosis is if we say, “You can have universal education, but if your child has a special need, you can pay £600 to get them identified, which will make it more likely they will get the EHCP, and therefore much more state money following them. If you don’t have the £600, or the wherewithal to find one of the many brilliant charities like Evelyn’s that helps you get it, you will not get that extra money and therefore the extra support”. That is harder to fix than just asking for extra money because it implies that, in one part of the income distribution, too many people are getting a diagnosis. That is the uncomfortable truth. The fact is that there is not enough diagnosis, early identification and funding, but, crucially, there is also an inequality in the diagnoses that lead to the EHCPs.
I founded a charity—the Accessible Learning Foundation —to try to champion that need for early identification and support. That is how much I care about the issue. I know the Minister cares about it as well, and I hope that he will address the point about the distribution of access and who gets identified, as well as the overall level of funding, because both need to be fixed.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I also thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing the debate. Back in 2014, during the passage of the Children and Families Act 2014, Labour, alongside a multitude of teachers, local authorities, professional organisations and parents, warned the Government that their rushed reforms would create a postcode lottery of variable provision where many children with SEND would continue to be let down. We warned that unless the proposed reforms were properly funded and proper demographic modelling was carried out to assess the actual number of children and learners who need support, the reforms would fail—and fail they have. Even the Government agree that the reforms have failed, stating in 2019 as they launched a review into SEND that they aimed to
“improve the services available to families who need support”
and end the “postcode lottery” they still face.
After a three-year delay, the Government finally published the review in 2022, highlighting their own failures again: that, too often, children and young people with SEND and those educated in alternative provision feel unsupported and their outcomes fall behind those of their peers. Eventually, in 2023, the Government’s SEND and alternative provision improvement plan and road map were published. Many have concluded that those are insufficient and ineffective given the crisis we face. That view is shared by my constituents, who are absolutely exhausted from having to fight every single step of the way for their child’s education.
Despite our local council’s SEND department coming out of special measures in 2022, our children’s services are now rated inadequate. Despite hardworking council staff and dedicated teaching staff right across South Shields, the situation has not improved for many parents or children with SEND thanks to continued cuts. Assessments are grossly delayed, EHC plans are not being implemented and children are travelling miles out of our borough. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, my constituents are paying for private assessments, private tuition and independent schools. There is simply not enough specialist provision and not enough support in mainstream education.
Costly appeals against EHC plans have risen to a record high since the 2014 reforms—nearly 14,000 last year—yet 98% have been successful, so it is clear that there is something grossly wrong with the system. That is likely only the tip of the iceberg, because many parents do not have the time, energy or financial support to continue legal action. The parents I have spoken to said that they wanted me to use their words in the debate, but not their names for fear of any repercussions. That just shows how threatened they feel by the system as a whole.
It is not just our children who are being short-changed. For young adults with SEND, access to further education is severely hampered by funding cuts. They deplete the sector, which now survives largely on donations and fundraising. As always with this Government, it is charities, community interest companies and others that have to fill the gap left by the state for essential services. Without the North East Autism Society and AutismAble in South Shields, I know that my constituents’ learning needs would not be met.
Access to education should be a fundamental right for all children, no matter who they are, where they are from or what their circumstances. A good education can mean the difference between where someone begins in life and where they end up. People across the House may already know that I struggled throughout my education with undiagnosed dyspraxia and dyslexia. I also did not come from a wealthy or privileged background and was certainly not destined to end up in this place, but I got here through good education, good teachers, work experience and training. Education can make the impossible happen. That is why my party’s goal always has been and always will be for educational excellence for every single child in this country.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for bringing this important debate on SEND to the Chamber.
Before I speak about SEND let me say that some young people and children have been sitting in the Gallery in different groups throughout the debate. I would like to say how incredibly proud I am of our nation’s children and how incredibly proud they should be of themselves. Today our children rank 11th in the world for maths and 13th for reading. I do not know whether they are year 13s, but if they or any children watching today are in year 13, I can tell them that when they started school in reception, they were 27th in the world for maths and 25th for reading. It has been a massive change.
I fundamentally believe that every child should have the right to a world-class education, because that education is what will give them the freedom to make choices about what they do with their future. Every child should have that choice, and that is why special educational needs children are so important. We should ensure that they have those choices, too. No child should be left behind; they should have the right support, opportunities and places.
The high-needs budget has doubled since 2015, so it is not fair to say that there have been funding cuts—it is not true—but there has also been a significant growth in demand. As Children’s Minister during the pandemic, I know that the toll the pandemic took on children, not just in this country but globally, breaks my heart. We know that it took a big toll on those children who were already known to have SEND, but it also meant that more children present today with special educational needs than in the past. Part of that is to do with the early years, which are so crucial to a child’s development, particularly their communication and education skills. Very young children missed out on those crucial three years.
When I visited a primary school in my Chelmsford constituency last term, I was told that 50% of the children in their reception class are not properly toilet trained. That is a massive change. Other primary schools have told me that they see more reception and year 1 children presenting as somewhere on the autistic spectrum, as well as with some ADHD needs, but because they were not assessed earlier or given more support in the early years environment, they have arrived at school without support that could have helped them cope more easily with mainstream schools. I have been working with Essex County Council and some of my schools to see what we can do about that. There is clearly a backlog in assessing children. Could we, for example, encourage or do more with educational psychologists to see whether they could see more children? We know we have a shortage of educational psychologists, and they are in great demand, but could they be seeing more children in the time they have? I am sure we could do more with specialist hubs within mainstream schools, which are key—where they work, they work really well.
Anecdotally, I am concerned about the rise in children being put on part-time timetables, especially those who may not yet have an EHCP. Part-time timetables should only be used for a very short time. I wonder whether there are some systemic social issues that are impacting on young people’s mental health—in particular, some have pointed out to me a suggested link between an increase in online gaming, poor mental health and non- attendance at school.
I wanted to mention school attendance, because it has been in the press a lot this week with the new statistics showing that the proportion of students that are persistently absent from schools has more than doubled. As colleagues have pointed out, where children have unmet SEND needs, that can lead to them missing school because they face issues with attendance. There can be good reasons why children with SEND sometimes have higher rates of non-attendance than others, but we need to make sure that their needs are met.
That is not a new issue this week, however. The Department for Education has focused on it and produced new guidance, “Working together to improve school attendance”. The Select Committee also produced a detailed report, the No. 1 recommendation of which was that that guidance should be made statutory. Before Christmas I presented a private Member’s Bill to the House, the School Attendance (Duties of Local Authorities and Proprietors of Schools) Bill, which will do two things: it will make that guidance statutory and it will require local authorities to support families, schools and children with their attendance.
Within that guidance there is the understanding that children with special educational needs need bespoke support and that that support needs to be carrots, not just sticks and fines. I hope that every single Member of this House will get behind my private Member’s Bill as one of the things we should be doing to support children with their attendance, including making sure that more children with SEND get the support they need.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities—everyone is very welcome to get involved in that—and as one of the few openly neurodiverse MPs: I have dyspraxia, dyslexia and ADHD.
Across the sector it is a truism that SEND provision in the UK is chronically underfunded. Others have already alluded to the f40 estimate of £4.6 billion. While additional funds delivered through the delivering better value programme and the additional £2.6 billion on capital funding are welcome, it is clear that they just do not meet the funds needed to stand still, let alone the additional demand for services, which is growing every year. Fixing the investment gap is critical to addressing the issue, but I want to make a plea that we cannot see this as simply a numbers problem.
We have seen that approach recently from Ministers, for example with the revelations reported in The Observer last October of a target to cut EHCPs by 20% in a contract to develop the delivering better value programme. It is not just about the target; it is about the method of getting there, through early intervention and through making our education system more inclusive. However, we should also be clear about the reality that, although hard-fought and hard-won, in a heavily under-resourced system, an EHCP is a lifeline for young people and families in advocating for the provision they need. For many SEND families, the 20% target will be a source of alarm.
Behind those numbers are families and young people who are struggling. The measure of a policy is not a falling statistic or the amount of money it saves, but the extent to which it addresses the needs of young people trying to access the education that is their right. I strongly believe that our approach to the issue should start with treating SEND young people and their families with the dignity and respect that all people deserve. That should mean a supporting hand from day one, but we lack the infrastructure for that kind of early intervention.
A survey last year by the Institute of Health Visiting found that only 37% of health visitors in England felt that they were delivering a good or outstanding service. That is too low. Only 6% were working within the recommended ratio of 250 children per visitor, and 28% —more than a quarter of the workforce—were servicing the needs of 750 children. That is a terrible statistic. The institute estimates a shortfall of 5,000 health visitors in England, and 48% say they will leave the profession in the next five years. We have also seen dramatic cuts in Sure Start services, with 1,416 centre closures since the onset of austerity in 2010. As an aside, the scale of those closures throws yesterday’s inadequate announcement of 75 new family hubs into stark relief.
As has been said, early identification of SEND also requires having trained early years staff who know what they are looking for. To most people, that seems like common sense. A recent survey by the Fair Foundation found that people overestimated early years pay by 47%. People value this workforce, but their pay does not value them. Nearly three quarters of the survey participants thought that people working in early years should be paid more, and I agree. We need to invest in the workforce charged with looking after our children and properly value the work they do, as well as training and upskilling them where necessary.
On all these points of early intervention—the crisis in the health visitor workforce, cuts to Sure Start and the undervaluing of early years staff, the lack of multi-sensory teaching workforce and speech and language therapists, and the difficulties accessing physio—we are moving in the wrong direction. We need more healthcare visitors, with visits on day one of a child’s life; we need more early years support for families and young people; and we need a professionalised early years workforce that knows how to identify the SEND needs of our children.
Those problems are systemic. They are also about how services integrate. It is no good identifying needs if there is not enough capacity to give a timely referral. In March 2023 the waiting list for speech and language therapy had gone up by 42% since 2021, from 51,000 to 73,000—and no wonder. Last year, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists found that almost one in four jobs were vacant across the UK. If we take ADHD, we know that the referral rates are going up, and there are some shocking statistics of people waiting up to three years for a referral—the wait is up to a decade in some adult services. We need to cut down the waiting times for all forms of assessment and diagnosis. To do that will require looking at those backlogs as we would any other backlog and taking seriously the staffing shortages we are suffering.
We should be promoting strength-based approaches to SEND. In the education system, we should be looking to create inclusive spaces where young people can truly be themselves. There is no good reason why children with SEND should not flourish, but that means rethinking how we approach behaviour in classrooms, training and supporting teachers to understand that all behaviour is a form of communication, not off-rolling young people because they do not fit into a certain box or just to cheat the figures. I will finish with the point that Ofsted should not be rating any school excellent if it does not have good-quality SEND provision.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this very important debate, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing it. I hope that I can contribute with some experience as the leader of a local authority and as someone who sat on the Education Committee’s SEND inquiry in 2019.
I want to describe the problem from a local authority perspective for colleagues in the House. The 2014 legislation was well intentioned, as we have heard, but it has not delivered on those intentions. In some ways it has created an impossible circumstance, where very high levels of demand and expectation now exist on a service that faces huge budget and capacity pressures. That is not sustainable.
Local authorities in many ways are caught between a rock and a hard place. They are expected to meet the demands of families but also have to balance a budget, and all the time with the knowledge that any steps taken to reduce costs may well end up being overturned in tribunal. Inadvertently, and understandably, seeking to give parents of SEND children some authority and control over what support they get is creating an adversarial system. There are funding issues to all that, but fundamentally the system does not work, so funding alone will not fix it. Because it is a partnership across health, schools, local authorities and others, there is a challenge both in meeting expectation and in accountability for the outcomes.
Fundamentally, at a policy level we have a system that says to families that they can have whatever support and services they want. That is a laudable aim, but in reality there are limited budgets and capacity in the system, which means that local authorities and delivery partners are constrained in what they can do. The system has not recognised that contradiction, so the local partnership is still judged against an unachievable target, which is why, in the latest inspections, nowhere nationally is any better than “inconsistent” in its SEND outcomes.
In Nottinghamshire, we fully recognise the need for improvement in the capacity for SEND support, in tackling waiting times for outcomes, and in the scrutiny and accountability of the system, among other things. We have introduced a new SEND improvement board—Dame Christine Lenehan of the Council for Disabled Children it its independent chair—with the intention of driving improvement in the system with proper scrutiny and oversight. We have already seen positive steps from it. We are fully committed to tackling those issues, to the extent that I have also created a specific cabinet role for SEND support.
In truth, though, we are constrained. The inspection regime is not really sure of what it is asking us for. Many authorities have huge deficits in the high needs block, so they are massively overspending, yet they have still received more positive inspection outcomes. We have balanced the budget and do not have a deficit, which clearly has an impact on services, but that does not seem to be a factor in inspection outcomes. Are we being asked to balance that budget or not? We have a legal duty to do so, but it is not recognised by Ofsted.
Nottinghamshire is among the most poorly funded authorities in this space, but we still balance our budget for additional needs. Other authorities have more money and still overspend massively but are rewarded with better inspection outcomes. Fundamentally, the system does not have a shared and coherent view of what it is asking us to deliver. That is a huge issue.
We are also told that the Government’s approach is to increase inclusion in mainstream schools where possible. It is absolutely right for children to receive appropriate support in mainstream setting wherever possible, and for us to work with schools and SENCOs to deliver it. Notts has taken that approach for many years and been held up as an exemplar of good practice in some Government circles, but at inspections we are marked down for it. Again, different parts of Government are telling us different things, so it is not always clear what we are being asked to do.
We take a graduated approach and step children up the pyramid depending on need, but the first response is to try to support children to remain in mainstream school, partly because that is very often the best outcome for the children, and partly because it is a requirement of a system with limited funding that we try low-cost options first. From an outcomes perspective, that is often the right thing to do, because although some children will require lifelong care, we want many of them to go on and live independent lives and be in employment—we should have high ambitions for our children. It is not often the best thing to become more reliant on more services than we need, because it can make that journey to being an independent adult more difficult.
Every child and every circumstance is different, but from what I am saying, Members can see where the tension and conflict arises at each stage. The opinion of health professionals and people tasked with achieving the goal of helping children to become independent adults often clashes with the totally understandable desire of parents to get the most and very best bespoke support for their child.
SEND transport is one of the biggest pressures on council budgets at the minute. Our budget has risen by 50% over five years because of rising demand, inflationary costs of fuel and contracts and wage rises, so we are again in a position of trying to save money. In some cases, that is the right thing to do because the expectation outstrips what is reasonable. However, it will inevitably lead us to further conflict as we have to go back to families and say, “I know you’ve had a one-to-one taxi service to school with a supportive member of staff every day for the past several years, but we now need you to share with somebody else,” or, “We now need you to take your child to school yourself, because you have a mobility vehicle for that purpose.” That might be the right thing to do—these might be rational decisions in order to offer the best services within a limited budget—but it will inevitably cause issues. That is coming down the track. If we end up with such decisions being overturned in tribunal, we are back to the question of what we are being asked to achieve within our limited budget.
On a brighter note, I want to mention some of the work that we are doing in Nottinghamshire. We are taking this incredibly seriously through our independent improvement board and cabinet-level focus, as I have mentioned. We are creating 494 SEND specialist places, including at the Newark Orchard SEND School, which opened last year, and at a new school that we are building in Mansfield this year—I am very proud of that. We are working with SENCOs in our schools to improve the graduated approach and the available support.
Money is not the ultimate answer here. We have well-meaning legislation that does not work. I ask Ministers to consider two proposals: first, the help with SEND transport costs—
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Such is the need in York that I have undertaken a comprehensive project on SEND. At a recent constituency SEND summit of parents, agencies and charities, all were desperate to see children have their care needs met. To put it into context, York is the 17th worst area for school funding, and it is in the bottom third for higher needs funding. Children in York deserve the same as children across the country; there should be no differentiation.
I recently met York Hospital’s paediatric team. They highlighted the change that they are seeing. In 2018, they assessed 42 children for autism. By 2022 that figure had risen to 118, and last year it rose again. The story is that funding is not rising with the needs that those children have. The same is occurring for education, health and care plans. We need those rises to be met with increased funding for the workforce—health visitors, physios, psychologists and speech and language therapists —and for special school places and mental health services. We need a comprehensive, multi-agency workforce plan. That is my first ask of the Minister.
Secondly, we know that early investment saves money over a lifetime. We should see that not as spending but as investment in young lives. We need to ensure that children with physical impairments have the equipment they need, so that they are not waiting forever for a wheelchair, for example, but getting it on spec and on time. One of my constituents has now been placed in residential care halfway across the country because they need an accessible shower in their home. As I read this week, saying goodbye brought tears to both parents’ eyes. Goodness knows the long-term costs. We need to smarten up when it comes to children with needs.
This is not just about health or local authority funding; it is also about education. I have seen the travails of teaching assistants in York who have been stripped of 52-week contracts and given term-time only contracts. They are juggling at least two jobs just to survive on the lowest pay scales imaginable. Every day, they teach, nurse and support emotional, physical and mental health needs with a high degree of skill. We need a proper job evaluation scheme and a national pay spine for teaching assistants. They need recognition and wages that reflect it.
As we have heard this week, we also need to consider excluded children. We know from the data that autistic children are almost twice as likely to be excluded with or without a plan, which comes at a heavy cost. The disciplinary process at South Bank Multi Academy Trust in my constituency, about which I am meeting the Minister shortly, is turning away children with SEND at such a high rate. Children there are melting down at home because they are not getting the support they need. My third ask of the Minister is that, when he leaves the Chamber, he goes to the Department, rips up the draconian guidance on discipline, and starts again by instituting therapeutic schools.
Fourthly, we need to have a look at the shortage of childcare and special support after school, during holidays and out of school. I thank York Inspirational Kids, Snappy, Choose2, the Island and so many more for the provision that they offer, but their funding is also challenged. We need to ensure that they get the resources that they need to provide support for children outside school.
For far too long, parents have battled. They are battling, they are fighting, and they are exhausted because they are not getting support. They wait for months and years to get the diagnosis that is key to unlocking everything. We need to ensure that parents who are waiting for a diagnosis get the advice and help that they need to best support their children in those early years. What a difference that could make for them.
I thank all those who work in SEND in my constituency. I know how desperate they are. They are stressed and stretched because they are trying to deliver far more than their time allows. We value every penny spent in their direction, but we need to look again at the funding formula, which is simply not working, and ensure that we see it as an opportunity for the future. Invest in these children—ensure that they have the opportunities they need.
Finally, we need a complete overhaul of the SEN improvement plan. It needs to be far more evidence-based, based on the data as well as the best therapies possible. We need to look around the globe at where they get things right first time, and ensure that our children get that benefit too. Ensuring that services are properly funded will make such a difference to these young people. It will give them the opportunities in life that they are currently being denied; it will help to heal the relationships between children and parents, which are often so stressed as they struggle to get by, week by week; and it is the right thing to do.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank all school staff for the amazing work that they do, day in and day out. I saw that at first hand as a school governor for 20 years, during my time as an MP, and I am in awe of what teachers and school support staff do. They have massively improved the performance of children in England in reading and maths—we have shot up the international league tables—and the first place to start is by giving a big thank you to schools for what they have done.
I have seen the work that our dedicated teachers do for children with special needs and disabilities in Heathwood Lower School and many other schools, and I have also spent time with voluntary groups such as Freddie & Friends in Leighton Buzzard, which sets out to provide a safe and welcoming place for children with special needs and disabilities. I hope that the fact that time out of school is equally important for these children does not get lost in the debate.
Like other local authorities, Central Bedfordshire Council benefited from recent increases in funding for special educational needs and disabilities, which was very welcome. Despite that, the council has had to vote a further £5 million of additional funding to balance the books.
On the issue of fairness, I have looked at the 2023-24 DSG funding figures for Central Bedfordshire and for Hampshire, which is a statistical neighbour of Central Bedfordshire. Hampshire gets £5,528 per child, while Central Bedfordshire gets £4,742—a difference of £786. If that higher figure is good enough for children in Hampshire, it is good enough for the children I am proud to represent.
Notwithstanding the massive investment on the part of the Government and the extra money put in by Central Bedfordshire Council, Central Bedfordshire manages to complete only around one in five of its education, health and care plan applications within the statutory timeframe, and a number of children with EHCPs are still without a school. I wonder what the Government do to monitor and enforce local authorities’ statutory duties.
There is a wider problem at play in getting children in my constituency the support that they need. Many—probably a majority—of the children who go on to need an education, health and care plan need to see a specialist doctor at our local child development centre, the Edwin Lobo Centre. The waiting list for that centre, which serves my constituents, currently stands at between 65 and 72 weeks. Once the appointment has taken place, there is often a delay of a further four to five weeks before the doctor’s report is received.
All that takes place before the 20-week clock starts ticking, and in four out of five cases it will be missed anyway. That means that children are routinely waiting more than two years in either an inappropriate setting or a school where there is insufficient funding to properly meet their needs. For many younger children, that can represent a very large proportion of their school life, and leads to them missing out on those vital first few years.
It is clear to me that what is needed is what we tried to get back in 2014: a more joined-up approach to special educational needs and disabilities by the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to look at this issue in the round. When the Minister responds to the debate, I would be grateful if he could address my points about the differences in local authority funding, the waits in the health system, and what we can do to bridge the gap and get the care that these children need to be provided on a timely basis.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
All Members present have experiences of their own constituencies. I was the chair of governors of a specialist school; like the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Sir Jake Berry), I brought together local organisations and parents over time. I declare an interest: my wife, Dr Cynthia Pinto, is an educational psychologist. She chairs the British Psychological Society’s education and child psychology division, which is in conference at the moment. I will circulate a couple of pages from a briefing that has been sent to me that contains some of the discussions that are taking place at that conference.
All the experiences we are reporting in this House are very similar. We have come across some wonderful young people who have achieved so much despite the disadvantages they have had, and some incredibly dedicated staff—true professionals doing the best they can—but also a large number of tragedies related to the struggles those young people face, particularly to get the assessment and support they need. Members may remember that last September a report was released regarding the increase in the number of complaints from parents to the local government ombudsman. There was a 60% increase in the number of complaints upheld by the ombudsman from parents who were failing to get access to the services they desperately needed. As the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen said, most of those complaints were about access to the assessment to get the plan itself in place.
I do not want to repeat what has been said before, but I am afraid this does come down to money—it is about finances. As we have heard from other Members, people have failed to get access from the very earliest stages, and if my constituency is anything like others, the closure of the Sure Start centres has had an impact. The development of family hubs may be a bit of a solution, but as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) outlined at the very beginning —as always, I congratulate him on securing this debate—the gap in overall local government expenditure is huge, and it is cumulative over a number of years.
I welcome the additional money that the Government have provided in recent years, but the lack of investment has built up over a long time. The f40 group’s figures are incontestable, and that lack of investment is reported right across the country. The motion we are debating calls for a review of SEND funding; I am interested to hear from the Minister how that review will take place if the House passes the motion, because it is urgently needed.
To turn back to the issue of educational psychologists, I want to cite the Government’s own stats. The educational psychologist route into the plan is so key to ensuring that parents have confidence that there is something they can build on at least, and they use those plans effectively in their negotiations with their local authorities to get the resources they need. As the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) said, due to the lack of access to local authority educational psychologists, too many parents are having to raise the funds themselves to bring in a private educational psychologist, which of course then advantages them over others.
The figures that the Department for Education has published regarding educational psychologist recruitment state that 88% of local authorities are reporting difficulty in recruitment; 48% are citing pay as a reason; one third are reporting difficulties with the retention of educational psychologists; and 69% are not confident that they will be able to meet the demand for educational psychologist services. A staggering 96% of local authorities that report recruitment and retention issues say that those difficulties affected outcomes for children and young people requiring support. The inability to get a plan as a result of the long waiting times for educational psychologist assessments is almost the foundation stone of the current failure of the system.
I have to say that the recent pay deal has not helped at all. This year, for the first time in its history, the Association of Educational Psychologists took industrial action because it was desperate on the issue of pay. It has just had a settlement, which it has reluctantly accepted, but the argument coming back from the association is that it does not think the settlement will do anything for retention or future recruitment. That has to be looked at, and it will undoubtedly come back as an issue—not, I hope, as an issue for industrial action, but as an issue for proper negotiation.
How is the Minister going to respond to all the issues we have raised? Today we will agree that there should be a review. Unfortunately, the review that took place and the plan put forward by the Government have not worked and have not embedded confidence in the minds of others. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s view on how such a review should take place. I also say to those on my own Front Bench that this issue has to be addressed when we go into government—I hope, in the coming months—and that will require resources.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this very important debate, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) on securing it.
I have two special needs schools in my constituency: Alderman Knight School—I should declare that my wife is a governor of it—and the Milestone School. They provide the most amazing care and education for children with special needs. Specifically, Milestone provides for children with far more complex needs, while Alderman Knight provides for those with a range of difficulties.
One of the problems we have in Gloucestershire, as has been said about other areas, is a lack of special school places. Estimates put that figure at about 330 places short across the county. The problem is that because they have been given places on appeal, 100 children have had special school places awarded to them, but no places have yet been found for them. That is a very big difficulty that both the schools I mentioned have raised with me.
Alderman Knight was built 10 years ago for 120 pupils, and there are now 235 pupils on its roll. That puts a big strain on the school itself, and it also means that class sizes have increased. The problem with that for special schools is that as the class sizes get bigger, they tend to lose what makes them special, which is something they are very concerned about.
Such schools are obviously very concerned about their budgets. As has been said, the formulas for calculating the cost of educating children in special schools is outdated and does not work, especially when children require a one-to-one situation. It simply does not enable the schools to provide that kind of care. The problem is that even if they could find extra teachers and even if they could recruit them, they could not actually afford to do so because of their budgets.
All this means that the schools are under great strain, but it also means that as places are not found for some pupils who should be educated in special needs schools, they end up in mainstream schools. It has always been the case that an awful lot of pupils with special needs are educated in mainstream schools, which have coped magnificently for very many years with many of those pupils, but some of those pupils should actually be in special schools, not mainstream schools, and such schools tend to struggle to provide the kind of care and education that their pupils need. They also have problems with funding, because the formula they depend on is outdated and not accurate, so they have a similar problem. We have a big and growing problem.
As mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members, we have a problem with the overall funding formula. Gloucestershire has traditionally been lower funded. I do not know why, and no Minister in any Government has ever been able to persuade me of the reasons for that or the need to continue with such a situation. I am aware that a few years ago, because of pressure from f40 and many of us in this Chamber, the formula was improved, but by no means has it been improved to the extent that it needs to be improved. I am not necessarily asking for more money from the Treasury; I am asking for the cake to be sliced up in a much fairer way and for the formula for calculating how much is needed to educate children with special needs to be reassessed and changed.
I think that each county or metropolitan area—however it is divided up—needs to carry out a full assessment of how many children have special needs and require places in special schools, and against that they need to assess how many places are available. If there is a shortfall, the Government must come forward with proposals for how that will be put right. We certainly need to assess how much it is costing mainstream schools to educate children with special needs and whether they are getting enough money. It is my submission that they are not, so we need to decide what we will to do about that.
I am not going to speak about EHCPs because that issue has been covered by several hon. Members. The only thing I would add is that it is not only the time it takes to get the plan that is the problem; the plan also needs to be reassessed as the child progresses through schools. Quite often, that takes far too long, so the child does not get the care they need and they do not then get the money following those new assessments.
There are lots of issues, but I only have a very short time, so I want to finish by paying tribute to the special schools not only in my constituency, but across Gloucestershire. We had something of a battle many years ago to save special school provision in Gloucestershire, and I am glad we did because such schools carry out the most fantastic work. However, we do need to reassess the situation, and we need to make sure that those schools can carry on serving what are very special children.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that many people still wish to speak. After the next speaker, I will have to reduce the time limit to five minutes. The next speaker, with six minutes, is Ruth Cadbury.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Fantastic —thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) on securing the debate. We have heard many excellent speeches from across the House, although I notice that there are demands for more funding from Members whose party has been responsible for these budgets for the past 13 years.
Every time I visit a school in my constituency and discuss my role and the children’s aspirations with them, I go on to meet the head or senior leadership team, and without exception the first and most pressing issue they raise with me is SEND. They tell me they do not have the resources to adequately support these children or their parents. They feel that these children are being abandoned. That is not for want of adequate legal powers, with the EHCP system brought in in 2014, or due to the support structures of Hounslow council, but because of a chronic lack of resources to deliver what the law expects.
Heads also tell me that there seems to have been a recent rise in the number of children who clearly have additional needs, with children exhibiting extreme stress, which is hardly surprising given the housing and income pressures that many local families face. A growing number of children also appear to be presenting with some form of neurodiversity. Most teachers are not specialists in mental health, neurodiversity or other forms of SEND. However, schools feel that they cannot teach a child, or indeed the other children in the class, if five children in a class cannot sit down, cannot stop talking, or are even screaming, ripping things up, chewing things, or as I heard about one child, spending hours on end switching a particular light switch on and off, on and off. These children are not naughty. The experienced educationalists telling me this know that, with appropriate and adequate specialist support, these children can and would learn. They can thrive and they can achieve, but the schools just do not have the resources to provide the world-class education that all children need.
Treating SEND as a serious policy priority is important not just for children with additional needs, but for their parents and siblings, their teachers and the other children in their schools, but under this Government these people are not getting the support they need. They are being let down, and children’s futures are being failed.
In 2014, the Government extended the SEND duty of local councils to include young people up to the age of 25 and added social and healthcare needs to what was previously a statement just of educational needs, yet there was no additional funding for the additional legal requirements. Despite this Government undermining local authorities’ role in school management and governance, local authorities are still expected to provide appropriate SEND provision. They cannot do that when there are sweeping cuts to their budgets: Hounslow council has faced budget cuts of over £150 million since 2010, and the cuts have had a huge negative impact on local SEND support in the borough.
Countless local parents have told me they are having to wait far too long for their child’s EHCP, and when the plan is issued, there are huge flaws and not enough support. Thresholds for support rise as funding declines. One indicator of the scale of such problems is that, nationally, there were 14,000 appeals to tribunal in 2022-23—an increase of 24% in the last year—and 98% of the cases are resolved in favour of the parents and children. Often, the appeals mark the first time parents feel they have been listened to, but as the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) said, the tribunal system only helps parents who have the ability and the resources to push through the jungle. Many of our constituents would not know where to start. No parent should have to fight for an appropriate education for their child.
What about the specialist resources taken up by the assessments and the tribunals that should be spent on providing appropriate education and support for these children, appropriate training for their teachers, and appropriate support for their parents, which together will enable the child to thrive? The briefing we received from the National Autistic Society highlighted the inefficient spending of what funds there are in the system, although as I said, funding is insufficient. The hurdles in front of parents before, during and after the process of appeal are immense. That was the central message I received when I visited and met the Hounslow Parent Carers Forum and heard about the problems they faced.
The shortage of resources means that there is a lack of training for teaching assistants for one-to-one support, a lack of transport and a lack of specialist therapeutic support, and for many children it even means the lack of a school place. Children with high needs are stuck at home, with parents who cannot go out to work, because there is no special school place for them. More families with one or more children with additional needs are also facing housing stress. I have constituents with a very disturbed child, who is always trying to jump out of a tower block window.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Government have taken many positive steps, including doubling high needs funding since 2015, but increased demand for SEND support, together with changes to the code of practice in 2014 and then the covid pandemic, have exacerbated the challenges. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) on bringing this debate to the House.
I will talk about early years and early intervention. There has never been more funding poured into early years and childcare provision than there is now, but that is extending the provision of the free entitlement. Early intervention is crucial, and it requires skilled staff who can spot special educational needs or gaps, and a coherent strategy aligned with funding policy to deliver early intervention and early support effectively. SEND policy and more funding for it need to be brought into early years. We need more focus on high-quality provision for those who need it the most. That will require significant funding initially, but it will save billions in the long term. I know the Government take seriously their plans to deliver long-term change for a brighter future for everyone in the UK. We need to invest to save.
I will focus on Hastings and Rye and East Sussex County Council, where the need for SEND support is a daily issue in my inbox. I call for more alternative provision in Hastings and St Leonards, and the heads of the three secondary schools in the area are united with me in this call. High-quality alternative provision is desperately needed to meet the needs of the left-behind children. No child should ever be left behind. We now have a huge number of children with SEND; it is not sustainable for schools and East Sussex County Council to meet the high needs of those children with the current model. Every child deserves to have their needs met, so they can flourish and be useful members of our society.
The implementation of the Children and Families Act 2014 placed significant new and unfunded burdens on local authorities. There has been an exponential increase in the number of children being identified as having significant SEND needs, many to the extent that it is felt that they cannot be provided for in their local mainstream school. Only this week, I received a letter from the Conservative leader of East Sussex County Council regarding the council’s financial situation. Although inflation has fallen, it has had a permanent impact on budgets, as some significant costs have risen at a higher rate than the quoted inflation rate. At the same time, demand for statutory services, particularly children’s social care, home-to-school transport and adult social care, continues to rise at an exponential rate. For example, the number of children in care whose placements cost more than £10,000 a week has risen, with the single costliest one currently £31,000 a week, or £1.6 million annually.
East Sussex County Council is a member of f40. We need a fairer funding formula—which should have cross-party agreement so that there are no changes in the coming years—for local authorities that reflects local need. Alison Jeffery, the excellent and experienced director of East Sussex children’s services, which are rated outstanding by Ofsted, has given East Sussex MPs a comprehensive briefing for today’s debate in which she outlines the challenges, but also suggests sensible solutions. I have sent the Minister the full briefing paper by email for his consideration and discussion, and I hope he will meet me to do that. Ms Jeffery states that while she and East Sussex children’s services always want more investment, the policy and legal framework for SEND is of equal importance.
The SEND Green Paper identified a range of factors, some of which are being tested through the SEND and AP change programme, which has significant challenges. Many of the things being tested are not main drivers of either demand or costs; more importantly, no legislative changes are being made as part of the programme. The things that do drive demand are not being addressed: for example, we need to review urgently the threshold for a full SEND needs assessment. One option is to give mainstream schools the resources, autonomy and responsibility to support pupils with SEND short of an EHCP, without labelling them as such. That would allow a readjustment of the threshold for accessing an EHCP, so it would be met only when it was evident that provision in a mainstream setting was either not possible, or possible only with specified extraordinary support.
There are other challenges and solutions, and I hope the Minister will meet me to discuss them.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis), a constituency neighbour of mine, for securing this debate on such an important subject. He is quite right to point out that the resources available for children with additional needs in our part of Yorkshire are under immense strain, and I look forward to working with him on a cross-party basis to improve provision for those in our area who desperately need it. He painted a bleak picture of SEND provision nationally, with local authorities’ high-needs funding deficit predicted to reach £3.6 billion by March 2025. It is clear that we are failing in terms of both the quality and the quantity of provision across the country.
It is important that we think about the lives of the people I come across every day who are wrapped up in this failure: the child prevented from realising their full potential by a system that works against them; the parents trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of pushing disjointed agencies and authorities, often trapped in their homes with little respite; and finally the overworked and under-resourced service providers, who are forced to paper over the cracks of a broken system—a system that appears to be failing everyone in my local area who tries their best to engage with it in difficult circumstances. Those who operate our services are nobly trying to do more with less to meet the needs of a growing number of children with additional needs, but meeting this growth in demand is simply not possible without increased resources. Refusing to recognise the resource crisis in this sector is an unparalleled false economy, and insufficient emphasis on intervention at the early years foundation stage stores up huge cost pressures further down the line. That is evident in the nationwide data on this issue.
Across the country, the number of children with SEN who are either excluded or waiting for a school place has risen by 29% in the past three years. That is the consequence of not facing up to the challenge of proper funding and refusing to take the hard choices to do the right thing to provide sufficient support for these children and their families. The national figures are compounded by the particularities of the area I represent. In Selby and Ainsty, our rurality, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, our poor public transport infrastructure and the wealth inequality that we see across our constituency create challenges of provision that are harder to crack on a public policy level, but also make the experience of living without provision more isolating and overwhelming for the parents and children affected.
In the Selby district, SEND provision is not just in a rut; it is truly in freefall. As I said in my maiden speech, parents have to suffer through the uncertainty of sending their children to travel in taxis for hours a day to attend schools in Scarborough or Harrogate. Those children are often exhausted and stressed. Non-verbal autistic children are unable to communicate the sheer scale of the stress that such journeys create for them. Any reasonable person in my constituency can see that the situation cannot continue.
I am glad that the Department for Education has engaged constructively with me on this subject. I thank the Minister personally for his efforts to do so, but I would like to push a little further on a few specific points that I have raised previously. First, though I concede that the phase-in period for a Selby SEND school must be well managed, I press the DFE to make every effort possible to explore efforts for temporary accommodation uplifts in the intervening years before the school is opened and to ensure that these temporary places are extended to many local children as quickly as possible. I am sure that the Minister can understand the frustration of local parents, who have already been waiting half a decade for the school to open. In the first year, only 40 students will be accommodated, in the second year it will be 75, and the school will only reach its full complement the year after. That means that by the time it reaches full capacity, it will have been almost a decade since funding was first allocated by the DFE. Maintaining options for temporary accommodation throughout this process will be crucial.
I remain resolute in my conviction that every child in the Selby district, regardless of their needs, has the right to a world-class education in a well-funded British school. I will keep fighting to make that a reality, and I once again thank the Minister for his engagement and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden for securing this crucial debate.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Every child is special and deserves the best possible start in life. That is why I am a passionate advocate for SEND. Like many in this place, I wish I had a magic wand to resolve all the issues that have been discussed this afternoon, but I do not. Resolution requires dedication, vision, hard work and, above all, lots of money. As the MP for Bracknell, it would be easy for me to knock Labour-run Bracknell Forest Council for what it is and is not doing, but that is not my style. I am a team player, and those who know me will realise that the best politicians are those who work cross-party to resolve issues of great importance, as SEND is to everyone in Bracknell Forest. There is also work to do locally, and I will continue to do my bit in Westminster.
Nationally, I am comfortable right now that the Government are moving in the right direction on the offer for those with SEND. The headline is that the Department for Education is investing £2.6 billion between 2022 and 2025 to support local authorities to offer new places and improve existing provision for children and young people with SEND. That is reinforced by the SEND review published in March 2023. The headline there was that spending has increased by more than 60% from 2019-20 to £10.5 billion overall by next year, which is a lot of money.
The SEND paper reviewed a number of key challenges, particularly the difficulties that parents have in navigating the SEND system. I have met many families locally and the stories have moved me to tears in some cases. There are difficulties of access to provision, children not in school and places not available. It is a difficult thing to have to deal with as an MP, and I do my best, as we all do. Outcomes for children with SEND are not comparable with their peers. Despite the continuing and unprecedented investment, the system is not financially sustainable.
What is being done? We have an extra £1.4 billion for the high-needs provision capital allocations. In June 2022, the Department announced that it would build up to 60 new centrally delivered special needs schools. One of those will be in my constituency in Crowthorne, and I am pleased to have played a small part in securing the funding for that, but let us be more ambitious and go for a third. We have Kennel Lane and the new school in Crowthorne, and let us go for a third, because there is demand for those places. I urge Bracknell Forest Council to be more ambitious in what it seeks from the Government.
I recognise that the high-needs budget has risen by more than 40% over three years, and the Department is continuing to work with local authorities with the highest dedicated schools grant deficits as part of the safety valve programme. I recognise that this is of great difficulty for schools locally. Bracknell Forest has the safety valve programme. I recognise the impact that it is having, and it may be the best option in the short term.
Overall, more money than ever is being invested in schools right now, ensuring that every child gets a world- class education. The total budget of £59.6 billion in 2024-25 is an increase over previous years and the highest per capita funding ever. That is also the same for SEND funding, but it is still not enough. I will raise two quick issues with the Minister. The first is that mental health services need a shot in the arm. We have £2.6 million in children’s mental health in Bracknell, but CAMHS is a disaster, and it needs 20,000 volts put straight through it. It is not right that families are waiting two years or more for a consultation. It is immoral and inept.
The irony will not be lost on the Minister that a GP cannot prescribe medication for any neurodiverse condition without a diagnosis from CAMHS. There is a vicious cycle whereby we cannot get diagnoses, we cannot resource EHCPs, we cannot place children in settings and we cannot even give the parents and the kids themselves some solace without a diagnosis from CAMHS. I would like every local authority in the UK to comprehensively review its SEND provision so that it becomes available in every area for every child. Specialist settings are the way forward for those who need them, and every local authority should have those specialist settings under their wing.
We need to invest in our children with SEND as never before. Yes, there is more to do, and yes, more money is needed—lots of it—but we also need to make better use of what we have. We need to be efficient and able locally to give the kids what they need.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Devon is in the middle of a special educational needs pandemic, unrelated to the pandemic. I taught briefly before being elected to this place, and I was shocked by the number of children with special educational needs. I had entire classes where every single child had a special educational need. A newly qualified teacher simply cannot do anything beyond what a more experienced colleague advised, which is to treat every child as special, as indeed they are.
I start by paying tribute to all the parents, teachers and students who are battling the system to get what they believe is right for their child back home in North Devon. I recognise those frustrations, and my inbox is full of those concerns, but my words today are not about individual cases. When looking at this issue, we need to aggregate to try to better understand what is happening. In Devon, we seem to have far too many children being given a label, rather than the help they need to fulfil their potential.
An excellent report by the South-West Social Mobility Commission found that the south-west has the fewest children from disadvantaged backgrounds reaching the expected levels in reading, writing and maths at age 11 of any region, at just 37%, compared with 53% in London. The region also has the fewest young people from any background going on to level 4 or above education or training. Progression rates among those from disadvantaged backgrounds are just 50% in the south-west, compared with 76% in London. Within those statistics, Devon is an enormous education authority. On average, it clearly does not look too great from these figures, but even that hides the variance of what is going on in the northern part of the county, where our social mobility is significantly worse than the south.
Devon is diagnosing SEND and giving out EHCPs at twice the rate of our neighbouring councils. In Devon, the number of children and young people with an ECHP has grown from 3,718 in 2017 to 8,400 in 2023: a 126% increase. Families in Devon pursue an EHCP as they know that will gain them better support than being without one, but it is no wonder that budgets are under pressure given this explosion. I would like to see far more work being done to understand why that is the case, how we can reduce it and how we can raise the educational attainment and social mobility of our young people rather than increase the number of labels they carry.
The situation in Devon has gone on for years. We now have a cohort of young people leaving school with few qualifications, a special educational need and limited support to move forward. The situation is so severe that a recently arrived academy trust has had to adapt its normal processes because of the level of SEN and the high number of pupils unable to cope with its discipline regime. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that regime, that things are so different in northern Devon from elsewhere in the country does ring alarm bells. That is particularly because, being so sparsely populated, it is not like a city where a child can switch to another school if something goes really badly wrong at school.
My schools have some of the biggest catchments in the country, and if children and their parents feel that they would be better served outside their existing school, that results in children being home educated. For some families, that is ideal; for many, it is not. Having been the home education for a child while I taught, I do not believe that the one hour a week that I provided replaced a school education. No one seems to be able to track fully where these children are, how many have opted out of school or been off-rolled, and what provision they are receiving.
For those who have particularly complex needs and require a special education, we currently have 140 applications for every 30 places. Children are travelling halfway across the county to get to school. Ninety minutes in a car is no way to start the day. It also means that any friendships are unlikely to extend beyond school, and the costs involved are astronomical. Devon’s SEN transport costs have risen from £10.4 million to £26.8 million: a 157% increase.
There is clearly an argument that Devon needs more funding as we receive an average of £790 a head compared to the national average of £886, ranking 122nd out of 151 local authorities. We budget far too much funding, at £289 per capita, for independent specialist providers—double the English average—and in 2022 we budgeted 25% larger per capita spend. Against that backdrop, I warmly welcome the Government’s work and their commitment to work with Devon County Council to tackle that, with the Minister’s engagement and that of his predecessor.
I warmly welcome the commitment to build new special schools in Devon. However, the delay on two of them is putting further pressure on council budgets. The arrival of the new, proactive chief executive at Devon County Council, with her experience of delivering in rural areas, does give me hope for the future, but the rate of growth in SEN is not sustainable. Rural per-pupil funding—particularly for transport—does need addressing, and we need better, sustainable early years support and intervention so that pupils can avoid the need to apply for an EHCP. I hope that the Minister will be able to find time to meet me and Devon colleagues to discuss the challenges that our constituents and councils are facing.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Conservatives’ record in education over the last 13 years has been very good. From phonics and academies to free schools and the recent news that the total core schools budget will be at its highest ever level in the next financial year— £59.6 billion—there is much to be proud of. However, the story is not universally good. When I visit schools in my Gedling constituency, I always ask the headteacher at the end of my visit, “If I could wave a magic wand and solve one thing for you, what would it be?” The almost unanimous response—specifically of primary heads—is about improving SEND provision. I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) and the Backbench Business Committee for making this important debate possible.
I welcome the news that between 2022 and 2025, there will be an extra £2.6 billion to support local authorities to deliver new places and improve existing provision for children with SEN. The f40 group, which we have heard much about, has produced information showing the high-needs block funding per pupil allocations by local authority, which shows that Westminster and Camden are at the top of the table—Camden gets more than £2,500 per pupil—but Nottinghamshire is fourth from bottom, at about £1,000. Now. I appreciate that there can be various regional factors—London weightings and so forth—but in 2023-24 Nottinghamshire has received £7.4 million less in funding compared with Worcestershire, and £20 million less than Warwickshire. So although I acknowledge the significant uplift in funding in the last four years, Nottinghamshire still has the poorest funding per head compared to neighbours.
Nottinghamshire saw an increase in education, health and care plans of just over 12% in 2021 and just over 11% in 2022, in line with the national annual increase of 11%, but the lower funding levels increase pressure on mainstream settings to meet the needs of children with complex special educational needs and disabilities, and the pressure on school budgets combined with the increase in levels of complex needs means that schools are struggling to fund the notional SEND allocation per child required before they request additional top-up funding.
We heard earlier from the leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley). I applaud his work at the county council to increase high-quality special school and alternative provision places. He outlined that there are plans in place or in development for 494 places, but, with a recent capacity survey suggesting that 657 will be required by September 2027, there is still the risk of a shortfall.
My hon. Friend raised the subject of SEN transport, which is a significant issue in Nottinghamshire. It is a reasonably large county, and SEN transport expenditure has increased significantly, from £7.6 million in 2018 to over £12.4 million by 2023. That cost increase has been driven by: increased pupil numbers requiring specialist provision; a lack of local specialist provision so travel is required; increased journey times; and significant inflationary pressures, with fuel costs increasing by 40% in the last 18 months and wages by 10%. All that has meant that the average retendering contract for SEN transport has increased by between 10% and 35%. Therefore, although I welcome the fact that the Government have met their inflation target—they have halved inflation over the last year, and inflation is coming down—those cost pressures obviously remain.
I will also highlight the time that it can take to process funding applications. Nottinghamshire has a lot of stand-alone infant schools—I went to one myself: Pinewood Infant School in Arnold in my Gedling constituency—and one issue that can be faced is that, by the time the funding has come through, the child has already left the infant school. Nottinghamshire County Council is doing much work to streamline funding for children in the transition from nursery setting to school, with a particular focus on stand-alone infant schools, but I would welcome further work by the DFE to help make that process better.
The f40 Group is campaigning for equitable funding for all schools to deliver high-quality education. I appreciate that some of its asks are big and, with billions of pounds required, that will not be resolved overnight, but I do ask whether the process can be streamlined and made quicker so that we get the money to where it is needed. There is also serious work to be done to address the regional variations that mean that areas such as Nottinghamshire have been left out.
I do not intend this to be a critical speech. As I said at the outset, the Conservatives have a good story to tell from the “Right Support, Right Time, Right Place” Command Paper to the doubling of high-needs funding since 2015 and investment in new special schools, but there is more work to be done on levelling up in this area.
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing this important debate.
For many years we have recognised the importance of universal education for all children and young adults. Back in 1880, school attendance was made compulsory for children aged between five and 10. In 1893, Parliament extended the principle of compulsory education to blind and deaf children, establishing the first specialised schools. Similar provisions would be made for physically impaired children by the end of that century.
Why does that matter? We as a nation recognise and champion the idea of universal education. This House recognised that principle back in the late 1800s, but it was not until 1921 that the local education authorities were given the responsibility to identify children with physical and non-physical disabilities—what we call today special educational needs—and ensure that children were provided with education right the way through to the age of 16. Today, we cannot guarantee a universal education for every child, or at least not at the level to properly help children grow and learn. Nowhere is that more the case than for children and young adults with special educational needs or disabilities.
Across England, 1.4 million pupils have a diverse range of educational needs, and not every one of them is getting the education they need or deserve. The Government have acknowledged that and vowed to tackle it, which I welcome, and I will continue to work with the Government on that. When unveiling the SEND review in 2022, the then Secretary of State for Education admitted that while prior reforms such as those in 2014 gave critical support to more families, the reality is that the system is not working. As many Members have mentioned this afternoon, parents email me constantly and visit me at surgeries, asking and pleading with me to help them secure adequate provision for their children. I care deeply about this, which is why I have made it one of my priorities as the Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip.
As a serving councillor in Hillingdon, I am all too aware of the work that Hillingdon Council has to do to provide suitable SEND provision to those children and young adults who need it. Despite the challenges in Hillingdon, the children services team has recently been awarded outstanding by Ofsted. What is more, I have been lucky to see the work being done when I visit local schools. Through charity visits, I have been able to hear more about what they are doing to help children and young adults with special educational needs. I am proud to say that that included the SeeAbility programme at Moorcroft School in Uxbridge. SeeAbility is an amazing organisation that works to ensure that children with disabilities do not miss out on eyecare and plays a part in championing the Government’s national scheme to bring eyecare to all special schools.
That work by the council, charities and other organisations is being undone by incredible strain—financial strain—especially, as many colleagues have mentioned, from transport costs. It was great to see the various announcements and projects in the SEND review, but we run the risk of them being undercut by this issue. Sufficient funding is vital for local authorities such as Hillingdon to have the resources to secure the requirements for children and young adults to achieve their full potential. The billions in funding that the Government have rightly set aside to better protect and expand SEND provision across the country is a far cry from the 10 shillings awarded back in the late 1800s. However, there are concerns that there is a lack of recognition of inflationary pressures, as well as those related to supply-side matters, such as fuel costs.
Councils such as Hillingdon play a key role in supporting children and young adults with special educational needs. These pupils are not asking for anything outrageous or to take liberties. They just want suitable education provision to fulfil their full potential. Their parents and the local authorities want them to fulfil their full potential. We can realise the idea of universal education, truly making it universal for all children and young adults across Uxbridge and South Ruislip and the whole nation. I pay tribute to everyone who provides educational provision across Hillingdon, and to parents and pupils for their amazing work with the difficult challenges around them.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) on securing this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. As in the rest of the country, SEND provision in Suffolk is in crisis. We urgently need a review not just of the funding but of how we provide a vulnerable and very needy group of children and young people with the education that they need and deserve.
Almost daily I receive emails, first from desperate parents unable to secure an appropriate school setting for their children, who quite often receive very little education at all, and secondly from primary school headteachers, SENCOs and staff exasperated at being unable to obtain the support they need and at being asked to provide schooling for pupils who really should be in a specialist setting. The system is broken, and the situation has been exacerbated by inflationary pressures since 2015 and covid. It often takes years to obtain an education, health and care plan, on which there probably is too great a reliance. In the Waveney area, schools and staff are doing great work—including the Ashley School and Castle School East—but we urgently need more local provision and to get away from a model whereby vulnerable young children are driven hours around Suffolk and Norfolk.
In the remaining time available, I shall briefly focus on four funding issues. First, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), Suffolk receives a very poor high needs block funding settlement. It is based on historical need and bears no resemblance to the needs of today. Local authorities with similar SEND responsibilities receive wildly different and better funding settlements. Suffolk, as we heard, is a founder member of the f40. The funding discrepancies that exist both in my own county and across the country must be evened out as a matter of urgency.
Secondly, it is important not to forget the vital work done by further education colleges, such as East Coast College. For colleges, disadvantaged funding should be reformed to include a specific block to support students with SEND who do not have high needs. For high needs funding in colleges, tariffs should be set at levels that will allow colleges to recruit and retain support staff.
Thirdly, it is all too easy to overlook the bespoke needs of specialist further education colleges that provide education and skills training for those with SEND who are aged 16 to 25. At this stage, it is important to remember that special educational needs and disability legislation requires local authorities to create a local offer from birth to age 25 for young people with SEND. Specialist FE colleges play a vital role and, although they are publicly funded, they are not currently eligible for the capital revenue support to address RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. That inequality should be removed.
Finally, it is great news that a GCSE for British Sign Language is on the way, and I congratulate my constituents Ann and Daniel Jillings on all their campaigning work to make that happen. But there is an acute shortage of qualified teachers of the deaf to teach this new exam. The National Deaf Children’s Society highlights the immediate need to train 200 more qualified teachers of the deaf. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will keep that particular request in mind.
In conclusion, there is a national crisis in SEN provision, and it is felt particularly badly in Suffolk. As a whole, we are badly letting down large numbers of students, their families and their teachers. In that respect, I support the motion. A review of funding should take place without delay.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) on securing the debate and on the strength of his opening speech, which set out well the issues faced across the country.
Many colleagues have already outlined the overall funding challenges facing SEND services, so given the limited time I will focus on another aspect: the impact of delays in diagnosis and the wider opportunities for making an impact on this issue, which inevitably impacts on the funding of it.
It might be helpful to illustrate the issues being faced by using the example of Barton Hill Academy in Torquay. I want to thank the principal, Samantha Smith, and her team for the work they do to inspire and educate so many of our next generation, particularly those with additional needs. Barton Hill Academy has two classrooms for students with additional needs: one for younger students with issues such as autism; and another for slightly older students with mental health and behavioural issues. It deploys several staff members to support those students. Many students are waiting for a diagnosis through the NHS. The school has assigned a member of staff to help support parents of children with autism through the process and to fill out the referral forms, but it is still a difficult process. The delay in getting an assessment and a diagnosis through the NHS, which is not directly related to the education system, inevitably has an impact, because until there is a diagnosis there is not the ability to provide the service that is needed or, in some cases, to look at moving to more appropriate provision.
One key issue raised is that headteachers can be left with a rather unenviable choice. They can keep someone with them who is clearly having an impact on the wider school, when the type of resources they have available are not suitable for them. That said, they know that the issue is not so much behaviour as the fact that the pupil concerned has medical needs that are not being met and is awaiting diagnosis. That can lead to the unenviable process of deciding whether to exclude the pupil, which is far more suitable in the case of those with behavioural issues. In practical terms, headteachers feel that that is the choice they must start to consider, given the impact on the wider school and the fact that it is not set up to deal with that pupil’s needs, but in moral terms it is highly unlikely to produce the best outcome for the child.
This really comes back to the issue of getting the assessments done and ensuring that there can be a clear link between an NHS service and the impact for SEND. One family opted for private provision because they were told that there was a three-year waiting list for an appointment with a paediatrician for an official assessment, which would have meant that their primary-school child would be at secondary school before they saw any outcome from the assessment. The family paid £300 for a private diagnosis, but some local authorities do not accept such diagnoses as a basis for educational provision.
It was useful to discuss with Torbay Council the challenges that it faced—although I welcome the improvements that have been made in the delivery of children’s services in Torbay under a number of political parties in recent years. Council representatives cited the impact of early intervention through family hubs. We need to ask what provision there is when people start to home-educate their children, and I think some reviews could be carried out in that regard. We also need to ask what can be done about prioritisation in NHS lists. Rather than people working methodically through a backlog, there should be a point at which children who are in need of treatment but face potential exclusion from mainstream schools could be prioritised for appointments that become available for the usual reasons why an appointment might become available at short notice.
I am interested to hear what the Minister can say about family hub funding beyond next year, and about what focus there will be on overall SEN skills across the wider teaching profession. SENCOs are clearly important, but now that more children with additional needs are in mainstream schools, this is an issue that more teachers are encountering. There is also the question of 90% attendance targets in the context of funding, and how that can be gradated for those with fairly low attendance. Finally, there is the need for co-ordination with the NHS.
The debate has given us a welcome chance to discuss these issues, and, again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing it.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Like everyone else, I will start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) on securing this important debate.
One of the key priorities in my campaign to be elected to this place in 2019 was to give children in the Aylesbury constituency a brilliant start in life—and that means all children, including and, indeed, especially those with special educational needs and disabilities. I am pleased to say that there are several specialist SEND schools in my constituency. I have had the privilege of visiting many of them, including Pebble Brook and Booker Park, Chiltern Way Academy, and the independent Pace Centre. The work they do is awe-inspiring, and I pay tribute to their staff, who constantly strive to give the children for whom they care the best possible opportunities and experiences.
Too often, however, the families of the children with SEND feel that they are being left to fight a ferociously complicated system to get their child into those schools and ensure that they have the support they need. Thankfully, they have local support from people in a similar position, including members of the GRASPS group, which is run by volunteers in Buckinghamshire, but they have told me at length of their concerns about delays in assessments, complexity in form-filling, and then the long waits for the EHCPs about which we have heard so much this afternoon.
The team at Buckinghamshire Council and I have discussed those concerns to try to find ways in which to help, and I know that the team are determined to do so, but it is no surprise that the council has highlighted funding as a major challenge. As we have heard, the cost of SEND education can be exceptionally high, and it is not unusual for the cost of residential placements for children with the most complex and serious needs to run to hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.
The SEND Green Paper and the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, published in March 2023, made clear the need to update the funding model. The Government are not ignorant to this, and I am pleased with their direction of travel. We have an excellent Minister to drive that forward in the months ahead. I am pleased that £10 billion of high needs funding has been allocated for the coming financial year, representing a cash-terms increase of 12%.
It should be stressed, and it has been, that high needs block funding has nearly doubled in cash terms since 2013-14, which demonstrates this Government’s commitment to helping SEND pupils and their families. However, Buckinghamshire Council fares very poorly compared with many other local authorities, with much lower allocations of funding. The cost to all local authorities of providing support for SEND pupils is increasing dramatically, both because of the number of cases and because of the complexity of need.
Locally, since 2016, there has been a 101% increase in requests for EHCPs. Since 2020, the unit costs for children’s placements have increased by 30%. As a result, Bucks Council is looking at bringing some provision in-house to try to contain some of the costs, but that cannot happen overnight. In the meantime, it must try to find the extra money.
Members from all parties will know that I have a profound interest in youth justice. Having spent many years as a youth magistrate and as a member of the Youth Justice Board, I have always been struck by the disproportionate number of young people with SEND in the criminal justice system. According to data published in 2022 by the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice, 80% of children cautioned or sentenced for an offence have been recorded as having special educational needs at some stage—80%. That is an appalling statistic.
It cannot be morally right that so many children with SEND wind up on the wrong side of the law and, all too often, behind bars. We must do more to give children with SEND the appropriate education and training so that they have the same potential to live law-abiding lives as their peers, and we must ensure that provision for those who unfortunately end up in the youth justice system is properly tailored and funded.
I end on a positive note. Many Members of this House run an annual competition for local schoolchildren to design their Christmas cards. For the past two years, I have done something slightly different. I have gone out to local SEND schools, one each year, to ask them to produce the design for my card, and the reason is very simple. All too often, children with special educational needs are airbrushed out or considered incapable of achieving the same as their peers, but I take a different view. I want local children with special needs to be celebrated for what they achieve. I want them to be visible, and I want to give them a showcase in the local community. The simple act of getting them to design my Christmas card has enabled me to do that, and I thank the children at Booker Park School, who designed my 2023 card, and the children at Chiltern Way Academy, who did it in 2022. Both cards had excellent pictures that carried real meaning. This emphasises that there is potential in every child, and we need to approach children with special educational needs and disabilities with a spirit of optimism and positivity.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time. I pay tribute to the teachers, support staff, educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and all who work with children with special educational needs and disabilities.
I am grateful to every right hon. and hon. Member who has contributed to today’s debate. We have heard heartbreaking stories from across the country of the desperate situations facing the families of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and we have also heard about the impact on local authorities and professionals of a system that simply is not working. The sheer number of contributions this afternoon speaks to the magnitude of the issue and the depth of the crisis.
We have heard from the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr Walker), for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Steve Tuckwell) and for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), about the funding crisis in SEND.
We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather), and from the hon. Members for Gedling (Tom Randall), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland), about the pressures on school places.
We have from the right hon. Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), about the terrible battles that parents face.
We have heard from the hon. Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Bracknell, for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster) about the intolerably long waits that families face for diagnoses and EHCPs.
We have heard from the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Sir Jake Berry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) about the intense shortage of staff to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and others about the financial impact on families of a system that cannot deliver the support that they need.
After 13 years of Conservative Governments, the system of support that children with SEND and their families rely on is beyond breaking point. Far too many families of children with SEND face a battle for the support their children need. It is often a battle that has to be fought many times over throughout a child’s life: a battle for recognition and diagnosis in the early years; a battle for support in primary school; another battle to find the right secondary school and ensure that support is put in place; and a further battle to secure a place in further or higher education.
The consequence of this failing system is heartbreak for families; precious children being made to feel that they are the problem; and, ultimately, attainment of children with SEND going backwards. That leaves families increasingly reliant on going to the courts to get the support to which their children are entitled. It cannot be and is not right that the Government’s failure to provide an efficient courts system is now rationing access to the entitlements children have. We each get only one childhood, and support delayed is support denied.
This issue should be an urgent priority for the Government. The current system is failing children and their families, and it is an increasingly prominent factor in the number of councils issuing section 114 notices—in effect, declaring bankruptcy—because they can no longer balance their budget. This issue is on the national risk register for the Department for Education. So what has been the Government’s response? They delayed their SEND review, first announced in 2019, three times. Much of the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan will not come into effect until 2025, six years after the review was announced. During that time, 300,000 children with SEND will have left secondary school having spent the entirety of their school education under an increasingly failing system of SEND support.
The Childhood Trust has found that families of children with SEND are disproportionately affected by the cost of living crisis and are more likely to be living in poverty than families of children without SEND. That is in no small part driven by the great difficulty that families of children with SEND have in finding a suitable childcare place throughout the early years; for before and after-school care; and, for older children, during the school holidays. We know that one in four parents across the board have had to give up work due to the cost of childcare, and the figures are much higher for parents of children with SEND.
Our education and childcare systems should deliver for every child in the country. Children with SEND deserve so much better than the complacency and neglect they have suffered for the past 13 years, and the piecemeal, sticking-plaster measures that are now being proposed. Labour believes in high and rising standards for every child. We will work with parents and carers, local authorities, health services and professionals to deliver for children with SEND. We will work to make mainstream schools inclusive for children with SEND. We will ensure that teachers and support staff have the training they need to work with the diverse range of children who are in every classroom throughout the country.
Vicky Ford
I am pleased to hear of the number of things the hon. Lady is suggesting, but will she also support my private Member’s Bill to tackle the issue of school attendance?
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention. She will know that it is not the protocol for Front Benchers, on either side of the House, to support private Members’ Bills. She will also know that my colleague the shadow Education Secretary comprehensively set out this week the priority that Labour places on school attendance and the package of measures we will put in place to start to improve a situation where we have a dire crisis across the country. The right hon. Lady is right to bring that issue forward through the means available to her—her private Member’s Bill—and I wish her success with her attempts to raise the priority of the issue and to seek action from the Government to address it.
We will ensure that teachers and support staff have the training they need to work with the diverse range of children who are in every classroom across the country, with a new annual continuing professional development entitlement. We will ensure schools are inspected on their inclusivity as well as the attainment of children by changing the Ofsted inspection framework. We will roll out evidence-based speech and language interventions for the youngest children, because we know that unlocking communication is an essential foundation for learning. We will increase mental health support in every school and we will join up records to reduce the exhausting battles parents face as they have to retell their child’s story to every professional they meet.
Helen Hayes
I will not. It has been a long debate and the Minister needs to come in shortly.
We will build an early education and childcare system that works for children and families, from the end of parental leave to the end of primary school. And we will put money back in parents’ pockets, with free breakfast clubs in every primary school, ensuring no child has to start the school day hungry, and by placing limits on the cost of school uniform.
This Government have been failing children and families for 13 long years. Labour will put children first again and we will work to rebuild the support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, which has been so badly broken on this Government’s watch.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) on securing the debate. I know how passionate he is about ensuring that his constituents get what they should from the SEND system and ensuring that his granddaughter, Chloe, gets the support she needs. He made a powerful case for both. Before I go any further, I formally congratulate him on the announcement of his knighthood, which is a well-deserved honour for his decades of public service.
By way of background, I am an MP in an f40 area, so I am familiar with the case the organisation makes and I met the group towards the end of last year. I have been children’s Minister since the end of August, but in the two years before being appointed to that position, the issue of parents and teachers being unable to get the support they need for children with SEND was already in the top two items in my casework and surgery appointments. I pay my own tribute to all the staff supporting children with special educational needs in schools, colleges and alternative provision, both locally and nationally.
The issues raised in the debate are very familiar to me. In previous debates, I have talked about parents having what they feel is a war of attrition with the system to try to get the support they need for their children. That is a war that any parent would wage, but no parent should have to. We know the system is not delivering consistent support and outcomes and that there are significant financial pressures on it, despite considerable Government investment.
I will begin with investment and funding, as that has been the biggest issue discussed this afternoon. As has been touched on, the Government have increased the higher needs budget considerably. In 2024-25, it will be £10.5 billion, which is 60% higher than the figure in 2020. In the past two years, there has been a 32% increase in per head funding in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. Most Members would agree that that is a considerable amount of money, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said in his speech. Some Members may only agree with that privately, but not many Government budgets, under any Government or in any area, have increased by 60%, which demonstrates the Government’s considerable support for and commitment to the area.
We have two programmes supporting local authorities that face financial pressure in their SEND system, and a number of Members in the Chamber have local authorities involved in those programmes. First, the safety valve programme, which includes 34 local authorities with the highest percentage deficit, helps local authorities pay down accumulated deficits and reform their systems. By March 2025, the Department will have allocated nearly £900 million through that programme, and if what we are trying to deliver is delivered, those deficits will be eradicated.
Secondly, we have the delivering better value programme for those with substantial but less severe deficits, which involves 55 local authorities, including East Riding of Yorkshire in the area of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. That is helping to deliver high-quality outcomes with sustainable costs. Under that programme, each area develops a reform plan and receives £1 million to support its delivery.
As has been touched on, the high needs budget has doubled since 2015, but even if a Government were able to triple or quadruple it, that would not by itself deliver the outcomes we all want to see. Parents and teachers know that and frequently say that the issue is not just about money. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) made that point well in his speech, and I intend to pick up with him the discussion about conflicting priorities.
The system needs reform, which is why we published our SEND and alternative provision improvement plan last year, with the aim of getting children and young people the right support, in the right place, at the right time. There is a lot within the plan, but I wish to draw out three key areas briefly, because they are the ones that have come up most this afternoon and are in the petitions attached to this debate.
First, on special school provision and capital funding, which was raised by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and others, we are making a £2.6 billion investment, £1.5 billion of which has already been allocated. That is on top of our delivery of new special and alternative provision free schools. There are currently 106 special free schools open and a further 78 have been approved to open in the future.
Secondly, on combatting regional variations, the plan will move us towards a national system with national standards, which we have never previously had. Across the country, we now have nine change programme partnerships, which each have between two and four local areas, together with local schools, health services and parents. What they are doing is, for example, testing an EHCP template that we hope can be used nationally, which will improve the timeliness and quality of EHCPs. We are developing national standards of support for special educational needs, beginning with one for speech and language, which will be released later this year. We are also publishing a local and national inclusion dashboard, which parents will be able to access. They will be able to see how their local area is doing, which will drive accountability.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) asked about the skills and knowledge of staff in mainstream schools. Our teacher standards already include clear expectations that teachers must understand the needs of all pupils, including those with special educational needs, but we are reviewing the core content framework and the early careers framework to improve their confidence in this area. We have a universal SEND services programme, which more than 11,000 staff have already accessed to improve their knowledge and skills. We are also funding the training of 7,000 early years staff with a level 3 SENCO qualification, as my hon. Friend the Chair of the Education Committee said. Some 5,200 staff have begun that training, so we are on track with that target.
There are many other points that I wanted to respond to, but I have only eight minutes, so I will just say to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and my hon. Friends the Members for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Gedling (Tom Randall), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) and others that I understand their point about regional variations. It is based partly on deprivation and other factors and partly on the historical spend factors that have been referred to. I am happy to sit down with anybody to talk about those things.
To the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), I say that it is already the case that a school has to be outstanding in all areas to receive an outstanding grade from Ofsted, and it is not the case that we have a 20% target for reducing EHCPs, or indeed any other such target.
In conclusion, I reiterate my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden for securing this debate and to all Members who have contributed to it. We may disagree on certain aspects of how to achieve this, but we are united in our desire to ensure that the SEND system provides excellent outcomes to all children and young people, and that is what this Government are determined to deliver.
Sir David Davis
As we saw earlier this week, clear injustices induce an extraordinary unity of purpose across the whole House. We have seen a little of that this day, because we all want to give every child the best possible chance in life, irrespective of their circumstances when they are born and thereafter. To that end, we have had some formidable speeches from Members on both sides of the House. For me, the speech that crystallised the issue most clearly was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who said that in 2014 we set out with the EHCP system to try to stop tired, frazzled parents having a never-ending fight to get the right outcome for their children in our system. The EHCP system has not worked. It has not delivered what we wanted because of the massive increase in demand and in complexity.
The increasing costs have overwhelmed even the large increases in expenditure that the Government have provided. That is why we need the review of funding and of allocation, both individually and across regions. The House has heard about my council in East Riding, which is the worst off, but we have heard about the unfairness of the system for individuals too. On behalf of the support staff, who work harder than anybody I know, the teachers, the parents, who have the toughest job there is, and of course the children, who we are here to give a decent life to, I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls for a review of funding for SEND provision.
Proposed British Jewish History Month
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls for the creation of a British Jewish History Month.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee, which agreed to the debate, and the more than 40 Members of Parliament from across the House who signed my application. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for attending the Backbench Business Committee to support me. I thought long and hard about the timing of the debate, particularly after the horrendous 7 October attacks and the rise in antisemitism in this country, with an increase in antisemitism of over 1,300% in London alone in the past year.
We cannot conflate British Jews with the state of Israel; being a British Jew means being a British citizen. That was really brought home to me when I met a group of British Jewish schoolchildren in November on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). When I asked the teacher why 10-year-olds were wearing baseball caps, he told me that it was because they had to hide their kippah. I thought, how can we get to a state where British children are hiding their identities? It made me think that we have to celebrate the British Jewish community and thank them for the outstanding contribution that they have made to this country. I also thank Jonathan Abro, a constituent of mine, who also led me to think that it is time to change the narrative about the British Jewish community in this country. He was incensed by Westminster City Council’s newsletter on hate crime, which did not mention antisemitism.
I know that the Jewish community is interested in its own history—the Jewish Historical Society of England was established in Victorian times—but it is now time for the whole nation to celebrate the history of our Jewish friends and neighbours. The Jewish community is such a small one: 280,000 British citizens identified as Jewish in the 2021 census. That is 0.5% of our population. Compare that with the 6.5% of Muslims and 1.7% of Hindus.
For a small minority, the impact the British Jewish community has made in all walks of life in this country is outstanding, and that is why we need to establish a British Jewish history month. Jews throughout the centuries have arrived in the UK fleeing persecution and murder in other countries and have had to rebuild their lives here.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. Jews have contributed hugely to this country over many centuries. In fact, over 200 have served in this Chamber—218 by my count, but that could be contested—including 70 Labour Members of Parliament. I will briefly give an example of one: Manny Shinwell was a trade unionist who served here and in the other place until he was 101 and did great things in the Atlee Government, showing that we are right across the breadth and spread of the political establishment of the United Kingdom.
Nickie Aiken
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will make reference to Jewish politicians in my speech.
Jews have often had to come to this country to rebuild their lives, and that was brought home to me particularly when reading Lord Danny Finkelstein’s book, “Hitler, Stalin, Mum and Dad”. Danny’s family history is sadly not unique but is a clear example of how two families rebuilt their lives after suffering such trauma and whose members went on to make significant contributions to both Jewish and British history, including the establishment of the Wiener Holocaust Library.
British Jews have played key roles and made major contributions over centuries in the fields of business, science, the arts and politics. In business, perhaps the most-loved retail brand we have in this country is Marks & Spencer, established by Michael Marks and Thomas Spencer. The largest supermarket in this country is Tesco, founded by Jack Cohen in 1919. Other businesses of note are the cinema chain Odeon, Moss Bros. and GlaxoSmithKline, all of which were started by Jewish Brits and have provided so many jobs and so much prosperity for this country.
In science, Rosalind Franklin was responsible for the discovery of the structure of DNA. Sir Ernst Chain was the co-developer of penicillin. Lord Robert Winston, now in the other place, pioneered fertility treatment that is responsible for goodness knows how many children born in this country and across the world.
In the arts, Michael Balcon co-founded Ealing Studios, which is one of the most important British studios to this day. The Ealing comedies came from that studio and started the careers of Sir Alec Guinness and Peter Sellers. Samuel Wanamaker rebuilt the Globe theatre just down the river from us, which was perhaps one of the most important cultural contributions of the 20th century. Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” was probably played there, which is another example of witnessing historical incidents of antisemitism. Monty Norman wrote the James Bond theme, which was then rearranged by John Barry.
Actors of stage and screen are absolutely part of our establishment. One of my personal favourites is Dame Maureen Lipman, an outstanding actor but also a campaigner on ensuring that antisemitism is understood. One British Jewish male responsible for bringing us all together every couple of years to sing and hopefully to bring football home is David Baddiel. Obviously, the English Lionesses have brought football home; we are still waiting for the boys to do it, but I am sure they will eventually.
Turning to politics, the first Jewish MP was Lionel de Rothschild, representing part of my seat—the City of London. Lionel first took his seat in 1847, but it was not until the Jews Relief Act 1858 that he was recognised as a Jewish MP. The first Jewish peer was his son Nathaniel.
Westminster City Council, where I was proud to be a councillor for 16 years, has been well served by Jewish councillors, both Labour and Conservative, over the decades, including council leaders Dame Shirley Porter, Melvyn Caplan and latterly Sir Simon Milton, who was a major political influence on me as leader of Westminster City Council and later Boris Johnson’s right-hand man at City Hall when he was Mayor of London.
A British Jew who is probably responsible for the start of my political career is my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), whom I met in our first week at the University of Exeter. In the first conversation we ever had, he told me I was a Conservative and I had to join the Conservative party—and the rest is history.
In my constituency, we have evidence of a Jewish presence since Roman Britain. In Threadneedle Street, the Bank of England stands on the site of the London home of Aaron of Lincoln, a Jewish banker who died in 1186. Those familiar with the city of London will have come across the street called Old Jewry, and the name is hardly a coincidence, because the Great Synagogue of London was based there until it closed in 1272, a few short years before the Jews of England were formally expelled in 1290 by Edward I. It was only in 1656, during the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, that Jews were invited to return.
While Jewish communities would subsequently flourish all over England and further afield in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I am proud that my constituency was once again the heart of the Jewish renaissance in this country. It is home to Bevis Marks Synagogue, which was built in 1781 and is the oldest synagogue in continuous use in Europe today. The first Jewish Lord Mayor was Sir David Salomons in 1855.
Tens of thousands of Jewish soldiers fought bravely in both the first and second world wars. Five Jewish soldiers have received the Victoria Cross and even now, every year the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women hold a Remembrance Day parade at the Cenotaph on the Sunday after the official Remembrance Day.
Having researched this topic, I could speak for hours on the contributions made by individual Jewish people but I want to pinpoint one person who I think has made the most significant contribution in this country over decades: Dame Esther Rantzen. She started so many incredible campaigns and has made a huge impact on my life, starting with her “That’s Life!” programme, where in the early ’80s she highlighted the Ben Hardwick campaign, encouraging more people to consider organ donation. I carry an organ donor card because of that campaign. Her seatbelt campaign saw the law changed to make sure that children would be wearing seatbelts in the back of cars; I note that the Father of the House is in his place, and I know he played a significant part in that campaign.
Perhaps the most significant campaign that Dame Esther has been involved in since is Childline, lifting the lid off the heinous crime of child abuse and giving child victims a voice. The work that she has done on Childline, which is now run by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, has changed the way we deal with child social services as well and made a significant difference to many children’s lives. She has since moved on to the Silver Line, outlining the loneliness that so many older people suffer, and is trying to help to change their lives. The new film “One Life” tells the story of the Kindertransport, set up by Nicholas Winton, and one scene in the film shows “That’s Life!”, where all the survivors stand up and thank him. One of those survivors was one Susie Lind, the grandmother of one of my closest friends, Daniel Astaire.
Dame Esther is now sadly at the end of her life, but she has not stopped campaigning, and with her assisted dying campaign she is trying to make sure we all have a good death. I pay tribute to her and thank her on behalf of the whole nation for her outstanding contribution over the past 50 years.
It is perhaps no coincidence that today is Rosh—I am going to get this wrong—[Hon. Members: “Chodesh.”] Rosh Chodesh, the new lunar month. It is an important day of renewal in the Jewish faith and the Jewish month of Shevat begins today. One of the great verses from the 15th day of Shevat, spoken by Moses, goes as follows:
“Remember the days of old, consider the years of ages past; ask your parent who will inform you, your elders who will tell you.”
It is therefore fitting to debate the merits of a British Jewish history month.
We rightly already celebrate the achievements of many minorities in this country, and continue to educate future generations, through Black History Month, LGBT History Month, Pride and Islamophobia Awareness Month. The United States established Jewish American Heritage Month nearly two decades ago, and I believe it is now time we reminded ourselves of the remarkable contribution that the Jewish community has made to our nation, often after suffering the greatest hardships, and to celebrate the value of difference. It is time we used the achievements of the British Jewish community to remind ourselves of the values we all share and remind ourselves that this small minority is British. I hope the Government will take that on board and consider introducing a British Jewish history month.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We will start with a time limit of six minutes but that will rapidly decrease to five minutes. Anyone who wants to complain can ask their colleagues to leave, because that is the only way they will get any more time. I call Fabian Hamilton.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, which was opened so well by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). I thank her and her colleagues for securing the debate.
I am proud to represent the constituency with the largest Jewish population in Yorkshire, and indeed on the entire east side of the United Kingdom. For over 150 years, Jewish people in Leeds have contributed so much to our city’s culture, economy and society. They stood at the frontline of the battle against Oswald Mosley’s fascists in the Battle of Holbeck Moor in 1937, and have often been at the forefront of our local political history across the city.
The Jewish community in Leeds has a fantastic history, and it is going from strength to strength in 2024. That is thanks in no small measure to the hard work and dedication of everyone in the community, but I thank in particular the Leeds Jewish Representative Council and the Jewish Leadership Council for their work to strengthen and represent the Jewish community in my constituency, as well as for the fruitful relationship that we have enjoyed for many decades, especially under the current leadership of Simon Myerson KC and Laurence Saffer, who have done a brilliant job.
In Leeds, we have Reform and Orthodox synagogues, flourishing kosher bakeries and butchers, and the world-renowned Marjorie and Arnold Ziff community centre. For more than 100 years, the Leeds Jewish Welfare Board and the Leeds Jewish Housing Association have supported at least 20% of the Jewish community in Leeds, providing mental health support, residential care for people with learning disabilities, practical help for struggling families and much more. Given the current cost of living crisis, that work could not be more important than it is today.
I want also to reflect on the legacy of a woman I had the privilege of knowing as a close friend for many years: Sheila Saunders, who died nearly 10 years ago. She was chief executive of the welfare board and the housing association, and, along with her friend Elaine Grazin, helped to found in the 1980s the Leeds Jewish Women’s Aid, the only specialist organisation in the United Kingdom supporting Jewish women and children affected by domestic abuse and sexual violence. I still miss Sheila every single day.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned Danny Finkelstein’s book, which I am proud to be reading at the moment having been given a copy of it. It reflects in many ways the story of my own family. I hope the House will indulge me as I use my last three minutes to tell a little about my family’s history, which, in many ways, sums up the history of the Jewish people in this country—the British Jews, as the hon. Member said earlier.
My father, Mario Reynaldo Uziell, came to this country in 1934 to escape the increasing persecution of Jews across Europe. At the time, his family lived in the Hague, but they moved very quickly to Paris. They lived in several major cities throughout Europe, and my father himself was born in Vienna. When, at the age of 12, he arrived at Brentwood School—a boarding school in Essex—he could not speak a word of English, but he mastered it very quickly. So much so that, by 1942, when he had been in the country for only eight years and still had Portuguese citizenship, he volunteered for the British Army.
However, because his first language was French, the Special Operations Executive nabbed him and said, “You’re a French speaker; we need you to help the resistance in France.” That was dangerous for a Jewish man, but he volunteered to do it none the less. I do not know what part he played in the resistance. I know about his training, but he never spoke about his experience in occupied France—probably for very good reason, and certainly because he had signed the Official Secrets Act.
I still have the document that my father signed in 1948 pledging his allegiance to King George VI so that he could become a naturalised British citizen. There is an example of somebody who started his life as a continental Jew speaking French, whose family originated in Bulgaria, the Ottoman empire and Thessaloniki—then known as Salonika, where my grandfather was born—but who proudly became an Englishman. He never had an accent—he learned English early enough to avoid speaking with any accent, unlike both of my grandparents, one of whom had a French accent and the other a German accent. On my mother’s side of the family, we have a very proud connection to the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, whose Aunt Rose was also my Aunt Rose—Rose Goldberg. She lived until the end of her life—she died only about 15 years ago—in Brondesbury Park, which is very near where I grew up in Willesden.
Finally, before my time is up, I want to pay tribute to some of the holocaust survivors who found their homes here in Britain, especially three of my constituents, one of whom is no longer alive. One of them is Trude Silman, who is 95 this year. Trude escaped from Bratislava to come to the city of Leeds, and she because the first woman to qualify with a biochemistry degree from the University of Leeds. She is still as clear and articulate as she ever was—a very active mind. The second is Arek Hersh, who was in the Polish ghetto in Łódź and was taken to the concentration camps, and was finally released from Auschwitz when he was 16 years old. The third is Iby Knill, who wrote two excellent books but sadly passed away just two years ago. Along with the many holocaust survivors, they contribute to our collective knowledge of Judaism here in the United Kingdom. They were proud British Jews.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the Father of the House, the time limit will go down to five minutes, which we will have to enforce strictly, or else not everybody will have the chance to speak.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), and I thank him for what he has done. He reminds me of the book written by our former colleague Tristram Hunt about the original champagne socialist, the communist Friedrich Engels, and the lives that people had in his part of the world as well as in north London. I also commend the book by Hadley Freeman, “House of Glass”, which is three years old; it is about how her family came to survive and what their lives have been like.
Were we to be having a debate on the history of Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs in this country, I think we would have the same kind of attendance. What is different about Jewish history is what was put to me by one of my constituents after 7 October: “Why do they keep picking on us?” There are 16 million Jews in the world, of whom about a quarter of a million are in this country. Their contributions have been magnificent, and not just those who are known.
In my previous job—some time back—I put neon lights outside theatres and cinemas in the west end. One day, our painter asked whether he could have a day off. I said, “Of course” and asked why. When he said that his mother had died, I asked whether I could come to the funeral. He burst into tears, because he did not know that anybody else knew that he was Jewish, and he was overcome by the idea that someone would volunteer to come to that kind of family event. I was shocked that someone in my country could feel like that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), whom I thank for introducing the debate, mentioned Esther Rantzen. I had not actually known that Esther Rantzen was Jewish until I went to her wedding—seeing Desmond Wilcox trying to become Jewish, in terms of music, dance and everything else, was amazing.
However, it is not just the significant people we need to consider. When I went on almost a pilgrimage to Gallipoli to see the graves and names of the people from my constituency who had died, I kept coming across memorials to Jews who had served in our armed forces. The same thing applies in every walk of life, whether notable or just noticed if we keep our eyes open.
One of the reasons why I have supported the proposals of the national holocaust memorial commission to have a memorial and a learning centre, and the stipulation by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation that the majority of the money should be spent on education, is that since that proposal first came out, I have gained by knowing how many of my grandfather’s extended family died in the holocaust. We thought it was 11, but that figure went up to 60, and it is now well over 100. That is the kind of education that matters.
I hope that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren—if there are some—will learn about our history and how inclusive it is, and how it is chance that allows some people to go on and put down roots, while others do not get that chance because of ideology or the murderous habits of too many people.
I also want my children and grandchildren to know about the way Jews have been treated in this country over the past 800 years or so, which has not been good and has not been easy. I remember every time I go to church that Jesus was not a white Englishman who belonged to the Church of England. We have to remember our shared history and try to adjust the way we work together, and I do not just want to talk about the Abrahamic faiths, because the same thing applies to other faiths that have different traditions and different origins.
Our future is together, and the sooner we learn what we can about each other and what we share, the better.
Having said that, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned Sir Simon Milton. I have been to two—well, more than two—Jewish funerals, but I went up to the Bushey New cemetery when the bones were discovered in the Imperial War museum, and its location cannot even be shown for fear that it will be attacked, and when I went to the service for Sir Simon Milton, that also had to have strict security. At one of those funerals, a member of the Community Security Trust came up to me and said, “You’re Peter Bottomley,” and when I replied that I was, he said, in words that I can hardly say, “You’re one of the people why I believe it’s safe to remain in this country.”
If we can defend each other, we can do better together.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The motion that has been so ably put before the House today poses the question of the potential merits of a Jewish history month. Potential merits? We have already heard some wonderful stories. This is not about merit; this is a necessity. We must have such a thing so that we can promote learning, as the Father of the House said, as well as understanding and historical knowledge, because it is through an understanding of the historic place that the wonderful contribution many Jewish citizens have made across these islands that we will ensure that the hatred and antisemitic attitudes that have prevailed too often will be done away with. So I commend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for moving this motion, and I say, “Yes, absolutely; we must have such a month.”
The Holocaust Educational Trust, which has been cited by Members already, has demonstrated how necessary historical knowledge of the torture and persecution of the holocaust is for the children of today. Taking forward that lesson, let us therefore apply it in this way.
Many people today have proudly boasted of the great contribution that Jewish people have made, and not only in their own lives and those of their own constituencies, but across this country. The President of Israel is Isaac Herzog, who I think previously held three ministerial posts. His father, Chaim Herzog, who was the sixth President before him, was born in Cliftonville Avenue in Belfast. His father, Rabbi Herzog, who lived in Dublin, was known, believe it or not, as the Sinn Féin rabbi because he was so in favour of the new Dáil Éireann that had been created, and he was recognised as such.
It hurts my heart today to see the horrible attitude that some people—I just say some people—from a republican background now have towards the Jewish people and towards the state of Israel. So strong was the history of the Jewish tradition within the history of the Irish that some of the founding fathers of the Israeli state actually hailed from Ireland, both north and south, and they have made a wonderful contribution.
Indeed, in our own history, in our great shipbuilding heritage of Harland and Wolff, guess who Mr Wolff was. He was a prominent Jewish politician from Belfast, and he made a wonderful contribution. He was a close friend of Sir Otto Jaffe, a leading politician and twice Lord Mayor of Belfast. He was also president of the Belfast Hebrew congregation, and he served our country so well.
Let us embrace that remarkable history. Rather than hiding it under a bushel, we must let it shine, so that people can understand that the rich tapestry of the Christian, the Hebrew and the Arabic heritage that pertains on these islands is strong and must be encouraged for all to see, so that we can understand our future.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing it. I agree with everything that has been said so far on the need for us to have a Jewish history month.
As others have said, the history of Jews in Britain is wound up in the history of this county, and at times, sadly, it is a complex history. In my region of Yorkshire, that is clearly demonstrated by the two cities nearest to me, one of which I grew up in. People will remember the 1190 massacre of Jews in the City of York, but York has a thriving Jewish community today. The history of Jews in York is also seen in place names such as Jewbury, where my ancestors lived. In more recent decades, the relationship has been complicated. We see it now in the rise in antisemitism, but in my birth city, Hull, we had the battle of Corporation Field in 1936, when Mosley and his British Union of Fascists turned up to be met by a crowd of 10,000 people who, I am proud to say, were mainly there to see them off, and that is indeed what happened.
I will talk today about the contribution made by Jews from the City of Hull and Hull’s place in Jewish history more broadly. Today, the Jewish community in Hull is small, but its contribution to Jewish history is significant, especially in the role the city played in the transmigration of Jews fleeing eastern Europe at the end of the 19th century, who passed through Hull largely on their way to North America. So many came to Hull that the city was marketed as Britain’s cheapest port. Now, we in the Humber do not like to think of ourselves as cheap, but that is what we were at the time. It is estimated that over 2.2 million emigrants passed through the City of Hull in the century before 1914, and 100,000 through our fellow Humber port of Grimsby. Most were passing through on their way to North America or to other cities, such as Leeds and Manchester, but a small number remained in Hull.
At its height, the Jewish population of Hull accounted for 1% of its people, but they had a huge impact on the life of the city. Let me talk briefly about the public life of some of Hull’s Jewish people. Between 1856 and 1983, Hull had two Jewish mayors, seven Jewish lord mayors, and a Jewish leader of the council, who served effectively from 1945 until 1979. This is a very consensual debate, but here I must disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who talked about her cities as the part of the county where Jews have had the most impact. Hull newspaper editor Arthur Tidman wrote in the 1940s:
“There is no town, no city of the UK where Jews have been more closely identified with public life or where their natural abilities have been more freely exercised to the advantage of the community. It is doubtful if any other city can equal the record of Hull in the number of Jewish citizens who have filled the highest civic offices.”
Chief among those individuals was Alderman Sir Leo Schultz, the Labour leader of Hull Council from 1945 to 1979. He was elected to the council in 1926. Prior to that, he had won a scholarship to Oxford, but was told that he could not attend because of his background, so he took his fight into politics. He had the foresight before the war to build bomb shelters, in opposition to the Government at the time, who in the end relented and paid for the shelters to be built. People who were bombed out of their homes on the second night of bombing in 1941, including my grandma, might not have survived were it not for Sir Leo’s foresight. He had such an impact on our city, remaining as leader of the council until 1979, being knighted and going on to become an alderman. There is a statue of him in the city, and he is just one of a number of individuals, including former mayor Henry Feldman and Alderman John Symons, who have had a huge impact on public life, and not only in our city but in our country.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and a pleasure to take part in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing it, particularly at this moment. As it comes at a time when we are acutely aware of the critical growth in antisemitism in this country, it would be tempting to focus on that issue alone, but as serious as antisemitism is, I do not think it is the sole reason why we should be thinking about a British Jewish history month.
When I started to think about this debate, I did not realise how limited my appreciation was of the contribution that the Jewish community has made to the rich, diverse culture that we enjoy across the UK. Yes, I was aware of most of the entertainment and industrial figures who have already been mentioned. On the political figures, who could not be aware of Manny Shinwell, our Liberal leader Herbert Samuel and others who have graced this place, such as Malcolm Rifkind?
One of my favourite authors, if I may focus on Scotland for a minute, is Edinburgh’s own Muriel Spark, who gave us some real gems, including the unique “The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie”. Spark was among the crème de la crème of not just British but international literature, and what a contribution she made. I did not know that my own alma mater, the University of Glasgow, was groundbreaking when, in 1787, Levi Myers graduated without having to take a Christian oath. That attracted an influx of students to Scotland. The majority of Scotland’s Jewish community continues to live in and around Glasgow. Many of them are descended from those who came here to escape the Russian pogroms in the 1880s. It was apparently cheaper to live in Glasgow in those days than it was in Edinburgh, and I have absolutely no comment to make about the current situation in the housing market.
A few hardy souls have made it across to our side of Scotland over the years. Indeed, in Scotland, the history of Jewish communities can be traced back to Edinburgh in 1691, when the minutes of Edinburgh town council recorded the application of David Brown, a professing Jew, to reside and trade in the city, and 1816 saw the founding of the first formal Jewish community in Edinburgh, of around 20 families. In 1825, a tenement in Richmond Court in Newington was acquired and became a synagogue with 67 seats. By 1900, the community had reached around 500. In 1909, the Edinburgh University Jewish society was founded. It is the oldest in Scotland and possibly in Britain, and it is currently the fastest growing.
Sadly, my more recent interaction with the Jewish community has been as a result of the rising tide of antisemitism. I met Rabbi Rose in a pub near that synagogue in Newington to discuss how I can support our local community. I have done a tour of north London with the CST and heard heartbreaking tales from Jewish schoolchildren of the antisemitism they face on an all too regular basis. I met Lord John Mann to discuss his report on antisemitism in the UK, and last year I presented a Bill to try to force social media companies to report on action taken against the abuse of people with protected characteristics, which would include religion.
To return to my original point, antisemitism should be a problem that we overcome, like Islamophobia and every other form of religious, racial or personal discrimination. It should never be the dominant or only factor when we take into account what our Jewish community has contributed to our history, but to do that fully and properly and to value that contribution, we need to set aside some time—a month, each year—to mark it, celebrate it and record it, to ensure that coming generations know about it.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and to speak in this debate about Jewish communities and the merits of having a Jewish history month. Both, of course, have great merit. Recent events alone exemplify why history is so important. As I think Winston Churchill said, those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. One of the things that characterises Jewish communities around the world, as well as in the United Kingdom, is hope. Indeed, the Israeli national anthem is called “Hatikvah”—the hope, and it is not an exuberant or jingoistic melody; in fact, it is a rather melancholy, moving tune that somehow reflects its message of hope rather than jubilation, as many national anthems do.
Rather than speak about the Jewish community, as many Members on both sides of the House have done, I would like to speak, as it were, to the Jewish community. Some weeks ago, I spoke about why there was cause for hope, despite the increase in antisemitism, and I would like to continue on that theme. I say to the Jewish people of the United Kingdom, and indeed any listening, that many civilisations who have persecuted the Jews have risen and then fallen; the Jews continue to thrive. One needs only to look at the Arch of Titus in Rome to see how empires come and go and rise and fall. The arch was built 2,000 years ago by the Romans under Emperor Domitian to celebrate the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem—it depicts the plundering of that temple—but, just a few weeks ago, that arch, celebrating the destruction of the Jews, was lit up in the colours of the Israeli flag by the Government of Italy to mark the pogrom of 7 October.
There are many reasons to be hopeful. We should ignore the haters in communities around the world who have clearly been responsible for the massive increase in antisemitism. We should ignore the haters on university campuses who are bullying Jewish children. I have heard from those young people who are frightened even to go on campus. Eventually, some of those accounts will become widely known, and they will shock the nation. We should ignore those in the international community, and even in the United Nations organisation, where frankly there are blatant examples of antisemitism and where, just before Christmas, Iran was selected to sit on the Human Rights Council.
We should instead celebrate those who are doing so much; those who are agents of peace and reconciliation whom we do not hear enough about. We should applaud men like the Bedouin—not a Jewish man—Youssef Ziadna, a minibus driver who saved 30 lives from the Nova festival in Israel by responding to a call to pick up a customer from that event. He drove into Hamas’s attack and drove out with a minibus full of Jewish people. They are alive because of him. We should applaud the hero Rami, whom I met in Israel a few days ago, who saved over 700 lives by driving to and for, into that war zone, to rescue people.
We should applaud people such as the Crown Prince of Bahrain, who said:
“What Hamas did on 7 October was a war crime and an atrocity, and it is important to get all the…abductees out of Gaza”.
It is not easy for some leaders—Arab leaders especially—to say those truths; that is a true leader. There are also the Emiratis. Ali Rashid al-Nuaimi, a top Emirati official, said that the Abraham accords
“are our future. It is not an agreement between two Governments, but a platform that we believe should transform the region”.
That was an heroic statement. There is also the Saudi Defence Minister, Khalid bin Salman, who visited the White House and reaffirmed his country’s interest in pursuing the Abraham accords. That is real courage and real leadership—things that the Jewish community should and will value in this country and around the world.
We should applaud our own political leaders on all sides—this is not a partisan issue—for standing up and doing the right thing in the face of dissent. We have of course a great hero in our sovereign the King, who can influence events. He has long-standing personal relationships, a love of the Arab culture and a deep interest in the Muslim religion, but in fact he had the Chief Rabbi as a guest before his coronation so that he was able to walk there as it was the Sabbath. Heroes come in many forms; hope comes through many routes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for setting the scene so well. I declare an interest, as a friend of Israel. My comments will reflect the support for that wee nation with a big heart, much like Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a case in point, showing not just the importance of the contribution made by the Jewish community to the social, cultural and economic life of the Province, but the interest in the history of contributions from the wider community.
Since its inception, the Belfast Jewish heritage project has attracted hundreds of people on its guided walking tours in Belfast city centre. The tour includes familiar sites in Belfast with a Jewish connection, some of which people born and bred in Belfast have no idea about. For example, the oldest library in the city, the Linen Hall library, was originally the linen warehouse of a textile company called Moore and Weinberg. The Jaffe fountain in Victoria Square is named after Daniel Joseph Jaffe, the founder of the Belfast Jewish community and the father of the only Jewish Lord Mayor of Belfast, Sir Otto Jaffe, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned.
In 2021, the Belfast Jewish heritage project was awarded a grant of £10,000 from the shared history fund, commemorating the centenary of Northern Ireland. The shared history fund was funded by the Northern Ireland Office and administered by the national lottery. A lasting legacy of that grant is the interactive online Jewish heritage map of Northern Ireland, which tells the Jewish story of more than 70 locations right across Northern Ireland.
We have much Jewish history in Northern Ireland, and that is by no means an exhaustive list of the wonderful connections. I think of McGill’s farm on Drumfad Road in Millisle in my Strangford constituency, which was used to house children rescued from Nazi Germany, as another place of interest. The Kindertransport children came through there. It is clear that a Jewish history month in Northern Ireland would have no shortage of material and stories, and would have a great deal of support from across the community. I can only imagine the scale of replication in other communities across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as we become aware of how intrinsically linked the people of the Jewish faith are to the fabric of our British culture. That is key in this debate, for which the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster set the scene. They are part of what we are as British people, and we should welcome them, as the Leader of the House said in her excellent contribution earlier today.
The content for the month is there. There is also a need for people to understand the connections between us all. In Northern Ireland I am painfully aware of the problem with identity politics and forgetting the connections that bind us. As one person who was on the Jewish heritage walk in Belfast put it, it was amazing to have an hour-long history tour of Belfast that was not about Protestants and Catholics.
Sadly, there is good cause to enhance an appreciation and understanding of Jewish contribution to Northern Ireland, as it is not immune from the surge of antisemitic incidents and attitudes recorded by the Community Security Trust. There has been so much, going back to 2014, including attacks by vandals, desecrating headstones and the blue plaque to Chaim Herzog being removed. All the things that have happened between Belfast and Israel represent a remarkable connection. Just over a century ago, Belfast had a future Israeli President, Chief Rabbi and Foreign Minister living in it. Disgracefully, the disused Jewish section of the city cemetery has been repeatedly desecrated and vandalised. I would welcome a Jewish history month, because it would increase awareness among the general population of the remarkable place of the Jewish community in our society, challenge antisemitic stereotypes and myths, and inject confidence and pride for the Jewish community itself.
The Jewish people are not some sect to be observed, but a part of us—the best of British. That should be understood and emphasised not simply for a month but on an ongoing basis until these people cease to be ostracised or hated simply because they worship God in a different way from someone else. They are a people used to persecution, but that does not make it right. They have hope in God—the same God that I worship—but let them find hope in this place as we highlight the wonderful good that has been done and is still to come from those who are British and worship their God with dignity and respect, in no way offensive to any other person or religion. I do not have time to quote psalm 27, but I recommend that Members read it afterwards, because it will tell them all about the Israeli people and how their God looks after them.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing the debate.
Earlier this week, I led a Westminster Hall debate on the appalling rise of antisemitism we have seen in the UK since the 7 October attacks. That debate was sadly necessary given the circumstances, but I am glad that today we have the opportunity for a much more positive debate to acknowledge the enormous contribution of the Jewish community here in the UK.
I wish to open my remarks by recognising the Jewish community in the west midlands, some of whom I met in the weeks following the awful events in Israel on 7 October. Many in the Jewish community have personal connections to those directly affected. Their strength and bravery in the face of terror has been commendable, and today I reaffirm my commitment to stand with the community in their hour of need.
At Singers Hill synagogue in Birmingham, I met Rabbi Jacobs who told me how the Jewish community stood with the Muslim community in the wake of the attacks on innocent Muslims in the days after 9/11. The late Rabbi Tann visited the Imam at Birmingham central mosque at the time to show solidarity, leading to the formation of Birmingham Faith Leaders’ Group, which continues to this day. Rabbi Tann’s gesture was reciprocated in the wake of last year’s attacks, with the Imam visiting Singers Hill synagogue for a Friday night service, alongside other faith leaders, to show support for the local Jewish community. This is a more recent development in the history of the Jewish community in the west midlands, but one that they are proud of.
Most know that Birmingham has a long tradition of thriving Jewish communities, but most are not aware that Wolverhampton once had one too. Thanks to the Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain, which has pulled together years of records, we know more about that community. In Wolverhampton, the building of the synagogue still stands, but today it is a church. In 1858, after the community had collected £300, they built Wolverhampton synagogue, which was opened by Chief Rabbi Dr Adler. In 1903, after a fire, it was rebuilt by a local architect. When the community stopped growing and numbers reduced, the congregation merged with Singers Hill synagogue.
Today, we have five active synagogues in the region, all contributing to the community and promoting understanding, tolerance and harmony between people of different faiths in our area. They open their doors to thousands of children each year to learn more about Judaism and, commendably, they organise donations to charities helping to provide for those in need. It is only right to pay tribute to some of our local rabbis: Rabbi Jacobs, Rabbi Hambling and Rabbi Pink. Like all religious leaders, they inspire their communities. They are their support and their guide. They are there for advice, celebrations and difficult times, too.
It is not just religious leaders who do so much for others. Ruth Jacobs is a perfect example of that, through organisations such as the west midlands Jewish representative council, which she chairs, as well as the Nisa-Nashim group, an interfaith forum for Jewish and Muslim women to bridge the divide and discuss their cultural and religious similarities. Ruth’s commitment to the community extends to her role as chair of the West Midlands Friends of Israel and her work with the local police and political leaders. She also runs the local Hillel House, which provides housing and support for Jewish students, and hosts many social and religious events. It is people like Ruth who make the west midlands community so warm and friendly, while playing their part in making the region a better place for all communities.
It is not possible to mention all the contributions the Jewish community in the west midlands makes to our region and across the country, but I will try to fit in a few more. The King David School in Birmingham is a beacon of light in the west midlands. It is a Jewish primary school which welcomes all faiths and has a majority of Muslim students.
I would like to mention Mindu Hornick MBE, a holocaust survivor who settled in Birmingham with her family. She has given her testimony of the holocaust to thousands of people across the country and has spoken in countless schools in our region. Many holocaust survivors like Mindu are selfless in the work they do and we owe them a great deal. She is one of the many UK-based survivors who have given their testimony in conjunction with the Holocaust Educational Trust.
Chai Cancer Care is a London-based charity that offers 67 specialised support services to cancer patients around the country, including in the west midlands. It provides advice, counselling, physiotherapy and other support services from Stirchley in Birmingham. I visited its headquarters in Hendon last year with the Jewish Leadership Council and it is incredible. There are many other Jewish organisations that sit under the umbrella of the JLC that all do incredible work, including Jewish Women’s Aid, United Jewish Israel Appeal and the Union of Jewish Students.
Those are just some of the examples of the contribution of the Jewish community in the west midlands and across the country. In the west midlands, we are incredibly diverse. I have one of the most diverse constituencies in the country. The Jewish community in the west midlands is smaller than elsewhere, but it well and truly punches above its weight. As I have given examples of today, the Black Country also has a proud history of Jewish communities. A Jewish history month would be the perfect opportunity to educate others about the history of the community that we may not otherwise know about, as well as celebrating the enormous contribution the community makes today. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for securing the debate today.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
A point that I have made on many occasions is that all too often, public understanding of the Jewish community and the issues that matter to us will be limited to antisemitism and the UK’s relationship with Israel, and knowledge of Jewish history will largely be limited to the holocaust. That is not for a second to diminish the importance of those three topics, but to make the case for the fact that Jewish history, Jewish culture and tradition and the Jewish contribution to Britain constitute a much richer tapestry, and we can all benefit from a much deeper understanding of it.
Within the Jewish community in the UK are represented a mixture of different denominations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, practices, histories and languages—and, of course, two of my favourite features of that Jewish diversity: the food and the old adage of “two Jews, three opinions”. With all this to teach and share, our community, tiny in size relative to the population of the UK and the globe, cannot be expected to undertake our endeavours to bring greater awareness alone.
I thought it might be illustrative for the House if, in demonstrating that every part of British history and culture is also Jewish history and culture, I brought together two seemingly unrelated parts of my parliamentary work to highlight the Jewish contribution. As a British Jew and, of course, a member of the all-party parliamentary groups relevant to our community, I am also a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on wrestling. Thanks to the historian Bradley Craig, I know of “Jewish Flash” Al Lipman from Aldgate, who was an immensely popular lightweight wrestling star in the 1940s. In the wake of the war, there was a major show in Manchester in aid of Jewish charities, in which the “good guy”, who was Jewish, defeated the “bad guy”, who was portraying a Nazi.
More recently, we have seen the Jewish global wrestling star Noam Dar, who hails from Ayr in Scotland, wrestles for World Wrestling Entertainment—performing for millions across the world—and has won the NXT heritage cup. He even once wrestled at a Jewish Lads’ and Girls’ Brigade camp in Essex, an event organised by, among others, Neil Martin and Robert Rams, two Jewish wrestling fans. Dar was followed in the main event of the second ever JLGB wrestling extravaganza by Simon Miller, who hosts the shows of the UK independent promotion Progress, but has also wrestled across the country. Other British wrestlers and former wrestlers with Jewish links include “The Chutzpah” Lior Ben-David, Aviv Maayan and Max “Voltage” Olesker, of the comedy duo Max & Ivan—of course, there are numerous British comedians who are Jewish or have Jewish roots.
British Jews are also proudly involved in other areas of the wrestling world. Examples are WWE’s head of external affairs, TNA’s PR man, All Elite Wrestling’s press lead—although he is in the United States—the global Jewish wrestling superstar MJF, and the ring announcer Justin Roberts. Israel’s best-known wrestling promoter, Gery Roif, came to Britain and visited the House recently. There are others here at home, such as Emily Read, co-founder of the all-women’s promotion Pro-Wrestling: Eve, and Adam Cailler, who writes about wrestling for the Daily Star following his stint at the Jewish Telegraph. There is also the wrestling photographer Oli Sandler, and Danny Stone, the secretariat to both the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism and the APPG on wrestling, is well known across the House both for his expertise in antisemitism and in wrestling. While small in number, British Jews have certainly made an impact on wrestling here in the UK and overseas.
In the hope that this will be the kind of debate that we will see much more in the future, I will not go through all the APPGs and committees in which I take part through a Jewish lens, although that would demonstrate the number of areas in the Jewish contribution to British life—of which there are so many, beyond those that are established or widely understood—that a Jewish history month could explore. Indeed, what has become a running joke with my friend Jonny Newton—occurring on so many occasions that I worry that we are willing it into reality—is the idea of starting a podcast called “Spicy Talmud”, in which we would explore the volume-collecting centuries of rabbinic discussion on not just every single worthy topic one could possibly conceive of, but the more esoteric questions and the sometimes bizarre stories that are recounted about whistling frogs, weasels bringing chametz from house to house, snakes going where they shouldn’t, and wine-drinking she-dogs.
Thankfully, for everyone’s sake, I think it safe to say that we are both far too busy for the foreseeable future, but perhaps there is another way in which the kind of love that we both have, and our wider community has, for Jewishness, and our pride in being part of the Jewish story, can be brought to as wide an audience as possible so we can all share in it together—and what better way to start than with a dedicated Jewish history month?
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), not least because she has improved my knowledge of wrestling from absolutely nothing to slightly more than nothing. I celebrate all those Jewish stars of the wrestling world, just as I celebrate all those individuals whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and others have listed from the worlds of entertainment, politics, industry and many more.
I am delighted to say that the Jewish population of Buckinghamshire is growing—it grew by 7% between the 2011 and 2021 censuses. I stand shoulder to shoulder with the community, which I am proud to represent. I want to see it thrive and go from strength to strength.
Notwithstanding the powerful comments that have been made about trying to ignore the haters, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) said, we have to acknowledge that Jewish communities in Buckinghamshire and across the country are hurting right now. I was privileged to join the south Buckinghamshire Jewish community at a Hanukkah event at Waddesdon Manor in my constituency in December, led by the wonderful Rabbi Neil Janes. His opening words during the short ceremony really shocked me. He said, “We no longer feel confident to gather as a community.” That was in the United Kingdom in 2023. Of course, every community should be confident to gather in the United Kingdom in modern times. They should all be afforded our protection; they should all feel safe.
I put my thoughts about the event on social media, as we in this House have a tendency to do, and I said, not unreasonably, that we must defeat antisemitism. It took 45 seconds for one of the haters—whoever debbie.bennett21 is—to write underneath my Instagram post:
“Strange words ‘must be defeated’”.
What on earth was going through that individual’s mind?
I saw it yesterday under another of my posts, and I have now reported it to the police. A person taking issue with something I said about the conflict between Israel and Hamas—it is perfectly legitimate for someone to take issue with my view on that—asked on Instagram:
“Are you married to a Jew?”
Such outrageous behaviour is happening in our country right now, and it has to be stamped out.
I wanted to say this in the Chamber this afternoon, and to support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for a Jewish history month, because one of the most important reasons why we study history is to understand what happened in the past and to ensure that the mistakes of the past, the horrors of the past and the evil of the past are not able to happen again. Yet we see history repeating itself, which is why we simply must have a Jewish history month to celebrate the contribution of all our Jewish communities and everything they have achieved and will continue to achieve.
As Members of Parliament, we all receive very difficult emails. We all have people come to see us at our surgeries in very difficult circumstances, with horrendous stories to tell. It is very rare that those stories reduce us to tears, but I received an email from a Jewish constituent, whose identity I will protect, openly saying:
“I have never felt as scared as I do right now to be in the UK… I’ve considered converting… I’ve gone to ground.”
She has turned off the ability to be found on social media. That should scare us all. It must put a bounce underneath us to ensure that we defeat antisemitism and enable all Jewish communities, all people of the Jewish faith, to live freely, securely and safely, and to feel welcome, here in the United Kingdom, whether they are British or otherwise.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I must begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing this debate. I learned a great deal from listening to the contributions of Members from across the House today. The variety and richness of them reflects a lot of what we are talking about: the richness of contribution to British society.
That is the point I wish to start with: the British Jewish community has made a remarkable contribution to the prosperity of our nation. In the face, sadly, of growing hostility abroad and, shamefully, here at home, it is high time that we as a nation celebrate its part in our national story. So I wish to do two things in the few minutes available to me: highlight the remarkable contribution made by the British Jewish community in Aberconwy today—in doing that I wish to thank Professor Nathan Abrams of Bangor University and the team at Llandudno museum for their important work in tracing the history of the Jewish residents of north Wales and Aberconwy; and raise and then quickly dismiss an objection that we can anticipate to founding a British Jewish history month.
In Aberconwy, although Jewish residents have never numbered more than a few hundred individuals, they have played a prominent role in the recent history of our community. Sadly, Aberconwy is not without its reminders of a darker past. Conwy’s castle and walls were, of course, built by Edward I, who was notable for both his oppression of the Welsh and his expulsion of Jewish subjects in 1290. Primarily arriving in Llandudno in the Victorian era, the new Jewish community was soon a key part of the area’s booming economy and was actively involved in the development and safeguarding of our local culture.
Families such as the Croops, Gubays, Wartskis and Blairmans founded shops that have become fixtures of our high streets, visible to this day, with the latter two founding international antique businesses that continue to prosper. We can also thank the Wartskis for the synagogue in Llandudno, which opened in 1909. It is a testament to this legacy that modern-day Llandudno has the pleasure of welcoming a large number of Hasidic families each year. In more recent times, the first woman mayor of Aberconwy was Jewish—Vicki Lazar was elected in 1978. Most recently, in a welcome twist of history, in 2012 the care of those battlements in Conwy that King Edward I built was voted into the competent hands of Cedric Rigal, the first Jewish constable and mayor of Conwy, with a rabbi offering a prayer at the inauguration.
However, in making the case for celebrating and formally recognising such contributions in Aberconwy and across the UK, we can anticipate an objection, albeit one raised in good faith. In an era of increasingly divisive identitarian politics, it may well be asked: will such recognition encourage British people to think of themselves, and one another, in terms of ethnic or religious group identity, and does this not risk compounding, rather than easing, division?
As the MP for a bilingual constituency, a proud Welshman and Brit, I think that that is a profound misunderstanding of identity. Our British identity is not totalising; it does not demand the erosion of the regional and religious identities that make up our nation. We are privileged in Britain to inherit a nation that evolved long before liberal nationalist revolutions of the 19th century, when nations such as France, Italy and Germany were engaged in assertive state-led nation building. In contrast, Britain emerged slowly, as networks of kin, friendship and trade bound together the destinies of the peoples of our islands. In many European states, for example, standardised education was seized on as a means to erode regional identity, yet here—I speak of north Wales in this case—the fierce independence and plurality of educations have represented distinct religious and philosophical traditions. In north Wales, I would count our fierce tradition of non-conformism in that too.
When a community’s story has become intertwined with that of the nation, it becomes part of the story of Britain, and such is the story of British Jews. It is significant and it is part of our story that deserves to be celebrated. In a world in which ethnic grievances are increasingly and easily stoked for political capital, here is a story of resilience and success. The British Jewish contribution to the arts, literature, commerce and science of the UK has enriched and elevated our national life, here and in Aberconwy, and it has improved the condition of humanity the world over. This story should serve to inspire people of all backgrounds. For that reason, I support the motion put before us today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We move on to the Front-Bench contributions of six, eight and eight minutes, although I will not put the clock on. Please could the Minister leave a couple of minutes for the final words from Nickie Aiken?
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing the debate and on the strength of her opening speech.
I love where I live. I feel privileged every day to represent my own local community, and to represent it in all its fantastic diversity, because East Renfrewshire is home to people of all faiths and none, including a vibrant and growing Muslim community, Christian congregations of all kinds, significant Sikh and Hindu communities, a lovely Baha’i community and the majority of Jews living in Scotland. We are so much better for the diversity of people who have made their homes in East Renfrewshire. That is why I was pleased to join the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster in seeking this debate, because we should celebrate all the communities that make us who we are.
Some people have referenced the timing of the debate in relation to the challenging times we live in. That may be true to some extent, but it is important to look at the issue through a different prism—that of the history of the Jewish community in its own right. So I will give a whistle-stop tour of that rich history in Scotland, particularly in East Renfrewshire.
The former Chief Rabbi, the late Jonathan Sacks, wrote about the Jewish communities of Scotland combining a strong loyalty to their Jewish faith and way of life with a deep attachment to Scottish culture and identity. That rings true to me and speaks to the long history of the Jewish community in Scotland. We heard about degrees being awarded in the 1700s, and the first synagogues were opened in Edinburgh in 1817 and Glasgow in 1821.
Terrible events in Russia and then Germany, in particular, led to mass movements of people and communities forming across Scotland. In 1914, the Glasgow Jewish Representative Council was formed, the only Jewish school in Scotland opened in 1962, and the fantastic Scottish Jewish Archives Centre was founded in 1982, to collect, preserve and display Scotland’s Jewish heritage. It is worth thinking about that centre as this debate in a physical form, as it is a phenomenally interesting place.
Throughout all that, every day contributions and less every day contributions have been made, year upon year, to Scotland by our Jewish citizens, whether in medicine, law, education or business. That particular thread in the tartan of Scotland is woven deep and clear. Given the time of year, I will push that a little further in an appreciation of Rabbi Pete Tobias, not only for his excellent work bringing people together to share Passover Seder, but for sharing with me a very funny Burns supper speech featuring someone named Rabbi Burns.
Today gives us an opportunity to focus on the personal and on people. East Renfrewshire resident, the late Ernest Levy, a survivor of Bergen-Belsen, Cantor of the then Giffnock and Newlands synagogue for 40 years, was hugely influential in sharing testimony on the holocaust. He wrote a very important book, launched in the Scottish Parliament, and said at that time that he had never felt so Scottish in his life.
The senior Rabbi of Scotland, Rabbi Moshe Rubin, who has consistently welcomed people of all faiths, warmly extended a welcome to our First Minister, Humza Yousaf, recently, when both men came together at a hugely moving synagogue service, which very clearly demonstrated the importance of common humanity and concern for one another.
East Renfrewshire resident, Henry Wuga, will be 100 years old next month. Along with his late wife, he influenced hundreds of young Scottish people with their tireless focus on holocaust education. Brigadier Monty Cowen is a brave veteran who leads the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and women, alongside doing a great deal of community work. Evie Yedd’s work to support our local area in many and varied ways is longstanding. She is the hugely influential leader of the local Jewish Brownie and Guide packs. She makes a profound difference to young lives.
The wide-ranging work of Cosgrove Care makes a positive difference to people with additional needs, and Jewish Care makes great efforts in supporting our community. There is the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and the Glasgow Jewish Representative Council, which work tirelessly to support, to be a voice and to encourage discussion. They work alongside other groups, including Interfaith Glasgow and the Council for Christians and Jews. That cross-community and cross- faith dialogue is vital.
At a recent event, faith representatives and others heard from staff at Woodfarm High School speaking about their work with pupils on the Jane Haining project, ensuring that our young people know our history. The continued efforts locally of Gathering the Voices, Vision School and other educational projects cement that and cement who we are. Then there are people like my late friend, Frank Angell, whose work in dentistry and education was important and influential. Frank was a political fellow traveller and a scholar and is greatly missed.
I will finish by speaking about Calderwood Lodge Primary School, which, 60 years on, is at the heart of our community, on a lovely new campus with its partner school, St Clare’s Primary. A Jewish-Catholic joint campus is a unique thing, and that shared ethos of understanding is valuable beyond words. That is exactly what we should be speaking about today. At this school, children of all faiths and none work and play together, learning about respect and friendship, and about enjoying each other’s traditions.
My community is a special one and the contribution of Jewish residents to East Renfrewshire is a huge part of who we are. It is a big part of what makes us ourselves. We absolutely should celebrate all the communities that make up the different constituencies. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster for bringing us here today and I wholeheartedly support her efforts.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing this debate, which has been hugely interesting. I also thank both my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) who told us about his family history, and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who talked to us about wrestling in ways that I had never thought of before.
On Tuesday, in Westminster Hall, we heard from many Members about shocking incidents of antisemitism on our streets, in schools and on university campuses. That discussion was vital following the rise in antisemitism that we have seen since the abhorrent attacks carried out by Hamas on 7 October.
Today’s discussion is similarly vital. Now more than ever, it is essential that we recognise and celebrate the rich contribution of the Jewish community across the whole of British civil society—the whole of British life. Just as I did on Tuesday, I wish to thank the Community Security Trust, which works relentlessly alongside the police to gather records of these incidents and to tackle hateful antisemitism. Over the past 40 years, the CST has developed a widely recognised and commended model for combating hate crime, and its work is essential.
There are many other examples of Jewish organisations that have contributed the skills and experience that they have honed within their own community to uplift our society as a whole. This serves to highlight the extraordinary contribution that Jewish communities have made to British social, cultural and political life, despite the adversity that they have all too often endured.
As we have heard, historical records show that there were Jewish people in England at the time of the Norman conquest, but that they were victims of appalling persecution. In 1190, the Jewish community of York were massacred at the site of Clifford’s Tower. One hundred years later, Jewish people were expelled on the orders of Edward I—not to return until the time of Oliver Cromwell.
I talk about these shameful episodes, because it is important that we, in this country, recognise our own history of discrimination, prejudice and violence. It is in the face of this adversity that Jewish communities in Britain have contributed so much to our vibrant and multicultural society, across every region and in every sector. In my local authority of Gateshead, there is a large Charedi community, with one of the largest yeshivas outside of Israel. It is long established in the heart of the town.
From their role in the trade union movement to the work of many Jewish communal and charitable organisations today, we have much to thank the Jewish community for. And, of course, to thank those individuals that we have talked about today who have contributed so much.
I want to say a bit about an organisation called Jami, which provides mental health support for the Jewish community in the UK. I was introduced to Jami through the Jewish Leadership Council, which represents many Jewish communal organisations, as part of my work with the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. Jami’s Head Room café in Golders Green offers open access to mental health support to anyone who needs it. I was so blown away when I visited the café that I went on to host a roundtable there, which was attended by other hon. Members and many community organisations. I was really impressed by Jami’s commitment not only to its own community, but to working in partnership with other communities, organisations and local authorities. I look forward to continuing to work with Jami.
Many other Jewish organisations are doing fantastic work across the board. I think of Jewish Women’s Aid, which provides specialist support to Jewish women and children affected by domestic abuse. Such organisations are working in difficult circumstances, as the community continues to feel the impact of the 7 October attacks. As we know, between 7 October and 13 December the CST recorded more than 2,000 antisemitic incidents. More than ever, it is vital to educate people across our communities about the nature of antisemitism and hate crime, and to combat it. Of course that must include a continued commitment to education about the holocaust. Organisations such as the Holocaust Education Trust have done much-needed work to embed learning on the holocaust within our education system and within broader society. On 27 January we have Holocaust Memorial Day, and I know that the trust will be in Parliament in the coming weeks to mark that important occasion.
Amid the threats of holocaust denial and distortion, it is essential that such work continues. That is why we are proud to support the proposals for a permanent holocaust memorial and learning centre. It would be a fitting tribute to the 6 million Jewish people who were brutally murdered during the holocaust, and a much-needed bulwark against misinformation and conspiracy. It is also important to remember the really positive contributions, which we are talking about today, of individuals, organisations and the community. I am pleased to do that.
On the specific proposal of a British Jewish history month, we are enthusiastic about the calls to remember British Jewish history, and Labour will work with Jewish community organisations on the best shape that should take.
As events unfolding internationally risk divisions at home, we would also welcome Government steps to work with local authorities on bolstering community cohesion and bringing people together. Labour is totally united with the Jewish community in the fight against antisemitism, to acknowledge the wrongdoings of the past and, as we have today, to celebrate the rich and diverse contribution of British Jews to our proud multi- cultural society.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is a privilege to respond on behalf of the Government and on behalf of my colleague in the other place, Baroness Penn, who formally holds this portfolio, on this incredibly important issue. Many of us who are here today were also in Westminster Hall on Tuesday to debate a more difficult part of this discussion. It is such a pleasure to be able to celebrate the contribution of the British Jewish community to our country, and I intend to keep my remarks wholly to the positives, having talked about the more challenging issues in Tuesday’s debate.
I know from the contributions of all Members that we agree across the House that Britain would not be the country it is today without the enormous contribution made by the Jewish community, and indeed by people of all faiths and ethnicities. It is crucial that we celebrate that contribution. That is why the Government are very supportive of having a Jewish history month—a brilliant idea put forward in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). I congratulate her on securing this important debate, because British Jews have played a vital role in shaping the life of our country, stretching back more than 2,000 years and producing, as so many colleagues have outlined, leading talents in the arts, law, philosophy, medicine, the media, finance, the charity sector, retail and wrestling.
From Peter George Davis, the founder of the Special Boat Service, to Jack Cohen, the founder of Tesco, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster already outlined; and from Ludwig Guttmann, the founder of the Paralympics, to some of our greatest artists, such as Lucian Freud, and poets, such as Siegfried Sassoon, British Jews have made an outstanding contribution to British public life. They have also done so from all sides of this House, as was outlined by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who is no longer in his place, from our first Prime Minister of Jewish heritage, Benjamin Disraeli, in the 19th century, to the iron Chancellor Nigel Lawson, to the Liberal leader Herbert Samuel, and to celebrated Labour figures, such as Gerald Kaufman and Manny Shinwell, as was mentioned.
The creation of a designated Jewish history month would give us an opportunity as a nation to celebrate this history and the vibrancy of Jewish culture, traditions, values and the importance of the Jewish community to the fabric of our society today. That could not be more important given the events of the past few weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said herself, we must remind ourselves of the huge contribution that British citizens within the Jewish faith have made for the benefit of us all, and a designated history month would be a huge step towards that.
This is about celebrating Jewish history and culture, as well as—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, said this—an opportunity to foster greater community unity and cohesion through inter-faith dialogue and understanding at a time of growing division. I know that is something we would very much all welcome. It would of course need to be meaningful and informed by the wishes of the British Jewish community themselves. If this is something that the British Jewish community would encourage the Government to support, we would welcome their thoughts on this motion, as we welcome the thoughts of all right hon. and hon. Members across the House and anyone else inspired to take up this important cause.
I want to spend a few minutes before I close to talk about some of the contributions of colleagues today. The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) spoke about the history and importance of the Jewish community and told incredible and—in at least one instance—shocking stories, which remind us of the very near-term challenges that this community has faced and the importance of supporting them.
The hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Strangford reminded us of the contribution of the British Jewish community in all parts of our Union, including something I never thought I would hear: the Sinn Féin rabbi. That demonstrates the absolute contribution in so many different ways and with so many different opinions over many decades and centuries. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made a hugely important point about the importance of the British Jewish community to our public life and our military life.
Andrew Percy
As the Minister has a little bit of time, because of the time limit, I did not get a chance to mention some of the East Yorkshire Jewish sons who fell in world war one. I would like to memorialise their names, if he will give me a moment: James Aaron, Isaac Reuben, Barnett Rubinstein, Bernard Shalgosky, Soloman Sole, John Stone, David Gordon and Harry Furman. All fell defending liberty.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend outlines another example of the hugely important contribution the British Jewish community have made to our freedom over so many decades.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) made a hugely important point about how the vast contribution made is often not obvious. Like the challenges she may have had in her home city, I had challenges linking it to my home constituency where I grew up—it has a very small Jewish community. Having looked at some of the history from Derbyshire, it was heartening to hear that, just 20 years ago, when a small group of people from Derby at the other side of the county found in the archives that the citizens of Derby had paid an amount of money in the 12th century to stop British Jews from living there, they compensated the British Jewish community by the equivalent amount in 2002 so that the edict could be removed. Such acts of kindness and recognition show that what has been called a challenging history can be acknowledged and worked through, even in places where there are not large Jewish populations, such as Derbyshire.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) made the important point that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), who does so much on this hugely important subject and who was the genesis of the important debate we had on Tuesday. I know that she and Lord Austin from the other place were keen to acknowledge a gentleman who is in the Public Gallery today—Peter Madeley—a former reporter in the west midlands who has done so much over so many years to report on important issues for the Jewish community.
The hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), as I have already mentioned, gave us some very interesting references to the wrestling community, and pointed out the hugely important history, culture and contribution to Britain from the Jewish community and how deep and broad that contribution is. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) made a hugely important point about the challenges that the community currently face. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) spoke about the importance of shared heritage and the ability to reconcile that in a way that works for everybody, irrespective of faith, culture, ethnicity or background.
Finally, I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. We began our electoral journey together in the same place in Westminster in 2006. I had the privilege of representing a historically very Jewish area of Maida Vale, known in the 1880s as “New Jerusalem”, which contains the Spanish & Portuguese Synagogue, and we both had the privilege of serving alongside such luminaries as Sir Simon Milton, Melvyn Caplan, Daniel Astaire and the former Lord Mayor of Westminster, Councillor Louise Hyams, who is also in the Public Gallery.
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It has been a privilege to be here and to hear about the contributions the Jewish community have made to our country over so many years, decades and centuries. This Government are wholly committed to honouring, celebrating and safeguarding the security of our Jewish communities. That is a commitment that I know everybody shares, wherever they sit in this place, a commitment that we must work together to uphold and a commitment that is demonstrated by our support for the debate today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It has been a privilege and honour for me to chair this debate today.
Nickie Aiken
I thank everybody across the Chamber for taking part in what I think is a timely and important debate. I thank the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who have been very helpful to me and my team on the research for my speech. I also thank the Jewish Chronicle for providing me with my first-ever front-page lead story this week, and the Jewish News, which has a triple-page spread on the merits of a British Jewish history month. I hope that they will continue to support our campaign to bring this important month to fruition.
Andrew Percy
As we have a little bit of time, and as my hon. Friend has started thanking everybody, may I also place on record my thanks to the Hull History Centre, which has incredible resources available on the history of the Jewish community in Hull and helped me prepare some of my words for the debate?
Nickie Aiken
It was a pleasure to allow that intervention.
It is absolutely right that we continue to educate ourselves and future generations on antisemitism and the holocaust, and we will be marking the holocaust later this month, but it is equally important—or perhaps more important—that we highlight and celebrate the achievements and contributions of the Jewish community. The Jewish story in Britain is a positive and a negative one. It is a history of human suffering, of human perseverance and of human strength. Now more than ever, it is important that British Jews know that their incredible contribution to this country is valued and that the history of antisemitism is understood.
I take this opportunity to thank the very special rabbi in my constituency, Rabbi Daniel Epstein of Western Marble Arch Synagogue; I am sure he is not impressed by my Hebrew in this debate, but he provided me with the text from the Torah that I repeated in my speech. The Jewish community in the Cities of London and Westminster and across the nation is very important to me and has been very supportive of me, and has led me to believe that it is now more important than ever that we have a British Jewish history month.
I look forward to working with this Government, who I believe are very positive towards the suggestion, and with Jewish community to make the proposal a reality. We must celebrate the British Jewish community and we must have a British Jewish history month.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have been an MP for 31 years, and it was not until one of my researchers asked for time off because there was a Jewish holiday, and then the other one asked for time off for the Jewish holiday, and then the third one came to ask, that I appreciated that all my members of staff were Jewish. I am incredibly grateful for the contribution that they have made to my office personally. Yet again, this debate demonstrates how good the House is when it comes together.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls for the creation of a British Jewish History Month.
Cost of Living Support: Carshalton and Wallington
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I thank the Speaker’s Office and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate to talk about the cost of living pressures in my constituency and what fiscal support is available to my constituents.
Of course, the Government are absolutely right that the biggest enemy of the cost of living is inflation and the subsequent rising costs of everyday goods. Interest rates affecting rents and mortgages, and the cost of energy to heat our homes, are problems that affect everyone in this country. I welcome the Government’s efforts in this area. Indeed, we have seen inflation come down drastically from its peak, and mortgage interest rates are coming down at many banks, but there is still a long way to go. The widespread effects make the cost of living an issue that we cannot ignore. We need to provide people with solutions to get them through this winter and beyond.
Most often, the most vulnerable in our society face the most severe consequences. Older people, who have weaved so much into the social fabric of our communities, have to contend with additional strain. Of my nearly 15,000 constituents aged over 65, roughly 1,800 have a long-term health condition and more than 4,500 are living alone. It is vital that support is there for them.
In recognising the gravity of the situation, I am heartened to share what has already been done by the Government and others to provide direct financial relief to those grappling with cost of living challenges in Carshalton and Wallington. First, I pay tribute to the Government for the 2022-23 cost of living payments, which stand as testament to their support for our constituents. The £650 cost of living payment, payable over two instalments, has been extended to claimants of universal credit, legacy benefits and tax credits. In my constituency, where roughly 8,000 households are on universal credit and 2,800 on legacy benefits and tax credits, that equated to an estimated total payout of about £7.1 million of support. That was exceeded in the following year of 2023-24, when it reached a staggering £9.1 million.
The £150 disability cost of living payment, which was provided to recipients of certain non-means-tested disability benefits, including personal independence payment and attendance allowance, aims to provide relief to 7,600 claimants in Carshalton and Wallington, with a total estimated payout of about £1.1 million last year and £1.2 million this year. In addition, the £300 cost of living payment for pensioners, coupled with the winter fuel payment, targets 10,600 households in my constituency with an estimated total payout of £3.2 million a year.
The £150 council tax discount, payable to all households in properties in bands A to D, stands as an additional measure to alleviate the financial strain on 30,500 properties in Carshalton and Wallington, with a total estimated payout of £4.6 million in 2022-23. In total, the estimated value of those payments to my constituency for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24 equates to £30.1 million. Those figures underscore the Government’s commitment to address directly the financial challenges faced by our community, for which I can only commend them.
Furthermore, the energy bill support scheme was designed to give support directly to those facing high energy bills. It was distributed in six equal payments between October 2022 and March 2023, providing an estimated £16.6 million to households in Carshalton and Wallington. The energy price guarantee, worth around £625 per household, significantly reduced bills between October 2022 and June 2023, and contributed an estimated value of £25.4 million to 40,641 households in my constituency.
Altogether, estimated support for the relief of energy bills in my community stands at an impressive £42 million. Those measures, coupled with the ongoing commitment to address the broader cost of living challenges, signify a comprehensive approach to ensuring that the wellbeing and financial stability of my constituents is at the forefront. Contrast that with the actions of Labour and the Lib Dems in my constituency: the Labour Mayor of London has increased his share of council tax on my constituents by a whopping 71% since 2016. That is without mentioning the £12.50 a day ultra low emission zone charge he has put on the poorest Londoners, including small businesses and charities. The Lib Dem-run council has whacked up council tax by 41% since 2010, increased parking charges, and voted in favour of expanding ULEZ to my constituency.
In commending the Government, I also encourage them to go further—to provide help for people and make sure that not only are they aware of the benefits that are available to them, but they know how to access them. We must put the needs of our constituents first, ensuring that they can afford a warm roof over their heads and alleviating the burden of meeting the costs of daily essentials. The support offered to my constituents by the Government has been generous, and I urge my constituents to look at the Help for Households website to see how they could be assisted further, but in order to have sustainable, long-term support, we need to take a number of additional measures.
As well as the support packages I have mentioned, the Government have already met their promise to halve inflation. In addition, the national living wage has been increased; the pensions triple lock has been protected; benefits have been uplifted in line with inflation; a new mortgage charter has been agreed with lenders to prevent unaffordable rises; national insurance has been cut, saving families £450 a year on average; business rates have been frozen; and much more has been done by this Government to try to help.
To build on that success, inflation must of course continue to fall but, as we know, that only slows the rate of growth. Therefore, we must be relentlessly focused on growing the economy—leading to even higher wage growth than we have at the moment—and continue to cut taxes further, leaving more money in people’s pockets and being put back into the economy. We must continue to build confidence so that interest rates can come down, build more homes to reduce the cost of housing, and back British business and the risk takers to create high-quality jobs, apprenticeships and opportunities for the next generation.
I commend the Government on the work they have done so far to provide support for my constituents, and indeed for many people throughout the country. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what further steps the Government can take, especially through this winter, to support our constituents through these difficult times.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing this debate. He is an asset to his constituents, who I am sure are pleased to be represented by him in the admirable way he has done so this evening. He is decent and has a clever mind, but most importantly he has a good heart, and that heart is in Carshalton and Wallington.
I think all of us in this place recognise the difficult times through which the people of this country, and indeed people around the world, have lived over the past couple of years. We have had the covid pandemic, Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, and long-gathering inflationary clouds that have created a perfect storm for us all, but particularly for vulnerable people. However, this Government and this country have consistently fought back—against the virus, alongside our Ukrainian friends and, critically, from the perspective of the Treasury Benches, against the economic headwinds. As my hon. Friend outlined, this Government have provided one of the largest support packages in Europe over the past two years, in contrast to the damaging actions taken in his area by the London Mayor and my hon. Friend’s local Liberal Democrat council.
Some 11,300 households in Carshalton and Wallington were eligible for means-tested cost of living payments this financial year, and 8,500 individuals were eligible for the disability cost of living payment. Those households —my hon. Friend mentioned 30,500 properties in his constituency—along with all their neighbours, would have been eligible for the energy price guarantee, the £400 energy bills support scheme and the £150 council tax rebate, along with fuel and alcohol duty cuts. Energy support alone has paid for almost half of the typical family’s energy bill from October 2022 to June 2023 through both the energy price guarantee and the energy bill support scheme.
It is in part thanks to those measures that growth and real incomes have been stronger than expected this year—not just stronger than expected by the Office for Budget Responsibility, but stronger than expected by international economic forecasters. Inflation has also come down significantly to less than half its 2022 peak, and in November it fell to 3.9%, which is the lowest rate in over two years. Again, that was not forecast by the OBR or international forecasters. I do not deny that the outlook for real incomes remains challenging—it remains very challenging for many people, particularly vulnerable people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country—as does inflation, but that is why we announced further support in the autumn statement in November to support the most vulnerable.
The Government will raise local housing allowance rates to the 30th percentile of local market rents in April 2024. In plain English, what does that mean? It means that 1.6 million low-income households will be better off to the tune of about £800 on average in 2024-25. Some, particularly Opposition Members, often say that that is not a lot of money, but I can tell the House that, for those 1.6 million low-income households, it is considerable support that they will welcome, as they will in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
The Government will also uprate all working-age benefits in full by the September 2023 consumer prices index rate of 6.7%, which is considerably higher than inflation, to make sure that working-age people on benefits are supported properly. That is 3 percentage points higher than forecast earnings for 2024-25 and, again, it will help support the most vulnerable while inflation continues to fall, with 5.5 million households on universal credit gaining £470 on average in the 2024-25 financial year.
My hon. Friend mentioned in his speech that 15,000 of his constituents are over 65, and we are maintaining the triple lock in support of those people and pensioners across this country, who have helped to build this country and have worked hard over years gone by. The basic state pension, new state pension and pension credit standard minimum guarantee will be uprated in April 2024 in line with wage growth of 8.5% in the usual reference period. In 2024-25, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension will be £3,750 higher in cash terms than in 2010 or, to put it more simply, £995 more —almost £1,000 more—than if it had been uprated by prices alone.
That comes on top of cost of living payments this year that are helping more than 8 million households on eligible means-tested benefits, 8 million pensioner households and 6 million people across the UK on eligible disability benefits. For individuals needing further support, local authorities in England continue to provide support through the household support fund, which is backed by £1 billion of funding. This allows local authorities up and down England to provide crisis support for the vulnerable households that need it the most, such as through supermarket or food bank vouchers. This means that, from 2022 to 2025, total support to help households with the cost of living will be over £100 billion—£104 billion—at an average of £3,700 per UK household.
However, I and the Government know that relatively short-term help is not enough. The only sustainable way to help vulnerable people in this country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and to improve the living standards is to build a more prosperous future while remaining fiscally responsible. The best way to do that is to grow the economy and get more people into better paid jobs.
On growing the economy, this is not the time for more statistics, but I will say this: taken together, the measures in the autumn statement and the 2023 Budget represented the biggest upgrade in the GDP forecast that the Office for Budget Responsibility has ever scored. That shows the Government’s commitment to and delivery of a growing economy, which gives us all a better future.
When it comes to getting people into better paid jobs, from 1 April 2024, the Government are increasing the national living wage by 9.8% to £11.44 an hour for eligible workers aged 21 or over. That represents an increase of more than £1,800 in the earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage and will benefit over 2.7 million low-paid workers. Just this month, employees’ main national insurance contribution rate has been cut by about 17%—that is, cut from 12% to 10%—and from April the main rate of class 4 national insurance for self-employed people will be reduced similarly, from 9% to 8%. That tax cut is worth £9 billion a year and is the largest ever cut to employee and self-employed national insurance.
The OBR expects that the measures announced at the spring Budget and autumn statement, taken together, will support nearly 200,000 additional people into work by the end of the forecast period. We do not do this for academic reasons or for fun; we do this because we know that giving people more of their own money—allowing them to keep more of their own money—improves their living standards, and we can do this while increasing funding for public services. Despite the difficulties of the last couple of years, over the course of this Parliament public services will benefit from the public purse by an increase above inflation of over 3%. We are doing this while supporting public services, while bringing down the deficit and bringing down the debt, and we can do all of it because of our careful management of the economy. That will benefit the vulnerable people in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Carshalton and Wallington and people across the country.
These measures underscore the Government’s unwavering commitment to supporting households up and down the country. We firmly believe that the key to a prosperous future lies in creating opportunities for everyone. The boost to the national living wage and the historic reductions in national insurance contributions are powerful tools in driving employment. Getting more people into work is not just good for them; it is good for our economy and for improving living standards, and it is clear evidence of a Government who have been willing to act to the tune of over £100 billion over the last three years. By putting more money into the pockets of hardworking people, we are not only bolstering their financial wellbeing but fuelling economic growth.
As always, we need to balance support for households with fiscal sustainability. The economic position remains challenging. We continue to keep options under review as we take tough decisions to drive down debt, drive down inflation and increase prosperity in every part of the United Kingdom. These are complex issues that affect all our constituents, wherever we call home.
I thank all hon. Members, but particularly you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you are very kind, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. He cares deeply for his constituents for whom he is a brilliant advocate in this place, and it is an honour to respond to him today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you for your kind words.
Question put and agreed to.
Criminal Justice Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 11th January 2024
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 View all Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 January 2024 - (11 Jan 2024)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings—sorry about that, but those are the rules. Officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.
Today we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill are taken when we come to the relevant clause.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate, so to that extent the process is much more free-wheeling than in the more formal parts of the Chamber downstairs.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or whether they seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance so I know to call a vote.
Clause 1
Articles for use in serious crime
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 55, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert,
“, or it is not reasonable to assume that the accused possessed or had control over the item”.
This amendment would clarify that people living in shared accommodation would not be held liable for offensive articles which do not belong to them and which they are unaware of.
Amendment 52, in clause 3, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (3).
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela. I hope to follow your instruction to be free-wheeling as far as I physically can.
As the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said on Second Reading, we support this legislation. This is likely to be the final chance during this Parliament for us to legislate in the area of crime, policing and criminality, and there is much to do. There are very many good things in this legislation, so the bulk of my contributions on the initial clauses, and my amendments more generally, seek clarity and will give the Minister a chance to put certain things on the record, rather than challenging the principle of the Bill.
As we start line-by-line consideration, it is important to recognise that the public expect more from the Government and this place on crime. Ninety per cent of crimes go unsolved and the charge rate has dropped by two thirds. That means that a person who commits a crime is less than half as likely to be caught as they were in 2010, and the public feel that very significant change. Of course, that is before we get to the woeful backlogs in the court system, and what they mean for victims and the likelihood of successful prosecution. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North will no doubt cover that issue in due course.
To that record is added low confidence in policing, the disastrous legacy that we still feel of the cut of 20,000 officers, 10,000 fewer police on the frontline, and the fact that 50% of the public—a number that has doubled—say they never see a uniformed presence in their community, so there is clearly much to do. Restoring policing and justice in this country must be a national priority. We welcome in most part what the legislation offers, and most of our discord lies with what is not in the Bill and the missed opportunities. We will seek to add those things in due course.
Clause 1 relates to articles for use in serious crime. Serious and organised crime is a growing menace in our country. Organised crime is often left out of the debate about community safety. The way crime is counted pushes organised crime, and particularly fraud, to the fringes of the debate, but it is a growing enterprise and it has to be tackled head on. By its nature, it is fast moving and shapeshifting. We are in the fourth industrial revolution—an era of significant technological change at breathtaking pace—and it is crucial that we seek to keep pace. Given the nature of law and legislation, that is hard, but we have to keep pace as best we can. We know that the tools that criminals, particularly violent criminals, use to conceal their work are ever changing, so we must change to meet that need.
Clause 1 criminalises the possession of items that can be used in serious crime, and my amendments relate to that. Without pre-empting the clause 2 stand part debate, the sorts of items we are talking about include 3D printer firearms templates, tablet presses and vehicle concealments. We heard in the evidence sessions that such items are being used by some of the most serious criminals in this country and those who facilitate their work, and it is right to address that.
I turn to amendment 51, which stands in my name. Clause 1(3) says:
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the person did not intend or suspect that the relevant article would be used in connection with any serious offence.”
Basically, if the police arrest someone and want to charge them with possession of one of the items specified in clause 2, the person can say, “I didn’t know it was going to be used in this way.” My amendment would delete that provision. It is of a probing nature—I do not intend to put it to a Division—but I want to hear from the Minister why the clause has been written in such a way. It is not without precedent, but we would not routinely specify on the face of a Bill the defence that a person facing a criminal allegation could use; that would be a matter for them.
Crucially, the burden will be on the prosecutor to prove that a crime has been committed. We know from clause 1(1) that a successful conviction for the offence requires prosecutors to prove to a criminal standard that, first, the person facing the charge possessed the article in question and that, secondly, they did so in circumstances that could reasonably give rise to suspicion that it would be used to commit a serious offence. The burden is on the prosecutor to prove that, so I am keen to understand why we need to specify on the face of the Bill that a defendant could make the defence that they
“did not intend or suspect that the relevant article would be used in connection with any serious offence.”
Is subsection (3) not just subsection (1) turned inside out? On that basis, is it necessary? If subsection (1) describes the alleged crime, surely it is axiomatic that the defence would be the opposite. Does subsection (3) need to be on the face of the Bill? Could the Minister explain that? We are in danger of asking people to prove negatives, which is harder. Specifying that defence may well be relied on by authorities in the future, and if an individual struggles to prove intent, which can be quite hard, or a lack of intent, which, frankly, is even harder, it could be challenging for the justice process further on. I am keen to understand the Minister’s perspective.
Amendment 52 would have the same effect on clause 3(3) as amendment 51 would have on clause 1(3): it would remove clause 3(3). The arguments for doing so are the ones I have just made.
The final amendment I have tabled in this group is amendment 55 to clause 1. Clause 1(1) relates to possession, and subsection (4) explains what “possession” means in this context. It says that
“if it is proved that a relevant article—
(a) was on any premises at the same time as the accused, or
(b) was on premises of which the accused was the occupier or which the accused habitually used otherwise than as a member of the public,
the court may assume that the accused possessed the relevant article”—
that is how possession is proven, and I would argue that is quite a broad definition—
“unless the accused shows that they did not know of its presence on the premises or that they had no control over it.”
That is what my amendment seeks to test, because I do not think the intention of the clause is to sweep up people for being in the presence of an article that was not theirs.
My concern relates particularly to shared accommodation. I lived in shared accommodation for a couple of years before I met my wife, and for a period of time it was with people I did not really know: I did not know what they did for a living; I did not know their personal characters; and, to be honest, I did not have an awful lot of engagement with them. Many came and went, and the communal areas were largely not used, but it would not have been out of the question for someone to leave work equipment around. It would not have been impossible for someone acting in bad faith to have one of the items detailed in clause 2 in a communal area, and then to have said that it was another person who was living there or that another person at some point had touched that item in order to move it and put something else next to it. Whose article it was—and therefore who is responsible and who may well have committed an offence under clause 1—could then become quite a challenging question. There needs to be more clarity that, in such circumstances, an individual would not have committed a crime.
That is what amendment 51 seeks to add. I do not intend to labour the point all the way to a Division, but I hope the Minister will put on the record that that is not how he sees the provisions working, and that he will give the Committee some degree of comfort on how such circumstances will be avoided.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Dame Angela, as it will be in the Committee’s sittings in coming days.
I will not try to respond to the shadow Minister’s opening remarks in any detail, as we debated the wider issues on Second Reading, but I will observe in passing that we have record numbers of police officers, and overall crime, measured by the crime survey on a like-for-like basis, is 56% lower today than it was in 2010.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
That must be the only place where there are extra police.
Chris Philp
The fine city of Stockton.
I thank the shadow Minister for the thoughtful, reasonable tone that he adopted in discussing the amendments and in his opening remarks. I am sure that tone will characterise the exchanges throughout the Committee’s proceedings.
As the shadow Minister mentioned, clauses 1 to 4 criminalise the possession, importation, making, adaptation or supply of certain specified articles, where they can be used for serious criminal purposes, including items such as pill presses used to manufacture illegal pills and the templates for producing 3D firearms, about which the National Crime Agency and others are increasingly concerned.
As with strict liability offences, these offences entitle a prosecution to start with the assumption that the accused would have known what the articles were concerned with. I have mentioned a couple of those articles; there are very few, if any, legitimate uses for them.
The shadow Minister posed a reasonable question, asking why we have constructed the burden of proof in the way we have. Why say it is for the defendant to demonstrate that they had a legitimate purpose, rather than the other way round? The reason is because these articles have pretty much no legitimate uses other than for criminal purposes. Why would someone have a template to construct a 3D firearm other than for criminal purposes? There is no innocent use for that article that I can think of. The situation is similar for pill presses, unless it were a pharmaceutical company. To answer the shadow Minister’s fundamental and foundational question, that is why the burden of proof has been constructed as it has.
Amendments 51 and 52 would remove the ability for the defendant to expressly advance as a defence that they did not know about the purpose of the article, and did not know they were possessing it and so on. If the amendments were agreed to, those defences would not be available and the clause, as amended, would make these strict liability offences, with no defence that could be offered. The effect of the amendments would actually be to make the clause less favourable to the defendant.
Amendment 55 addresses items found on a premises. As the shadow Minister pointed out, at the end of clause 1(4), there is a defence that the person did not know about the item’s presence on the premises or they had no control over it; it can be one or the other, and does not have to be both. I will take the give example of shared accommodation, where people share a flat or a house. Clearly, if someone’s flatmate possessed one of these illegal articles and the flatmate did not know about it, or even if they knew about it but did not have control over it—it can be one or the other; it does not have to be both—that would then be a defence available to them. I can certainly give the assurance that he requested.
At the bottom of page 1, the clause provides that where flatmates are sharing accommodation, if one of the flatmates possessed the articles, and another flatmate had nothing to do with any offending and either did not know about the articles—or, even if they knew about them, had no control over them—that second flatmate would not be guilty of an offence, because the defence set out would be available to them. I hope that that gives the shadow Minister the assurance that he wanted.
Dame Angela, shall I save my wider remarks about the clauses for the stand part debate in the second group, or would you rather I addressed them now?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for his full answer. I am deeply disappointed that I could not draw him on wider issues, but I suspect that on a long enough timeline, he will relent. The Minister must think about the fact that he is tempted to tell us that, on crime, we have never had it so good. That is something that we will test with the general public at some point this year, and he may be disappointed. We are ready on any day of his choosing—the sooner the better.
Alex Norris
That is a very reasonable correction.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, and in particular the comfort on amendments 51 and 52, which relate to clause 1(3) and clause 3(3). I am not 100% convinced that a defendant’s ability to say that an item was not theirs has been removed; they could say that routinely, as they frequently do to police up and down the country in relation to various matters. Nevertheless, we would not want to weaken the defence, and the Minister’s point about that is enough for me to withdraw the amendments.
I am also grateful for the assurance on subsection (4), which it is important to have on the record. This is an issue—perhaps this is not for the face of the Bill—that will have to be thought about in a policing sense. The way the clause draws possession is quite broad: being on the same premises as something that someone used habitually. For example, perhaps a small group of people use a social club routinely and are engaged in a joint endeavour of committing crime. That would be quite hard for the police to identify. Probably the most likely outcome is that all individuals get charged, but there will be challenges. Again, that is probably not for the face of the Bill, but it may be something that the Government need to come back when it comes to its operation as a practical measure. They will need to work with the police to ensure that it is a practical power, because we want it to be used. We do not want the police to think it is too complicated or too broad to use, because it is very important.
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Philp
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, after “means” insert “—
(a) in England and Wales,”.
This amendment and amendments 15 to 18 extend the offence under this clause to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 15 to 17.
Government amendment 41.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 18 and 19.
Clause 2 stand part.
Government amendments 20 to 22.
Clauses 3 and 4 stand part.
Government amendment 40.
Government amendment 49.
Government amendment 44.
Chris Philp
As we have discussed, clauses 1 to 4 introduce new offences to criminalise the importation, manufacture, modification, supply, offer to supply and possession of particular articles used in serious and organised crime. They currently apply to England and Wales only, but after consultation with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Government tabled amendments 14 to 22 and 41 to extend the criminal offences to the whole of the UK. This follows a request from the devolved Administrations, which we are happy to agree to.
Clause 2 contains a delegated power for the Secretary of State to amend the list of items covered by the clause. At the outset, we cover the templates for 3D-printed firearms, pill presses and concealed compartments. This creates a power, using an affirmative statutory instrument that is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, to add additional items as we become aware of them. It is impossible for us sitting here to foresee or anticipate what items criminals may come up with in the future, so it is important to have this power to future-proof against criminal innovation.
The practical effect of amendments 40, 44 and 49 is to add these offences to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which means that when a person is found guilty of an offence, they will automatically be considered guilty of having a criminal lifestyle when the court is making a confiscation order. I am sure that the Committee will agree that when someone is involved in serious criminal activity, we would want the proceeds of that criminal activity, particularly if it is serious organised crime, to fall into the scope of the POCA regime. I have already mentioned the items included, which are listed in clause 2, and I have also referenced the affirmative statutory instrument process for adding additional items in the future.
On clause 3, it is important that we include measures on vehicle theft in the Bill. I am sure that all of us have been contacted by constituents who are concerned about their cars being stolen, particularly from their home address. Criminals do that using various forms of technology that enable them to either pick up the signal from a key fob, or hack into a vehicle’s control system, disable the immobiliser, and activate and unlock the vehicle. They then drive off. Unfortunately, that is relatively prevalent.
There are things that constituents can do, such as put their key fob into a so-called Faraday bag—a little bag with an iron mesh around it—but that could be stolen. More modern vehicles, particularly in the past two or three years, have better security measures. Nonetheless, we parliamentarians want to do everything we can to prevent this kind of technology falling into criminal hands. That is why we are providing for two new criminal offences relating to vehicle theft using electronic devices such as signal jammers, but there are others also. The first offence criminalises possession of those devices, and the second criminalises importing, making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply those devices.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I might be showing my entire ignorance of signal jammers, but is there no other use for these bits of technology? I can see whether there is when it comes to stamping things on pills and plans to build a gun on a 3D printer, but my ignorance about signal jammers means that I do not know whether there is another use for them.
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Lady for that very good question. These two offences require a reasonable suspicion that the device will be used in connection with vehicle theft. The judge or the jury, depending on whether we are talking about magistrates court or the Crown court, have to be satisfied there is a reasonable suspicion that that is what the device will be used for. It is important that the police have the powers to arrest and prosecute people involved in this kind of activity. The offences should help a great deal in stopping these electronic devices getting into criminal hands.
We have talked a little bit about the evidential burden of proof in clause 4, and I will not rehearse those points at great length, in the interests of Committee members’ patience and time. As many of the articles that we are talking about can be used only for criminal purposes, it is reasonable to construct the clause this way. Members of the Committee will recall that we took evidence on this issue from a number of people in law enforcement, including Graeme Biggar, the director general of the National Crime Agency. Law enforcement—both territorial policing and the NCA—strongly welcomes these measures as strengthening the police’s armoury in the fight against organised crime. Through this regulation-making power, Ministers and Parliament will be able to keep up with changes in technology, which is extremely important given how fast technology is moving these days.
Alex Norris
I will start with the Government’s amendments. It is good, in general, for Governments to amend their Bills; it shows that they are still looking at the legislation. We hope to see them show the same flexibility to our amendments in due course. I am grateful for the written explanation the Minister has furnished, although it is possible that my first emotion upon getting dozens of amendments in the week before Christmas may not have been gratitude; I think there might have been a bit of swearing when we got the other set earlier this week, too. Nevertheless, we appreciate the explainer.
As we have heard, Government amendments 14 to 17, 20 to 22 and 41 extend the provisions in clauses 1 to 4 to Scotland and Northern Ireland, which is welcome. A four-nations approach to tackling serious and organised crime is wise. We do not want such activity to be displaced to places that are not covered by legislation, or for areas or indeed countries to be seen as safe havens. That has to be the right thing to do. I hope that the Minister will say a little about the discussions he had with colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland to reach this conclusion, and what other work may be done to ensure that the legislation is used effectively.
Having listened to what the Minister said on Government amendments 40, 49 and 44 on proceeds of crime, we are similarly comfortable with the approach being taken with those. As the Minister said, we heard from Graeme Biggar and other witnesses about the importance of the proceeds of crime. These measures would tighten that regime, which is welcome.
I covered most of our views on clause 1 when speaking to my amendments, so I will not repeat them. I will just say that the clause is an important step forward, and something on which we are keen. Clause 2 defines what is meant by “relevant article”. The articles in scope today are 3D printer firearms templates, encapsulators, tablet presses and vehicle concealments. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. We cannot have non-Members of Parliament coming into the Committee in that way. I hope we do not see that again.
Alex Norris
During the evidence sessions, we heard about such articles and the fact that they are being used by serious criminals. It is right that we send a signal from this place that those who use or make such things for others to use cannot do so without risking serious punishment. Again, we welcome Government amendment 18, which extends the provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Clause 2(3) gives the Secretary of State powers to vary these articles—to add or subtract from them—through regulations. I will break the habit of a lifetime here, or certainly the habit of the past six and a half years—I promise I will get spicier than this. Over the past six and a half years, I have made countless speeches on the excessive use of Henry VIII clauses in Government legislation. If we added up all the speeches that Labour Members have made over the past six and a half years on that subject, it would be an extraordinary number. Such clauses became a defining feature of legislation relating to Brexit, and their use has become epidemic. Pushing measures that ought to be in a Bill into secondary legislation, so that they are decided on with less scrutiny —for Government convenience, frankly—is generally a bad idea. However, there are contexts where Henry VIII clauses are actually necessary, and I think that this is one of them. [Interruption.] Exactly: we have found the one example.
As we have debated, the nature of serious and organised crime is fast-moving, and the threat is ever changing; we have to be nimble and able to keep pace. It is therefore right that items can be added with a degree of speed. On that basis, we support this measure, although there are other uses that I will challenge significantly later on.
I hope the Minister might be able to give us a little comfort, as we are giving the Secretary of State significant power. Perhaps he could give us a little clarity on how he envisages the power being used. Who would the Secretary of State consult? Is there a commitment to consult? How would decisions taken be reviewed, once they were taken in one of these upstairs Committee Rooms? Is there anything on the watchlist at the moment that may be in scope for this Parliament, or is it not anticipated that this power will be used for the rest of this Session? It is crucial that the power be used effectively and safely, and that the Government engage and are transparent. We welcome the fact that Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland will be consulted before its use—that is a good balance for the devolved settlement—but again, I would like to hear a little more from the Minister on that.
Chris Philp
I will briefly respond to one or two of the points the shadow Minister raised. We engaged with the devolved Administrations both at an official level and through correspondence. I am glad to say that they were pretty keen to ensure that the new offences applied in Scotland and Northern Ireland. As the shadow Minister said, it is very important to ensure that serious criminals have no part of the United Kingdom in which they can operate. I am glad to observe generally that despite political differences, particularly with the nationalists in Scotland, we have a relatively good relationship on law enforcement co-operation. Generally, we work quite constructively together in a non-confrontational, non-politicised way, as I guess our constituents, the public, and the whole House would expect.
On the affirmative regulation-making power, I am grateful to the shadow Minister for breaking his habit and supporting it. He is quite right to say that this is technically a Henry VIII power, in that it is a statutory instrument that can amend primary legislation—under clause 2(3), the statutory instrument can amend the clause—but it has very limited scope, because only this clause can be amended. The only purpose for which the power can be used is specifying additional types of technology, because that is all that the clause does. While this is a Henry VIII power, it has very limited and specific applicability.
As for adding future items, there is nothing immediately on the list. I expect us to stay very closely in touch with the law enforcement community, particularly the National Crime Agency, but also the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for serious and organised crime, and the regional organised crime units, who would rapidly identify new bits of technology used by criminals, so that we could very quickly add them. There is not a statutory duty to consult—other than, of course, with Scotland and Northern Ireland’s devolved Administrations—but we did consult on these provisions. It would be our intention, unless there was an emergency situation, to consult prior to adding any new items, lest there were unintended consequences. I hope that addresses the points raised, and I commend the four clauses to the Committee.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Amendments made: 15, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(b) in Scotland, an offence specified or described in Part 1A of that Schedule;
(c) in Northern Ireland, an offence specified or described in Part 2 of that Schedule.”
See the statement for amendment 14.
Amendment 16, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, after “conviction” insert “in England and Wales”.
See the statement for amendment 14.
Amendment 17, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
“(aa) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(ab) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);”.—(Chris Philp.)
See the statement for amendment 14.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Section 1: meaning of “relevant article”
Amendments made: 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, after “1968” insert
“or, in Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/702 (N.I. 3))”.
See the statement for amendment 14.
Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 2, line 30, leave out “subsection).” and insert
“subsection or subsection (4)).
(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. —(Chris Philp.)
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland before making regulations under this clause.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Electronic devices for use in vehicle theft
Amendments made: 20, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in England and Wales—
(i) an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 of theft of a conveyance (as defined by section 12 of that Act) or anything in a conveyance, or
(ii) an offence under section 12 of that Act (taking vehicle or other conveyance without authority);
(b) in Scotland—
(i) theft of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft constructed or adapted for use for transporting one or more persons or of anything in such a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or
(ii) an offence under section 178 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (taking motor vehicle without authority);
(c) in Northern Ireland—
(i) an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 of theft of a conveyance (as defined by section 12 of that Act) or anything in a conveyance, or
(ii) an offence under section 12 of that Act (taking vehicle or other conveyance without authority).”
This amendment and amendments 21 and 22 extend the offence under this clause to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 3, line 16, after “conviction” insert “in England and Wales”
See the statement for amendment 20.
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
“(aa) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(ab) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);”—(Chris Philp.)
See the statement for amendment 20.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Possession of a SIM farm
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Government amendment 47.
Schedule 1.
Chris Philp
As Members will be aware, criminals often use telecommunications networks to target people to try and defraud them, for example with scam texts and scam calls. In fact, the secretary of my local residents association in Coulsdon, in my constituency of Croydon South, sent me a message just this morning with an example of a scam text that she had just received, purporting to come from the Royal Mail and inviting her to click on a link and fill in her details. This is clearly a problem.
I am sure that we have all heard such examples; indeed, we have probably received messages ourselves. Although most people can identify them as scams trying to elicit fraud, unfortunately some people who receive them are taken in, because the messages can often be quite realistic, and often they end up losing significant amounts of money.
Very often, these scam texts can be traced back to so-called “SIM farms”, which are electronic devices that sometimes hold hundreds of physical SIM cards that can be used to send out thousands and thousands of scam text messages in a matter of seconds. These devices are relatively easy to buy and—until this Bill passes into law—they are legal to buy online, enabling criminals to commit large-scale fraud by abusing our telecommunications network. In the fraud strategy, we committed to stopping that, which is why we are legislating.
We consulted on these proposals in May 2023 and received broad support for these measures. There were some concerns about the definitions being too broad, such that they would inadvertently criminalise some legitimate activity, but we have worked to develop the legislation in order to address those concerns.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
On that particular point about possession of a SIM farm, the Bill says that a person charged with an offence under the clause must provide “good reason”. It goes on to state what the good reasons are, for example providing broadcasting services. However, I would have assumed that a broadcasting service would be already licensed; similarly, if a body is operating a genuine public transport service, it is probably a local authority. Could the Minister explain that “good reason” a bit more? It seems a bit woolly or wide to me. Somebody who is clever enough to run a SIM farm would be clever enough to find a way around that somehow. I want to support the Government in advancing their proposal, but is it possible to tighten it up a bit more?
Chris Philp
The hon. Member raises a concern that inventive criminals might exploit the defences we set out in clause 5(3), on lines 37 to 40 at the bottom of page 3, which he was quoting from. He is concerned that criminals might find a way of pretending or purporting to offer, for example, legitimate broadcasting services when in fact they do not. I think that a court would take a view on legitimate broadcasting services. If there was a prosecution and a criminal advanced that defence, it would be up to the jury to decide whether the broadcasting services really were legitimate.
Since the hon. Member has raised the point, I will happily take it away and see whether there are any concerns that the clause might inadvertently provide a loophole for ingenious or inventive criminals. I will seek to satisfy myself that that is not the case, but if he has identified a problem or potential loophole, I will happily come back to the Committee. I will take that away as a point to double check. We can probably rely on juries, or magistrates in a magistrates court trial, to apply common sense to those defences, but it is good that he raised the question and I will certainly look into it.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
On that point, it is possible for scammers to intercept texts that come from a credible bank, so they can slot in a text in the line of communication between a person and their credible bank. Have the Government given any thought as to how we can stop that happening? I feel it makes us even more vulnerable.
Chris Philp
That sort of interception and insertion is not addressed by this clause, which is about SIM farms and the almost industrial-scale transmission of thousands of messages. What the hon. Lady is describing is a little different. It can happen to emails as well. For example, if someone is about to buy a house, they may be corresponding with their solicitor. When the solicitor tells them to transfer the funds to X bank account, a criminal can insert themselves into the email chain, pretending to be the solicitor, and put in a message telling the client to send the funds to their own bank instead of the solicitor’s client account. Inserting messages into an email chain happens quite a bit, but that is not what this clause is designed to address. The Security Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), is very aware of the issue because it falls into his portfolio rather than mine. Perhaps I could ask his officials to write to the hon. Lady to update her on the work he is doing with law enforcement on that point, because this clause just does not address it.
Turning back to the group of clauses, it is worth saying that these offences will make it difficult—I hope impossible—for criminals to access and use SIM farms for the purposes of fraud, and the police will be given the tools that they need to disrupt them. Clauses 5 and 6 ban the possession and supply of a SIM farm. However, as I have already said in response to the hon. Member for Bootle, if a person has good reason or lawful authority, obviously that is not criminalised. We have talked a bit about the legitimate use issue already, and there are some examples provided in clause 5, as we have discussed.
I will turn to amendment 47 to schedule 1. Schedule 1 confers powers of entry, search and seizure in relation to these offences. There is an offence of intentionally obstructing a constable when they are carrying out a search—the search is to be unimpeded, obviously . That offence also needs to apply in the case of people who are exercising the power of a constable, such as designated National Crime Agency officers, who are not necessarily constables. Amendment 47 to schedule 1 is a technical amendment that makes sure that all the relevant people can exercise this power of search: not just constables, but any person who is exercising the power of a constable. It is a technical amendment, making sure that it applies to everybody undertaking those searches to hopefully find and prosecute criminals who are using SIM farms. On that basis, I commend these provisions to the Committee.
Alex Norris
Fraud is an everyday, large-scale fact of life in this country. According to the crime survey, there were 3.7 million instances of fraud in England and Wales in 2022. Fraud now represents 40% of all crimes. It is an everyday peril that all of us face and from which vulnerable people are clearly at risk.
Furthermore, the National Crime Agency estimates that 86% of fraud goes unreported. That means that victims are unsupported and vital evidence that could break some of the fraud rings goes uncollected. We have to do better and build confidence among the public that fraud is not just a fact of life but that, if they report it, something will happen.
We have to push back on the idea—I hope that the Minister will be very clear about this in his response—that, to some degree, fraud is a lesser crime. When citing the statistics on crime reduction that the Minister cited in his opening speech, about which people say, “Yes, but you have not counted fraud in that”, we have heard other Ministers say—although I do not think we have heard this Minister say it—“Well, fraud is not quite the same as those crimes. It is a lesser crime. It doesn’t feel quite as bad”. That is wrong, and I hope that the Minister will say, on the record, that that is not the view of the Government.
Alex Cunningham
I want to give an example to illustrate exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. My neighbour across the road, who is sadly now deceased, had a number of instances where a person was calling her—from her bank, apparently—to persuade her to move funds to different accounts because they were “checking their security”. She was ready to do that and, had it not been for an alert taxi driver, she would have transferred several thousand pounds from one bank account to another, the latter of those being that of a fraudster. For me, that is a tremendous crime. I think the amount was £6,000. Does that not best illustrate what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North is saying to the Minister?
The Chair
I am getting my Alexes mixed up. My apologies to Alex Cunningham; I now call Alex Norris.
Alex Norris
If I were to open my social media accounts now, I think that I would find myself called an awful lot worse than Alex Cunningham, so I have no problem with that at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North is absolutely right, though. That sort of action can ruin lives. And it can destroy a business. I probably should not be relying on “Coronation Street” for my arguments, but there is a good storyline about that at the moment. It can ruin a business. We know that there is vulnerability there. For an individual, losing that sort of sum of money—£6,000—could ruin their life. It could jeopardise their housing situation, and it can jeopardise relationships, too—we have seen that happen in the past—so it is very serious. It knocks people’s confidence as well; it makes people not want to engage with others. This is just as important as other crimes, and it is really important that we send out that message.
Part of the reason for the success that criminals have is that they can do mass-scale phishing. That means that, while there are things that we all receive and think, “Well, that’s a pretty crude scam. Who is going to fall for that?”, we know that trying crude and rudimentary things over and over again on a mass scale can, on a long enough timeline, succeed.
That is before we get to the incredibly sophisticated methods that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle mentioned, and I welcome the response that the Minister gave on that. There is a difference. The Minister mentioned his constituent and Royal Mail. Most of the time, I would look at the link and say, “Well, that’s not Royal Mail.” I would ignore it and move on. But, if I was expecting something from Royal Mail, I cannot tell you with 100% certainty that I would do that. That is the case not least because we always want what is coming: “Where is it? Come on, I’m ready for it.” I can easily see how that mistake can be made, and that mistake could have a profound and long-term impact on someone’s life. It is only possible to do that because of technology that allows relentless and repeated communication attempts, and we know that so-called SIM farms are the way that that is done.
We support the aim behind clause 5 of making an offence of the possession of a SIM farm. I have reservations about the utility of subsection (2), but we have probably tested that debate to destruction. The point that was made about “good reason” was really good. I am slightly uncomfortable with the Minister’s response that the court will set that; I think we could do that. There are legitimate, although deeply irritating, marketing purposes for that degree of communication—it is for others to say how effective it is. Even political parties engage in it sometimes, so bulk text messages are not without precedent. It feels like we can tighten up the clause to specify who can use these things and to what purpose. Again, there will be edge cases that fall between the marketing of a bad product and the marketing of a fraudulent product. There is a difference between those things. People have a right to advertise a product that is not very good. We would not want to consumer it, use it or buy it, but they can do that. That would be at the edge of the cases we are talking about here, so we need greater clarity, and perhaps the Government can tighten that up before Report.
Clause 7 introduces schedule 1, which is amended by Government amendment 47. The schedule relates to the offence of obstructing a person in their endeavours to investigate possible offences under clauses 5 and 6. The effect of the amendment is that a person cannot obstruct someone other than a constable as that search warrant is being executed. Again, we do not have a problem with that—people need to comply with the provisions of the law—but we need a bit more clarity. I do not say this to be smart; I just want to understand it. The Minister characterises this as a technical amendment, which is a term of art in this place. Was there a drafting error or does it genuinely not change the substance of this provision? I do not think the intention is for lots and lots of people to have the ability to exercise these powers. It is tightly defined, and those who are not constables who can do this will be accompanied by a constable, but we could do with a bit more clarity.
Finally on this topic, part of the challenge we face is that although some of these enterprises will be set up in this country, they can also be set up and executed from other nations that have weaker arrangements than we will have, assuming this legislation passes. Will the Minister tell us about the conversations the Government are having with European and global partners about this, and give us some information about where the hotspots are so that there is greater public awareness?
Chris Philp
Let me respond to one or two of the issues that the shadow Minister quite reasonably raised.
Fraud makes up about 40% of all criminal offences—the figure I have in my mind is 41%. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is incredibly serious, and I have certainly never suggested anything to the contrary. It can devastate people’s lives. People who have worked hard over a lifetime building up their life savings to fund their retirement or their children’s education can suddenly have them taken from them in very distressing circumstances, so there is no question but that fraud is an extremely serious crime. The Government take it extremely seriously, which is why there is a fraud action plan, backed with investment—we recently provided over £100 million of extra money.
I was one of the Ministers through whose hands the Online Safety Act 2023 passed during its extremely lengthy gestation. It will have a significant effect by requiring the large social media platforms to proactively take steps to prevent fraud. Some of them have already done that voluntarily, and there have been big reductions in the amount of online-originated fraud, so this is a huge priority.
The simple reason we do not include fraud when comparing the overall crime figures to 2010 is that it got picked up by the crime survey for England and Wales, alongside computer misuse, only in about 2016. If the figures going back to 2010 existed, we would obviously include them. When we talk about a 56% reduction in crime since 2010 to on a like-for-like basis, which I am sure I will be referring to once or twice in the next year, it excludes fraud and computer misuse only because they were not in that series of figures.
Chris Philp
I will in a moment. When we compare the crime figures since 2016, we see that overall crime has fallen. For example, overall crime including fraud and computer misuse has fallen by 10% in the last year, which I am sure the shadow Minister is about to stand up and welcome.
Alex Norris
I gently say that, in their attempts to create a picture of community safety—which is not what people feel—there is a problem in Government Ministers relying on statistics that they know to be incomplete. There should be some reflection on the numbers cited. I understand the like-for-like point—that is true—but it is problematic to tell the public how much safer they are if that argument relies on excluding a significant and growing type of crime. That must be wrong.
Chris Philp
It is not reliant on that. It is simply that the data does not exist. The chief inspector of constabulary Andy Cooke said in his state of policing report last June that we are arguably safer than we have ever been before. If we look at the crime types for which we do have continuous data going back to 2010 and before—such as burglary, robbery, the vehicle theft figures that the shadow Minister himself quoted recently, violent and seriously violent crime—we see that all of those individual crime types have fallen dramatically.
Chris Philp
In a moment. Bicycle theft is down by 39%, vehicle crime by about 50%, and violent crime by around 50%. It is not the case that some sort of artifice going on and that if we added fraud, that would paint a different picture. Whichever crime type we look at, we see that it is going down according to the crime survey. We all know why police reported crime sometimes shows different trends. It is because the police are being driven by—we are getting a bit off topic here, so I am probably going to get told off in a minute.
Chris Philp
Yes. There is probably another time to debate this point, and perhaps now is a good moment to give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley.
Jess Phillips
I think I am at risk of offending you in the Chair, Dame Angela, but may I have the data for whether rape, child abuse or domestic violence have gone up or down?
The Chair
I have been quite lax because I prefer a free-wheeling debate in Committee. It is important that people are allowed to make arguments in a slightly wider way, but we still have to stay in order. I was happy to listen to the fraud debate, given the clauses we are debating, but let us get back to order.
Chris Philp
Thank you, Dame Angela; you were extremely tolerant, but I could sense the frostiness beginning to build without even looking at you.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, asked two more questions on this group, which I will answer very briefly. He asked for assurance that this technical amendment was not a smokescreen for some nefarious Government plot. The wording of Government amendment 47 is very clear, in that it just inserts the words,
“a person who has the powers of a constable”.
Therefore, it extends the powers of search only where that person has the powers of a constable, which of course is set out in legislation. I gave as an example certain employees of the National Crime Agency. This is not an open-ended provision—it is very specific and precisely defined in law as someone who already has the powers as a constable. We are not creating any new powers in the Bill, other than that those people who have the powers of a constable can conduct these searches.
The shadow Minister also asked about international co-operation, which is extremely important. My colleague the Security Minister works very closely with international partners—in fact, he is almost constantly travelling. There will be an international summit chaired by the Home Secretary later this year on the very topic of combating fraud, working closely with the Five Eyes and engaging bilaterally with the European Union and other key countries. There are various jurisdictions that tend to originate more of this fraud—Russia, for example—and the Security Minister in particular and the Home Secretary are working very closely on that. In order to avoid any further disapproval, Dame Angela, I think I have answered the questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Possession or supply of Sim farms: powers of entry etc
Amendment made: 47, in schedule 1, page 75, line 15, after “includes” insert “—
(a) a person who has the powers of a constable;
(b)”.—(Chris Philp.)
This amendment provides that the offence in this paragraph applies in respect of persons who have the powers of a constable.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8
Fraud facilitated by electronic communications: possession or supply of other
articles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
We have already discussed that technological change can be very rapid, and that criminals, including fraudsters, are quite technologically literate and very often embrace emerging tech capabilities to attempt to defraud the public. Just as we previously discussed in relation to articles used for serious and organised crime, so here, in clause 8, we are proposing to create a power by regulations for the Secretary of State to make a list of new items that might be prohibited where they can be used for the purposes of committing crime by way of electronic communications.
As the shadow Minister has said, one has to be a little cautious about conferring regulation-making powers too freely, so there are constraints on this. For example, the offences created using these regulation-making powers can only create summary offences of possessing or supplying technology to be used in connection with fraud facilitated by electronic communication. It is very specific and very narrow.
The shadow Minister previously asked about consultation. I said that there was no statutory requirement to consult on those extensions—outside of the devolved Administrations, of course—but that the broad intention was to do so, unless there was a very good reason otherwise, such as an emergency. Here, however, we do have a statutory duty to consult. Members will find it in clause 8(5), which states that
“the Secretary of State must consult such persons appearing…to be likely to be affected by the regulations”.
There is therefore a statutory obligation to consult here, which I hope provides the shadow Minister with the assurance that he is probably about to ask for.
Alex Norris
I am afraid that clause 8 deeply frustrates me. I do not think it is in any way the same as clause 2(3). That provision allows the Secretary of State to add items to and remove them from an established list concerning an offence that is established in law on the face of the Bill. This is slightly different. Clause 8(1) states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations create a summary offence of possessing or supplying an article specified in the regulations.”
That is making a law, not monitoring a list. This is an example of a Henry VIII power used badly. The provision should be in the Bill, and if the nature of the networks is likely to change over time, there should be a mirroring power, similar to that in clause 2(3), that enables us to change the list. We would have supported that. This puts us in an invidious position. Of course, we want this to be in legislation and we want there to be regulation and control over electronic communications networks or services being used in a dangerous way. However, we are being asked to jump into the abyss and to choose between either voting against including in the Bill something that we think is broadly a good idea, or allowing the Government to do an incomplete job and leave a placeholder. Even as I stand here, I am not sure which is the right answer.
I welcome the fact that consultation is on the face of the Bill. That gives us some degree of safeguard. However, accepting the clause would mean accepting that a significant offence would be created and decided upstairs, rather than in the white heat of the legislative process. I do not think that is right. I am not sure if the Minister is able to say anything that will give me slightly greater comfort. If we were able to see what the offence looked like between different stages of a Committee, that would probably be enough to salve my pain. I do not think that will happen, but I will listen to what the Minister says.
Chris Philp
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his question. I point to the way the clause is constructed. Clause 8(2) is narrowly defined, in that is says:
“An article may be specified only if the Secretary of State considers that there is a significant risk of the article being used for a purpose connected with fraud that is perpetrated by means of—
(a) an electronic communication network, or
(b) an electronic communication service.”
Clearly the Secretary of State’s decision would be amenable to judicial review if it were unreasonably exercised. The scope of the ability to create a new criminal offence is highly circumscribed and it has to fit within that narrow box in the Bill.
Alex Norris
I accept that that is circumscribed; it is not narrow. However, electronic communication networks constitute an exceptionally broad area of British life, touching us every minute of every day, and that does not feel very narrow at all.
Chris Philp
That is only part of the circumscription, because prior to that the clause says,
“being used for a purpose connected with fraud”.
If we think about that as a Venn diagram, the shadow Minister is right to say that electronic communication networks and services represent an enormous field. However, that is not where the power is created. It is created in the intersection between that bit of the Venn diagram and the bit where the article or technology is being used for a purpose connected with fraud, and that intersection is a lot smaller.
I do not think that any member of this Committee or any Member of Parliament, of either party, would object to criminalising technology being used for a particular fraudulent purpose. In addition to the protection afforded by the statutory obligation to consult, there is also the fact that this can only be a summary offence, which severely limits the maximum penalty that may be applied.
Alex Norris
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous. I completely agree that there is not a person in this building—including, I suspect, the mice on the Terrace—who think that it is a bad idea to have powers that restrict fraudulent use of electronic communications. The problem is that in the previous debate the test for that was good reason and then we would rely on the court. In the eyes of Government, therefore, it is clearly not black and white whether it is fraud and they may well rely on others to define that. In order to get through the blockage, perhaps the Minister could think about that in the context of the assurances he gave on good reason to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle. That would probably be enough for me at this point.
Chris Philp
I can certainly confirm that where someone possesses technology for a good and legitimate reason, by definition it would not be getting used for a purpose connected with fraud. I can also confirm that where someone possesses communications technology for a legitimate purpose and not for use in connection with fraud, we would not expect that to ever be criminalised, either through offences created via this clause or in any other way. I hope that assures the shadow Minister.
Subsection 4 says:
“The regulations may—
(a) contain exceptions or defences”
of exactly the kind that we have created in clauses 1 to 4 already.
I hope that the assurance I have given, which will be in Hansard, combined with the narrow nature of this, the narrow scope of the ability to create offences, the statutory duty to consult, and the fact that it is a summary offence, meaning that the maximum term is six months at the moment—all those things taken together—will give the shadow Minister assurance on the questions that he is raising.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Possession of weapon with intent to use unlawful violence etc
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 53 in clause 9, page 6, line 24, at end insert—“(c) a sword.”
This amendment would make clear that the bladed articles in scope include swords.
Alex Norris
Clause 9 introduces a new offence of possessing an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon with the intent to use unlawful violence. Knife crime is a scourge in this country. It devastates communities and families. It feels that we have a steady drumbeat of tragic cases, which, as I say, have a devastating effect, and it is right that we are taking action to do something about it. We should want to take action. This is not new; it feels to some degree that we have been spinning our wheels on action, but we are here now, so let us take that on its face.
The Government consulted in April last year on restricting the possession of so-called zombie knives and have announced on multiple occasions that they plan to enact such restrictions. I hope the Minister will give some clarity but, from the explanatory notes, I think that this is an attempt to make good on that. Paragraph 45 of the explanatory notes says:
“Following the closure of the consultation in June 2023, the Government published its response in August 2023. In that response, the Government committed to implementing all the proposals.”
Those are the proposals relating to restrictions on so-called zombie knives.
“Clauses 18, 10 and 9 give effect to those requiring primary legislation”.
I hope the Minister will be able to say whether this is the final stage of the ban’s implementation. Previously, we have been expecting secondary legislation in this regard.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for that commitment. Currently, it is an offence to carry an article with a blade or point of over three inches, with the exception of a pocket-knife, in a public place. It is also an offence to threaten somebody with an offensive weapon and to carry in public any article intended to be used as an offensive weapon. As we understand it, the introduction of this new offence bridges the gap between threatening someone with a bladed article and being in possession of such an article.
Again, we support the intention to close the gap and ensure that we crack down on this scourge. Sharp instruments or knives are currently responsible for 41% of homicides, so clearly the police need stronger powers to deal with that. However, we think that the Government could go further and be clearer about what blades or weapons should be covered by the new offence. That is the effect of my amendment 53. Secondary legislation may be the place for that, rather than the Bill, but I do not want to miss the substance of amendment 53.
In recent years, there has been progress on banning certain weapons used in violent attacks. We have debated measures, for example, on adding knuckledusters, sword-sticks and now zombie knives to the list of offensive weapons. That progress is welcome, but again it does not go far enough because with increasing frequency supposedly decorative blades, such as ninja swords, are being used in violent knife attacks. It is vital that we update legislation again to include blades such as those.
The impact of my amendment would be to add swords to the list. I am perfectly aware that the Bill may not be the most elegant place for it, but what I am trying to get from the Minister is a commitment to extend the ban to swords. Recently, I met the family of Ronan Kanda and their Member of Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). They told me their story and about their campaign for justice. Ronan, a beloved son and brother, was just 16 years old when he was walking back to his home in Wolverhampton after picking up a PlayStation controller from a friend’s house. Just a few yards from his front door, Ronan was attacked from behind by two 16-year-olds carrying a machete and a ninja sword. Ronan was stabbed twice, suffering wounds to his back and chest. Tragically, he died at the scene.
It was later revealed that the perpetrators of this heinous act had mistaken Ronan for someone else and that he was not the intended target. The weapons used in the attack had been bought online by the perpetrators—just 16 years old themselves at the time—using another person’s ID, and had been collected from a local post office by them on the day of the attack. In July this year, they were sentenced to 18 and 16 years in prison for their crime.
When I met Ronan’s family recently, it was clear that what happened had shaken them to their core. It has had a devastating impact on their lives. I commend their unspeakable bravery in campaigning to try to create change as a result. I felt very guilty—this will happen with many others, too—that they had to tell their story yet again when I met them; there is that process of telling the story all over again in the pursuit of change. The family campaign now for ninja swords, the type used in Ronan’s murder, to be taken off the streets so that other families do not suffer such a loss. I again commend their extraordinary bravery.
The test that I will apply to the Government’s changes on zombie knives, and on broader knife crime, is whether they would take off the streets a weapon like the one that killed Ronan; if not, the changes will fall short. Existing legislation does not cover ninja swords, and nor does the Bill. From the Government’s response to the consultation on knife crime, I understand that they intend to stop short of ninja swords. I believe that to be a mistake, which will be compounded by other restrictions.
Leaving the ninja swords loophole in place will push sales and marketing towards ninja swords—if people cannot buy a zombie knife but can buy a ninja sword, that will displace activity and make the swords more likely to be carried. That risks more lives being lost, due to the lesser consequences for carrying.
Amendment 53 would add ninja swords explicitly to the Bill. We think the clause is good and important, but the amendment would enhance it. I know that an issue has been raised about ninja swords for decorative purposes, but I do not think that it is beyond us to have arrangements for when that can be managed. Again, the clause is not about possession—it is narrower: about the intent to cause unlawful violence—so I do not think that issue should be a concern, although there could be some sort of licensing scheme to address it.
I am very much looking forward to what the Minister says. This is not a criticism, but I just do not understand why in his plan he stopped short of ninja swords. I hope to get that clarity. Even if not today, the Government need to move on this. I hope to hear that that process is starting.
Chris Philp
It may be helpful to clarify the two different kinds of provisions that apply; the shadow Minister was conflating the two slightly. The first area, the one that we are debating, is to do with the existing offence of possessing any bladed article in a public place without good reason. That can include a legal kitchen knife. That carrying is a criminal offence under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998. That applies to every bladed article, even ones that are legal, such as a kitchen knife or anything else. It also applies to swords, including ninja swords, because they are bladed articles with a sharp point.
At the moment, the possession of any such knives, including so-called legal knives, carries a maximum sentence of up to two years if someone is caught in possession. For a second possession offence, the mandatory minimum is six months in prison, absent exceptional circumstances—we tightened that up in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That is the law for possessing blades in public.
The clause states that when someone possesses any bladed article—including a legal kitchen knife—with intent to cause damage, the maximum sentence will not be two years, as currently, but four years, if that person intends to cause harm. For example, they might put a video on TikTok saying, “I’m going to stab X”. If there is intention to cause harm, that doubles the maximum sentence. That is what the clause does. The amendment to include swords is not necessary, because every bladed article, including swords, is already included.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North was actually talking about a different set of provisions, which were included in our consultation and our response: banning certain kinds of knives. When a knife is banned, it cannot be sold, imported or possessed even in private. Something such as a zombie knife was covered in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, where it has threatening writing on the blade. Such knives cannot even be held in someone’s home. Having banned knives at home or selling them to anyone is an offence; a kitchen knife can of course be sold and had at home, but even a kitchen knife cannot be carried down the street without a good reason.
In our consultation, we were talking about the knives that people cannot even possess privately at home; they cannot be sold or imported, and they are completely prohibited. The measures we announced in the Bill will simply increase the list of things on the completely prohibited list. For example, a loophole in the 2019 Act meant that threatening words on the blade were required for the zombie knife to be illegal. We are removing that provision, so that any zombie knife, even with nothing on the blade, will still be illegal—common sense, really.
Those changes—widening the range of knives that will be completely illegal—will be made not through the Bill, but through secondary legislation that will be laid before the House in the near future, by which I mean a small number of weeks. I do not wish to provoke the ire of the Chair, so I should say that the place to debate what should be in and out of that list is probably in the Delegated Legislation Committee that will come soon, in a small number of weeks.
I thank the shadow Minister for mentioning the case raised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I have also met Ronan’s family, who were brought into Parliament by the right hon. Member. We obviously both heard the same account of their story. It was extremely moving and tragic that such a young life was lost. I think it was a case of mistaken identity—as the shadow Minister said, Ronan was attacked from behind. I add my tribute to the family, and to Ronan’s mum and sister in particular, who have recounted the terrible, traumatic event to try to improve law enforcement in this area. We are mindful of that case, and I look forward to debating what is on and off the list when we come to it.
For complete clarity, I repeat the point that the possession of any bladed article, including swords and even kitchen knives, in a public place without good reason is already a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of two years. When a knife is possessed with intent, as in the attack on Ronan—the two youths obviously intended to go and kill someone, although it was someone else—the clause increases the maximum sentence from two years to four years. In that case the youths clearly committed homicide, which obviously has life as a maximum sentence.
I hope that I have provided clarity about the purpose of the clause and explained why the change is necessary, because it is included already, and that in secondary legislation we are altering the law on completely prohibited weapons. That will happen in a small number of weeks. I hope that addresses both the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and the substantive provisions in clause 9.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the clarity on what will be covered under the provision. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I must say that I am a bit frustrated: it was not clear from the explanatory notes whether this was the full ban. Clearly, from the answer that I have been given, it is not. However, it is a shame that the change will come in secondary legislation, because we are here now—we have legislation in front of us—and we cannot amend secondary legislation.
There will be a big debate in the Delegated Legislation Committee on the point about swords. We will be put in an invidious position, because of course we will not vote against the secondary legislation, but we will not be able to get the change that we really want and we will continue to miss out. The Government’s approach is slightly frustrating. The commitment that the secondary legislation is coming shortly is good, but I hope that the Minister will use the time to reflect on my point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Criminal Justice Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 11th January 2024
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 View all Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 January 2024 - (11 Jan 2024)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
On a point of order, Ms Bardell. First, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Secondly, for the record, I just clarify that the maximum sentence for a possession offence under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is four years. This morning, I inadvertently said two years.
The Chair
I thank the Minister for that point of order.
Clause 10
Maximum penalty for offences relating to offensive weapons
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 10, page 7, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) In the Offensive Weapons Act 2019—
(a) In section 39(7), omit paragraph (a) and insert “on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both)”
(b) In section 42(10), omit paragraph (a) and insert “on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both).”
This amendment would increase the penalty for delivering bladed products or articles to someone under 18 from just a fine.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Bardell, and to resume proceedings. They were very good-natured this morning, and I am sure they will be similarly good-natured this afternoon.
Clause 10, like clause 9, relates to the Government’s consultation on banning or restricting sale or possession of knives. As we did this morning, we support that important venture. Clause 10 increases the maximum penalty from six months’ to two years’ imprisonment for the offences of importation, manufacture, sale and supply, and possession of a weapon, flick knife or gravity knife. This is a welcome change that we support. We must send a clear message that those who commit such offences, whether to supply offensive weapons or to profit from them, are not beyond the reach of the law.
It is also welcome to see that these offences will be triable either way, and therefore to provide the police more time to investigate alleged offences without the pressure of the current time limit of six months for prosecution. It is right that we give the police the flexibility to ensure that they can gather the necessary evidence to secure convictions and ensure that the full impact of these changes can be felt. Clause 10, taken with clause 9, is very much a step in the right direction.
I want to use this opportunity to press the Minister, through amendment 54, on an area that I think is missing from the Bill: proper age checks for those who are buying bladed products. Again, similar to the debate we had on clause 9, it may be that the Government want to look at this issue in a different way. As it stands, age checks must be carried out on delivery of bladed products to ensure that those receiving such items are of the correct age, but too often we hear of incidents where that has not happened, and the consequences can be fatal. This is an area worth revisiting.
I refer back to the case that I raised this morning: the tragic murder of Ronan Kanda. During the trial of those convicted of Ronan’s murder, it was revealed that the weapons used in the attack had been bought online by the perpetrators. They were just 16 years old, so they should not have had those products. They used another person’s ID and collected from the local post office on the day of the attack. Those are breaches of the law in and of themselves, which led to a devastating breach of the law later that day. The age verification process clearly failed there, and just hours later there were tragic consequences. This is just one incident, but it is part of a wider problem, which, if we do not have really good controls on, could mean knives and blades falling into the hands of children who cannot have, or have not, thought of the danger to themselves and others that comes with such weapons. We know that a failing process creates that vulnerability. It is a weakness in the legal framework.
Amendment 54 therefore seeks to raise the penalty—from just a fine—for those who deliver bladed products or hand over bladed products or articles to someone under 18. It would increase that penalty, which I believe would create more rigour in the age check. That in turn should help prevent knives from falling into the wrong hands; it could address that weakness. This issue is perhaps a good reminder of the challenges that our shopworkers face, although we have tabled new clauses that I suspect might give us the chance to discuss that matter, so I will not do so today.
Being able to verify someone’s age and deny someone a knife they are trying to buy seems like a friction point to me, so it is right that there should be counterpart legal support, but that that really good quality verification must happen, or there is real danger. My attempt to have age checks carried out diligently is one way of doing it, but it is not the only way. Campaigners rightly want this change. If it is not to be this change on the face of the Bill, I hope we might hear from the Minister about how it can be strengthened and how we can ensure really good confidence in that verification process.
Chris Philp
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out his amendment and his views, as he did this morning in such a thoughtful and considered way.
I turn first to the substance of the clause. It increases the maximum penalty from six months’ to two years’ imprisonment for the offences of possessing, importing, manufacturing, selling or supplying prohibited offensive weapons when they are sold to those under the age of 18. We take seriously the sale of knives to under-18s, so the increase in the penalty from six months to two years is important.
We do not want people under 18 to be sold knives; we have heard about all kinds of tragic examples of them using knives to commit homicide. On 27 September, a tragic case in my own borough, Croydon, involved a 15-year-old schoolgirl, Elianne Andam, who was brutally murdered with a knife at 8.30 in the morning. The alleged perpetrator was himself only 17 years old. Preventing such knives from getting into the hands of young people is critical. That is the purpose behind the clause.
The clause relates to selling knives to those under 18, but the amendment speaks to a slightly different point: delivering knives to those under 18. Delivering something is obviously different from selling it. If someone is selling it, they are a shop, a retailer, and the person responsible for the transaction. Acting as a delivery agent—whether the Post Office, FedEx, UPS or some such—means delivering a parcel on behalf of someone else, which is a slightly different responsibility. That is why the law as it stands sets out in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 some measures to address the issue. The delivery company must have arrangements in place, together with the seller, to ensure that the items are not delivered into the hands of someone under 18. The penalty for delivery is an unlimited fine.
Some new guidelines have been set out by the Sentencing Council. They came into force on 1 April 2023. Organisations now face fines with a starting point of between £500 and £1 million. That is a starting point, so they can be very substantial fines indeed when applied to a corporate body. Individuals can, of course, be fined as well. It is important to make it clear that corporate bodies can be liable for such fines, as I said a second ago, because they are obviously capable of paying much larger amounts of money than an individual.
Amendment 54 raises an important issue. The case that the hon. Member for Nottingham North referred to is relevant—I completely accept that—but I think that the changes made in the Offensive Weapons Act and the Sentencing Council guidelines that came into effect less than a year ago strike the right balance on the delivery of such items. For the sale of items, however, we are increasing the custodial maximum up to two years.
In addition, the provisions of the Online Safety Act, which will be commenced into full force once the various codes of practice are published by Ofcom, will place duties on things such as online marketplaces, which historically have not been regulated. Online marketplaces have been facilitating, for example, the sale of knives to young people or the sale of illegal knives—the kind of knives that we are banning. Those online marketplaces will fall into the remit of the Online Safety Act, so the online space will get clamped down on a great deal.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm that if a shop owner sells offensive weapons, the shop owner will be liable and not the person who works on the premises—obviously, they should not be held accountable for a shop owner’s decision to sell the weapon.
Chris Philp
On the sale, it could be either an individual who makes a sale and/or the business. A defence of coercion is available generally, however—I am not sure whether it is in common or statute law. If a shop worker were coerced into selling something, or compelled to do so in some way, that might be a defence if they were accused. Coercion certainly would be a defence in that case.
The increase in the maximum sentence up to two years makes a lot of sense. I have referred to the provisions in the Online Safety Act. On delivery—when someone is simply delivering as opposed to selling—the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 broadly strikes the right balance, but I certainly agree with the shadow Minister that anyone involved in the supply or delivery of knives has a very strong moral obligation, in addition to the legal ones I have set out, not to supply under-18s, because we have seen very tragic consequences, such as the cases in Wolverhampton and Croydon, and tragically many others as well.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, which has given me a significant degree of comfort. The point we will hold under review is the nature of delivery companies and the nature of their employment. Some of that is third party and some involves self-employment, which has been a matter of debate in this place on many occasions. I fear that that weakens to some degree the chain of accountability. Nevertheless, very significant fines are in place, as the Minister said. I wonder whether a custodial sentence backstop would strengthen the provisions a little further, but given that the current guidelines are relatively new, as the Minister said, we ought to give them time to work.
The point about online marketplaces was important and has been of interest to the shadow Home Secretary. We are very keen that that should happen as soon as possible. We are grateful for that assurance from the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Encouraging or assisting serious self-harm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 11, page 8, line 23, after “conviction” insert “in England and Wales”.
This amendment and amendments 24 and 43 extend the offence under this clause to Northern Ireland.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 24 and 43.
Clause stand part.
Clause 12 stand part.
Laura Farris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. Government amendments 23, 24 and 43 amend the penalty provisions in clause 11 and the extant provisions in clause 77 extend the broader offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm to Northern Ireland.
Clause 11, together with clause 12, fulfils a commitment made by the Government during the passage of the Online Safety Act to broaden the offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm to cover all the means by which that may occur, including direct assistance such as giving somebody a substance or even a weapon with which to perform the act.
Unlike the offence in section 184 of the Online Safety Act, which it replaces in so far as that offence applies to England and Wales, the broader offence is not confined to verbal or electronic communications, publications or correspondence. In that respect, it implements the recommendation that the Law Commission made in 2021, in its important “Modernising Communications Offences” report.
There are two key points that I want to draw the Committee’s attention to today: capacity and intent. Clause 11(1) says that a person commits the offence if they do an act that is
“capable of encouraging or assisting the serious self-harm”
and if their act was intended to elicit that response. In so far as those two threshold tests are met, it is then a strict liability offence.
Subsection (2) provides that the person committing the offence does not need to know or be able to identify the person to whom their conduct is directed; it is enough that the conduct takes place at all. Secondarily, the offence is committed irrespective of whether serious self-harm eventually materialises.
Subsection (5) sets out the maximum penalties for the offence. The offence is triable either way; in a magistrates court it is subject to a fine or, on conviction on indictment, to a custodial term, or both, and in the Crown Court it is subject to a fine or a custodial term not exceeding five years, or both.
Broadening the offence has allowed us to simplify the drafting in a way that is more consistent with the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide. Members of the Committee will recall that that was discussed extensively during the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023—that we should be bringing self-harm, in terms of the elements of the offence, to read more consistently with the law on suicide.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I missed Clare Wade’s evidence because I was unwell when she gave evidence to this Committee. Are we to assume that the clause will be used in the prosecution of cases where self-harm is caused by incidents within domestic abuse relationships or as a result of grooming, sexual violence and broader violence against women? I think that it was clarified during the evidence session that that was the case.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It is quite clear that Parliament’s intention, in the way that we are framing the clause, and how the clause might actually play out when it comes before the courts, are probably quite different. I have been thinking about that myself. This is very much an extension of what I may call—I hope you will forgive me if I use this as a shorthand—the “Molly Russell” principle, which was established by that tragic case and led to all the new principles of the Online Safety Act—bringing them into line with the offline environment.
However, I think that you are quite correct; when we read clause 11, we see that it belongs in a range of different circumstances, all of which I have thought through. Yes, I think that you are right to say that it could very easily exist within a domestic—
The Chair
Order. I remind the Minister to speak through the Chair and observe the usual conventions.
Laura Farris
My apologies. I am sorry for being too informal; I am not familiar with this. I think that it is the case that the issue is readily identifiable within certain forms of domestic abuse scenario, and that the clause would apply in those circumstances. It is obvious in the statutory language.
Jess Phillips
I will speak more broadly about the issue in a moment, and I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said; that is what we would all want to see. However, I am concerned about the each-way offences that the Minister outlined. Let us say that in a case of suicide a coroner found that domestic abuse had been involved—I mean, chance would be a fine thing in most cases—and a manslaughter charge was laid and then the perpetrator pled guilty. There has only been one case of this. I just wonder how these summary limits and these each-way offences would work in that situation.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Lady again for her question. Actually, I think that we would have to concede immediately that it would be on the charge sheet. However, the hon. Lady has raised the topical, important and very difficult issue of whether or not a domestic abuse perpetrator has elicited suicide in circumstances where, as she will know, there are evidential difficulties. There is a discussion happening within Parliament, and more widely within the legal profession, about the offence of manslaughter and its ambit when it takes place in the context of suicide.
Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Lady, though, by saying this: if we stop short of suicide—very much mindful of the fact that that engages quite difficult legal issues—and we think about the offences created under clause 11, I think that it is almost inconceivable that there would be a circumstance in which a clause 11 offence existed and was not accompanied by an offence of coercive control under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. I just do not think that, in a domestic abuse context, those two things would not exist in parallel. Therefore I think that we would already be looking at a more serious form of sentencing if we were into an “eliciting self-harm” clause 11 offence. It would also be automatically brought under the ambit of the Domestic Abuse Act, and it is already a more serious offence in that context.
Clause 12 is the facilitation element of the offence, and subsection (1) provides that anyone who arranges for somebody else to do an act capable of amounting to inducing self-harm is also committing an equivalent offence. Subsection (2) provides that an act can be capable of encouraging or assisting self-harm even when done in circumstances where it was impossible for the final act to be performed. For example, if pills were provided to a person and they ended up not to be the pills that were intended, it is exactly the same offence. Equally, if something harmful was sent by post but never arrived, the offence and sentence are the same irrespective.
Subsection (3) provides that an internet service provider does not commit the offence merely by providing a means through which others can send, transmit or publish content capable of encouraging or assisting serious self- harm. Subsection (5) provides that section 184 of the Online Safety Act 2023 is repealed in consequence of these provisions, which create a much broader basis, bringing the online and offline environments into parity.
Jess Phillips
The Minister and I have had some back and forth on this. I rise really to hammer home the point regarding the good intentions of the clause, but the need to think about it in the context of a domestic abuse, grooming or sexual violence situation. It is undoubted in any professional’s mind that one of the consequences of violence, abuse and coercion against an individual, specifically in young women, is self-harm and suicide.
As the Minister rightly says, it is important that we recognise that in the vast majority of cases self-harm falls short of suicide. There is a huge amount of self-harm going on across the country, genuinely encouraged as a pattern of domestic abuse, and we need to ensure that this piece of perfectly reasonable legislation, which was designed for those on the internet trying to get people to be anorexic and all of that heinous stuff, which we are all very glad to have not had to put up with in our childhood—I look around to make sure that we are all of a relatively similar age—also covers that.
There is one particular risk: how does the clause interact with institutions? Perhaps the Minister could assist me with that. The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, a Home Office Minister, is sat in front of me. I was a few minutes late for the sitting this morning because I was in court with one of my constituents in a case—I am afraid to say—where we were on the other side from the Home Office. My constituent literally had to take medication during the court proceedings, such is the mental health trauma that has been caused to her by the Home Office. I wonder how this piece of legislation might be used. I suppose I worry that there is too much opportunity for it to become useful, in that there are so many ways in which institutions and individuals cause people to end up in a self-harm and suicidal situation. I seek clarity on that, unless Ministers wish to be found wanting by the Bill.
Alex Norris
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley for offering a powerful dose of reality about what is happening and the risks. We know that abusers will find every possible gap and try to use them to perpetrate their abuse and these heinous crimes. We must follow them and close those gaps the best we can—or, even better, get ahead.
Clauses 11 and 12 make good the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 2021 “Modernising Communications Offences” report. The Minister described that as important and I echo her comments. The clauses also finish what was started during consideration of the Online Safety Bill. We supported it at that point, and the Bill was well scrutinised, so I will not rehash that debate.
The Government amendments extend the provisions to Northern Ireland. I wonder whether there is a different story about Scotland, because most of the Government amendments expand provisions to Scotland as well as to Northern Ireland. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.
I will finish on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley made about institutions. Throughout my time in Parliament, the issue of conversion therapies has been at the forefront. We wish that we were getting on with banning them today—goodness knows how much longer we will have to wait—but we know that very harmful self-harm practices can be part of those therapies. Will the Minister say, in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, how accountability will fall in cases like that? That is important; if there is a gap for a certain organisation, perhaps we need to return to this. It might be that we will be assisted by the provision in clause 14 that, where a significant senior person in an organisation commits a crime, the organisation can be held accountable. Perhaps that is the way to close the gap—I do not know. I will be interested in the Minister’s view.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
My hon. Friends the Member for Birmingham, Yardley and the shadow Minister have made excellent points. Once we go into this, we start to find that there are areas we need to think out a bit more clearly. We may have to come back to this in due course, potentially in future legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley prompted me to think about the headteacher who committed suicide following an Ofsted inspection. The coroner’s court directly attributed that—partly, at the very least—to the institutional impact that that organisation had on her. Does my hon. Friend the shadow Minister agree that these are very important matters that we have to think through? Once we have let this issue out of the bag, so to speak, we have to very carefully consider the implications further down the line in terms of institutional abuse, because that is what it amounts to.
Alex Norris
I am really grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution. I think that is exactly right. We will hear from the Minister in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley where the Government settle on that point. Certainly on the face of the Bill, institutions are left out. I do wonder whether clause 14 would give us the opportunity to reconnect institutions. I suspect that is not the motivation behind that clause, but it may work in that way. Those are pertinent questions that I am sure the Minister is about to address.
Laura Farris
A number of very good points have been made and I will try to respond to all of them. On Scotland, the offence relates to devolved matters, but Scottish Ministers have decided that the broader offence should not extend to their jurisdiction. They are sticking with section 184 of the Online Safety Act for now. That is why the amendment does not extend the offence to Scotland.
Let me turn to the point that the shadow Minister and the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Bootle all made about the ambit of clause 11(1). If I may recap what I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, I think it is absolutely possible that some forms of domestic abuse will fall under the provisions of clause 11. She gave a good illustration of where that might occur. As I have said already—I hope I satisfied her with my answer—I think there is almost no circumstance where the clause would not be read or even pleaded in tandem with the Domestic Abuse Act. It will be a compound offence, and the charge sheet will have more than a section 11 offence if it occurs in the context of an intimate relationship or a former relationship. Conversion therapy was raised, and I think it is possible that that could fall within the ambit of clause 11 too. It is quite obvious how that could be the case.
Laura Farris
Well, okay, but I struggle to conceive of circumstances, other than very unusual and extreme ones, where it would be said that a statutory body was doing an act with the intention of eliciting the consequence of self-harm. Anyway, the point has been made and I have responded to it. I know the hon. Lady’s case is an emotive one.
Jess Phillips
I am not going to talk about my case, but with regard to the charge sheet, coercive control legislation does not currently cover adults who are sexually exploited in grooming situations. In the case of a woman who is sexually exploited by an adult, like the woman I was with this morning, coercive control legislation does not apply. However, self-harm—I mean, I am going to say that literally being forced to be raped by 20 men a day is self-harm—is absolutely part of the pattern of coercion and abuse that those people suffer, so we would assume that adult-groomers would be covered by the Bill.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I think a very helpful fabric of possible scenarios has been identified this afternoon. I simply say that in the different circumstances that she has just outlined, there are different criminal offences that would also apply. My simple point is that a case of the nature that she has described would not be confined to a section 11 offence under the Criminal Justice Act 2024, as I hope it will become in due course; there would be a range of serious criminality connected to that.
Jess Phillips
There isn’t. I hope, as the Minister hopes, that there will be by the time we have got to the end of our scrutiny of the Bill, but there is no crime of grooming adults in sexual exploitation; that exists only for children as an aggravating factor in offences. I suppose pimping legislation would not count in the case I mentioned if self-harm was caused. I do not think there are other bits of legislation for adult victims of sexual exploitation.
The Chair
Order. We are having a very important and thoughtful debate, but can we please try to observe the normal procedures so that Hansard colleagues, and those who are watching, can catch all of the proceedings?
Laura Farris
I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. I thought she was identifying a rape scenario, which would be caught by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is probably not particularly fruitful for us to talk about every instance of criminality, but I think there is a point of agreement between Members on both sides of the Committee. Opposition Members have quite rightly and properly identified that clause 11 is likely to go much wider—the way it will be interpreted or pleaded, or how it will end up in court, is probably a bit different from the way in which it was presented to the House during the progress of the Online Safety Bill, when we were confined to two or three particular instances of self-harm. The Opposition correctly identified that issue, as we did on the Government Benches. I am not trying to get out of responding, but I think the provision will be tempered by common law as it goes through the courts.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
Amendment made: 24, in clause 11, page 8, line 24, at end insert—
“(aa) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);”.—(Laura Farris.)
See the statement to amendment 23.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Offences relating to intimate photographs or films and voyeurism
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 20—Sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film: modesty clothing—
“(1) Section 188 of the Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) After inserted section 66D(5)(e) insert—
‘(f) the person not wearing modesty clothing such as a hijab or niqab when they would normally do so.’”
This new clause would see definition of “intimate image” extended to include specific categories of image that may be considered intimate by particular religious or cultural groups.
Laura Farris
The clause is the latest in a sequence of legislation dealing with intimate image abuse. People may correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right to say that we have not dealt with intimate image abuse until this Parliament. The first time it hit the statute book properly was the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. I think it is also right to say that, as a Parliament, we have framed it correctly as something that is more often than not just another ugly incarnation of coercive control. It is highly intrusive, humiliating and distressing conduct.
In November 2022, following the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, the Government announced their intention to create a suite of new offences to deal with intimate image abuse, closely based on the Law Commission’s recommendations in its July 2022 report. Under the Online Safety Act 2023—I hope the Committee will not mind if I spend a moment on the chronology and the legislative journey on intimate image abuse—the Government repealed the offences of disclosing or threatening to disclose private sexual images, replacing them with four new offences of sharing or threatening to share intimate images.
The Bill goes further to tackle the taking of intimate images without consent, and the process of installing equipment for that purpose. First, it repeals two voyeurism offences related to voyeurism of a private act and taking images under a person’s clothing, for which we use the shorthand “upskirting”—although that precedes the life of this Parliament, so I am wrong about that. Anyway, both those offences are reasonably new and have resulted in amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Bill will replace them with new criminal offences to tackle the taking or recording of intimate images without consent and the installing of equipment for such purposes.
Those taking offences build on the sharing offences identified in the Online Safety Act to provide a unified package of offences using the same definitions and core elements. That addresses the criticism that there was previously a patchwork of protection, which the police told us led to gaps in provision when it came to this type of behaviour. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), who is not a member of the Committee. She has done a lot of work on the issue, and identified this problem in particular. As we know, one of the issues was proving intent.
I am grateful to the Law Commission for its work. It consulted widely with the police, prosecutors and legal practitioners, so we could not only read its report, but hear from a range of experts, including those supporting and campaigning on behalf of victims, and others who are far more knowledgeable than any of us.
The clause will insert a suite of new provisions after section 66 of the 2003 Act. The clause will create three new offences: the taking or recording of an intimate photograph or film without consent; and two new offences about installing equipment to enable a taking offence. I will go through them briefly.
The first provision of the clause is the creation of what we call a base offence of taking any intentional image of a person in an intimate state without their consent. That amounts to what we will call a section 66AA offence. It removes the requirement for a reason or motive. It does not matter if the person was doing it for a joke or for financial payment, or even if their reason was not particularly sinister. The base offence would be met if those elements were established. The offence is triable summarily only and will attract a maximum prison term of six months.
The wording of the two more serious offences mirrors some of the language that we are familiar with; the offences refer not just to “intentionally” taking an image, including of a person in an intimate state without their consent, but to having the intent of causing them “alarm, distress or humiliation”, or taking the image for the purpose of “obtaining sexual gratification” for themselves or another person. The offences are serious and carry a maximum sentence of two years. The three offences are designed to achieve the right balance between the protection of the victim and the avoidance of any over-criminalisation. I will return to that when I speak to new clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley.
The base taking offence is subject to a defence of reasonable excuse, such as a police officer taking an image without consent for purposes connected with criminal proceedings. Similarly, a base sharing offence is subject to the defence of reasonable excuse; for example, images taken for the purpose of a child’s medical treatment would meet that threshold, even if the victim was distressed by that. There is another exemption—I do not know who came up with this example, but it is a good one—if the image is taken in a public place and the person shown in the image is in the intimate state voluntarily. A distinction is therefore drawn between, for example, a photo of a streaker at a football match, and that of someone who had a reasonable expectation of privacy; that would relate to upskirting, for example.
We are also creating two offences to do with the installation of spycams, which I am afraid we see more and more of in cases going through the courts: an offence of installing, adapting, preparing or maintaining equipment with the intention of taking or recording intimate photograph or film; and an offence of supplying for that purpose. To be clear, it will not be necessary for the image to have been taken; if equipment was installed for that purpose, that is enough to meet the requirements of the offence.
Overall, the clause amends the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to ensure that notification requirements can be applied, where the relevant criteria are met, to those convicted of the new offence of taking for sexual gratification and installing with the intent to enable the commission of that offence. I commend the clause to the Committee. I will respond to the new clause later.
Jess Phillips
I will be brief. New clause 20 would extend the definition of “intimate image” to include specific categories of image that may be considered intimate by particular religious or cultural groups—for example, instances of a person not wearing modesty clothing such as a hijab or niqab when they would normally do so.
Alex Norris
Clause 13 is right and is a welcome addition, so I do not have much to say about the two lines that form it. I will keep my powder dry for my amendments to the schedule that the clause introduces, which is where the action is.
New clause 20 is a welcome addition to the debate and would be a welcome addition to the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley says, some people get forgotten in our discussions. The point of having a diverse Parliament that represents the country that we serve is that we try to work that out, but we all have a responsibility to step up and meet the moment. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about the new clause. When we talk about intimate photos or films, the question is: to whom is it intimate? The new clause—and we—say that it is intimate to the person who has suffered that photo or filming, and who is being threatened with the sharing of those images. It is intimate to them, rather than to the perpetrator. Nothing could be clearer than that in the horrible case that my hon. Friend raises. We support the new clause, and I hope that the Minister does, too.
Laura Farris
I am very sensitive to the issues that have been raised and will respond to them, but I will also explain why we do not accept the new clause.
We have steered very close to the course recommended by the Law Commission in what we have defined in law as an intimate image. It includes anything that shows a person who is nude or partially nude, or who is doing anything sexual or very intimate, such as using the toilet. It is a wider definition of “intimate” than was used in the revenge porn provisions under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. We have expanded it, but we have confined it to what we think anyone in this country would understand as “intimate”.
One of the challenges in adopting a definition of “intimate” that includes, for example, the removal of a hijab is that we are creating a criminal offence of that image being shared. It would not be obvious to anyone in this country who received a picture of a woman they did not know with her hair exposed that they were viewing an intimate image and committing a criminal offence. The Law Commission has made very similar points in relation to showing the legs of a woman who is a Hasidic Jew, or showing her without her wig on. This would be grotesquely humiliating for that victim, but that would not be completely obvious to any member of the public who might receive such an image of them.
Laura Farris
I will, but I would like to develop this point a little bit more.
Jess Phillips
I strongly suggest that the hon. Lady does not come from the same community as me. I described images being sent to the community; the nature of the image would absolutely be clear to lots of people where I live.
Laura Farris
I was going to complete the point. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will do so before I give way again. We have to create laws that apply equally to everybody in the United Kingdom. If we are to create an offence of sharing intimate images, we have to have a translation of intimacy that is absolutely irrefutable to anybody sending that image around. Even if they do not know the person in the image, it has to be absolutely clear to the sender that they are sending an intimate image. I have already made the point that it would not be immediately obvious to everyone in the United Kingdom that an image of a woman showing her hair was a humiliating image of her. It would not automatically be an intimate image even if the person sharing it knew that the woman in the image was Muslim, because some Muslim women do not wear headscarves.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley described a very dark case. She mentioned the language of blackmail and honour-based violence. She intimated coercive control. My simple point is that in the circumstances she has identified, there are a host of serious criminal offences being committed in conjunction with the use of the intimate image. We would say, very respectfully, that we think that kind of crime belongs much more comprehensively within other offences.
Laura Farris
I am not going to engage in a case-by-case discussion. It is so difficult for me to do that; I do not have the papers in front of me. I understand the issue about community-based events, but if the purpose of sending the image is to blackmail a person, they have already engaged another element of the criminal law, and there is already aggravation, in that the perpetrator is being domestically abusive or is committing an honour-based offence, as the hon. Lady described.
I want to make it clear that by introducing the base offence, this legislation is removing the need to show an intention to cause distress. That is the issue that Georgia Harrison had, but managed to circumvent when she got that very successful and high-profile conviction against Stephen Bear, who went to prison for two years. She had an evidential difficulty in proving intent in her case. Although she did, she then became a really powerful advocate for removing intent from the offence, and we have done so.
I am not for a moment suggesting that there will not be cases of maximum sensitivity in which somebody is humiliated, but as I say, in the case that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley described, in the background, other offences were materialising. Our view is that it is more appropriate that they are dealt with under other elements of the law, rather than our muddling the police response, or even creating offenders where we do not mean to, because under the hon. Lady’s offence, the offender does not know they are committing an offence. They might think that they are sharing an image of a glamorous woman, not knowing that it is grossly offensive that they have shown a picture of a woman who does not have her hair covered as she normally would, because they do not know her.
I hope that answers the hon. Lady. With great respect, I urge her not to press her new clause. However, I would like to hear from her, because I did not give way to her a moment ago.
The Chair
The rules allow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, to come back again—and the Minister can, in fact, respond again, if she would like to.
Jess Phillips
I understand exactly where the Minister is coming from. I understand not wishing to over-criminalise anybody for something accidental. I will just say that chance would be an absolutely fine thing. In the case that I was talking about, the police laughed at the woman when she went to them about it. Sometimes we on these Committees say, “Well, there’s already an offence for that,” and I think, “Is there?” In real life, there is not, when the rubber hits the road. I am not sure how many times people in this room have tried to get these criminal cases across the line. I do it every single week. In my life, I have done thousands and thousands.
The argument is the same for this legislation: what is the point of having it? Take Georgia Harrison’s case—let me give her a shout out. Good luck to her on “Love Island: All Stars”. I will definitely be supporting her; she is a friend of mine. There are probably all sorts of bits of legislation around posting an image of an ex partner. We say about spiking, “Well, there is already legislation for that,” but it does not work. Our job is to try to make laws that work in real life. I am afraid to say that there will be lots of cases of the kind that I am talking about. There just will, and the women involved will not be able to rely on this legislation.
The Minister said, “We try to make laws for all people in our country.” It does not always feel like that. We leave loads of people out. I will not press the new clause to a Division, because my point has been made. I am drawing a line in the sand when it comes to people in this Committee telling me, “There is another law for that,” when I know fine well that those other laws do not work.
Laura Farris
I have probably gone as far as I can. There are no circumstances in which Georgia Harrison’s case would not be covered by the provision that we are discussing. The other person can be a current partner or an ex, or there can be no relationship. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Lady is talking about a different category of case. I wonder whether one of the problems in the case that she raises is the adequacy of the police response, rather than whether an offence exists for it. It is difficult, in drafting legislation, to create a category of offender when an image would not be recognised as being intimate by everybody in the United Kingdom. On that basis, with great respect, I am afraid that we would have to reject her new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Offences relating to intimate photographs or films and voyeurism
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 56, in schedule 2, page 82, line 4, at end insert—
“66AD Publishing or hosting unlawfully obtained intimate photograph or film
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if A publishes, hosts or makes viewable a photograph or film of another person (B) which has been obtained (1) unlawfully under sections 66A, 66AA, 66AC or 66B, subject to the provisions of sections 66AB and 66C.
(2) For the purposes of this part, “publishing, hosting or making viewable” includes—
(a) physical or online publication, and
(b) uploading to a user-to-user service,
(c) in relation to owners or administrators of a user-to-user service, allowing public access to a photograph or film uploaded by another person, and
(d) maintaining or providing for the presence or availability of a photograph or film by any other means or in any other place, whether or not such service or access is conditional on the payment of a fee.
(3) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”
This amendment would make it an offence to make publicly available, either through publishing or online hosting, intimate photographs or videos which have been obtained unlawfully.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 57, in schedule 2, page 82, line 4, at end insert—
“66AD Faking intimate photographs or films using digital technology
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if A intentionally creates or designs using computer graphics or any other digital technology an image or film which appears to be a photograph or film of another person (B) in an intimate state for the purposes of—
(a) sexual gratification, whether of themselves or of another person;
(b) causing alarm, distress or humiliation to B or any other person; or
(c) committing an offence under sections 66A or 66B of the Sexual Offence Act 2003.
(2) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) to prove that—
(a) A had a reasonable excuse for creating or designing the image or film, or
(b) that B consented to its creation.
(3) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”
This amendment would make the creation of ‘deepfake’ intimate images an offence.
Alex Norris
Clause 13 and schedule 2 are important steps forward in tackling the abhorrent practice of taking intimate photographs without consent. As we have heard, the Bill introduces new offences to criminalise taking or recording intimate photographs or film without consent, and as the Minister said, an offence of installing equipment to enable the taking or recording of intimate photographs or films with the intention of committing an offence. As we have heard, these measures build on the progress made by the Law Commission’s review of legislation on the non-consensual taking and sharing of intimate images; we should thank it for its important work.
As the Government have said today and previously, their intention is that the provisions will put in place a clearer and more comprehensive legal framework that will broaden the scope of intimate image offences, so that all instances of intentionally taking or sharing intimate images without consent are criminalised, regardless of motivation. We very much support that. My amendments are an attempt to improve that and to ensure that the police and courts have the right tools at their disposal to bring the perpetrators of such terrible acts to justice.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I am very sympathetic to the hon. Member’s point about deepfake intimate images, but I wonder why he does not extend the provision further to what might be embarrassing images. We are in a room full of politicians who are about to go into a general election. Deepfake images of prominent politicians at rallies, for example—such as a leading left-wing politician being seen at a far-right rally in a deepfake—would be just as damaging to people in public positions, without necessarily being intimate. Does the hon. Member feel that the amendment could extend to that?
Alex Norris
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest makes a very good point. The reason that I stopped short of doing that is that I was trying to stay within the “intimate” framing, but he is absolutely right. As we go into an election year, we will see, both in the States and over here, that being a real challenge to our democracy and to how we conduct campaigning. This provision would certainly not be right for it, but a new clause might be. That is good inspiration from the hon. Member, and I am very grateful for it.
The Committee heard about this during the evidence sessions for the Bill. Dame Vera Baird, the former Victims’ Commissioner, made the point very powerfully. She said that this use of deepfakes
“needs making unlawful, and it needs dealing with.”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2023; c. 62.]
Indeed, she said she could not understand why they had not been banned already, and I agreed with her on that point. Amendment 57 is designed to address that. It will make it an offence for someone to intentionally create or design
“using computer graphics or any other digital technology an image or film which appears to be a photograph or film of another person...in an intimate state”,
whether that be for “sexual gratification”,
“causing alarm, distress or humiliation”
or offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
The amendment is an important addition to what we have. Some important progress was made with the Online Safety Act 2023, but I think this finishes the job. I am interested in the Government’s view on whether where they went with the Online Safety Act is where they intend to finish, as opposed to going that little bit further. I will close on that point, but I will be very interested in the response.
Jess Phillips
I rise to support both amendments, and, in fact, what the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said as well. No one should have the ability to host an image of a person that they did not want out there in the first place. Unfortunately, what people tend to get back is that it is very difficult to place these things, but all sorts of things around copyright are traced on all sorts of sites quite successfully. We put a man on the moon 20 years before I was born, and brought him back. I reckon we could manage this and I would really support it.
Turning to the point made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest and the issue of faking intimate images, I am lucky enough to know—I am almost certain that most of the women in this room do not know this about themselves—that deepfake intimate images of me exist. As I say, I am lucky enough to know. I did not ever once consider that I should bother to try to do anything about it, because what is the point? In the plethora of things that I have to deal with, especially as a woman—and certainly as a woman Member of Parliament in the public eye—I just chalk it up to another one of those things and crack on, because there is too much to be getting on with. But on two separate incidents, people have alerted me to images on pornographic websites of both me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner); they have a thing for common women, clearly. There is nothing that even somebody in my position can do about it.
The first time I ever saw intimate images of me made on “rudimentary” Photoshop, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North called it, if I am honest, like with most abuses against women, I just laughed at it. That is the way we as women are trained to deal with the abuses that we suffer. They could only be fake images of me, because, unlike my children, I do not come from an era where everybody sends photos of everybody else naked. As a nation, we have to come to terms with the fact that that is completely and utterly normal sexual behaviour in the younger generation, but in that comes the danger.
The reality is that this is going to get worse. Rudimentary Photoshop images of me were sent to me about five years ago, or even longer—we have been here for ages. Covid has made it seem even longer. The first time I saw fake images of me, in a sexualised and violent form, was probably about eight years ago. Over the years, two, three or four times, people have sent me stuff that they have seen. I cannot stress enough how worrying it is that we could go into a new era of those images being really realistic. On the point made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, I have heard, for example, two completely deepfake recordings of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) that were put out and about. To be fair to Members on the Government Benches, they clearly said, “This is fake. Do not believe it; do not spread it.” We must have that attitude.
However, it is one thing to stop something in its tracks if it is the voice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras saying, in that instance, that he did not like Liverpool, but that is nothing compared with the idea of me being completely naked and beaten by somebody. It is like wildfire, so I strongly encourage the Government to think about the amendments and how we make them law.
Laura Farris
Opposition Members have made two very good points, which I will respond to. The issue of publishing or hosting unlawfully obtained internet photographs is salient. It was probably thrown into its sharpest relief by Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times when he did a big exposé of Pornhub. I have never read off my phone in any parliamentary sitting before, but I will briefly do so, because the opening to his article is one of the best that I have read about Pornhub:
“Pornhub prides itself on being the cheery, winking face of naughty, the website that buys a billboard in Times Square and provides snow plows to clear Boston streets. It donates to organizations fighting for racial equality…Yet there’s another side of the company: Its site is infested with rape videos. It monetizes child rapes, revenge pornography, spy cam videos of women showering”.
The point is very well made.
Under the Online Safety Act 2023, we have ensured that all user-to-user services in scope of the illegal content duties are required to remove that type of illegal content online when it is flagged to them or they become aware of it. That would cover something such as the Pornhub apps I have described. We believe that the robust regulatory regime for internet companies put in place by the Act, with the introduction of the offence of sharing intimate images, which extends to publication, are the most effective way to deal with the problems of the spread of that material.
Our essential answer is that under the Online Safety Act a host site—I have given a big name, because I am critical of that particular site—would be under a legal obligation to remove content flagged to it as featuring prohibited content, so it would have an obligation under the law to remove an intimate image of an individual created without their knowledge or consent or to be subject to criminal sanctions. Under the Online Safety Act, those are substantial; Parliament worked collectively to ensure that meaningful sanctions would be applied in that regard.
There is a concern that creating a new offence would partially overlap with existing criminal offences—for example, that we would basically be duplicating some of the provisions under section 188 of the Online Safety Act. We worry that that would dilute the effectiveness with which such activity will be policed and charged by the Crown Prosecution Service. I understand that the provisions under the Act have not yet been commenced, so we would be legislating on top of legislation that has not been commenced. Respectfully, I invite hon. Members to allow the Act to come into force comprehensively before we make an assessment of whether we need to legislate again on the issue of hosting unlawful content. However, I am sympathetic to it, and I think the whole House agrees with the principle.
Equally, the Law Commission was asked to look at the issue of deepfakes, which it considered and responded to. I will remind the Committee of how it undertook its inquiry into the issue. It undertook a full public consultation on the point and engaged with the CPS and police, and it concluded that making a deepfake offence was not necessary. It identified certain associated risks, including difficulties for law enforcement and, again, the risk of overcriminalisation, which potentially would outweigh the benefits. The Government share the view of the Law Commission and have decided not to create a separate making offence.
I will provide hon. Members with some reassurance: nobody is in any doubt about the risk. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley described harmful, culpable conduct relating to her personally and to other senior politicians in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest gave hypotheticals that could easily materialise, and we all know that there is an increased risk of that as we move into an election year on a global scale, because elections are happening all over the world this year. Nobody doubts the risk. I want again to provide the reassurance that such conduct generally involves sharing of these images, or threats to share, both of which are criminalised by offences under the Online Safety Act, or by other offences—communication offences and harassment offences—so it is already captured.
The secondary issue identified by the Law Commission concern the prosecution difficulties, because it would be difficult to prove some elements of the offence, such as an intention to cause distress, in circumstances in which the image had not been shared—by the way, I take out of that a circumstance in which the defendant has told the victim that they hold the image, because that has already crossed the threshold. The question that I asked officials—I have now lost the answer, but they did give it to me. Hang on a minute; someone will know where it is. Will the Committee give me one moment?
Alex Norris
Now I have to work out something to say. There was certainly a degree of bravery in saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley that there is a belief that there is a robust regime in place— I thought I could hear steam coming out of her ears. It is a given that we all share a view, but that does not mean that that is necessarily reflected in output at the moment. [Hon. Members: “Keep going!”] It is very important that what is in the Bill reflects what we are trying to solve, and I am concerned that at the moment it does not, but the Minister clearly takes a different view.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his forbearance. Just to pick up on that point, I think he is right to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on the commencement of the Online Safety Act, because it is all very well having these provisions in law, but if they are not actually operational, they are not doing any good to anyone. I accept that tacit criticism as it may be advanced. I recognise that implementation now is critical; commencement is critical.
I will disclose the question that I put to officials. I was interested in the question of what happens if, for example, a schoolboy creates a deepfake of another pupil and does not share it, so that it is not covered by the Online Safety Act but is none the less an offence. I am told that that is covered by two separate bits of legislation. One is section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, which includes making indecent images of a child, including if that is a deepfake, which would be covered by the statutory language. The second provision is section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which is possession of any indecent image of a child and would include where it had been superimposed.
I am satisfied that the current law, including the Online Safety Act—I have already accepted that there are commencement issues—deals with deepfakes. I am sensitive to the prosecutorial difficulties that I have identified and I think that these are covered, particularly by the Online Safety Act. We accept the Law Commission’s very careful work on the issue, which was a detailed piece of research, not just a short paragraph at the end. On that basis, I very respectfully urge the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw or not press the amendments.
Jess Phillips
On the answer that the Minister got from her officials, there are so many bits of legislation about abuses of children, sexual violence towards children, sexual grooming of children and sexual exploitation of children, and there are none about adults, as though such behaviour is not harmful when someone turns 18. If the same kid in the same class is 17 and makes images of a person who is turning 18, the view is that one day it would be a problem and the next day it would not, as though the abuse of adult women is just fine. The Online Safety Act does not say the word “woman” once, so I will gently push back on the idea that it deals with this. I am going to scour Pornhub now—I will not do it while I am in Parliament in case somebody sees me—to look for these images, and I will rise to the Minister’s challenge. I am going to go to the police once the Online Safety Act is in force and we will see how far I get.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Lady for her point. She is making very, very good ones, as she always does. That is a legitimate challenge. I just would also ask her to bear this in mind. She has heard our answer. First, we are accepting the Law Commission’s recommendation for now. Secondly, we think the Online Safety Act covers what she has described in terms of sharing. The third point that I draw her attention to is the pornography review launched today. That is a critical piece of work, and she made the good point that we focus extensively on children. There is a really important element of that.
First, we know that there is a dark web element where a lot of online pornography is focused directly on child pornography. We also know that adult pornography not only contributes to the pubescent nature of abuse that we see in the violence against women, but also violence against women much more widely. I have spoken about this; the hon. Lady has spoken about this—we have been in the Chamber together numerous times talking about it. I hope that that review will get on top of some the issues that she is raising today. I hope she will accept our gentle refusal of her amendment and maybe consider withdrawing it.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley made the point about copyrights, which was absolutely bang on the nose. We should not give any succour to any platform telling us that this is too hard to do. All we need to do is, on Saturday, sit with our phones at about 3.15 pm and wait for someone to score in the premier league. We will be able to see that goal for about 90 seconds—someone will share it because it is watchable in other countries. Within 90 seconds, however, we will no longer be able to watch it and it will say, “This is no longer available due to a breach of copyright”. That is how quick it is—no more than 90 seconds. This absolutely can be done when the stakes are considered high enough.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend was willing to share her personal experience—I did not know whether she would choose to or not. Again, what she has to put up with is extraordinary and would test any human being. I am often amazed by her strength to carry on, but those people do not know the person they are taking on. But that is no excuse and gives no cover. This penalty is being exacted on her for a supposed crime: yes, it is for being a prominent person in politics and yes, it is for holding strong views on the left of politics. But the real crime, at root, is that she is a woman. I do not have a public platform like my hon. Friend’s, I am absolutely delighted to say. If I did, my treatment would be entirely different because I am white and I am a man. This again has to be seen through a gendered lens, and we have a responsibility to protect women in this regard.
I will refer to a couple of points that the Minister made. First, on hosting, we will see about this robust regime. I would be keen to know either today or at another point how soon these provisions are going to be turned on. They need to be turned on and used, otherwise they are of absolutely no use to anyone. We will see. It is reasonable for her to want that regime to have its chance to operate. I accept that and withdraw amendment 56 on that basis. But we will see and we will certainly come back.
Similarly, on deepfaking, I know the Law Commission chose not to go into this space, but its report was not carved on tablets of stone. We are allowed to go further if we think that the case is there. [Interruption.] I do not share—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley is going to have steam coming out of her ears soon—much of a concern around overcriminalisation in this space. That just does not connect to reality. [Interruption.]
The Chair
—informative and important. I would be very grateful if she could save them up and use them in her interventions so that we get them on the record, rather than overhearing them from a sedentary position, if she would be so kind.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend is not operating “Weekend at Bernie’s”-style—I promise. That is a dated reference. She talked about people being the same age, so maybe that will be the test of that.
We will welcome the point around children, but it must be seen in the context of what my hon. Friend said. The Minister has said she is satisfied on both points. We say, “We will see whether that holds”. We need those provisions to be enacted and to see the laws on the statute book used properly on deepfakes, otherwise we will have to return to this point. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
A mendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Philp
I beg to move amendment 48 in schedule 2, page 85, line 32, at end insert—
“Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52)
1 In the Armed Forces Act 2006, after section 177D insert—
‘177DA Photographs and films to be treated as used for purpose of certain offences
(1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under section 66AA(1), (2) or (3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (taking or recording of intimate photograph or film).
(2) The photograph or film to which the offence relates, and anything containing it, is to be regarded for the purposes of section 177C(3) (and section 94A(3)(b)(ii)) as used for the purpose of committing the offence (including where it is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring).’”
This amendment amends the Armed Forces Act 2006 to make provision equivalent to the amendment to the Sentencing Code made by paragraph 19(2) of Schedule 2 to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 36 and 50
Government new clause 10—Power to seize bladed articles etc: armed forces.
Government new clause 11—Stolen goods on premises (entry, search and seizure without warrant): armed forces.
Government new clause 12—Powers to compel attendance at sentencing hearing: armed forces.
Chris Philp
I hesitate to say that these are technical amendments; given the shadow Minister’s comments this morning, I do not want to unduly provoke him. However, this series of amendments simply extends some of the measures within the Bill to the service police —the military police—of all branches of the armed forces and to the service justice system. The relevant measures are: the power to seize bladed articles, contained in clause 18; the power to enter property to seize stolen goods without a warrant, contained in clause 19; the power to compel an offender to attend their sentencing hearing, contained in clause 22; and making grooming a statutory aggravating factor for sexual offences against a child, contained in clause 23.
Amendment 48 to schedule 2 also ensures that the offences relating to intimate images provided for in the schedule also fully read across to the service justice system. Our armed forces do incredible work, of course, but we must ensure that the law applies to those serving in uniform as much as to members of the public. That is why we are proposing these important—although also technical—amendments.
Alex Norris
We are getting to the witching hour on a Thursday, but the Minister tempts me around technical amendments. The point that I was making earlier was merely about whether we were using the same definition. I would also perhaps dispute that a technical amendment could be “important”, because I think that, at that point, it would cease to be technical. However, as I say, I think that that is a distinction of classification rather than substance, and that these are sensible amendments—although I would not say that they were technical. There are other issues that will come up in those later clauses that the Minister mentioned, but we will debate them, I am sure, in due course.
Amendment 48 agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14
Criminal liability of bodies corporate and partnerships where senior manager commits offence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
The identification doctrine is a legal test used to determine whether the actions and mind of a corporate body can be regarded as those of a natural person. The concept has existed in common law since 1971, but, since then, companies and corporations have grown in size and complexity, which has made it more difficult to determine who a controlling mind might be. That means that employees of large corporations with significant control over business areas are none the less not considered sufficiently controlling under that common-law legal test originally dating from 1971. Therefore, the corporations for which they work might not be held criminally liable where we think they should be.
Substantial progress was made to address the issue in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which put the identification doctrine on a new statutory footing, making provisions to ensure that corporate liability can exist where a senior manager commits an offence while acting in the scope of their actual or apparent authority. However, because of the scope of that Act, it only applied to economic offences.
During the passage of that Act through Parliament in the last calendar year, the Government committed to expanding the statutory identification doctrine that I have just described—the expanded version that applies to large companies and the many senior managers in them—to all kinds of crime. Clause 14 makes good on that Government commitment by repealing the relevant sections of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and replacing them with the identification doctrine applying to all crime and not just economic crime.
I am sure that all of us here want to make sure that when large corporates commit offences, they are held to account and prosecuted. The common law provisions, dating back to 1971, are too restrictive. They do not go wide enough or reflect the fact that modern-day corporations have quite a few senior managers taking decisions. The clause takes what has been done already for economic crime and applies it to all criminal law. On that basis, I hope it commands the immediate and enthusiastic assent of the Committee this afternoon.
Alex Norris
I am not sure what “immediate” means in that context—must I instantly print off clause 14 and staple it to my back? Nevertheless, we support the clause. We supported similar provisions in the passage of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, and this finishes off the job. It is actually very pertinent to the week we have had in Parliament, because it is safe to say that this week has been dominated by the outrage about the Post Office/Horizon scandal. There is a legitimate expectation among the public and in this place that when such things happen, individuals and entities will be held accountable, so I do not think we will find much to disagree with. Obviously, the provisions will not apply in the case of the Post Office/Horizon scandal, but they will do so in the future.
The Post Office/Horizon scandal is exceptionally important. There will be others that come through and find their moment, for whatever reason—whether they relate to Hillsborough, Primodos, sodium valproate, surgical meshes or anything covered by the Cumberlege review. We need much quicker action. The Post Office/Horizon scandal is ongoing, presumably because the major elements of perpetration have already taken place. They would not be in scope of the Bill, so I would be interested in the Minister’s views. Other than that, I am happy to give the clause our support.
Chris Philp
In common with most legislative provisions, these provisions are prospective, rather than retrospective; we legislate retrospectively only rarely. I understand that some Post Office-specific measures may be brought before Parliament. There will be ample opportunity to debate them and to seek to right the very grave injustice that has clearly been committed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Westminster Hall
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Smokefree Future
(3 months, 4 weeks 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
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of a smokefree future.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, for at least the second time. No doubt you would prefer to be participating in rather than chairing this debate on the evidence and recommendations submitted to the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health’s manifesto for a smoke-free future.
It is a pleasure to see the new Minister in her place; I thank her for attending a function that we held soon after she was appointed. I welcome the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), and look forward to what she has to say. I declare an interest as chair of the APPG, which wants to ensure that Parliament has the chance to debate our recommendations, along with the smoke-free generation proposals set out in the King’s Speech, and consider what more needs to be done to achieve the Government’s Smokefree 2030 target.
I welcome the Government’s historic commitment to create a smoke-free generation by raising the age of sale for tobacco by one year every year from 2027. This measure, along with other commitments set out by the Government, will help to close the door on the tobacco epidemic once and for all. With their Command Paper, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to achieving the smoke-free ambition and to ending the harms caused by tobacco. It was a great pleasure to hear my words in this place echoed almost word for word by the Prime Minister at the Conservative party conference. I congratulate his speechwriter on having observed what we had to say in last year’s debate.
The smoke-free generation policy was due to be implemented first by New Zealand, but it was abandoned by the incoming Government in November under pressure from their coalition partners. That presents us with the opportunity to be the first to implement the policy, thereby cementing the UK’s position as a global leader in tobacco control. In response to New Zealand’s decision, we have seen the tobacco industry going into overdrive on its lobbying machine, arguing that the UK should follow New Zealand in rowing back on our commitments and even promising that it would not vociferously oppose the smoking age rising from 18 to 21. That demonstrates how big a threat it is to have the smoke-free generation policy.
Quite rightly, the Prime Minister has rejected the industry’s arguments and reiterated the importance of creating a smoke-free generation. I commend the Minister for her robust response to the industry when she called out its attempts to undermine and block this measure. As she wrote in the i newspaper:
“The tobacco industry will talk about free adult choice, but we all know there is no freedom of choice once deadly addiction sets in. The industry has a long history of trying to obstruct and delay tobacco reforms. But we have absolutely no intention of going back on our word.”
I welcome those words, and I trust that the Minister will echo them when she responds to the debate.
Government action to end smoking is what the public want. Polling carried out by YouGov for Action on Smoking and Health shows that three quarters of the public, including the majority of smokers, support the Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition and that two thirds of people in England back the Prime Minister’s age-of-sale proposal, with equivalent levels of political support among voters for all the main political parties at the last general election. This should not be a surprise, because no one wants to see their children smoking.
Just like the public, the majority of independent retailers selling tobacco support the key measures needed to tackle smoking, including raising the age of sale for tobacco to 21, with just over half of retailers in favour and a quarter opposed. Although that happened before the Government announced the smoke-free generation policy, it shows that retailers support the principle of raising the age of sale. That should not be a surprise, either. Tobacco sales now account for a very small fraction of the profits from those shops—less than 10% in 2016—and are dwindling year on year. Most small retailer transactions do not involve the purchase of tobacco at all.
From the 2007 ban on smoking in public places to standardised packaging in 2015, progress on tobacco control has consistently been driven from the Back Benches. Indeed, I am delighted that most of the 2021 recommendations from by the APPG on smoking and health were included in the recent Khan review and are now in the process of being implemented by the Government and the Department of Health and Social Care. They include progress towards much tougher regulation of vaping to protect children, additional funding for stop smoking services and anti-smoking campaigns, the swap to stop campaign, and financial incentives for pregnant women to stop smoking. In particular, I welcome the Minister’s decision to expand the offer of financial incentives so that it includes not only pregnant women but, critically, their partners. Dads and partners have a key role to play in determining whether women smoke or are exposed to second-hand smoke during pregnancy. That announcement is to be commended.
However, the Government need to go further. The Government’s proposals to create a smoke-free generation and curb youth vaping are welcome, but they will not be enough to achieve the Smokefree 2030 ambition. It is imperative that that ambition is realised for everyone, not just for the next generation. According to Cancer Research UK, the Government are nearly a decade behind achieving their target for England to be smoke free by 2030. The most deprived areas are not on track to hit the smoke-free target of 5% smoking prevalence until after 2050. That would leave the most vulnerable people in our society bearing the brunt of the harms from smoking for decades to come.
In our recently published tobacco manifesto, the APPG set out the action needed to accelerate the decline in smoking rates, in order to get us within spitting distance of a smoke-free 2030. The long wait for Government action on smoking means that achieving 5% smoking prevalence by 2030 will be even more challenging than when the ambition was first announced in 2019. However, that target is still within reach. The closer we get, the more lives we can save.
Modelling carried out for the APPG by academics at University College London shows that if our recommendations are implemented in full throughout the next Parliament, smoking prevalence in England, which is currently at 12.7%, will be reduced to 7.3% by 2029. That would deliver immediate benefits to health and wellbeing, as well as saving countless lives in the longer term, and would lead to a 5% rate by 2030.
Smoking remains the largest cause of preventable death, ill health and inequalities in the UK. Some 6.4 million adults in the UK currently smoke, approximately an eighth of the population. Most adult smokers want to stop smoking, but on average it takes 30 attempts to succeed; many never do so. It is one of the resolutions that smokers make, and it is sad when they break them very quickly in the new year.
Two out of three long-term smokers die prematurely, often after years of disability from the cancers and the respiratory and cardiovascular diseases caused directly by smoking. NHS data shows that in 2022-23 there were more than 400,000 smoking-related hospital admissions in England alone, an increase of 5% on the previous year.
Despite Harrow having a below-average smoking rate, tobacco still takes a heavy toll, causing over 1,300 hospital admissions in 2019-20 alone. People in Harrow suffer many of the same health inequalities as the rest of the country, with those from the poorest backgrounds and those with mental health conditions much more likely to smoke than the general population.
Smoking places a major financial burden on individuals, families and the taxpayer. The average smoker spends just over £3,000 a year on cigarettes, which is significantly more than the annual energy cost for a typical household. That is money that could be better spent on products and services to improve people’s quality of life, but instead it literally goes up in smoke to maintain their deadly addiction. In the APPG’s latest report we estimate that the cost of smoking to public services and the wider UK economy is £89.3 billion a year, the equivalent of 3.9% of GDP.
What about the direct costs of smoking to the public finances? One of the arguments made by the tobacco industry and its allies is that higher smoking rates benefit public finances because smokers pay extra tax in the form of tobacco duties and then die younger, meaning they use less of their pensions. Those arguments are callous, cold-blooded and not even true. Detailed analysis of the evidence carried out for the APPG shows that, rather than saving the Government money, smoking had a direct cost to the public finances of £21 billion last year: more than double the excise tax revenues. That cost is made up of extra social security payments, lost taxation from smokers who are too sick to work and, of course, significant costs to the NHS and social care services. Implementing the recommendations in our manifesto would reduce the public finance costs of smoking by an average of £628 million a year, which would total £3.1 billion by 2029. The case is clear: ending smoking once and for all will transform the nation’s health and wealth. The only losers would be the tobacco industry.
Local stop smoking services have a key role to play in delivering a smoke-free future, so I am pleased that the Government have committed to a five-year funding plan for smoking cessation services. That new funding will definitely help to drive down smoking rates, generating a return on investment literally from year one. However, we are significantly behind where we hoped to be when the smoke-free ambition was announced in 2019.
As we all know, the public finances are under significant strain, so why should taxpayers foot the bill for measures to end smoking when the tobacco industry could be made to do so? Tobacco manufacturers make an estimated £900 million profit a year in the UK alone, with an average net operating profit margin of about 50%. That far exceeds the average for UK manufacturing, which stands at less than 10%. In the UK, four companies are responsible for 95% of tobacco sales and are therefore responsible for an overwhelming majority of the tens of thousands of deaths a year caused by smoking. Despite their staggering profitability, the companies pay very little corporation tax in the UK. Through the exploitation of their global footprints and tax loopholes, they have been able to successfully avoid a fair tax bill overall. Imperial Brands, the largest tobacco manufacturer by market share in the UK, lowered its tax bill by an estimated £1.8 billion over the last 10 years.
The “polluter pays” principle has been accepted and successfully implemented in other industries, such as environmental health, the soft drinks industry and, most recently, the gambling industry. It could easily be extended to the tobacco industry. It could be implemented by capping tobacco wholesale prices, and hence profits, to bring the profit margins in line with the 10% average for other manufacturers. A “polluter pays” health promotion levy could ensure that the excess profits were turned into Government revenues, raising an estimated £700 million a year. That could fund the Government’s smoke-free generation commitments several times over, with money left over for other public health measures.
It is hard to think of a policy that has broader public support. The 2023 smoke-free Great Britain survey conducted by YouGov for Action on Smoking and Health revealed that 76% of adults in Great Britain would support a levy on the tobacco industry, while only 6% were opposed. That includes majority support from voters for all the main political parties. I stress that a levy would not mean an increase in the cost price of tobacco bought over the counter. The Department of Health and Social Care already has the expertise and resource needed to administer a levy in the team that oversees the pharmaceutical pricing scheme.
The primary legislation needed for a consultation on our proposals was part of the Health and Care Bill and was passed by the House of Lords. Unfortunately, due to Treasury opposition, it was voted down by the Government in the Commons. Will the Minister commit to discussing the APPG’s proposal of a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers with Ministers in the Treasury and with us?
In the short time that I have left, I want to discuss how we can combat youth vaping. For years, we in the APPG have been calling for the Government to toughen legislation on vaping, so I am delighted that the Government have finally committed to taking action. My views on youth vaping are summed up by the chief medical officer:
“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape; marketing vapes to children is utterly unacceptable.”
In our manifesto, the APPG urges the Government to prevent e-cigarettes from being sold at pocket-money prices and to curtail advertising and promotion of vaping, particularly in shops, where most under-age vapers access e-cigarettes. We know that the rise in youth vaping since 2021 has been driven largely by the availability and marketing of cheap single-use vapes, and anecdotal evidence points to the fact that many young people believe that vaping is perfectly safe because the Government are encouraging people to give up smoking and take up vaping. Of course, that is a false conclusion, because it gets people addicted to nicotine and possibly leads on to cigarette use later in life.
There is clearly a need to address the affordability of vapes for young people while ensuring that they continue to be a cheaper option than smoking for adults who want to quit. Given the effectiveness of vapes as a smoking cessation aid, it is essential that any regulation takes a measured approach and ensures that vapes are still accessible to adult smokers. Can the Minister confirm when the consultation response will be published and when we will see the legislation laid before Parliament?
The case is very strong for a “polluter pays” levy and for all the recommendations that the APPG has put forward. I look forward to the contributions from colleagues around the Chamber, to the response from the Opposition and from our excellent Minister, and to achieving what we all want: a smoke-free England by 2030.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate, and I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the APPG on smoking and health.
The Government’s announcement of their smoke-free generation policy was welcome after several years of inaction on tobacco from successive Conservative Governments, which have left us playing catch-up to achieve the Smokefree 2030 ambition. Indeed, regulations to protect children from taking up vaping and smoking in the first place would already be in the law today if the Government had accepted my amendments to the Health and Care Bill three years ago. Nevertheless, I welcome the commitment to curb youth vaping with tighter rules around packaging and promotion. The right balance needs to be struck to ensure that vapes are used only by adults who want to quit smoking.
In the north-east, the most disadvantaged place in England, we know better than most that smoking is not only the greatest cause of preventable deaths, but responsible for half the difference in life expectancy between the most and least advantaged in society. Smoking rates are a clear expression of the health inequalities that divide our country. That is why my colleagues and I show up time and again to demand that real and bold action be taken to make smoking history. Children of parents who smoke are three times more likely to take up smoking themselves, more likely to suffer significant income loss and more likely to live a shorter life.
It is high time to break the mould. The Government now need to make the best use of the additional funding that they have attached to the smoke-free generation policy. The Fresh tobacco control programme in my own region is a long-standing example of how budgets can be pooled and partners can work together to bring about positive results. I would be delighted to welcome the Minister to Durham and the north-east to learn more about the work of Fresh, which has been so crucial in reducing smoking rates far more rapidly than the national average.
Preventing the next generation from starting to smoke is not enough. There are 6.4 million adult smokers who need support to quit. The additional funding being provided to stop smoking services is vital, but we cannot ignore the threat to NHS provision of tobacco dependence treatments for in-patients, mental health patients and pregnant smokers. In November, the Health Service Journal revealed that NHS trusts were being told that they could raid these budgets to fund urgent and emergency care. At a time when the roll-out of those programmes has already been cut and is well behind schedule in many areas, the Government pay lip service to the need for prevention if we are to reduce pressure on our NHS. It is yet again a Cinderella service, trumped by the need to do more to treat those who are already sick.
What is more, funding for financial incentives to support pregnant smokers to quit and for the Swap to Stop vape campaign is only guaranteed for two years. We need a long-term and sustained commitment to protect our most vulnerable from the harms of tobacco smoke, including unborn babies. I hope the Minister can ensure that those schemes will be funded for at least the full five years needed.
While the measures announced by the Government, which the APPG and Action on Smoking and Health have long called for, will have an important impact, they are not enough to achieve the Smokefree 2030 target of a maximum 5% smoking rate. We need further action. Of course, more action means more funding, which is where the APPG’s recommendation of a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers comes in.
As always, more money is needed if we are serious about a smoke-free future. Why, then, are we not seriously considering making the polluter, the tobacco industry, pay to address the damage that its products are inflicting on our communities? The industry makes vast profits in Britain every year. Why is it not being made to pay, instead of the taxpayer? As the APPG report makes clear, a levy on the industry would raise the funding necessary to achieve a smoke-free future for all, not just the most advantaged.
Ahead of the spring Budget, will the Minister commit to discussing the APPG’s proposal of a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers? Would she discuss this with Ministers responsible for tobacco policy in His Majesty’s Treasury? As health inequalities worsen and lives remain at risk, the Government must make up for their lost time with bolder action. They must make the polluter pay.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Mr Sharma, for chairing this debate and for calling me to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on moving the debate. He regularly secures debates on this subject, and has done so very well again today. I intended to speak on the issue of vaping, which he mentioned at the end of his comments. I agree with his point about children seeing vaping as a gateway into something, and that is very serious and needs to be addressed. It will probably be the real battleground for this issue in the future.
However, I want to turn to something else. With all policies, there are unintended consequences. I have no doubt that the Government’s intention is correct, but there are undoubtedly areas that raise unintended consequences.
I first want to turn the Minister’s attention to Northern Ireland. The impact on Northern Ireland will be significant, because under the Brexit arrangements—the protocol and the Windsor framework—the sale of tobacco products in Northern Ireland is regulated not by the UK Government but by EU law. It is therefore unclear how the Government would implement a generational ban in Northern Ireland under the current regulations and laws.
As recently as April 2022, the Danish Government tried to implement a generational ban, and the European authorities blocked them on the basis that it would impact Denmark’s European neighbours. Given the situation that Northern Ireland has unfortunately been placed in by the Government under the Windsor framework, this generational ban would not be implementable in a part of the United Kingdom, so 3% of the population of the UK do not matter when it comes to this policy. That is the impact that people will see. It one of the Prime Minister’s flagship policies, but its application would be prohibited in one part of the United Kingdom. The Government need to look at that issue if they are serious about this policy, and they must comment on how they intend to fix it.
If the UK Government were to find a means of introducing a generational ban in Northern Ireland while still adhering to the Windsor framework, they would therefore show that they are able to breach the final concluded Windsor framework agreement. If they are able to breach it on this issue, all the comments we have heard in this House over the past year—“It is finished,” “It is done,” “It cannot be changed”—are therefore set aside, as that would show that it can be done.
A generational ban in Northern Ireland would create an absurd situation whereby people living in County Armagh, County Fermanagh and County Londonderry could simply drive a few miles over the border to the local convenience shop or filling station in the Republic of Ireland and purchase cigarettes there, so I do not think the Government have thought through the implications for Northern Ireland. I would be very interested to hear how they intend to pursue these issues and address these matters.
I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for retail crime, safe and sustainable high streets, and I think the ban will have another unintended consequence on criminality in the whole United Kingdom, not exclusively in Northern Ireland. Every single day, there are 867 violent or abusive incidents affecting retailers across the United Kingdom. Most people working in retail shops—average corner shops—get abused at some point. I got that statistic from the British Retail Consortium, so it is an accurate figure. Asian Trader carried out a survey on the generational tobacco ban in November 2023, and it found that 86% of retailers believe that a generational prohibition on the sale of tobacco will have a negative effect on their business, and 55% say that it will complicate age checks in store and will lead to violent attacks on their staff. The majority of retailers say that the only way they can enforce a generational prohibition in the long term is through mandatory ID checks. Those are not my views; they are the views of retailers.
Of course, ID checks are an enforcement nightmare. Andrew Chevis, the founder of CitizenCard, the UK’s largest provider of proof-of-age cards, said in The House magazine in November 2023,
“I have deep concerns from both a retail and enforcement perspective”
about a generation ban. His concern is, of course, for the safety of retailers. I get that. Any of us who have retail or convenience stores in our constituencies—as we all do—will be concerned about these matters.
UK retailers already suffer sky-high levels of violence and abuse, and a generational prohibition could make that worse, as retailers will have to identify young-looking customers before they are able to sell them tobacco, and they will have to be convinced. I will be very interested to see the legislation when it is printed, and I would like the Minister to confirm whether, if a retailer decides, “Oh, that person is over the age, and I can legally sell it to them,” but it turns out that that person is not over the age—they were within a generational ban threshold—it is the retailer that has committed the criminal offence and not the purchaser. That goes right the way through.
In a few years, under this generational retail ban, a person who is in their 30s and should not be buying cigarettes in the first place—but they are in their 30s and are buying them—would not actually be committing a criminal offence as an adult, but the retailer would be committing an offence for selling them. That needs to be clear: who is ultimately responsible here when adults are making adult choices? I think that that needs to be cleared up.
As I said, a survey conducted by the British Retail Consortium identified that checking for proof of age is one of the biggest triggers for violence and abuse against UK retailers. I already quoted the figure of there being 867 violent or abusive incidents occurring every day.
The Prime Minister very kindly acknowledged some of these issues, just before the recess, when I had an event in Dining Room B with the retail crime, safe and sustainable high streets APPG. He kindly indicated, from his experience of when he was a kid working in a retail shop, how these things impact detrimentally on members of staff. If the Prime Minister can see that, then I think this issue needs to be properly looked at.
The Association of Convenience Store’s crime report is published every year. Its 2023 report says that there were 759,000 incidents of verbal abuse and that 34% of verbal abuse incidents are hate-motivated. It also says that, according to retailers, 87% of convenience store colleagues reported that they had faced verbal abuse in the past year. Therefore, although I think it is an unintended consequence, creating or increasing the opportunity for that sort of abuse to take place is a consequence that the Government have to deal with. Is there a better way of doing this? Is it better, for example, for the Government to say, “You are 21 or 22. You can only buy after you become an adult, at that higher age threshold”?
Bob Blackman
The hon. Member is giving a very thoughtful speech about some of the consequences. Does he accept the fact that, when individuals go into a public house, they will now routinely be challenged and asked for proof of identity if they look young? The challenge is often whether they are over 21, although they could, of course, legally buy alcohol at the age of 18. Many public houses will not serve anyone under the age of 21. Does the hon. Member accept the fact that, because this is already in operation, the retailer should have the right to challenge people who look young so that they can make sure that they are only selling to people who are over the legal age to buy?
Ian Paisley
That is a very good point when it comes to that threshold between 17 and 21 or 22. The problem is that this generational legislation creates a conveyor belt—from 18 to 19 to 20. Eventually you will be 37 and not be allowed to buy a cigarette under the law. But, if the retailer sells it to you, whether you are a young-looking, handsome 37-year-old or an old-looking boy, you will still end up not having committed a criminal offence, even though you have, but the retailer has committed an offence for selling it to you. At that point, where do the ID checks come in?
Perhaps the intention is that there will be a time in the next five, six, seven or eight years when no one will smoke. I want to turn to that. The one issue that I have pushed hard and heavy on since becoming a Member of Parliament is the criminalisation of illicit sales of tobacco that furnish criminals’ pockets. It is that illegal crime that really worries me.
The hon. Member for Harrow East, who moved the motion today, quite rightly commented on where he thinks the level of public consumption of cigarettes is. I think that the real figure is startlingly higher, because His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that 11% of cigarette consumption and 35% of hand-rolling tobacco consumption in the UK comes from the illegal trade. People are buying it illicitly, either as stolen products or black market products that have been brought into the United Kingdom. This is happening in a huge number of areas, and it is fuelling criminal gangs.
That is the higher level. There are more people consuming tobacco than some people want to admit but, unfortunately, they are buying it illegally. The Government are not benefiting in terms of tax and legitimate manufacturers are not benefiting. In fact, the companies are disadvantaged because the product is sometimes stolen from their companies, or is a copy—a counterfeit—of their products.
The Government must decide whether they want tobacco to be supplied to UK consumers by a taxed and regulated private sector, as it currently is, or by the public sector as a medicine, which may be one way of doing it, or by the criminal sector, in the same way that cannabis is sold. Those are the choices that the Government ultimately face.
In my view, a generational prohibition will gradually hand even more of the UK tobacco market to organised criminal gangs, who use the money from tobacco smuggling to fund activities including terrorism, people smuggling, prostitution and all sorts of other things. That view is lifted from the US State Department’s 2015 report, “The Global Illicit Trade in Tobacco: A Threat to National Security”. That is why the gangs deploy such resources. When the South African Government banned the sale of tobacco during covid, illegal traders quickly stepped in. Today, 93% of tobacco sold in South Africa is illicit trade and counterfeit trade. We need to get this absolutely right or else we create a bonanza for the criminal. The sooner we do that, the better, and I am sure the Minister will consider those issues.
I do not want to criminalise shopkeepers, and I know the hon. Member for Harrow East does not want that, but that will be an unintended consequence. As people get older, it will be very difficult to judge whether they can be sold a cigarette. Shopkeepers will have to ask for ID, and we do not have ID in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, we have a form of ID in our electoral cards, but they do not carry a date of birth, although they do show that a person is over the age of 18. That would have to be changed if they were to be used in Northern Ireland.
What are the alternatives? Many retailers and others have suggested that raising the age of sale for tobacco products to 21 would be much simpler to implement and would avoid this potential negative consequence, and the nightmare of regulation. It would be far easier to implement and enforce, and would avoid the complete takeover of the UK tobacco market by criminals. I urge the Government to consider those alternatives in pursuing this incredibly important flagship policy. For the record, I do not promote smoking, but I believe in adults making choices. We have to try to solve the real problem, not create another one.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing it. As with most subjects he chooses to discuss in Westminster Hall, I can echo most of what he says—not on all occasions, but on most. I am very pleased to be here to support him.
I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) in her place and I look forward to her contribution —we have been friends for a long time. I am especially pleased to see the Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom)—in her place. She came to speak at an association dinner in my constituency, and she was greatly and well received. In fact, not only was she well received, she left a lasting impression on my constituents. I would fear it if the right hon. Lady came to Strangford to run as a candidate—I say that in jest; I very much appreciate the right hon. Lady.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on respiratory health, I have spoken many times about my strong support for the UK Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition and my desire for Northern Ireland to follow the other UK nations in setting our own smoke-free target. Smoking is a terrible addiction that devastates communities across the United Kingdom and will continue to do so unless we take action. I welcome the action that the Government have taken, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) eloquently and forcefully outlined the position for Northern Ireland and the issues that we need to address.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s world-leading commitment to create a smoke-free generation. I was also pleased to see that the Government’s recent consultation on creating a smoke-free generation and tackling youth vaping was held in conjunction with the devolved Administrations. The Government recognised that it was important to bring the four regions together. The Government understand the issues and I hope that the Minister will address some of the issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim referred. Northern Ireland and the devolved nations have responsibility for their own public health policies, but we will be successful in achieving a smoke-free future across the UK only if we work together. It is no secret that I always refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as “better together”. None of my Scottish colleagues is here today, which is a pity; if they were, I would be saying the same thing to them.
I commend the Minister for her vocal support for tobacco controls since being appointed. She was very clear in calling out attempts by tobacco companies to undermine the smoke-free generation policy. That was a clear direction, straight from our Minister and our Government. As the Minister knows, healthcare services are under severe pressure across the United Kingdom. Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease in Northern Ireland; it killed some 2,200 people and was responsible for 35,000 hospital admissions in 2022. Smoking is responsible for more than seven in 10 cases of lung cancer and a similar proportion of cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The estimated hospital costs for treating smoke-related diseases in Northern Ireland are £172 million. It has a big impact on the Northern Ireland health sector.
There remain significant inequalities in smoking prevalence: those living in the most deprived areas are two or three times more likely to smoke than those living in the least deprived areas. The hon. Member for Harrow East referred to that, and perhaps the Minister could give us her thoughts on it. Inequalities in smoking prevalence also persist among other groups, particularly those with mental ill health: probable clinical depression is four times more common among current smokers than among those who have never smoked. If we do not take urgent action to reduce smoking rates, our already overburdened health service will continue to be put under huge pressure from smoking-related diseases for years to come.
As the analysis for the APPG on smoking and health demonstrates, smoking not only impacts healthcare services but severely undermines economic productivity. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and I have shared many platforms where I have made that point. The economic impact is clear: smoking places a burden on public finances that far outweighs the income from tobacco taxes, because it reduces direct tax income and increases social security costs.
I also commend “A Vision for a Smokefree Northern Ireland”, which was published by ASH NI and Cancer Focus NI. The vision calls for Northern Ireland to have a smoke-free target of 5% smoking prevalence by 2035. If only that was achievable. It is good to have a goal—we always need a target to aim for—and I hope that we can rectify that soon. Northern Ireland has the highest rates of smoking in the UK. We are nowhere near to being on track. Indeed, we are on track to achieving 5% smoking prevalence by 2042, so it is a brave while away. Therefore we must step up all our efforts, both at the devolved level and at the UK level, if we want to achieve a smoke-free future, which will mean redoubling our efforts to prevent children and young people from starting smoking and supporting existing smokers to quit and stay smoke free.
“A Vision for a Smokefree Northern Ireland” also highlights the importance of strong enforcement to tackle the scourge of illicit tobacco and vaping products, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim referred. It is one of the big issues for us in Northern Ireland. The sale of illicit tobacco undermines efforts to reduce smoking rates. It is concentrated among poorer smokers and disadvantaged communities, and contributes to higher rates of smoking. Retailers that sell illicit tobacco are much more likely to be happy to sell to children, so the illicit market also poses a particular risk to children’s health, which needs to be addressed. That requires us to tackle not just the supply but the demand for illicit tobacco in communities where smoking is endemic.
The UK has made massive strides in reducing the trade in illicit tobacco over the last few decades. It has reduced the market share of illicit cigarettes from 22% to 11% in some 21 years. However, there is still more to be done. HMRC and Border Force are due to publish an updated strategy to tackle illicit tobacco. Again, that is not the Minister’s responsibility directly, but I am really keen to get some ideas. Northern Ireland, with its land border with the EU, is particularly geographically vulnerable to illicit trade run by criminal gangs. Border Force and HMRC have a key role to play in tackling smuggled tobacco, especially in our most disadvantaged communities where smoking rates are highest. I look forward to seeing the new strategy published in the near future. Maybe the Minister will give us some thoughts on the timescale and when we can aim towards that.
I will ask three or four questions if I may, Mr Sharma. Can the Minister confirm that the new illicit trade strategy will cover illicit vapes, which have become a significant challenge over the last few years and have helped to drive increases in youth vaping across the UK? I look forward to seeing the Government’s response to last year’s consultation on mandating inserts with information on stopping smoking inside tobacco packs. I hope that the measure will be introduced on a UK footprint, benefiting my constituents in Strangford. It is another way of tackling the disease and the problem. It has been required in Canada since the year 2000, where there is substantial evidence showing that inserts are effective in encouraging smokers to quit. The evidential base in Canada shows that the measure has been effective. I think we should be taking every effort to ensure that it happens here.
The Government’s guidance states that responses should be published within 12 weeks or an explanation should be provided as to why it has not happened. Again, if the Minister does not mind, I will ask about that. The 12 weeks was up on Tuesday past. I do not know whether the Minister is able to deliver the news and information we are looking for in the debate today, but I would like to have some update if at all possible. When the consultation closed on 6 December, the Government said that the next steps would be published in the “coming weeks”. That is where we are; we are in the coming weeks, and it would make sense to publish both responses at the same time. To delay the speculation, I would appreciate some clarity.
My second question is: can the Minister confirm when the response to the consultation on pack inserts will take place, and whether legislation to take that important measure forward will be included in the forthcoming tobacco and vapes Bill? I hope that it will be, because deterring children and young people from taking up smoking is vital if we are to create a smoke-free generation. I endorse the Prime Minister’s request, as does the House; we see it as a positive way forward, and the introduction of the warnings would be very positive. The APPG on smoking and health recommended that in both its 2021 and 2023 reports. It seems that the inserts would require only small amendments to the existing regulations—I am not a legislative person, but I have been told that that is the case—not new primary legislation, so we could probably do it easily.
There is a growing body of international evidence supporting the effectiveness of what are known as “dissuasive cigarettes”, particularly in making cigarettes less attractive to younger adolescents and those who have never smoked. Again, the Canadian Government recently announced that Canada would be the first country to introduce dissuasive cigarettes. It is quite interesting. I gave the example of what Canada did in the year 2000, 23 years ago, which is what we are looking towards today. Canada is doing it now on dissuasive cigarettes. May I suggest, Minister, with respect, that it may be time for us to do the same thing now, rather than waiting 20 years to do it?
I recognise that the Government already have a substantial legislative programme to enact before the next election. I understand that they are pushed for time and it is difficult sometimes to get everything in on both smoking and vaping. However, I ask the Minister to at least commit to consulting on warnings on cigarettes, to start the clock ticking on that simple and sensible measure. The UK waited for over 20 years after implementation by Canada to consult on cigarette pack inserts. We should not wait another 20 years after Canada implements warnings on cigarettes before we consult on this important measure.
Thank you, Mr Sharma, for giving me the chance to speak, and so early as well. I look forward positively to the Minister clarifying the issues that I have raised as everyone seeks to work together to find a healthier, stronger and smoke-free United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate on the APPG on smoking and health’s tobacco control manifesto for a smoke-free future.
I welcome the Government’s bold smoke-free generation announcement, which has my full support and that of my party. The more we can do to prevent future generations from ever taking up this lethal and addictive product, the better. Parliament will stand firm with the Government against attempts to prevent crucial legislation from passing into law. On that note, I was pleased to see the guidance recently published by the Minister’s Department on how all parts of government should act to prevent the tobacco industry’s interference in public policy, in line with our international obligations.
My constituency of Blaydon is in the north-east, a region that has traditionally had a higher prevalence of smoking than the rest of the country, although we have made significant progress in narrowing the gap and lots of action is still being taken. That is thanks to the tireless efforts of local councils and NHS trusts in our region working together to continue the work on smoking cessation, and to the huge efforts of Fresh, our brilliant regional tobacco control programme. I thank Ailsa Rutter and her team for all the work they do locally.
Smoking costs my local authority, Gateshead Council, almost £170 million a year in lost economic productivity and NHS and social care costs. That does not include spending on tobacco, which costs the average smoker over £3,000 a year—a total of £54 million in Gateshead. That spending literally goes up in smoke, providing no tangible benefit to the local economy—not to mention the devastating impact it has on the health and wellbeing of my local community.
One of the groups hit hardest by the health consequences of smoking is people with mental health conditions. People with diagnosed and long-term mental health conditions are more than twice as likely to smoke than the general population. For those with serious mental illness, smoking rates are as high as 40%. That leads to people with mental health conditions dying up to 25 years earlier than the general population, depending on their condition, and smoking is a leading cause of this disparity. As we know, smoking can indirectly contribute to poor mental health through illness, unemployment, poverty and addiction. Helping people to break that vicious cycle is vital if we are to improve the physical and mental health of people with mental health conditions and the population more widely.
At the current rate of decline, people with mental health conditions will not achieve the smoke-free target until the mid-2050s, around 20 years later than the population at large. Although it is positive to see “stop smoking” support being rolled out in mental health in-patient settings, I understand that the roll-out of support in community mental health services has been paused. We need to think about how we support people with mental health conditions right across the board, regardless of whether that is in the community or in in-patient settings. That includes tackling the myth that smoking is an effective form of stress relief, which could not be further from the truth.
There is also far too little awareness about the mental health benefits of quitting. It is vital that we get the message out, but we are still awaiting the response to the Government’s consultation on pack inserts, which was due early this week, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has already mentioned. I, too, ask the Minister when the response to the consultation on pack inserts will be available. When will the statutory instrument to take that measure forward be laid before Parliament?
I will finish by sharing an anecdote. Other Members have talked about the impact of vaping on young people and the approach that we should be taking, and I had a salutary reminder about that when I attended a Christmas fair in my constituency last year. I was buying bits and pieces to support traders and to make up Christmas eve boxes for some of the children I know. I bought some very pretty knitted bags from a craft store and was absolutely shocked when I got home to find a packet of Barbie candy sticks inside each one. I thought we had gone well past that sort of thing. Needless to say, I did not use them and they were thrown away. It is important that we are not complacent about how far we have come and how far we have to go, so that really struck me.
It is good to see the bold action that has been set out to tackle such a deadly addiction, but the Government need to do more to ensure that smokers in the most deprived groups are not left behind as we move towards a smoke-free future.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and to speak in this important debate. It has been great to hear the large degree of consensus across the House on our ambition to secure a smoke-free future. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate and for his work with the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I also welcome the new Minister to her place.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and the hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their powerful contributions on why we need a smoke-free future. They talked about the health impacts that we currently see, but also offered practical solutions.
As we have heard today, smoking is an absolute blight on the health of our society. The “Global Burden of Disease” study found that despite the fall in smoking rates in recent decades, it remains the No. 1 risk factor that causes premature deaths in England. In 2019, tobacco caused an estimated 125,000 deaths in the UK. That is one person every five minutes—a staggering statistic. On average, smokers lose 10 years of life. Not only is smoking an expensive habit, as we have heard, but it is three or four times more common in some of our most deprived communities.
If everyone quit tomorrow, it is estimated that that could lift 1 million children out of poverty. That is to say nothing of the impact on the economy. Not only is it another cost to our NHS, but Action on Smoking and Health has estimated that smoking costs the United Kingdom £32 billion in lost productivity through lost earnings, unemployment and early deaths, and another £15 billion in social care costs. The evidence is overwhelming that for the future of the NHS, the economy and the health and wellbeing of the country, smoking is bad for Britain.
As Primary Care and Public Health Minister, I will drive a prevention agenda forward. The agenda has received many warm words from Conservative MPs and Ministers in the abstract, but very little by way of action over the past 14 years. We in Labour have set ourselves a clear mission to reduce the number of lives lost to the biggest killers. Realising a smoke-free future will be integral to that.
Smoking, of course, is the leading cause of cancer in the United Kingdom. It is strongly linked to cardiovascular disease, which is highly preventable, yet causes one in four deaths in the United Kingdom. Some 15,000 deaths from heart and circulatory diseases can be attributed to smoking every single year, so Labour has set clear targets on both cancer and cardiovascular disease. We will improve cancer survival rates by hitting NHS cancer waiting time and early diagnosis targets within five years so that no patient waits longer than they should, and we will reduce deaths from heart disease and stroke by a quarter within 10 years. Building a smoke-free future will be key to that to help more people make that journey.
We welcomed the Khan review when it was published in 2022, and we were pleased to see some of the recommendations taken forward. I will not use this debate to discuss the Government’s smoke-free generation legislation. We shall await their response to the consultation when it is published—perhaps the Minister can today share the timeline for that. To be clear, the Opposition support phasing out smoking over time, and we encourage the Government to get on with it.
When we proposed phasing out smoking, some Conservatives attacked us. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), who cannot take part in the debate today, called it “health fascism’’ and
“an attack on ordinary people and their culture”.
I ask those Members what freedom they think there is in addiction. Is it in the average 10 years of life lost by smokers compared with non-smokers? Or the millions of children growing up with parents who smoke? It is a shame that the Prime Minister has failed to convince his MPs of the argument for the reforms and is calling a free vote. But he can rest assured that Labour will vote to see this through.
As Members have highlighted today, the legislation cannot be a substitute for smoking cessation services and other public health measures. Two thirds of adult smokers started before the age of 18; the legislation will come too late for them. Adults who have smoked for years and have not managed to kick the habit need help, too. Does the Minister share my concern that local government funding for “stop smoking” services and tobacco control has fallen by 45% since 2015? Has she assessed the impact of that against the 2030 ambition? Can she provide an update on when the major conditions strategy will be published?
One of the clearest cases to do more on smoking is the impact on children. There has been good progress in recent decades to bring down maternal smoking, but there is more to do. Last year, 9% of mothers were smokers at the time of delivery—still some 50% above the Government’s 6% target. At the current rate of progress, we will not hit that goal until 2032. That is why, as part of Labour’s child health action plan, which was launched today, we would make sure that all hospital trusts integrated opt-out smoking cessation interventions into routine care, with a named lead on smoking cessation, meaning that parents would have all the support they needed to quit and every interaction with the NHS actually encouraged quitting.
Children born to households that smoke are more likely to be born with heart defects, born underweight, or grow up to be smokers themselves—if they grow up at all. Smoking in pregnancy doubles the likelihood of stillbirth. It increases the risk of pre-term birth and miscarriage, and trebles the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. The health of Britain’s children should be non-negotiable. For my part, I want to ensure that children born in Britain today are part of the healthiest generation to have ever lived. But to do that, children deserve a smoke-free start. Can the Minister tell us what she is doing to ensure that every expecting mother is offered the smoking cessation support they need, and that partners, as we heard from the hon. Member for Harrow East, are also encouraged to quit?
For far too long, public health has been either an afterthought or a battleground on which to have ideological arguments. Strategies have been announced and binned in short order, health inequalities have widened, and the long-term crisis in the NHS has deepened. But, just as the last Labour Government delivered one of the most significant public health interventions in history in the smoking ban, the next Labour Government will grasp the smoke-free challenge. We will get serious about prevention, deliver equitable access to smoking cessation services, and take on tobacco companies that profit at the expense of public health. As part of our child health action plan, Labour will make sure that Britain’s children get the happy and healthy start in life that they deserve.
Recently, a school in my constituency had to apologise after handing out a leaflet to a child suggesting smoking as a self-help measure—absolutely shocking and bizarre. That is why Labour has decided to legislate to make tobacco companies include information in tobacco products that dispels the myth that smoking reduces stress and anxiety, and to crack down on businesses marketing vapes to children. We will ensure that the incremental ban on smoking comes into force so that the next generation are not addicted to tobacco. The last Labour Government led the way in tackling smoking, and the next one will do so again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship today, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing a debate on such an important issue, and pay tribute to his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. He really has been tireless in holding not only Health Ministers’ feet, but the Prime Minister’s feet, to the fire and making sure that we keep tobacco control a top priority. I am also grateful to the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for their participation today. I welcome the chance to update the House on our progress towards a smoke-free future. I welcome the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) to her place, and look forward to working constructively with her on the tobacco and vapes Bill and other things. I hope there will be much that we can agree and collaborate on.
I want my legacy as Public Health Minister to be weighed and measured by everything we have done to protect the vulnerable in society. Critical to that, of course, is keeping our children safe. We already know that in the United Kingdom, smoking kills around 80,000 people every year, causing one in four cancer deaths; costing £17 billion a year in ill health, lost productivity and demands on the NHS and social care; and putting a huge burden on our health service. Like many others, I have been appalled in recent years to see the number of children vaping treble. It is estimated that no fewer than one in five children have now used a vape.
That is why, in October, the Prime Minister announced action across four areas: first, creating a smoke-free generation by ensuring that children turning 15 this year, or younger, will never legally be sold tobacco products; secondly, supporting existing smokers to quit through significant new funding and support; thirdly, protecting our children from vaping by reducing the appeal and availability of vapes; and fourthly, introducing new action to enforce these rules.
I will address each priority area in turn. First, let us be crystal clear: the tobacco and vapes Bill will save many lives. Unlike other consumer products, there is no safe level of nicotine consumption; it is a product that kills up to two thirds of its long-term users and causes 70% of lung cancer deaths. We are not doing this blind. We already know that action to increase the age of sale works. When the age of sale was raised from 16 to 18 years old, smoking rates for 16 and 17-year-olds in England fell by almost a third. This is a tried and tested policy, and while we have seen some progress, I know there is a lot more to be done—almost 13% in that age bracket are still smoking.
Our modelling suggests that this measure to increase the age of sale will reduce smoking rates in England among 14 to 30-year-olds to close to zero as early as 2040. I am sure that is not early enough for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, and colleagues across this Chamber, who would like to see that happen sooner—as would I. Nevertheless, that is what the modelling suggests. It is progress in the right direction and will save many lives. I am committed to publishing an impact assessment very soon that will set out for colleagues a more complete picture of the costs and benefits of the Government’s smoke-free generation policy.
No one doubts that smoking massively increases the risk of stillbirth; a number of colleagues have raised that today. Smoking also causes asthma in children, and is strongly linked to dementia, stroke and heart failure in old age, as well as to disability and death throughout the life course. Non-smokers, including children, pregnant mums-to-be and their babies are exposed to second-hand smoke, putting them at serious risk through absolutely no choice of their own. This is not about freedom of choice; it is about protecting the vulnerable. Almost every minute of every day someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking, and up to 75,000 GP appointments can be attributed to smoking each month—that is over 100 GP appointments every hour. Reducing that burden will therefore save the NHS money that we can reinvest into research, frontline care and cutting waiting lists.
This measure is not just the right thing for our children’s health; there is a very strong economic case for it too. Analysis by Action on Smoking and Health has estimated the cost of tobacco to society to be £17 billion a year. That figure is out of date, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has just updated it—the Department is very swiftly trying to verify that—but the last published data showed that the directly attributable cost of smoking to society was around £17 billion a year. That dwarfs the £10 billion a year the Treasury receives from taxes on tobacco products.
That cost of £17 billion includes £14 billion lost to productivity through smoking-related lost earnings, unemployment and early death, as well a direct cost to the NHS and to social care of £1.9 billion and £1.1 billion a year, respectively. The cost of smoking to the economy and wider society is equivalent to the annual salaries of over half a million nurses, almost 400,000 GPs, 400,000 police officers, or 400 million GP appointments.
Reducing smoking rates will bring down those costs and help our economy to become more productive. The smoke-free generation policy could provide cumulative productivity benefits of a staggering £85 billion within the next 50 years. That is why the Government are taking such bold and historic action through the tobacco and vapes Bill.
As well as stopping children starting, our second aim is to do more to help current smokers to quit. Quitting smoking is the best thing a smoker can do for their health: someone who quits before turning 30 could add 10 years to their life. That is very reassuring to me; I started smoking at the age of 14 and gave up as my 21st birthday present to myself, by which time I was smoking 40 a day. I was a student—how did I afford it? I have no idea! I am so glad I stopped. For anyone who doubts how addictive it is, I turned 60 last year and still—
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Yes, I know. You can’t believe that, can you?
Even to this day, talking about smoking all the time, I sometimes think, “Ooh a cigarette.” That is how addictive it is—40 years on and I still think, “Ooh!” It is that addictive, and that is absolutely appalling.
We have announced that we will more than double the funding to local stop smoking services across England to a total of £138 million a year, which will help around 360,000 people to quit every year. We are backing these efforts with substantial new money to support marketing campaigns. These measures are easy, common-sense and cost-effective ways to help people to kick the habit.
As colleagues will know, I am passionate about helping new mums, mums-to-be, new parents, new families and their babies, which is why I have asked officials to redouble our efforts to tackle smoking in pregnancy. Women who smoke during pregnancy are two and a half times more likely to give birth prematurely, and smoking is a significant driver of stillbirth. I want to do everything I can to spare parents the awful and heartbreaking tragedy of losing a baby, which we have heard so much about in this place only recently.
On average, just over one in 10 mums smoke at the time of delivery, but that number is as high as one in five in certain parts of the country, as some colleagues have spoken about already. We know that pregnant women who receive financial incentives are twice as likely to successfully quit throughout pregnancy compared to those who do not, so we are working to roll out a national financial incentive scheme by the end of 2024 to help all pregnant smokers and their partners to quit. This will build on our work over recent years to develop high-quality stop smoking support for pregnant women and their partners, with programmes such as the NHS long-term plan commitments on maternal smoking and the saving babies’ lives care bundle.
Thirdly, as I said at the start of my remarks, youth vaping has tripled in recent years. One in five children have now used a vape. I am especially worried about the damage being done to children’s bodies by illegal vapes, which is a growing concern for mums and dads across the country. The health advice is clear: young people and those who have never smoked should not vape. We have a duty to protect our children from underage vaping while their lungs and brains are still developing. There is not yet enough evidence on the long-term impact of vaping on young brains and lungs. I will not stand by while businesses knowingly and deliberately encourage children to use a product that is designed to help adults quit smoking. Those business do so with full knowledge that our children will become addicted to nicotine—well, not on my watch.
We have announced that we will take tough new action to reduce the appeal and availability of vapes through the tobacco and vapes Bill. In our recent public consultation, we sought views on restricting flavours, point-of-sale displays and packaging. On a visit to retail outlets in Hackney, I saw sweet counters and vape counters side by side, with the vapes in pretty packaging with cartoon characters and in little things that look like Coke cans. These vapes are not designed for 60-year-old smokers; they are designed for children, to get them addicted to nicotine.
The consultation has revealed something we already know: there are serious and justifiable environmental concerns over disposable vapes. It is a simple truth that more than 5 million disposable vapes are either littered or thrown away in general waste every week. That number has quadrupled in just the last year. Being sold at pocket-money prices, easy to use and widely available, disposable vapes are, of course, the product of choice for children. More than two thirds of current youth vapers use disposable products. We must and will take action.
Fourthly, a strong approach to enforcement is vital to ensure that our policy actually takes effect. The underage and illicit sale of tobacco, and more recently vapes, is undermining the work the Government are doing to regulate the industry and protect public health. We are cracking down on this evil and illicit trade by backing enforcement agencies including Border Force, HMRC and trading standards with £30 million extra per year. We will introduce powers in the tobacco and vapes Bill to give on-the-spot fines to tackle underage sales. I am pleased we can count on the strong support of trading standards officers right across the country.
Our public consultation closed on 6 December and we received nearly 28,000 valid responses. I am happy to assure all colleagues that we will publish our response in the coming weeks, ahead of the introduction of the tobacco and vapes Bill. I believe that our actions in this space show that the Government are willing to take tough, long-term decisions to protect our children and safeguard the health of future generations.
I will now answer some of the questions raised by hon. Members today; I thank them again for their contributions. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, our public consultation closed on 6 December and within the next few weeks we will publish the consultation. Of course we will then bring forward the Bill, which is, as everybody knows, a top priority for the Prime Minister.
As for the point about a polluter pays levy, the Treasury has looked at that in detail, but so far it has decided against it. I absolutely assure colleagues that I will take that point away and consider it again.
I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for her invitation to visit her constituency, which I would be delighted to accept. She highlighted the fact that the discrepancy in life expectancy between different parts of her constituency is 50% attributable to smoking, which is a shocking figure. That is not uncommon around the country, so we need to tackle that issue.
I say gently to the hon. Member for North Antrim that when the legal age for smoking was raised, it reduced illicit tobacco sales by 25%; the evidence suggests that far from increasing criminality, raising the legal age for smoking decreases it.
The hon. Gentleman also asked a question about Northern Ireland specifically. I am pleased to tell him that in the Bill we propose to give Northern Ireland the powers to regulate in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. There has been a lot of consultation with the devolved Administrations and once the Stormont Assembly—which I urge him to get back up and running —is back up and running, Northern Ireland will be able to legislate to have exactly the same regime as the rest of the United Kingdom.
Ian Paisley
I do not know whether it is relevant, Mr Sharma, but for the completeness of the record I ought to have referred to my registered interests. I chair a charitable trust on employment and skills development that is named after Tom Gallaher, a leading industrialist of his age who was a tobacconist. I should just declare that on the record.
On the point that the Minister has just raised, may I ask her to go back to the Department and get advice for us? If Northern Ireland is restricted from regulating on this issue, because of our EU connection through the Windsor framework, even the Assembly would not be able to legislate on it, in the same way that the Danes were unable to do it. I really seek advice on that from the Minister.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on that point to give him absolute clarity.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for his contribution today. I very much enjoyed the visit that I made to his constituency, which was a long time ago—indeed, many years ago. He spoke about the importance of the four nations working together. I completely agree with him; the UK is much stronger together. I hope that in my remarks I have answered his other questions.
I also thank the hon. Member for Blaydon for her support for the Bill and for pointing out that it is vital, particularly in the north-east where smoking prevalence is higher than average in many other parts, that we really take steps to tackle the issue. I echo her expression of gratitude to local councillors, the NHS and to Fresh, the charity in her constituency, for the work that they have done to try to tackle smoking.
As I have said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, I hope we can work together constructively to ensure that we introduce these changes as soon as we can.
In closing, I will quickly address the New Zealand Government’s announcement that they will no longer introduce the smoking measures that had been planned there. There have been many calls, not least from the tobacco industry—I wonder why!—for us to row back on our plans following that decision. In response to those calls, I stress that the New Zealand plans included a licensing scheme to limit quite significantly the number of retailers able to sell tobacco and plans to limit the amount of nicotine in consumer products. Our Government are introducing a smoke-free generation, by protecting future generations from the harms of smoking while leaving current adult smokers the freedom to continue smoking if they choose to do so.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her response to the debate. In my contribution, I gave a couple of examples from Canada that we had followed here, and I urged the Government here to follow the new ideas in Canada to dissuade people from smoking. Has she had an opportunity to look at some of the Canadian legislation? I am very simple: if I see something good, I think, “Let’s do it”. If it works there, it should work here as well.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I absolutely agree. We should always keep an eye on what other nations are doing.
I reiterate that our position remains unchanged. This will be world-leading, and we want to be a trailblazer in the absolutely crucial area of protecting future generations; protecting the health of our nation; protecting our future children and babies; and, at the same time, protecting our NHS. Let other nations follow our example. I look forward to working with colleagues right across the House as we bring that to fruition, and I thank them for their contributions.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), for their responses. I will politely and gently point out that every single measure on smoking has always been led from the Back Benches. I well remember that some 11 years ago I was sitting where I am sitting today, leading a debate on the standardised packaging of tobacco products, and both the Opposition Front Bencher and the Government Front Bencher said, “We have no plans for and do not support standardised packaging of tobacco products.” Two years later, it was introduced. Indeed, the smoking ban, originally put forward under a Labour Government, came from Back-Bench pressure, and the Minister at the time was trying to prevent it. We must be clear that Back Benchers lead the way on tobacco legislation.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It is important that we ramp up and keep the pressure on Government to take action. It is good that we have seen actions over the last few months on introducing the Khan review, but we must remember that the proposed legislation does not introduce every single measure recommended in it. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to have another look at the Khan review to see what else can be done, possibly without the need for legislation, and to have discussions again with the Treasury on the “polluter pays” levy. After all, we would all like to see more money invested in the health service: let us get it from the tobacco industry, rather than the hard-pressed taxpayer.
I urge the Government to ensure that we take action on vaping and on youth vaping in particular. I am really concerned, as the Minister quite rightly said in her speech, that there is not yet evidence on the damage done by vaping. It must be safer than smoking, so giving up is a good thing to do, but damage is being done and addiction is being heaped on people. In many ways, what we see in vaping is what used to happen with the packaging of tobacco products: they were made to look sexy and cool for young people. We barred that and, as a result, youth smoking dropped. That is vital.
I also welcome the fact that there is cross-party support for the legislation, so we can ensure that we get it through quickly and on to the statute book. However, let us be clear: we need to go further in order to achieve a smoke-free England. It is for not just the next generation, but every future generation to come. Our all-party parliamentary group’s manifesto sets out the measures that we need to take that will just about get us to a smoke-free England in 2030. However, we need action on those measures soon if we are to achieve that, so I commend the manifesto to the House and look forward to the full implementation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of a smokefree future.
New Dementia Treatments
(3 months, 4 weeks 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
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of new dementia treatments.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the chance to introduce this debate.
It is timely to be having this debate at the beginning of this year because in 2024, almost for the first time since dementia became an increasingly widespread condition as people live longer, there are the first glimmers of hope. Alzheimer’s Research UK, which is one of the leading dementia charities, alongside various others such as Dementia UK, is openly talking about a tipping point. We must hope it is right, because the cold statistics and the human cost of dementia show that we desperately need progress on diagnosis and treatment for the set of diseases that cause the condition.
The figures are stark: nearly 1 million people in the UK live with dementia, and on current trends that number will have increased to 1.6 million by 2050. As I speak, in the UK there are no treatments that can slow, stop or cure dementia, and we have been living with that situation for a long time.
We all have constituents who are affected—there are 1,600 people living with dementia in my constituency of Ashford—but I first took a special interest in this issue for the worst possible reason: my father suffered from dementia in his last few years, so I saw close up and over a long time how cruel and debilitating a disease it is, not just for the victim but for the families and those closest to them. I am conscious that others in the Chamber will have had similar experiences. One in two of us will be directly affected, either by developing the disease ourselves, caring for someone with the condition or, in some particularly tragic cases, both.
The history of this disease could hardly be bleaker. It is the dark side of the historically wonderful fact that life expectancy has been rising very fast in recent decades in not just this country but many other countries too. One of the problems we face is that our health system has not been devised to cope with this disease.
Despite that bleak background, there is now a glimmer of hope—indeed, several glimmers of hope. The first is that new ways of diagnosing the diseases that cause dementia, such as blood tests for Alzheimer’s, are showing promise. The second, and the main cause of optimism among those who are involved in dealing with dementia day to day, is the development of treatments that slow the course of the disease. Since the treatments are the new things on the horizon, I will return to that subject in a moment.
The third glimmer of hope is that we are developing new insights that show how we can reduce the prevalence of dementia in the first place by addressing the factors that affect our brain health over the entire course of our life. I was fascinated to read that some experts think 40% of dementia cases worldwide could be preventable. That is clearly a long-term figure that we should bear in mind.
Although all three of those changes are important, for the purpose of today’s debate I want to concentrate on the treatments.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing this important debate. Is there not an enormously important fourth strand of this: effective management of the condition and the various aids, adaptations and regimes that enable people to continue to function longer, for the benefit of themselves, their families and wider society?
Damian Green
The right hon. Gentleman is completely right. There are new management techniques. I did not want to extend the debate too widely, but I am struck by the way that technology—not cutting-edge technology but technology available to all of us, such as smart speakers—can remind people that they need to take a red pill at 11 o’clock or remind relatives that the fridge has not been opened for five hours, meaning that someone has forgotten to take out their lunch. It can help with all those kinds of day-to-day issues and, if used properly, enable people to live in their own homes for longer, even if they are suffering this disease. I agree that that is a very important potential set of breakthroughs.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to add my voice in support of more research in this area. Is it not the case that, despite improvements, the amount of money spent on research and the structuring of proper research trials—which, by their nature, have to go on for many years—is a drop in the ocean compared with the savings we can make in the health system, improvements to people’s lives, and in the social care system? Is that not yet another motivation that makes this topic incredibly important?
Damian Green
My right hon. Friend has huge expertise over the entire health field and therefore in this area as well. He is completely right, and I will come on to savings, particularly potential savings in the social care budget as well as the health budget, in a couple of minutes. It is one of the points I want to emphasise to the Minister.
To return to the treatments, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has already started consideration of lecanemab and donanemab—I wish treatments had more pronounceable names—two very important breakthrough drugs, and I believe a final decision is expected by the middle of this year. Inevitably, at this early stage of the development of drugs in any particular field, there are many more out there. Another 140 drugs are undergoing clinical trials around the world at the moment. They will not all work, but some of them will, so in scientific and research terms, this is genuinely an exciting period in this field.
Perhaps the most significant point I want to make to the Minister is to express the hope that the way in which the system decides whether to approve a drug is fit for purpose for this type of drug. That is genuinely in question and gives rise to the point my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) made about costs. There are inevitable gaps in our knowledge about the efficacy of new treatments in an area where, up to now, there have been no treatments. Much of the usual comparative work one would expect to be done in clinical trials cannot be done in these circumstances, so there is a task for Ministers to make sure that NHS bodies and the industry develop a joint plan to allow these new treatments to be available to the NHS at a reasonable price.
There is also an important specific point that could affect whether the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence gives financial approval to these treatments in the first place. The bulk of the current costs of dementia falls on the social care system, particularly on unpaid carers. Estimates suggest that around £22 billion a year of costs fall on informal or formal social care. The direct costs to the NHS are only £1.7 billion a year—a small fraction of the cost to the social care system. The current NICE assessment process will take into account only the NHS costs, and clearly that could adversely affect a decision about whether drugs are affordable.
Whether the current NICE system provides the proper result for this type of drug and disease would be questionable at any time, but it is particularly questionable when other arms of government are concentrating on getting more working-age people back to work. More than 1 million people between the ages of 25 and 49 are out of work because of caring responsibilities, and some of those will be caring responsibilities for people suffering from dementia, perhaps in its early stages, when we are not using technology well enough to allow people to lead more or less normal lives.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and a particularly pertinent point about NICE considering only the cost to the NHS. Is that not even more surprising given that NICE stands for “National Institute for Health and Care Excellence”? Clearly, the guidelines need urgent revision.
Damian Green
I am delighted to have my hon. Friend’s support. Since the old Department of Health was renamed the Department of Health and Social Care, it has been particularly important that, in all its manifestations, and indeed in all the manifestations of the bodies that report to it, the Department should reflect the treatment of health and social care as equals. That is a wider point that my hon. Friend should not tempt me to; I can go on at great length about it, and do not wish to in this debate.
As I said, caring responsibilities are a significant reason why so many people of working age are not working. I cited the figure for those between 25 and 49, but if we extend the age range up and down, less than a fifth of people who care for someone with dementia are in paid work. If someone is caring for someone with dementia, it is very likely that they will not be in paid work. I am grateful that others support my point that NICE should be instructed to consider the full cost of dementia to social care, as well as the NHS, to arrive at a proper evaluation of the economic case for the new treatments.
The prospect of these drugs becoming available also throws a spotlight on the need for better and, in particular, earlier diagnosis. At the moment, the drugs are effective only in the early stages of Alzheimer’s, and there is nothing like enough capacity for timely diagnosis. The latest NHS figures suggest that more than a third of the over-65s estimated to have dementia do not have a recorded diagnosis at all. There are significant regional variations within that figure. Some areas of the country are much worse: for example, diagnosis rates in Herefordshire and Worcestershire are as low as 53%. There is also evidence that minority groups, including black people and those of south Asian heritage, have higher rates of under-diagnosis. Without an increase in the effectiveness and timeliness of diagnosis, the beneficial effects of the new treatments will therefore be massively reduced.
For the new hopes I am discussing to be realised, we therefore need a revolution in our diagnostic capacity. At the moment, the most effective ways of diagnosing dementia—namely, PET scans or lumbar punctures—are accessible only to 2% of those seeking a diagnosis. The best short-term solution is to increase access to lumbar puncture, which is much cheaper and more scalable than expanding the expensive scanning equipment. Alzheimer’s Research UK suggests that the annual capacity for lumbar punctures should be increased from 2,000 to 20,000 a year. I am conscious that the Government are analysing the responses to the consultation on the major conditions strategy and that dementia is one of the six conditions covered by the strategy. My appeal to the Minister on that front is that, as we do in many cases in health and social care, we think at least as much about prevention as we do about cure.
Given the demographic pressures, it seems unarguable that, if we carry on as we have done since the NHS was created, concentrating almost entirely on treatments while relatively neglecting public health and preventive measures, we are heading for even more difficulties in the long run. But that is a much wider debate. In the specific area of preventing dementia, a number of factors, including hearing loss and high blood pressure, can and should be part of a preventive approach, which would reduce demand for expensive treatments in the long run and, even more importantly, allow people to continue to lead more or less normal lives.
One other point about the new era that we are hopefully entering with these treatments is that, as a country, we are well placed to contribute to the vital research that is needed. We have the scientists and the companies, but too few people are currently aware of the possibilities. Only 2% of people with a dementia diagnosis are currently registered to hear about clinical trials. The total UK share of the current clinical trials for dementia around the world is 7%. I hope that the Government will look at that aspect as part of the overall plan for dealing with dementia, which we are looking forward to.
Before I sit down, I should emphasise that I do not want to be ungenerous or over-critical about the Government’s action in this area. I am conscious that the Government have committed to doubling the funding for dementia research to £160 million by the next financial year, and I also very much welcomed the launch, last summer, of the Dame Barbara Windsor dementia mission; I am glad that the Government have put £95 million behind that. I know, of course, that the Minister and the Government widely recognise the horror of this disease, the fact that it is becoming more widespread and affecting more and more families and the fact that not just more money, but more creative thinking, will be needed to turn the tide.
I want to end on a hopeful note. This generation has the chance to see the end of the terrible situation whereby a diagnosis of dementia is a life sentence of an inevitably long degeneration. This absolutely needs to be a turning point for the millions of people who are touched by this dreadful disease. I hope that the Government and the medical authorities recognise the scale of the opportunity that scientific advance has given to them and all of us. This year could be key to setting the UK on a path to a more hopeful future. I am very confident that the Minister will be determined to lead us on that journey.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) on securing this very important debate and on his excellent speech. I learned a few things from that speech, and I had thought I was quite well informed on the developments in dementia research.
As some people may know, my mum, Angela, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease when she was 64. I, along with my stepfather and brother, cared for her until she died in 2012. It was that experience that drove me, first of all, to be the first MP to become a Dementia Friends champion. As the right hon. Member knows, I was subsequently elected as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia.
When we talk about dementia, we are using a collective term that covers the common symptoms associated with a range of brain diseases. The most common of them is Alzheimer’s disease, but there are dozens of others. My mother-in-law was diagnosed with vascular dementia in her 80s, and there is also dementia with Lewy bodies, frontotemporal dementia and, as I say, dozens of other conditions. Each of those diseases has a different pathology and, as a consequence, the specific therapies that we are talking about today will not necessarily be appropriate for them; they will need to develop their own specific therapies.
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member for Ashford that this is a time of hope, because we are making groundbreaking discoveries and there have been developments in the therapies. I also totally concur with him about the importance of prevention. We know that what is good for our heart is good for our head as well. The previous debate that you were chairing, Mr Sharma, was about smoking and tobacco use; we know that has a significant impact on dementia prevalence.
I will reiterate some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about dementia. First, on prevalence, there are 900,000 people living with dementia in the UK, and that is likely to increase. I will pick him up on his point that life expectancy is increasing. It is not increasing; it is flatlining and has been since 2017. In areas such as mine, it is actually going down. The prevalence of dementia is reflected in that trend. I point people to the excellent work of Professor Sir Michael Marmot, who this week published his update that the picture is not changing, unfortunately.
People with dementia account for more than 70% of those in residential care homes over the age of 65, and 60% of those receiving home care. As we will have seen from today’s NHS performance data, it is estimated that a quarter of NHS beds are occupied by people with dementia, who remain in hospital on average twice as long as people who do not live with the condition. Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, unfortunately, that reflects the crisis we have in social care. We just cannot discharge people from hospital knowing that they are not going to have the support that they need, whether that is in the community or in specialist residential care beds. In addition to his point about NICE, we also need to be serious about the future of social care reforms, particularly the reforms recommended back in 2015 by Andrew Dilnot.
Most importantly, we need to recognise that dementia is now the UK’s biggest killer. It has overtaken heart disease and cancer as the biggest killer in the country. We also need to understand that dementia is not a natural and automatic part of ageing. Although, yes, because we are an ageing society, there will be an increase in the prevalence of dementia, it does not mean that we automatically get it as we get older. It is clear that dementia is the most significant health and social care challenge of our time.
I was disappointed that dementia has not had the political priority that it deserves. I was disappointed that the Government decided to absorb dementia into the major conditions strategy, and not give it the focus and attention that it deserves for all the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman has given. Unfortunately, that reflects a number of things, not least what is wrong with our political system and the short termism driven by where we are in the political cycle.
Despite the serious challenges, this is an incredibly exciting time for dementia research. I advise people to look at the all-party parliamentary group’s report on dementia research, which we conducted a couple of years ago. It went right through all the developments, from prevention and looking at biomarkers all the way through to the quality of care and the evidence base around that. There is a lot to be excited about.
In the past 18 months, we have seen the announcement of two effective disease-modifying treatments for early-stage Alzheimer’s that have been proven to slow the progress of the disease by 20% to 40%. That is really significant, and I share everybody’s excitement about it. Lecanemab and donanemab target and remove a protein called amyloid, which is what builds up in our brain and is harmful to it. It basically stops neurones communicating —not just with each other in the brain, but with all different parts of the body as well. They are really important drugs that will reduce the build-up, or clogging-up, of the neurones. As an aside, when I was undertaking personal care for my mum as she got to the late stages of her life—lifting her, lifting her head, and so on—I could feel the change in the shape of her head, because her brain was shrinking; it was just imploding on itself. I hope that gives a sense of what is happening in somebody with Alzheimer’s and of the ravages of the disease.
To have two new disease-modifying drugs for Alzheimer’s disease in the space of a year is a turning point in the fight against the disease and could mean the beginning of the end of this devastating condition. Science is proving that it is possible to slow down the progression of the condition, and lecanemab and donanemab are the first of what we hope will be many more effective treatments. Hopefully, one day, Alzheimer’s disease could be considered a long-term but manageable condition alongside diabetes and asthma.
Lecanemab has already been approved as a safe drug by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States. As we have heard, we expect the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to make a decision very soon. Then, of course, there is the clinical guidance associated with the implementation and use of these drugs, which is undertaken by NICE. I have to say that I had not picked up that, as the right hon. Member for Ashford said, it would look only at the impact on social care. I hope the Minister will respond that she will be writing to NICE to say that is just not acceptable. As co-chair of the APPG on dementia, I am quite happy to write a letter along those lines as well, together with the chair of the APPG on adult social care, the right hon. Member for Ashford. It just cannot happen. I urge the MHRA and NICE not to procrastinate, and to try to get this sorted as soon as possible without compromising the validity of their assessments.
However, very worryingly, even if these drugs were given clinical approval tomorrow, we would unfortunately not be in a position to make use of them. That is the state of our health system at the moment. For lecanemab and donanemab to be effective, they require an early diagnosis of dementia and a specific sub-type diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. In England alone, a third of people with dementia do not have a diagnosis, and many only have a non-specific diagnosis of dementia. Currently, none of those individuals would be able to access these novel therapies.
A few months ago, the APPG on dementia produced a report on diagnosis rates and the inequalities in the diagnosis rates. I heard of a diagnosis rate lower than the rate of 50% in Hereford mentioned by the right hon. Member for Ashford: a rate of 40% in Devon. The top marks go to Stoke. For whatever reason, Stoke seems to be doing very well, with a diagnosis rate of over 80%. Oldham, at 78%, has got a little bit of catching up to do to Stoke, but we are quite pleased with the direction of travel. We have not recovered to the pre-pandemic diagnosis rates. We all need to recognise what we can do about that.
I urge the Government to look at the following three areas as a matter of urgency. First, not enough people are being diagnosed at an early stage of disease progression. Many memory services are struggling to meet current demand, let alone the expected increase if disease-modifying treatments do become available. Secondly, there is a lack of sub-type diagnosis. As I mentioned at the start, there are more than 100 different diseases that cause dementia. Too often people receive a general diagnosis of dementia without a sub-type. Without that, it is impossible to determine an individual’s suitability for the new drugs.
Thirdly, there is insufficient access to positron emission tomography scanners and cerebrospinal fluid testing—the lumbar puncture testing that the right hon. Member for Ashford mentioned. As I mentioned, a specific diagnosis is required and the PET scanner and CSF test are the only tests that can give evidence of the presence of amyloid in the brain, but access to those tests is woefully restricted due to lack of equipment. I had not picked up on the cost-effectiveness, so I thank the right hon. Member for raising that.
Workforce and diagnostic barriers can be overcome with clear and decisive action from Government. I want to see at pace an expansion of diagnostic capacity so that everyone with suspected Alzheimer’s disease can access a test to confirm eligibility for treatment at an early stage in their disease progression. We must address the current inequalities in diagnosis across the country.
We need a transformational change to the diagnostic workforce to ensure sufficient workforce capacity with the necessary skills and expertise to administer the required specialist tests and make diagnoses. Meaningful involvement of the people living with Alzheimer’s disease and their carers must be central to plans for system preparedness, with continuous consultation from the outset and ongoing oversight through an established group.
I am sure we would all agree that we are at a pivotal moment for dementia in this country. Lecanemab, donanemab and the treatments that might follow have the potential to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, but we need to act now to ensure we are ready to deliver them as soon as they become available. We have come such a long way in the past 20 years, with incredible advances in scientific research that has culminated in the discovery of those novel drugs. Such effort cannot be wasted by Government inactivity and failure to respond.
Simply put, scientists are doing their job to give us new treatments, but now it is up to the Government to do theirs and ensure the system is ready to deliver therapies to the people who need them. It is time to make dementia a priority and we should make a start.
I thank the Alzheimer’s Society for its support with the APPG.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Sharma. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I pay tribute to work of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). They are formidable chairs of their respective APPGs on adult social care and on dementia. I know that the Minister has great respect for them, as we all do; they do fantastic work. Sharing the experiences of supporting family members was very apparent in this debate, and my hon. Friend’s image of holding her mother and feeling the ravages of the disease was incredibly well put. We have heard very moving statements this afternoon.
We are holding this debate at a crucial time for our country. We are a world leader—sometimes we overuse that term—in life sciences research that offers people living with dementia the prospect of new treatments as a lifeline. Finding a cure is where we all want to get to. The new treatments provide real hope and opportunity, but how do we get there? We have touched on that. New treatments and research help, but the workforce is where we will make a big difference. That is why we have committed to recovering clinical trial activity in the UK and delivering on the NHS long-term workforce plan.
We want to make sure it is easier to conduct lifesaving research in the UK for conditions such as dementia by implementing a more efficient set-up process so that people can sign up to participate in trials more easily, but that has to be supported by ensuring our NHS has the staff it needs to enable more clinical trials. Without the workforce to deliver new treatments, those living with dementia and their families will continue to face delays and we will not be able to access the benefits of early diagnosis. That is why I am pleased that the Government have finally accepted the need for a long-term workforce plan in the NHS.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth said, it is disappointing that the Government shelved the plans for a dedicated dementia strategy. England remains the only nation without a specific dementia plan. That is very short-term thinking, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister about that. In 2022, I said:
“We cannot give confidence to people suffering with dementia and their carers without a much clearer plan that is in place very quickly.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2022; Vol. 716, c. 141.]
That remains the case today.
Although we currently have no treatments to slow or cure dementia, as we have heard, there is hope on the horizon after the recent breakthroughs with drugs that target the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s disease, which are a hugely welcome step towards combating it. We need to ensure that our health service is ready and able to deliver the new treatments and technologies when they become available. The treatments, if approved, will depend on early diagnosis, which can be determined only by a PET scan or a CSF test. As the right hon. Member for Ashford said, the health service was not set up in 1948 to cope with dementia and similar diseases, so we need a 21st century service that can. It would be helpful to hear what plans the Minister has to ensure that the NHS is ready to deliver the new treatments. Has she had any discussions with NHS England about delivery ahead of the potential MHRA decision this year on the drugs currently under consideration?
There are too many people living with undiagnosed dementia. Part of the problem is the lack of scanning capacity for accurate diagnosis of dementia sub-types. We have one of the lowest per capita ratios of diagnostic scanners in the OECD, behind Russia, Slovakia and Chile. What steps are the Government taking to increase that diagnostic infrastructure? We have put forward a clear and costed plan to double the number of scanners, and, as with many of our other policies, the Minister is welcome to borrow it.
In a response to a written question last month, the Minister restated the commitment to double funding for dementia research, but I would welcome an update on whether that is on track for delivery this year. Further research continues to be vital to ensure that people living with dementia receive an early and accurate diagnosis. We have heard today about emerging techniques and new technologies, but we have to be able to access them.
It is estimated that more than 1 million people aged 25 to 49 are out of work due to caring responsibilities, so we need to alleviate the challenges and economic strain as a result of those caring for people living with dementia. It is not good for them, their families or, indeed, our economy. New treatments bring hope, but to benefit from them, we need a Government with the competence and foresight to seize the opportunity. Transforming dementia diagnosis and care is vital to improve the lives of those living with dementia and those who care for them. The bulk of the cost of dementia falls not on the NHS, but on unpaid carers and the care system, as hon. Members have said so eloquently today.
After 14 years, Mr Sharma, you would expect me to say that the Conservative party is not capable of making the NHS fit for the 21st century, let alone making the most of the new opportunities that our life science sector present for people. We want to make the NHS fit for the future, so that we are able to benefit from the exciting new treatments being developed and that all those with dementia and their families can be confident that they will receive the support they deserve.
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) on securing this debate. I also commend the campaigning of several charities in this area, including Alzheimer’s Research UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, Dementia UK, Age UK and many others that do so much to raise awareness of dementia, fund research, and support people with dementia and their carers.
I commend my right hon. Friend on his speech. Like many, he has his own experience of dementia with his father, which has clearly informed the significant work that he has done in this area. He spoke about some of the statistics, which I will come on to, and about how a dementia diagnosis can be a bleak prospect. He also spoke about some glimmers of hope for people with dementia and for us as a society—for instance, the fact that dementia can be preventable for some people; our growing understanding of the importance of brain health and how we achieve it; and the progress being made towards treatments that can genuinely make a difference in the future for people with dementia. I heard his specific question about the evaluation by NICE of the treatments and whether the evaluation approach is fit for purpose; I will come on to that shortly.
My right hon. Friend also talked about the importance of better and earlier diagnosis. Indeed, he mentioned that, at the moment, more than a third of people who have dementia are estimated not to have a diagnosis, although, clearly, the other side of that is that about two thirds of people do have a diagnosis. Although we know that the pandemic hit our ability to diagnose people, we have seen some recovery in the diagnosis rate since the pandemic. It is now at the highest level for three years. He rightly said that, overall, for this area, as for many others, prevention is at least as important as a cure. He spoke about the opportunity, in that dementia diagnosis should no longer be a life sentence for this generation, which is an uplifting prospect for all of us involved.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who spoke about her experience with dementia and how she cared for her mother Angela when she had Alzheimer’s, until she died. I have huge respect for her, knowing how difficult that must have been. She is also extremely knowledgeable about dementia and spoke about the many different sub-types of dementia, and I thank her for her work as the chair of the all-party group on dementia.
The hon. Lady spoke about hospital stays for people with dementia; a significant number of people are in hospital with dementia. As part of my brief, I have oversight of discharges from hospital and urgent emergency care, and I have spent a lot of time thinking about the flow through hospitals. I think a lot about people with dementia and how we can support them to be discharged to the best place for their care afterwards, or how we can avoid long stays in hospital for them. It can then be so difficult for them to be discharged, given the potential deconditioning that happens to people in hospital.
The hon. Lady rightly talked about how dementia is now the No. 1 cause of death in the UK, but it should not be seen as inevitable for us as we age, and in an ageing society. I heard her three asks, calling for dementia to be diagnosed more often at an early stage; for us to do better at diagnosing sub-types of dementia; and for us to improve access to PET scans and lumbar punctures for diagnosis. I will come to some of those points in a moment. I can definitely agree with the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), that we have heard speeches from formidable colleagues in the debate, as well as from a number of others who joined us and contributed through interventions.
I will start with the impact of dementia. We know that close to 1 million people in the UK suffer from dementia. Around 900,000 people over the age of 65 and almost 50,000 people under the age of 65 are estimated to have dementia. We expect those numbers to increase to more than 1 million by next year and more than 1.5 million by 2050.
The stats are one thing, and they clearly point to the scale of dementia in our society, but they do not necessarily bring to life the human cost of dementia—what it means for people who have it, their families and friends, what it means practically for someone with dementia and those close to them, and what the challenges are of living with dementia or caring for somebody with it. There are significant financial burdens, both on people working who are then diagnosed and may be unable to work, so they have lost income, and on carers, who may have to cut back their work hours or leave work altogether. There are then the financial costs of professional care, whether that is state-funded social care for those who receive it, or self-funded care.
Most significantly, there is the emotional cost of dementia—what the diagnosis means for the individual who learns what is making life so difficult for them and knows the prospects ahead as the disease progresses, what it means for those they love, and what the experience is like for people who are close to them and care for them. It can be very difficult to care for somebody while at the same time feeling as if the person they know and love is being stolen from them. That emotional cost is unquantifiable, but we know that it hits very hard.
Like other hon. Members, I feel that I have painted a pretty bleak picture of what dementia means to our society, but I have no doubt that there are real reasons for optimism. First, we now understand that a significant proportion of dementia—it is estimated to be around 40%—is either preventable or at least delayable, and that we can actually make a difference. Secondly, real progress is now being made in the research into treatments, and there is the prospect of treatments becoming available that will genuinely make a difference to the progress of the disease. There are real reasons for optimism, although, as a Government Minister, I feel that optimism on its own is not enough.
The question that I am sure hon. Members would like me to answer is what we are actually doing to realise this potential and turn the optimism into improved outcomes. To prevent and delay the onset of dementia, we are and have already been acting and intervening to influence the risk factors. We know that we can influence them. For instance, the known risk factors for dementia, similar to other conditions such as cardiovascular disease, include high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, smoking, poor diet and lack of physical activity. These are things that we can and are intervening in.
For instance, we offer a health check for all adults aged between 40 and 74 in England to identify the early signs of stroke, kidney disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and, indeed, dementia. Dementia was incorporated specifically into that health check, in part to raise awareness of the fact that people can make a difference and reduce their risk of dementia, and to motivate people to take steps to reduce that risk. There is a much greater awareness that people can make a difference and reduce their risk of suffering from heart disease or diabetes. Alzheimer’s Research UK has found that about 70% of people know that they can reduce those risks, but less than a third of people know that they can reduce their risk of and prevent themselves from getting dementia. We have offered that health check to over 9 million people, and about 3.7 million people have had it already. We will continue to encourage people to take that up.
Looking ahead, there is more that we can, should and, indeed, will do to prevent people from suffering ill health, prevent dementia and help people to maintain their health. That is at the core of our major conditions strategy, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford referred. Crucially, that includes dementia, alongside the five other major conditions that represent the major burden of ill health in the country, including cancer and cardiovascular disease.
The hon. Member for Bristol South questioned the point of having a standalone dementia strategy. Actually, it is very important to include dementia with other major conditions and major causes of ill health, partly because we are moving towards having a society in which many people suffer from multiple health conditions. In fact, many older people will have dementia alongside other health conditions, so it makes sense to look at people’s health in the round, not just pick one condition.
As I mentioned a moment ago, dementia is a common risk factor for many major conditions, so it makes sense for our health system not to look at any condition in isolation, but to look at how we can improve people’s health in the round and reduce their risks. The major conditions strategy is absolutely the place where I point right hon. and hon. Members to look at our evolving Government strategy to address some of the health and lifestyle factors, to move into prevention and to support people in the event that they receive a dementia diagnosis.
The other area where there is cause for optimism is the progress that is being made in the research and development of new treatments. Finding a treatment to slow or, indeed, cure dementia, rather than just manage it, would change the implications of receiving a diagnosis and make such a difference to thousands or even millions of people in the UK and globally. This is a challenge that we share with many other countries, particularly those in the developed world, and we are rightly collaborating internationally on research.
Since 2018, the Government have spent over £454 million on supporting dementia research. In 2019, we made a manifesto commitment to double our funding for dementia research to at least £160 million a year. We have since launched the Dame Barbara Windsor dementia mission, backed by £95 million of Government funding. The UK Dementia Research Institute, of which the Government are a founding member, recently announced a new partnership with the British Heart Foundation to establish a centre for vascular dementia, backed by £9 million-worth of funding. Vascular dementia is the second most common form of dementia, affecting around 150,000 people in the UK. We are determined to be a world leader in dementia research and to be recognised as such.
I turn to some of the new treatments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford referred to lecanemab and donanemab as two of the treatments about which there is great excitement. Crucially, the Government want to make sure that treatments are made available to people as soon as possible through the national health service. It is important to sound a note of caution, because we know that such treatments do not come without side effects; in fact, the trials saw some significant side effects, such as the risk of brain bleeds. As ever, it is very important that we follow the proper processes that we have in place to assess the use of treatments by the national health service. That includes both licensing through the MHRA and evaluation by NICE. For the two drugs I mentioned, those processes will happen during the course of this year.
My right hon. Friend asked what NICE takes into consideration in its evaluation. I can assure him and other Members that NICE takes into account all health-related costs and benefits, including the health benefits to carers of a treatment. It also considers the publicly funded cost of social care, so there is a social care element taken into consideration by NICE. I say that very specifically: I wanted to make sure, so I have double-checked in order to be accurate in saying it in this Chamber this afternoon.
I acknowledge and recognise the points that my right hon. Friend and others have made about the impact on unpaid carers and the economic cost. It is true that there is a limit to the costs that NICE considers. Clearly, looking at all the possible broader economic costs involved would have implications not only for dementia treatments but for the many other treatments that NICE considers. As that is a very big question, not just one that is pertinent to dementia, it is probably worthy of a separate conversation in its own right. Nevertheless, I assure him and other hon. Members here today that the publicly funded cost of social care is taken into account by NICE in its evaluation process.
There is also the question of the readiness of the national health service to make drugs available if they are successful through both the licensing process and the NICE evaluation. I assure hon. Members that NHS England is indeed working to ensure that the NHS is ready to support the adoption of new treatments, including the diagnosis processes that will be needed, while recognising—I believe the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth referred to this—that new treatments are likely to require greater access to forms of diagnosis such as PET scans and lumbar punctures, and also recognising that such treatments are likely to require earlier diagnosis in order to be effective.
One thing that I look forward to is that, particularly as treatments that require an earlier diagnosis become available, more people will come forward to seek a diagnosis, as they recognise that getting an earlier diagnosis will really make a difference, and then there will then be access to treatment. I feel optimistic that we will see a virtuous cycle where people learn that getting an early diagnosis can really make a difference in getting access to treatment.
Debbie Abrahams
I am reassured to some extent by what the Minister says, and I am grateful for her tone and her positive approach. Given the inequality—let us call it what it is—in current diagnosis, and these are non-specific dementia diagnosis rates, have she and her Department conducted any analysis of the gaps in more specific PET and CSF testing? Can she publish that data or write to us with it? That would reassure us, because rather than just hoping something will happen, we could identify it: “Yes, in Greater Manchester we are at 90% of the level we need for all these tests,” and similarly in Kent and so on. If she could do that, it would be very helpful.
Helen Whately
I fully appreciate the hon. Member’s question, and I can assure her that I do look at the variation in diagnosis rates between different areas, as she rightly pointed out in her speech. I would be happy to write to her with further detail on the specific question of more sophisticated diagnosis techniques and our readiness for new treatments and for carrying out earlier and more sophisticated diagnoses.
I assure hon. Members of the Government’s ambition for the UK to be a world leader in dementia research, diagnosis and treatment; I would also like us to lead the world in the prevention of dementia. That is why the Government are investing in research. We are getting ready to make new treatments available and building on what we are already doing in prevention with our major conditions strategy. Given the scale and impact of dementia on our society, successful prevention and treatment are not just a nice-to-have, but an imperative for individuals, for their families, friends and loved ones, and for our society.
Damian Green
I will spare hon. Members the thought that I could go on for another half an hour, I think, under the rules—[Interruption.] I can hear shouts of “More!” from the Minister. I thank all those who have taken part, particularly my fellow APPG chair, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). There is clearly a Venn diagram with an overlap between the APPGs on adult social care and on dementia; we share an interest in this as chairs, as well as an interest driven by personal history.
I hear what the Minister says about the NICE funding decision-making algorithm. Through her, I urge NICE to be as open-minded as possible as to what costs it takes into account. I do take the Minister’s point that one can perhaps extend the boundary of what costs are caused by any particular medical condition beyond what is reasonable. However, I think the costs to the economy of those who are not working only because they are caring for someone with dementia are a genuinely legitimate cost that could be taken into account when assessing the economic viability or effect of introducing a particular treatment. I hope that the NICE guidelines can reflect that. Otherwise, I am very grateful to have had the chance to raise these subjects in this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of new dementia treatments.
Written Statements
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
Commencement of a period of public engagement
The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) is seeking views from businesses, individuals, and other interested stakeholders on the general review of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership (CPTPP).
The UK signed its accession protocol to CPTPP on 16 July 2023, kick-starting the UK’s membership of a modern and ambitious trade deal spanning 12 economies across Asia, the Pacific, and Europe when the UK accedes. With the UK as a member, it will account for 15% of global GDP (based on 2022 data).
This comprehensive agreement will support UK businesses by making it easier for them to trade with CPTPP parties. It will facilitate innovation and provide consumers with more choice. CPTPP could generate long-term benefits for both the UK and other CPTPP economies; supporting UK jobs and providing opportunities for growth across the UK, with all parts of the country expected to benefit. The Government are now taking the steps needed to ratify the agreement, which is expected to come into force in 2024, subject to parliamentary approval, and we are committed to ensuring Parliament has extensive time to scrutinise all aspects of the agreement.
CPTPP is designed to be a living agreement, evolving to maintain its high standards. In reflection of that, the CPTPP text mandates that the agreement should be reviewed at least every five years—this is referred to as the “general review”. It has now been agreed amongst CPTPP members that the first general review of the agreement will begin in 2024, and CPTPP members recently agreed the terms of reference for that review. While the UK is not yet a ratified member of CPTPP, we expect the review process to conclude after the UK is a ratified member and thus are ensuring that the UK is fully involved in the review process from the beginning, informed by stakeholder views.
To provide stakeholders with the opportunity to express their views, the Government will be running a period of public engagement on the general review.
This will run for six weeks, with the aim of ensuring that stakeholder views are received before the review process begins. The engagement period will be open between 11 January and 22 February.
Publication of report pursuant to section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020 on the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership
The Government have, today, laid before Parliament a report on the protocol on the accession of the UK to CPTPP (the accession protocol).
The report is required under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020, prior to the accession protocol being laid before Parliament for formal scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG).
The Government have always been clear that we will not compromise on the UK’s high environmental protection, animal welfare, human health and food safety standards in our trade negotiations. This report, which draws on independent advice from the Trade and Agriculture Commission, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, confirms the Government’s view that the UK’s accession to the CPTPP (via the accession protocol) is consistent with the maintenance of UK statutory protections in these areas.
This report is intended to inform and support scrutiny of the accession protocol prior to its ratification and entry into force. The accession protocol was signed on 16 July 2023 and will be formally laid before Parliament in due course for scrutiny under the provisions of CRaG.
[HCWS180]
Civil Nuclear Road Map
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
Today, we are publishing three key documents which signal the biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years and reinforce the UK’s position as a leader in the civil nuclear renaissance: a civil nuclear road map, a consultation on alternative routes to market, and a consultation on a proposed policy for siting new nuclear power stations.
The measures we announce today will help to reduce electricity bills, support thousands of jobs and improve UK energy security. This includes exploring building a major new power station and investing in advanced nuclear fuel production. This sets us on a path towards deploying our huge ambition of up to 24 GW of nuclear power in Britain by 2050 as part of a cleaner, cheaper, more secure energy system for the future.
The civil nuclear road map is an unprecedented, world-leading initiative that sends out an electrifying signal to the industry. It sets out our strategy for the deployment of the best new nuclear reactors in the UK, and how His Majesty’s Government intend to work with the nuclear sector to deliver this ambition.
The road map establishes our vision for a vibrant nuclear sector, providing detail on the policies we are pursuing to enable delivery, covering areas such as siting, regulation, financing, the joint work we are undertaking with defence nuclear colleagues to develop the required nuclear skills and supply chain in the UK, and how we are taking care of our nuclear legacy through policies on decommissioning and waste management.
We envision a vibrant, world-leading nuclear sector, setting the gold standard for other countries. Announcements we are making in the road map include a commitment to reform the regulations, financing and decommissioning of civil nuclear to make it more streamlined and agile, removing red tape while retaining the UK’s world-class standards of safety. For example, these measures could cut the approval times for reactors that are already approved by overseas regulators by up to 50%.
We are also announcing our commitment to reduce global dependence on Russian fuel and grow the UK supply chain by investing £300 million, alongside industry, in British production of clean, green high assay low enriched uranium fuel for innovative new reactors, offering a commercial alternative to Russia for ourselves, and our allies and partners.
This is just the beginning of the UK standing at the forefront of nuclear innovation and excellence. The road map also sets out our long-term ambition for nuclear, providing high-level timelines and key decision points for a wide range of nuclear technologies over the next decades, including small modular reactors (SMRs), advanced modular reactors (AMRs), and gigawatt-scale projects. In particular, it sets out our intention to explore a further GW-scale project after Sizewell C and our plans to make investment decisions concerning 3-7GW every five years between 2030 and 2044.
Advanced nuclear technologies, such as SMRs and AMRs, present the opportunity to decarbonise across the energy sector, from grid electricity through industrial heat to entirely new industries such as the production of hydrogen and synthetic fuel.
Last year, we set up Great British Nuclear (GBN) as an arm’s length body responsible for helping deliver new nuclear projects and help lead our energy revolution. But we are also keen to harness innovation in the private sector and help developers bring forward new nuclear projects outside of GBN’s ongoing SMR selection process.
We are therefore today also launching our alternative routes to market consultation with the aim to understand how Government could support the private sector to bring forward advanced nuclear projects as well as explore the uses and services they could provide the economy.
Finally, in recognition of our enhanced nuclear ambitions and the exciting potential offered by advanced nuclear technologies, we are launching a public consultation on a proposed new policy for siting new nuclear power stations.
This consultation marks an important first step in the process for developing a new nuclear national policy statement for England and Wales. The results of this consultation will be used to inform the drafting of the nuclear national policy statement document, which we intend to publish for further consultation. This will be part of the suite of energy national policy statements, and linked to the overarching energy national policy statement, which has recently been revised. Our intention is to designate the new nuclear NPS in 2025, subject to parliamentary processes. For the first time, we intend for the NPS to provide a planning policy framework for SMRs and AMRs as well as traditional gigawatt-scale power stations.
To achieve the UK’s nuclear ambitions, the Government believe that additional sites will be required for new nuclear projects, along with greater ongoing flexibility in the site selection process to enable new technologies.
In the siting consultation, we are excited to introduce a positive shift in approach. The new NPS will empower nuclear developers to identify potential sites for development, fostering developers’ innovation and flexibility. While the existing designated nuclear sites may possess many inherent positive attributes, potentially making them a consideration for future development, this change allows for exploration of diverse locations. By entrusting developers with this responsibility, we aim to streamline the process, encourage creative solutions, and enhance the overall efficiency of nuclear development, ultimately contributing to the growth and sustainability of the industry.
We propose that siting of new nuclear would continue to be constrained by robust criteria that determine where development can occur and developers would be empowered to undertake initial screening of sites based on the criteria, with advice from the regulators and statutory agencies.
It is our intention that safety will remain paramount, with the highest safety, security and environmental standards overseen by the independent nuclear regulator and environment protection agencies. Public consultation and community engagement would also remain an essential part of the process.
Copies of these three documents consultation will be published on gov.uk. A copy of the civil nuclear road map will be laid in the House. Copies of the consultations on alternative routes to market and proposed policy for siting new nuclear power stations will be placed in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS177]
Government Wine Cellar 2020-22
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I have today placed a copy of the report on the Government wine cellar for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22 in the Libraries of both Houses.
This biennial report meets our commitment that there should be regular reports to Parliament on the use of the Government Hospitality wine cellar, covering consumption, stock purchases, costs, and value for money.
Between the financial years 2011-12 and 2018-19, the cellar was self-financed through sales of stock and funds paid to Government Hospitality for work undertaken on behalf of other Government Departments. Sales were not possible in 2020-21 and 2021-22 due to covid-19. Sales resumed in financial year 2022-23 and we anticipate further sales during 2024.
The report notes that:
Consumption levels dropped in 2020-21 by some 96%. There was an increase in 2021-22, but usage levels were still down on the average annual amount by over 60%.
Use of English wines in 2021-22 accounted for 62% of the total.
English wines further constituted 100% of wine purchases in 2021-22.
Funds from other Government Departments represented the only receipts (2021-22—£8,875).
All events organised by Government Hospitality during this period were done so in strict accordance with covid-19 restrictions.
[HCWS181]
Safe and Legal Routes to the UK
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
In accordance with my obligations under section 61 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, I am today laying before Parliament a report on safe and legal routes to the United Kingdom. The report will also be available on gov.uk.
The UK has a proud history of providing protection for the most vulnerable. Since 2015, we have offered over half a million people safe and legal routes into the UK. This includes those from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, as well as family members of refugees.
Through our global resettlement schemes, which includes the UK resettlement scheme, the community sponsorship scheme and the mandate resettlement scheme, we have welcomed over 28,700 refugees since 2015. Through this period, we are the sixth largest recipient of United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) referred refugees, third only to Sweden and Germany in Europe.
This report reaffirms the Government’s commitment to providing safe and legal routes for those most in need. Under the Illegal Migration Act, the only way to come to the UK to claim protection will be through safe and legal routes. This will take power out of the hands of criminal gangs and protect vulnerable people.
As part of this commitment, section 60 of the Illegal Migration Act commits the Government to introducing a cap, in consultation with local authorities, on the number of people brought to the UK through safe and legal routes each year.
This is so that we can get a realistic picture of the UK’s capacity to welcome, integrate and accommodate resettled refugees. It is only by determining a realistic picture on capacity that the UK can continue to operate safe and legal routes and ensure these routes form part of a well managed and sustainable migration system. This is in recognition of the significant pressures facing local authorities and public services right now, including as a direct result of highly resource-consuming illegal migration. The cap is amendable should there be an international crisis that warrants a bespoke UK response.
The consultation to set the cap has now closed. The Government are currently reviewing responses from local authorities across the UK. A consultation summary report will be produced in the spring with draft regulations laid in Parliament before the summer recess. Parliament will then have an opportunity to debate and vote on the cap before it comes into force from 2025.
Through the establishment of the cap, and by bearing down on illegal migration, we will be able to do more for some of the most vulnerable refugees from across the globe, receiving more refugees from UNHCR direct from regions of conflict and instability. As we get control on numbers, we will keep under review whether we are able to do more to support vulnerable refugees and whether we need to consider new safe and legal routes.
[HCWS179]
Cranston Inquiry: Channel Incident of 24 November 2021
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
On 9 November 2023, I announced the establishment of an independent, non-statutory inquiry into the circumstances of this tragic mass-casualty incident, which resulted in at least 27 fatalities. My thoughts continue to be with the loved ones of those who died, with the survivors, and with those who responded to an extremely distressing event.
The inquiry will be chaired by Sir Ross Cranston, who will bring great experience and expertise to the role. Sir Ross has had a distinguished judicial career, with experience sitting in the Queen’s bench division of the High Court, and as the judge in charge of the administrative court. Sir Ross is also a former Solicitor General for England and Wales. The inquiry will now be known as the Cranston inquiry.
The terms of reference, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, enable the inquiry to focus on investigating this individual incident, with the aim of ensuring that the rights of those affected are upheld and allowing the survivors and family members of the deceased to be heard. Crucially, it will also examine the circumstances in which the deceased lost their lives and what lessons can be learned to prevent incidents like this in the future.
In conducting the inquiry, Sir Ross will consider the investigation into the incident already carried out by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch.
The Department will provide support and ensure that the inquiry has the resources it needs to investigate the incident. Sir Ross and his team will now proceed with the important work of establishing the inquiry’s processes and procedures.
[HCWS178]
House of Lords
Deaths: Younger Age Cohorts
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Strathcarron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of (1) excess deaths not attributable to COVID-19, particularly coronary and vascular-related excess deaths, and (2) excess deaths in younger age cohorts, since 1 January 2020.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities has estimated excess deaths for non-specific Covid disease groups. Across the course of the pandemic to date, deaths involving cardiovascular diseases were 12% higher than expected. Deaths from all causes in people under 65 were 13% higher than expected. We are acting to reduce excess deaths, including those involving Covid-19, by rolling out vaccination programmes, tackling elective backlogs and through action on preventable conditions such as cardiovascular diseases.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. Converting these statistics to reality means that 60,000 people died last year, mostly from heart-related conditions, at a much younger age than they would have been expected to before the pandemic and, in particular, our response to it. Could my noble friend suggest to the official Covid inquiry that, rather than concentrating on the tittle-tattle of WhatsApp messages, it considers whether lockdowns did more overall health harm than good—as evidence from around the world now suggests they did? Could it also investigate why, according to submissions already made to it, the UK has considerably higher excess mortality than other similar countries and in what way lockdowns and other interventions are linked to last year’s 60,000 young deaths, with no doubt more to come this year?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord’s excellent question. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities estimates that, from the start of the pandemic to date, the total number of excess deaths in younger cohorts—that is, those under 65—is just under 38,000. Across all ages, this is likely due to a combination of factors, including flu prevalence, the impact of Covid-19 and the continued prevalence of conditions such as cardiovascular diseases. Vaccines are our first line of defence and millions have received their jab in our autumn campaign. As regards the Covid-19 inquiry, it is an independent public inquiry and will determine the issues it chooses to explore within the parameters of its terms of reference.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we should take no notice of keyboard warriors and we should take notice of scientists who have proven facts and used statistics to make sure we make the right decisions?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and I completely agree with him.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I think it is fair to claim that the pandemic was the most comprehensively documented public health event in human history. How much are the Government spending on teams of crack medical data scientists to analyse the wealth of pandemic-related data from the UK and comparable countries? This is outside the inquiry, which I think is about blame to a certain extent, and decision-making in politics. It is about the science. I suggest to the Minister that, if the Government are able to recover money from dodgy PPE suppliers, investing in this research would be a good use of those funds.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very important point. Of course, it is very important that we learn from the data. The NHS has very good data scientists, many of whom have helped me with today’s Question Time. Regarding the noble Lord’s other comment, he will not be surprised that I cannot comment on that. But your Lordships’ House can rest assured that the Government and the NHS have learned from the Covid pandemic and that it is very important to learn from examining the data.
Lord Walney (CB)
Are the Government considering excess deaths from the damage to mental health that many of the lockdown conditions imposed, particularly in young people deprived of their traditional education settings?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very important point about mental health. One thing the pandemic exposed is the increasing mental health challenge, not just in young people but across the board. The Government will be launching a major conditions strategy, which will include mental health issues. We expect to notify your Lordships’ House on that in early spring 2024.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the Government have put a significant amount of money into the NHS, which I welcome. However, the lion’s share of this money has gone into secondary and tertiary care, and, personally, I would have welcomed more money going into diagnostic services and preventative care. Therefore, can my noble friend the Minister say why waiting lists continue to rise, why the NHS is missing key targets and how the Government intend to address this?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend raises an important point. The Government have recruited more doctors, nurses, community diagnostic centres and single surgical centres. We are treating record numbers of patients. We know that the waiting list will rise before it comes down, as demand returns to the NHS following the Covid-19 pandemic. This is a good thing, and we urge everyone who is worried about their health to come forward. We are taking action to recover elective services by providing the NHS with record levels of staffing and funding, and by supporting trusts to maximise capacity via a new network of community diagnostic centres, surgical hubs and an increased use of the independent sector. These new investments will make a significant dent in the waiting list. Unfortunately, strike action has led to further increases in waiting lists this year.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, the increased mortality is due to 40 million people who are obese, and it is up to each one of them, if they wish to avoid a premature death, to start eating less and doing with one fewer meal a day. What is more, this would save the NHS as well as saving the 40 million people, because the obesity epidemic is costing in excess of £50 billion a year.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point and is a doughty campaigner on such matters. We could all do with looking after ourselves, taking physical exercise and eating less.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests. A substantial research effort that not only attended the Covid-19 pandemic but came subsequently to that has resulted, particularly in the field of the management of cardiovascular disease, in the identification of novel biomarkers and advanced imaging techniques that will allow for earlier and more accurate detection of disease and risk. Is the Minister content that the output of that research effort is appropriately mobilised by the NHS through the health innovation networks across the NHS in England?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s expertise in this matter. I cannot say that I am content, but I can say that the Government have improved the NHS health check, our national cardiovascular disease prevention programme, investing almost £17 million in an innovative new digital NHS health check to be rolled out from spring 2024, which is expected to deliver an additional 1 million checks in the first four years, and investing £10 million in a pilot to deliver up to 150,000 CVD checks in workplace settings. In the olden days, when we had manufacturing factories, the workforce had nurses who used to look after their health and well-being. Sadly, that is not the case these days and the Government are trying to replicate that in the workplace. But the noble Lord raised an important point, and I will take it back to the department so that I can be reassured about what he asked.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Lancet found that deaths from cardiovascular disease among those aged 50 to 64 are one-third higher than over the previous five years. To what extent do the Government assess that this comes down to the relevant average ambulance response times being consistently above 30 minutes since the beginning of 2022? For those who are suffering heart attacks or strokes, how will the fact that the Government have now increased the target for ambulance response times help to ensure that lives are being saved?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise this point. I am not aware of the significance of her point on ambulance times, but the NHS makes every effort, through rigorous contingency planning, to minimise the disruption. The ambulance service does a good job, but clearly it has to do more. I will write to her on the specific point about ambulance times.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, on 24 October, the DHSC published a statement in response to concerns expressed in the other place. It said:
“There is no evidence linking excess deaths to the COVID-19 vaccine”.
I suspect my noble friend the Minister will reconfirm that. But, to put the matter to rest, can he undertake to promptly publish an explanation of the data or research on which the department has relied in reaching that conclusion?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I cannot commit at the Dispatch Box to the exact point that the noble Earl made, but I will take it back to the department. What I can say is that Covid-19 vaccinations were very safe and saved millions of lives in this country.
Leasehold Reform
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government why they did not proceed with the planned abolition of leasehold for flats in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer the House to my relevant interests, as set out in the register, and the fact that I am a leaseholder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill contains a substantial package of measures to increase leaseholders’ rights as consumers and home owners. We have prioritised the most significant measures that will help existing leaseholders now. We remain committed to continuing our leasehold and commonhold reforms, and the Bill is a major step forward. The best way to help leaseholders now is to make the existing leases fairer and more affordable. Our focus is on legislating where we can in order to make genuine improvements to leaseholders’ daily lives straightaway.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, although many of the measures in the Bill are very welcome, we have been told for years that the Government would abolish, as they put it, this “feudal” leasehold housing tenure. The Bill had been promised in the third Session of this Parliament. Here we are in the last Session of the Parliament, and the abolition of leasehold is completely left out of the Bill. It was then confirmed that the Government would introduce amendments later on, but only to abolish leasehold houses, with leasehold flats, which comprise 75% of leasehold, here to stay. That is not good enough. Will the Minister take the opportunity to apologise, given the Government’s pledge to abolish the feudal leasehold housing tenure?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will not apologise; the measures in the Bill will benefit owners of flats and houses alike. The majority of houses have always been provided as freehold, and there are few justifications for building new leasehold houses, so the Government will ban them, other than in exceptional circumstances. However, flats have shared fabric and infrastructure and therefore require some form of arrangement to facilitate management. This has been facilitated by a lease. None the less, the Government recognise the issues in the leasehold system and remain committed to reinvigorating the commonhold system so that developers and home owners have an alternative to leasehold ownership.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the Secretary of State made his views absolutely clear when he said:
“I don’t believe leasehold is fair in any way. It is an outdated feudal system that needs to go”.
But the Bill does not do that—it does not even mention commonholds. When I asked about this in the previous exchange, I was told by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn:
“When it comes to reforms to commonhold, we continue to consider the Law Commission’s report in detail to find the best way forward”.—[Official Report, 30/11/2023; col. 1180.]
The commission reported in 2020. When will we learn the Government’s conclusion?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I assure my noble friend that we remain committed to continuing our leasehold and commonhold reforms, and the Bill is a major step forward. The Government remain committed to a widespread take-up of commonhold for flats, and we have been reviewing the Law Commission’s recommendations to reinvigorate commonhold as a workable alternative to leasehold, alongside working with the Commonhold Council to consider practical steps to prepare consumers and the markets.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Young, on their persistence in this matter. We took a Question on this on 30 November, replied to by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, in which she said that
“commonhold provides a potential way forward to move away from leasehold”.—[Official Report, 30/10/2023; col. 1181.]
That we know. She also promised to explain in writing the complications of abolishing leasehold in flats, to which she referred. Can the Minister explain what the delay is in implementing commonhold and what the complications are perceived to be?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I can only reiterate what I have said. We are reviewing this, and it is a complex matter that has ramifications throughout housing law. We are looking at and reviewing the Law Commission’s recommendations, and we are working with the Commonhold Council. It is an important matter, and we will come forward with further steps on it in due course. It is a complex issue, and I am more than happy to meet noble Lords as we move into the Bill. If any noble Lords would like to meet me and my team, I am very happy to do so.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
Is not the simple, unvarnished truth that, on leasehold for flats, the Government are under intense pressure from powerful institutions, which have sunk millions into freehold title, to duck the big decision and delay? The Government’s response is to leave it to the next Government to sort out. Is it not no more than an income stream for lazy investors, greedy developers and pension funds, all of which are squeezing the Government through political pressure to back off, while leaseholders pay the price? Labour will sort this out.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is not the case. If noble Lords have listened to some of the things that the Secretary of State has said in the last many months, they will know that we are committed to changing this. It is complex, and we will take our time and do it properly.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
It is very good to see the Minister back at the Dispatch Box. She has read out very faithfully the Civil Service briefing. However, we know from the Post Office scandal that Ministers are ultimately responsible and should take responsibility. Her Secretary of State was born and brought up in Aberdeen—and in Scotland leasehold was abolished in 2000 by a Labour and Liberal Democrat Government. Will the Minister go back to Michael Gove and say, “For goodness’ sake, if it can be done in Scotland, do it in England as well”?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that I shall go back and take that message to my Secretary of State, but I can also say that we are looking at the Scottish model.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, the Law Commission reported in 2020, and I understand the Minister to say that the Government are taking their time—but four years is far too long. It cannot be so complicated that there cannot be a decision.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It is extremely complex; it affects many other legal issues to do with housing—with leaseholds and freeholds. We are looking at it as we move through the Bill. What we are putting forward is a very good first step, but it is not the end of the line. We will be working further.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords are grateful to my noble friend the Minister for saying that the Government are still committed to commonhold. She keeps saying how complicated the whole issue is. To ease the understanding of noble Lords and others, will she commit to listing some of the complications in a letter to me and other noble Lords, so that we too can understand how complicated it is and why commonhold provisions have not been brought forward at this stage?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I shall certainly do that—I thought that my noble friend Lady Penn had agreed to that letter, but I shall look into it and sort out a letter. But I think that my offer of meeting noble Lords, as we move into the Bill, is the correct way forward.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, millions of leaseholders across the country, such as those in Vista Tower in Stevenage, have suffered extreme financial distress, bankruptcies and inability to sell their properties, because the issue of fire remediation has fallen directly on them. When will those leaseholders have the Government’s reassurance that this is going to be dealt with once and for all?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We are dealing with it—it is a big piece of work, but we are dealing with it. It is happening all the time. What I have said to the noble Baroness and others many times at the Dispatch Box is that, if there are individuals who have complex issues and want to discuss them, we have a team of people in the department who will do that. I am happy to talk to her further about that.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is the delay due in any way to the fact that we have had a significant number of ministerial changes at Secretary of State level?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question—but not as far as I am concerned, no.
Lord Watts (Lab)
What is to stop the Government and Michael Gove getting on a train, going to Scotland, seeing the legislation there, bringing it back and adopting the same regulations? What would be the problem with that?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I did not quite catch that—but with regard to going up to Scotland and bringing back that legislation, the law is very different in Scotland, and we have to look at it.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to this exchange, and we have had similar ones in the past, initiated by my noble friend. What is noticeable is that the Minister—not personally, of course; we welcome her back—but politically, during this exchange, has found herself friendless. There is virtually no one prepared to stand up and defend the Government’s position, other than the Minister. At the very least, as this place can be a bit of a cauldron for making plain what opinion is, she should report back what I have just relayed to her to her Secretary of State, and say, “Next time I come to the Dispatch Box, please give me some better arguments than you have given me so far”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am not going to give noble Lords any different answer. We are committed, and the Secretary of State has made it very clear that we are committed as a Government, to commonhold. We are working through it—but the best way in which to help leaseholders now is to make existing leases fairer and more affordable. That is exactly what is happening through the Bill, and I am pleased that the Government are at last doing it. I hope that the noble Lord opposite is also pleased that this Bill is in, because he has asked me many times when it is coming.
Immigration Detention: Brook House Inquiry
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the findings of the Brook House Inquiry, published on 19 September 2023, in particular its recommendation for a 28-day time limit on immigration detention.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I draw attention to my interests as laid out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are carefully considering the findings of the Brook House inquiry, set out in its detailed report, in relation to the management of the immigration detention estate and the welfare of detained individuals. There are no plans to introduce a time limit on immigration detention.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the inquiry exposed the dehumanising abuse of vulnerable people held in immigration detention. Unfortunately, the report’s author states that these issues remain in place today. We understand that a senior civil servant has been tasked to prepare the Government’s response, to be published “in due course”. I wonder whether “in due course” will have ended nine months from now. Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Secondly, the report’s recommendation on a time limit was meant to be alongside the Home Office guidance on imminent times of removal. Will the Home Office seriously consider that recommendation, putting it alongside the current guidance, so that people are not detained for periods for which they are not intended?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s view is that a time limit on immigration detention would significantly impair our ability to remove those who have breached our immigration laws and refused to leave the UK voluntarily. It is likely to encourage and reward abuse, allowing those who wish to guarantee their release to frustrate the removal process until the time limit is reached. It would encourage late and opportunistic claims to be made simply to push a person over the time limit, regardless of the circumstances of their case. That would undermine our ability to maintain effective immigration control and would potentially place the public at higher risk, in particular through the release of foreign national offenders into the community.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister talks about abuse, but the abuse found in the Brook House inquiry report was by G4S staff, with terrible abuse perpetrated against some of the most vulnerable people. We believe in custody time limits in this society. Even suspected terrorists can be held for no more than 14 days. Why should these desperate people be held without limit of time?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the supplier has changed; as of 2020, Serco now looks after this particular situation. I would also say that the vast majority of people are in fact detained for less than 28 days: 65% are detained for 28 days or less and 23% are detained for seven days or less.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, Kate Eves’s report included a number of recommendations requiring immediate and urgent implementation, because they related to serious issues such as the use of force and use of segregation. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government have now done in response to those particular recommendations? If nothing has been done, can the Minister explain why not?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, a lot of the work had already been done, because there was a report commissioned in 2016 by Stephen Shaw, who was then the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. The Government acted in response to that report, before the documentary that prompted the Brook House report. The Home Office has implemented steps across the removal estate to enhance assurance and oversight of service provision. We have strengthened our capacity to provide assurance and oversight of service provision both at the Gatwick IRC and in the wider removal estate. That includes action to refresh and reinforce whistleblowing arrangements, improve information flows and analysis of complaints, address incidents and use of force and enhance supplier and Home Office engagement with detained individuals.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I have studied the first part of the report and looked at the rest of it, and one recurring theme in that report is the gross incompetence of G4S. A number of proposals have been put forward for improvement under the new manager, Serco. Can the Minister say something about those improvements that will be made and whether he has confidence in Serco? Another recurring theme in the report is the level of drug abuse, which really seems to be quite appalling in an organisation and institution such as this. Can the Minister also say something about what will be done to solve that particular problem?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the new contract with Serco to run the Gatwick IRC commenced in May 2020 and runs for an eight-year period. The contract provides increased staffing levels, improved use of modern technology and enhanced investment in resident activity and welfare services. We have strengthened our capacity to provide assurance and oversight of service provision at Gatwick and the rest of the removal estate, including action, as I have just said, to refresh and reinforce whistleblowing arrangements, improve information flows and analysis of complaints and address incidents and use of force. As regards the drugs point, the Government will be responding to the report in due course.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, in his original Answer, the Minister said that the Government are carefully considering the Brook House inquiry report and will respond in due course. Why has the Minister therefore told us that they have already come to the conclusion that they will ignore what the Brook House inquiry said, namely that there should be a 28-day limit on immigration detention? As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti pointed out, that means that so-called immigration offenders are treated worse than terrorists.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That is not what I said; I said that the Government are considering the report. The cross-government working group, chaired by the director of detention services at the Home Office, is considering the report and all the recommendations, including those with wider applicability across the detention estate. As regards the 28 days, I go back to what I said earlier: in particular, we think that this would impair our ability to remove those who have breached immigration laws and refused to leave the UK voluntarily. That would particularly place the community at risk, especially if foreign national offenders were released into the community. As I say, though, the vast majority are released within 28 days anyway.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, the inquiry found that the inappropriate use of restraint and force on detained persons suffering from mental illness was common at Brook House, with healthcare staff unaware of their responsibilities to monitor the welfare of detained persons during use of restraint. Regardless of this information, the Illegal Migration Act allows for the use of force against even children across the detention estate. What steps will be taken to ensure that the use of force is continually monitored and recorded for all detainees, but particularly vulnerable adults and children, to ensure that what occurred at Brook House is never allowed to happen again?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it should not be allowed to happen again. As I say, the Government are obviously considering all the recommendations, and that will clearly be part of the considerations. I am confident that there is no way that such a situation would be allowed to happen again.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, recommendation 19 of the Brook House report is on the attitude and behaviour of healthcare staff. The use of force on one person who had a serious heart condition lasted for about 18 minutes, was positively harmful and put him at further risk. The recommendation is for immediate guidance for healthcare staff and mandatory training. Can the Minister tell us if that has already been brought into practice?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness that that was totally unacceptable, and the inquiry was obviously right to highlight it a something that needs urgent attention. As regards whether advice has been issued, I will have to come back to the noble Baroness, but I am pretty sure that those recommendations are being implemented.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, alluded to the fact that, in the case of those on bail, their detention is regulated by custody time limits. Will my noble friend the Minister agree that, in the case of immigration detention, it should always be regulated by the Hardial Singh principles, enunciated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and as reflected by the recent and now in force provisions of the Illegal Migration Act?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that; I agree with him. I would also point out that Stephen Shaw, as I mentioned earlier, wrote a report, which he updated in 2018, on welfare in immigration detention. He said the following:
“The current Government position is to oppose a time limit (whether of 28 days or any other period), but Parliament may at some point take a different view … at present, the case for a time limit has been articulated more as a slogan than as a fully developed policy proposal”.
I am afraid that I agree with that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Will the noble Lord tell the House how many asylum seekers are now held in detention, in limbo, with their cases unheard by us—or never to be heard by us? Is he at all ashamed that Médecins Sans Frontières is having to look after them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will stick to the question at hand, and will happily provide some statistics on the number of people in immigration detention as of 30 September last year. That number was 1,841, including those detained solely under immigration powers in prisons. That was 11% lower than at the end of September 2022, when there were 2,077 people in detention. I think that those numbers are encouraging and heading in the right direction.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, another of the inquiry’s findings was that vulnerable people in detention are not being afforded the appropriate protections that the safeguards recommended by Stephen Shaw are designed to provide, because of their dysfunctional operation. The latest report of the independent monitoring boards and new clinical evidence from Medical Justice—a core participant in the inquiry—show that the safeguards are still failing, including not identifying people at risk of self-harm or suicide, with serious and sometimes tragic consequences for mental and physical health. What steps are the Government therefore taking, as a matter of urgency, to ensure a more consistent and robust application of the safeguards, as called for in the inquiry report?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I have said, the detailed recommendations remain under review, but a lot of these issues were dealt with in response to Stephen Shaw’s report of 2016, which was then updated in 2018.
Storms: Weather Resilience
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on infrastructure, homes and farmland of the recent storms, and what steps they intend to take to increase resilience to future weather events.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my interest as vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. I know the whole House will extend our sympathies to those impacted by Storm Henk. To date, 2,185 properties have flooded, and over 81,000 properties have been protected due to the Government’s investment in flood defences. The Government’s 2020 policy statement sets out five ambitious policies and multiple actions to improve future resilience to flooding. Between 2021 and 2027, the Government will have doubled investment in flood and coastal erosion schemes across England to a record £5.2 billion.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we should be doing more between floods? I pay tribute to the Environment Agency and drainage boards for the important work they do in regularly maintaining existing flood defences and dredging watercourses. Will he seek to end the arbitrary division of funding between capital expenditure and maintenance funding that is hampering this work, as advocated in the December report from the National Audit Office? Further, will he confirm that the farming recovery grants will reward farmers for loss of crops and for the fact that their land is effectively being used not for food production but to defend downstream communities from future floods?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely join my noble friend in saying what fantastic work the Environment Agency has done in reaction to these floods, along with the ongoing work it does in between to make sure that we are more resilient to them. Its annual maintenance programme activities are prioritised and timetabled using information from inspections, maintenance standards, levels of flood risk and legal and statutory obligations. Local teams work with partners, including drainage boards, on maintenance and dredging programmes. In 2022-23, the agency spent over £200 million on maintaining flood risk assets. In 2021, we announced an additional £22 million per year from 2022-25 for the maintenance of flood defences, and details can be found in our Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Report.
My noble friend also talked about farming. The flood recovery fund will pay for the uninsured costs of preparing arable land for planting crops or reseeding grass where it has been damaged, and our agricultural transition plan has a range of measures which will support farmers in these matters.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, in the interest of helping this Government, who appear to have run out of good ideas on almost every topic, what about banning new building on flood plains?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I really want to know what the noble Baroness means by that. Does she mean that there should be no more houses built in York, Leeds, London or Exeter? It is not what you build; it is how you build and how resilient the buildings are to flooding. I entirely accept and agree with her that some appalling decisions were taken over the last half century, and houses have flooded because they should never have been built there. But we cannot ban the building of properties; we just have to make them resilient to flooding.
Lord Deben (Con)
I remind my noble friend that when his department produced its five-year plan, in the usual range of these, the Climate Change Committee said that it was not adequate. In the light of these floods, will he look at that plan to see whether some changes should take place? The Government have done a great deal, but clearly, this will get worse and we need to look at it again.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is right that these problems are going to get worse: what we are suffering at the moment is almost certainly the impact of an El Niño effect, which has meant a warmer, wetter start to our winter. This will, we hope, be followed by a dryer but perhaps colder end to it, and we can look to the future. The Government are absolutely looking to the future, and he was right in his leadership of the Climate Change Committee to make sure that all departments are being resilient to the effects of climate change. I will just say that we have achieved much more than some of our closest neighbours. We are going to reduce greenhouse gases by 65% by 2030; the European Union has a target of 55%. We are doing a lot to address this, both globally and domestically.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I want to pick up on an issue arising from yesterday’s Statement. In May last year, the EFRA Committee published a report on rural mental health, which found that extreme weather events and animal health crises left farmers, workers and vets dealing with mental health trauma with little support. It called on the Government to provide dedicated emergency funding to enable local areas to quickly access more resources to respond to rural communities’ mental health needs, both during and, crucially, after crisis events. Can the noble Lord explain why the Government disagree and have refused to allocate this funding?
Lord Benyon (Con)
If the noble Baroness looks at our rural proofing annual report, she will see a firm commitment in it to issues relating to mental health in rural areas. She is absolutely right that events such as this trigger severe problems for people whose homes are flooded, or who lose their business or a large part of it, and we are seeing that in the farming community. The Government are providing a range of mental health support measures for people in these communities, and I applaud the work the NFU and others are doing, with the Government, to make sure that we are accessing those in need and providing them with the support they require.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the NFU tells me that a review of the flood defence grant in aid funding is vital. The weighting towards people and property means that rural areas are unable to compete for funding, as they will never score highly enough to receive any grant. Are the Government considering altering the formula so that farmers get a fair share of this money?
Lord Benyon (Con)
That is a very good question. The first thing we have done is to introduce partnership funding. At the time, the Opposition referred to it as a flood tax, but it has meant that a whole load of schemes that would never have got the go-ahead, because they did not have the value for money of schemes which defended more homes, did go ahead and have therefore been built. Approximately 40% of schemes and 45% of investment better protects properties in rural communities; and since 2015 we have protected over 700,000 acres of agricultural land, along with thousands of businesses and communities, through schemes.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister and others have naturally focused on the macro schemes that are designed to reduce the major impacts of flooding, but does he agree that micro-level interventions can have a significant impact, such as not using nonporous hard surfaces to concrete over front gardens to create hardstanding for motor vehicles? What advice are the Government giving on the appropriate use of porous materials when people want to create hardstanding at their homes?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, the Government are giving money for property-level flood resilience, and that would entirely fall within this. Software is also now available. For example, I looked some years ago at Bristol, where they had created millions of data points around the city at which they could apply different weather events and see how just a kerb being raised at a certain point, or a wall being extended, can protect a number of properties from flooding. So the noble Baroness is absolutely right: we need to look at the micro as well as the macro effect.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. The Minister mentioned damage to farmland. Obviously, most arable farmers will have the chance to re-drill their crops in the spring and many will benefit from the farming recovery grant. However, in the Fens, covering Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, a number of horticultural producers have suffered substantial damage to existing crops. They may well not be covered, so what advice can he give them?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is right: these floods will undoubtedly affect our food security. Lincolnshire and the Fens is a very important area. Internal drainage boards and managing water levels are an important part of this. I cannot say that the level of rain we experienced was unprecedented, and it certainly was not unexpected. We are going to have more of these events, and we have to be better at managing them.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Somerset Levels have flooded every winter for the last 20 or 30 years, which often stops the railway and roads. I am told it is because the Environment Agency has prevented proper dredging of the rivers, which would allow the rainwater to run away into the sea. Is this not clearly easy to do, and a quick fix that would stop this happening every year?
Lord Benyon (Con)
People are very often free with advice. I went down to Somerset when there were floods there and somebody said to me, “All you have to do is dredge this river, cut this dyke through, and the water will flow.” I pointed out to him that that might clear the water from his farm, but it would go into people’s houses in Bridgwater. He said to me, “You are confusing me with someone who is concerned about the people who live in Bridgwater.” These things are never simple, and the noble Lord may be right.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Thursday 11th January 2024
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 View all Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 October 2023 - (25 Oct 2023)
Business of the House
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Parliamentary Democracy and Standards in Public Life
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Featherstone
That this House takes note of the current standing of parliamentary democracy and standards in public life.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I have no doubt that this noble House knows right from wrong, believes in decency, wisdom, truth and honesty, and values our freedoms and way of life and the vital part that parliamentary democracy and standards in public life play. Inevitably, much criticism in this debate will be levelled at the current Government, but this is about principles that are for all time and all Governments and opposition parties—all of us in politics. We all need to do better.
In recent years, there has been an erosion of many of the cornerstones of British political life. Recent Prime Ministers and Cabinets have shown a disregard towards parliamentary process; a preference for journalists and broadcasters who support the Government’s position; an apathy for the rule of law; an overwhelming transfer of law from primary to secondary legislation; a disdain for domestic and international courts; a reduction within freedom of protest; and an undue influence on the operational independence of the police services, and indeed the electoral process itself. At the same time, we have witnessed a deterioration in standards of public life, particularly highlighted in the Covid inquiry, where we are seeing how poor standards at the heart of Government led to unnecessary amounts of human suffering at a time when the public needed those standards more than ever. Instead, the Government created a shoddy PPE procurement process, which allowed profiteers to benefit at a time of crisis.
I raised the issue of political preference in media coverage in my response to the gracious Speech. The guidelines for government communication services say that dealing with journalists
“should be objective and explanatory, not biased or polemical”,
and
“should not be—and not liable to being misrepresented as—party political”.
In 2019, a Freedom House report entitled Media Freedom: A Downward Spiral stated:
“The fundamental right to seek and disseminate information through an independent press is under attack, and part of the assault has come from an unexpected source. Elected leaders in many democracies, who should be press freedom’s staunchest defenders, have made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage”.
This is sadly now true of us.
When the former Home Secretary Suella Braverman flew to Rwanda, the Guardian, the Mirror, the i and the Independent were all excluded, and initially also the BBC. That happened less than a year after journalists from the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Mirror were blocked from joining the then Home Secretary Priti Patel’s trip to Rwanda to sign the original asylum deal. In 2020, political journalists, including the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg and ITV’s Robert Peston, staged a walkout after Downing Street communication staff attempted to brief some journalists but not others. Those excluded by former Mirror and Sun journalist Lee Cain—and that revolving door itself is incestuous—included journalists from PA, the Mirror, the i, HuffPost UK, Politicshome and the Independent.
That got me thinking about the state of us, and not in a good way. It is clearly not just me. This debate is not the first on the subject, both here and in the other place. Many voices are now speaking out about the need for change, and many of us who went into politics are sad at what has happened to it. This is a cri de coeur from me and my colleagues, and, I would hope and expect, from many across this Chamber.
On the rule of law and independence of the judiciary, the extraordinarily wise and now sadly late Lord Judge believed that we were ceding too much power to the Executive, power that should and must be retained by Parliament. In a lecture he gave, he said that
“what Parliamentary sovereignty never has been is executive sovereignty, or ministerial or government sovereignty. Indeed Parliamentary sovereignty is the antithesis of executive sovereignty. The two concepts are mutually contradictory. The democratic process is not meant to give, and our constitutional arrangements were not intended to provide us with executive sovereignty. No Prime Minister is a monarch, or president, not even the head of state … At the heart of the development of our constitutional arrangements, Parliament is there to protect us from authoritarianism, from despotism, from an over mighty monarch, but also from an over mighty executive … in the last session of Parliament just over one hundred Henry VIII clauses had been enacted … proliferation of clauses like these will have the inevitable consequence of yet further damaging the sovereignty of Parliament, and increasing yet further the authority of the executive over the legislature … Henry VIII clauses should be confined to the dustbin of history”.
I could not agree more.
Only recently we have seen machinations to subvert the Supreme Court holding unanimously that the Government’s Rwanda scheme was unlawful, by bringing forward legislation declaring Rwanda a safe country. This move is scarily reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, when party member O’Brien tests Winston Smith’s allegiance to party truth, insisting that Winston sees five fingers when he holds up only four—that is, the truth is what I say it is. We have seen contempt for international courts, such as the ECHR, which is the embodiment of high ideals of internationalist values and constants that remain today hugely important in guaranteeing peoples’ fundamental human rights in law. It came as a surprise to some in government that it was nothing to do with the European Union.
The Government have acted to strengthen their power over the judiciary in the Judicial Review and Courts Act by reducing the scope of judicial review. The Government have severely restricted legal aid, making access to justice uneven and unfair. Members of the legal profession are exhausted and court backlogs deny justice. The breaking of treaties such as the Northern Ireland protocol was once unthinkable. Mrs May spoke for many when she asked
“how can the Government reassure future international partners that the UK can be trusted to abide by the legal obligations in the agreements it signs?”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/20; col. 499.]
This is not to mention the illegal proroguing of Parliament.
The phrase “free and fair election” is dashed off so easily, but it is the heart and soul of our democracy. The Government compromised that in the Elections Act 2022, by giving themselves the right to intervene and to direct or guide the Electoral Commission’s strategy and priorities. Those changes went through—of course—via a statutory instrument, the excess use of which is the preferred tool of a Government who will not be thwarted. The ability to thwart a Government acting in an overweening and injudicial way is the absolute strength of our democracy.
As to the operational independence of the police, it is a fundamental principle of British policing that sits alongside the important principle of policing by consent. The ex-Home Secretary did not approve of the Metropolitan Police’s handling of pro-Palestinian protests and went into print to criticise the police force for applying “double standards” and being “more sympathetic to the left”. To attack the police publicly is just not acceptable, let alone to accuse them of political bias. She is entitled to that view but, regardless of whether she was right or wrong, she was not entitled to say so publicly.
On the public right to protest, it has always been recognised that the right of people to criticise Governments, laws and social conditions is fundamental to democracy. Via regulation yet again we have a new definition of what “serious disruption” means: a new and astonishing threshold at which police can restrict protest for any obstruction which causes more than minor hindrance to day-to-day activities, meaning that police restrictions can effectively ban a protest. If those restrictions are breached, we are now in criminal offence territory. Exactly what does the right to protest mean when the enactment of that right is criminalised?
Britain is now a country where only 9% of people say they generally trust political leaders—that is the lowest since records began. How we do our politics really matters, both inside Parliament and in the country. Standards in public life, the Nolan principles, are not going well. Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership are a crucial part of our responsibility and are literally the antithesis of Boris Johnson, our former Prime Minister. Before I get to the deleterious effect of his behaviour, I point out that the Financial Times published an article on 16 December about the loss of trust in Parliament. More than one in 20 MPs has been suspended from the House of Commons, left Parliament altogether or been stripped of their party whip in the wake of misconduct allegations—just since the last general election. I am sure your Lordships remember the expenses scandal. We have still not recovered from that low base. That rocked public faith in all of us. Whether innocent or guilty, we were all guilty. On the doorstep, we were all scum.
Our constitutional protections have been put under huge strain because of major breaches of the standards in public office, with concerns about corruption and conflict of interest at the most senior levels. Boris Johnson’s changes to the Ministerial Code were detrimental to standards in public life. His lying, obfuscation and belief that the rules did not apply to him were shameful. He blocked his independent ethics adviser from being able to initiate his own investigations, and he rewrote the foreword to the Ministerial Code, removing all references to honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability.
In recent days, thanks to the Covid inquiry, we have seen the scale of the PPE scandal. Yes, it was an emergency, and yes, abnormal procedures were needed to facilitate that urgency, but what is a VIP lane? I would have hoped that a VIP lane was a lane that gave priority to those who came forward to help because they had the know-how, not the know-who.
As for the charade in the No. 10 garden, and the absurdity of the Barnard Castle fairy tale, what contempt for the truth and the people of this country. We all saw Allegra Stratton, then the Prime Minister’s press secretary, laughing and joking during a mock televised press briefing about a Downing Street Christmas party. Anyone who saw that clip knew in an instant what was really going on in No. 10.
This is decline and fall. We have not even recovered as a country from the way Brexit was conducted. It harmed us as a nation. Truth was a victim, and people felt empowered not only to lie but to hate the other side. Political protagonists peddled dislike, disdain, denigration of other, and fear. We created an unhappy and angry nation. We are bombarded with hate. Hate sells; hate works; hate garners votes; hate strikes emotion in us. There is hatred of other—foreigners, immigrants, scroungers, Muslims, Jews, the rich, the lazy, the lucky: we hate them all. Years of the drip-drip poison of “enemies of the people” and negative political campaigning has taken its toll on all of us.
Politicians have become reductionist in order to find simplistic messages that focus groups tell us will win votes. To win, lies do not matter any more. Truth is fake news. Facts—who cares? Experts with real knowledge are disparaged. To win, the common good comes way down the list, after party good, and public discourse is driven now by heat, not light, with the media feeding a frenzy of the negative and the nasty, amplified by the Twittersphere but led by us politicians.
Fifteen minutes was inadequate—although I understand I am running ahead of my schedule—because I have not even touched on reform of our own House, the use of hate speech by politicians in the media, nor the part that the “winner takes all” nature of our Commons elections plays in our behaviour. Yet I am absolutely sure that noble Lords across this House will fill in any gaps I may have left.
There has not even been time to lay out a prospectus for us moving to happier territory, but we have an opportunity—with an election year ahead—to demonstrate change for the better. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, told the Liberal Democrat conference in 2011 that men made bad decisions, but I have to say that even by that standard, that speech was a dreadful calumny of the performance of Parliament as a whole. I am sorry that she chose to make a highly tendentious and political attack in what should be a serious debate. She complains she has only 15 minutes; I have only three minutes. That says everything about the accountability which Parliament has been able to bring to the Executive. For all her talk of parliamentary sovereignty, this is the party which actually wants to set up bodies which will hold Parliament to account and create a situation where folk in public life are accountable to unelected regulators for compliance with detailed rules—which would be utterly disastrous.
We need to restore the sovereignty and reputation of Parliament, but we certainly will not do it with this kind of speech coming from the noble Baroness. I give her a piece of advice. She talks about how people ought to be able to make protests, but let us look at the conduct of her leader on the Post Office matter. He would not even see the postmasters and, when he had finished being in charge of that, went off to work at a considerable salary for the lawyers responsible for advising the Post Office. If she wants to have a debate where she throws mud, she should start with her own backyard.
The noble Baroness is of course right that Parliament’s ability to hold the Executive to account has declined, and she is right that we need to look at that. Looking at the recent dreadful news we have had on the Post Office, what lessons are to be learned? The lesson to be learned—no doubt, as I said the other day, in defence of her leader—is that we have created a whole load of quangos and agencies or nationalised organisations which are not directly accountable to Ministers and run on an arm’s-length basis. That is the point about the Post Office: it is a nationalised body. We have the situation where Ministers have to answer for bodies over which they have no executive control. That is one of the lessons that needs to come out of this.
The noble Baroness is right about Henry VIII clauses, and she is right about accountability. There is still the scandal in this House of a third of our Ministers being unpaid, because so many Ministers have been appointed in the other place. That is to do not just with pay in this House but pay in the other place. If we are to address these problems, we need to do so in a non-partisan matter.
I have only three minutes, so I am over my time, but there is a very splendid pamphlet produced by Policy Exchange called Upholding Standards; Unsettling Conventions which sets out a coherent and sensible approach to this issue, not making party-political points for election purposes and then complaining about it. If the noble Baroness is worried about democratic accountability, why on earth have we got so many Liberal Democrats on these Benches when their representation in the House of Commons is derisory?
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for prompting this debate.
In October it will be 30 years since the Committee on Standards in Public Life was established. I sat on the original committee in 1994—I think I was its youngest member—and our first report in May 1995 set out the seven Nolan principles of public life, which were enumerated by the noble Baroness. Their purpose was to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life. As a code of conduct, they are still a lodestar for all those who serve the public in any way.
Yet, 30 years on, the need for scrutiny seems ever greater. I want to believe that having the Nolan principles has made people more aware and thus more likely to call out poor standards. I am reluctant to accept that malpractice, chancing your arm or even headline-hitting scandals, which we have unfortunately had close to home in this House, are inevitable. However, while it would be naive not to acknowledge the tensions that exist between power and doing the right thing, the last few years have exposed too many instances where those in political life have fallen short of the Nolan principles. The litany includes lying, bullying, poor leadership, the breaching of lockdown rules, dubious lobbying practices, the Owen Paterson issue, public procurement scandals and partygate. While these fall foul of just about every one of the seven principles, what links them all is a lack of integrity in recent leadership.
Frankly, I am not surprised by the current dismal standing of our parliamentary democracy. A recent World Values Survey from the Policy Institute at King’s College London shows that the percentage of the British public who had confidence in Parliament has halved since 1990, from 46% that year to 23% in 2022. Among young people—millennials and Generation X—the percentages are even lower.
In 2021, the CSPL reported on
“the importance of high ethical standards, the continuing relevance of the”
Nolan principles,
“and the effectiveness of the rules, regulators, policies and processes related to upholding standards”.
It made 34 recommendations for reform, including a call for more power to be given to the independent adviser on ministerial standards. This recommendation was rejected. Can the Minister give us any assurance that the Government will keep the CSPL’s remaining recommendations under review, particularly that the independent adviser should have the authority to determine breaches of the Ministerial Code?
In July last year, the Opposition in the other place outlined their plans for a new independent ethics and integrity commission. I hope that this remains a high priority for any future change in government. Integrity is the overriding principle without which none of the others can be sustained. Redressing the lack of integrity in recent leadership is vital, not just for our parliamentary democracy but for our international reputation. We must not allow the damage done in the last few years to lead to any further weakening of trust in public institutions and those who work in them.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend made a superb speech, which was not partisan and covered ground that is common to all parties.
I will pick up first on her point about law-making by statutory instrument—by powers given to Ministers—with only very limited parliamentary scrutiny. On the only occasion during my time here when this House used that power effectively, the Government went ballistic and wheeled in the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to tell us that we should all be abolished or in some way have our powers reduced. A power which is never used is not a power. In this case, whenever these powers are introduced in Bills, they come with explanations that the matter has to be considered by, and requires a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament. If we never deny that resolution, we do not exercise the power. It is a great weakness in our system, which is more important now that the Commons devotes so little time to the proper study of legislation and sits for fewer hours than we do.
My other point is the system of appointment to this House. We have had 17 new Conservative Peers—the Liz Truss list, the Boris Johnson list and then all those who were brought into this House to serve as Ministers, perhaps for less than a year, and are Peers for life as a result. It is a completely distorted system and we need to change it to an orderly one. The Burns committee produced a system which could be used, in the absence of any more fundamental reform of the House of Lords, to give some coherence and fairness to that system of appointment. It was widely accepted right across the House, but the Government have not acted on it. Theresa May did when she was in office but subsequent Prime Ministers have not done so, and they ought to. The continuing absurdity of the nomination system brings the House into disrepute.
Across the free world of parliamentary democracies there is a very real threat. We are seeing it in France, Germany and the United States, where ex-President Trump says he wants to be a dictator for one day so that he can entirely reverse US policy on climate change. This is dangerous territory. We have got to make the parliamentary democracy system deliver and get it to the point where people find that it properly deals with their concerns. We should not treat attempts to achieve that as partisan; they are very necessary to our democracy.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, the democratic system is pretty robust and parliamentary democracy has survived, albeit in a less authoritative form. Democracy, however, being a process rather than a state, is fragile and needs constant vigilance. The media is awash with reports on the demise of democracy the world over, but especially parliamentary democracy in the UK. Lord Sumption has referred to “a developing totalitarian tendency”. That there are too many unfortunate examples of these tendencies has allowed an attitude of regretful acceptance of the increasing power of the Executive.
Recent legislation has included clauses that either unduly restrict current individual freedoms, infringe obligations set under international treaties or increase the power of the Government to alter clauses at will without proper parliamentary scrutiny. These actions add up to a public perception of a lack of transparency and good faith on the part of the Government and a consequent fall in public confidence in, and respect for, the integrity and credibility of the UK’s political institutions.
Parliament is one of the key institutions of democracy in the UK, along with regular elections, the independent law courts and a free press. The Westminster model is renowned throughout the world; it is one of our most potent symbols of fairness and a key instrument of soft power. It allows the UK to punch well above its weight. It is worth preserving. As the historian David Runciman has said, the end of democracy will not be signalled by tanks on the lawn but by the slow, almost imperceptible erosion of our democratic institutions. No matter how much these values are reiterated, recent history has shown that in each House profoundly undemocratic legislative clauses have been passed.
There may be those in this House today who disagree that there is any real threat to our ancient institutions. However, are these institutions in fact able to do the job for which they exist? They may well continue to function, but are they delivering? Are we noticing that institutional arrangements may be breaking down?
The role of Parliament has come under almost unprecedented scrutiny and criticism in recent months, and the calls for a rebalancing of power between the legislature and the Executive are loud. Perhaps we should resist pressures to be reticent as non-elected parliamentarians and insist on curbing executive power and the return of our parliamentary institutions to full democratic strength. That seems to be the fundamental task of both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I too think the Post Office scandal is instructive and I will use it to make my point, which is different to my noble friend’s.
The excellent ITV drama illustrates powerfully what many voters already think about those of us in positions of authority—that too often we do not listen to or take seriously what voters are telling us if what they say or want does not correspond with what we have decided is right and want to do. The travesty was sub-postmasters, the kind of people who represent the epitome of good character in communities, having their concerns dismissed time and again in favour of sophisticated arguments from Fujitsu, Post Office executives, civil servants and lawyers.
What this saga shows is how we—the powerful decision-making class—lose sight of what matters when dealing with complex challenges. While the individuals responsible for the Post Office scandal must be held to account and face the consequences of their failure, we must all understand that this event goes wider than an example of injustice—even though it is the worst of its kind. What it represents is the division between insiders and outsiders that led to Brexit and other democratic shocks that followed in 2017 and 2019.
Too often, we complain that people call for simple solutions to complex problems because “they don’t understand”. People do not expect simple solutions to complex problems, but they do expect people such as us to be motivated by the kinds of simple values that any decent, upstanding citizen instinctively shares. We evidence that by how we do our job, which must include listening and understanding their experience of the problem that only we have the power to fix.
In short, if we want to change the standing of parliamentary democracy and our politics, we must take far more seriously the views and demands of the people we rely on for support and are here to serve. They want us to uphold and share their standards in how we go about our work. If we do not learn the lessons of our collective failure, we would be unwise to believe it will be business as usual at the ballot box when the current Parliament ends.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in 2019, when Parliament was certainly not at its best, the think tank Onward found that two-thirds of younger voters were in favour of a strong man leader prepared to defy Parliament. We had a leader, Boris Johnson, who flagrantly broke the rules and lied. The Hallett inquiry has exposed habitual use of foul-mouthed language in No. 10. Civil servants in No. 10 colluded with the rule-breaking by the Prime Minister. A senior Minister unblushingly told the House of Commons that the Government intended to break international law. Two independent advisers on ministerial interests have resigned. There has been the affair of PPE procurement, the VIP channel and the bounce-back loans—an issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, referred to in her admirable speech.
In 2021, a Savanta ComRes poll showed that 76% of voters were concerned about corruption in government. A series of parliamentary by-elections has been precipitated by episodes of sexual abuse and other bullying, and by improper lobbying. There are institutional reforms that a new Prime Minister intent on restoring the integrity of public life, as Keir Starmer is, could implement. The so-called Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests should be given power to initiate inquiries and his recommendations should be enforceable other than at the caprice of the Prime Minister. The admirable but airy Nolan principles should be given teeth through new powers for the Committee on Standards in Public Life to investigate and regulate; the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, ditto. The revolving door of lucrative opportunities for both Ministers and officials scandalises the public. The existing feeble legislation on lobbying should be toughened up.
A new Prime Minister could refrain from constantly playing musical chairs with ministerial appointments. If Ministers stay in office for only five minutes, they cannot do the job properly and the public feel let down. Similarly, for confidence in the competence of government to be restored, civil servants should stay longer in the same post. There should be a new dispensation for local government, with radical decentralisation of power to revitalise democracy at the grass roots. Supercilious attitudes at the centre to the mayoralties and devolved Administrations should end.
A new Government must grasp the nettle of the funding of political parties. Consensus seems unobtainable. Such is the urgency of dispelling the public’s perception that political donations buy power, policy and honours that a new Government should legislate with no further ado for public funding of political parties.
If we want politics and government to be respected, Ministers must tell people the realities and not run scared of focus groups. Leaders should lead. Whatever institutional changes are made, there is no substitute for good government.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, like others, I contribute to this discussion with a great amount of feeling, because the debate goes right to the heart of the integrity of public institutions, including both Chambers of our Parliament. After Sue Gray’s report on parties in Downing Street during lockdown, my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury described standards in public life as
“the glue that holds us together”
and called for a “rediscovery” of these standards. That was in May 2022, but since then, it can feel like little has changed.
There are now 18 MPs sitting as independents in the other place, outnumbering the number of Liberal Democrat MPs. All 18 have been suspended from their party. Whatever the reason—lobbying, leaking, sexual misconduct or bullying—it is clear that standards are not being observed in every case. While it is impossible to create a world where no individual breaches will ever occur, we can and absolutely should create a robust system which minimises the risk of slipping standards and deals quickly and efficiently with situations where this does occur.
Standards in public life matter. This is not just a topic for the so-called Westminster bubble. When standards are not observed by those with the privilege of sitting in this House or the other place, trust in our whole democratic institution begins to crumble. Whether we like it or not, Parliament and parliamentarians act as role models, including for children and young people. People especially notice how we behave. What we say and how we say it, as well as how we behave more widely and how we ensure that standards of behaviour are maintained, have an effect far beyond the immediate and can over time erode society. Clearly, it is a small minority who do not live up to the standards that we expect of those in public life, but the effect remains. The British public’s trust in the political system has fallen significantly. A poll earlier this year for the Institute for Public Policy Research showed that only 6% of the public have full trust in the current political system. This is not just down to standards in public life, but it is certainly not unrelated.
I cannot exempt the Church of England from this discussion either, given that when More in Common recently polled relative trust in British institutions, the Church came easily in the bottom half. Governance should be for the public good, to enable the flourishing of all life. We needed, in the words of my most reverend friend the Archbishop, a rediscovery of public standards back in 2022. Eighteen months on, we still need it, so today I reiterate this call for personal and institutional integrity.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I endorse everything that the right reverend Prelate and others have said about the need for integrity and high standards in public life, but what I found so dispiriting over the festive season was to read constant reports that the next general election will be the dirtiest ever. I quote from Oliver Shah, writing in the Times:
“It raises the prospect of the most expensive and dirtiest election battle in British history. The two main parties have already traded highly personal blows, with Labour running attack ads claiming that Sunak did not believe paedophiles should go to prison and Sunak accusing Labour of being in cahoots with criminal gangs in the perpetuation of illegal immigration”.
Then on Tuesday in the Times, Katy Balls wrote:
“Such tactics, though, are here to stay. While Labour and the Tories do not agree on much, strategists on both sides believe that this will be the dirtiest election to date”.
I believe that the leaders of our three main parties are decent people who have no appetite for this sort of campaign and realise the damage that it can do. It devalues the political currency, debases people in public life and discourages good people from standing. I do not believe that this is what the public want or deserve. I urge my noble friend the Leader to make the case for moderation in language. Theresa May’s book is called The Abuse of Power, but too many advisers seem to believe in the power of abuse.
Secondly, people do not trust government. Noble Lords have mentioned the Post Office scandal. What people want is competence, and failure to deliver generates disillusion. One reason for underperformance, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is the high turnover of Ministers and senior civil servants. Who has been the most competent Minister in recent years? Ben Wallace. He was there for four years. Where is my party most exposed? On housing. We have had 16 Ministers there since 2010. When I was first elected, there were two Housing Ministers in nine years. Denis Healey was Defence Secretary for five years and Chancellor of the Exchequer for six. We then had two Chancellors in the next nine years. We have had six since 2016. This turnover has consequences. The same criticism was made in my noble friend Lord Maude’s excellent report on the Civil Service, which criticised
“the frequent and unplanned movement of officials from post to post, without regard to business need, at the expense of continuity and of developing and maintaining specialist knowledge and expertise”.
So I have two resolutions for promoting democracy in 2024: decency in political discourse; and stability and competence in government.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, as I expect all Back-Bench noble Lords have done, I have thought long and hard about how best to use my three minutes. I have chosen to devote a large part of them to repeating the words of Julie Hesmondhalgh, the actress who played Suzanne Sercombe—the partner and now wife of Alan Bates—in “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”. On “The World at One” on Monday, 13 minutes into her interview she was asked why she thought this drama had been so spectacularly influential. She responded insightfully. I will read her words in part:
“It is really important to remember that this was a systemic failure … it’s about lies and corruptions on a systemic level. I think part of why this series has been so popular is that we’re at peak lies and corruption and that people have had enough and that this has … been the … final straw. The expression of that and the representation of that on screen has made people say, ‘That’s enough now’”.
In these words, Julie Hesmondhalgh is speaking for the nation. We, the political classes, need to pay attention to that state of mind—particularly so in this election year as it will naturally affect how people will vote. This therefore demands a collective and corrective response.
The extent of the lies and corruption to which Julie Hesmondhalgh referred is captured in a briefing from Spotlight on Corruption and Transparency International that we all—with the exception of the Leader—received on Tuesday. It accurately and compellingly sets out the recent extent of scandal and impropriety in Westminster and Whitehall, including:
“the sale of privileged access to the Prime Minister … government awarding £1.6 billion in PPE contracts based on political connections … ministers making ‘unlawful’ decisions to favour party donors … the award of life peerages to those who have made generous political donations … An MP caught lobbying ministers in return for cash … secretive lobbying by a former Prime Minister seeking commitments … that would put tens billions of pounds of taxpayers’ funds at risk … These follow decades of scandal over expenses, cash for questions and cash for honours”.
Helpfully, the briefing also contains clear recommendations about what needs to be done to respond to the public’s strong appetite for significant reforms to uphold public integrity. Many of them are recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
As it is impossible for me to do justice to this excellent briefing in the time available, I shall ensure that the Leader gets a copy. To the extent that he does not cover the recommendations in his winding-up speech, I ask that he treats them as my questions to him and writes.
Lord McNally (LD)
We are out of order; it is me next. I am always eager to hear the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but I would like to say a few words myself. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and to anticipate the noble Baroness’s speech. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Featherstone on her formidable speech. Do not take too much notice of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—he has never been able to see a belt without wanting to hit below it.
I will first refer to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne. It is not the time for complacency by Parliament or investigative journalism when a television play achieves more in a week than other parts of our governance have achieved in 20 years. That is not to take any credit away from parliamentarians such as the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, who pressed for justice for those damaged by this scandal.
The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, called his seminal political novel House of Cards. That is a good description of liberal democracy—the concept, not the party. We are all familiar with Churchill’s famous quote that
“democracy is the worst form of Government”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/1947; col. 207.]
until you have tried the others. It functions best when its various components—a democratically elected Parliament, a Government, an independent judiciary, a media that adheres to the highest standards of truth and accuracy, and a Civil Service selected and promoted on merit—deliver open government and are underpinned by a robust and wide-ranging Freedom of Information Act. Each of those elements stands alone in a functioning democracy, yet each gives strength to that democracy by helping to strengthen the others. At the apex of that house of cards are this Parliament and the determination of each one of us to protect a democracy that, at its most generous, can be described as fraying at the edges.
In my three minutes, there is no time to set out a detailed programme of reform. Like the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I refer the House to the excellent briefing from Transparency International UK and Spotlight on Corruption. It sets out a programme of reform against which all parties should be tested at the next election and against which individuals should be judged. I hope that, in his extended 20 minutes, the Leader of the House—I am glad to see that he agreed to respond to this debate—will assess the progress on the Government’s Command Paper that was published last July, Strengthening Ethics and Integrity in Central Government, and then promise us a full day’s debate on that document so that we may return to this issue.
It is a daunting agenda that faces the democracies. As so often, Shakespeare got it right when he wrote:
“The fault … is not in our stars, But in ourselves”.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Library briefing for this important debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, notes that the distinctive feature of parliamentary democracies
“is that the executive receives its mandate from, and is responsible to, the legislature”,
but there is a revealing omission here. Actually, the distinctive feature of democracy is that Parliament receives its mandate from, and is responsible to, the demos—half of the word “democracy” along with kratos, meaning “power”.
Yet “people power” is the opposite of the public’s experience of late; indeed, it is disparaged as populism. Voter-mandated manifesto legislation is blocked by forces beyond the electorate’s control while national and local government frequently outsource decision-making to arm’s-length bodies, unelected quangos and consultants ring-fenced away from popular pressure. The public feel sidelined. Like other noble Lords, I suspect that that is one reason why the plight of the sub-postmasters has so captured the public’s imagination, way beyond the atrocious miscarriage of justice. Millions identified with the sheer frustration of being ignored and shouting into the void as the computer, the bureaucrats and the establishment machine say, “No”. Talk to a vast array of grass-roots campaigners, service users and parents’ groups: many of them also feel that they are battling against a technocracy that acts as though it knows best. Although they are not branded as criminals or frauds, as the sub-postmasters were, citizens are branded as everything from ill-informed dupes to extremist bigots because they are concerned about ULEZ, rip-off leaseholds, the politicised school curriculum or whatever.
What does it say about attitudes towards the demos that, beyond the self-interested Post Office management, so many in the judiciary, political life, corporate tech and auditor companies did not question when suddenly hundreds of decent postmasters had become venal thieves? To restore trust in democracy, it is essential that parliamentarians—the establishment—restore trust in the demos.
On the other aspect of this debate—how to halt declining standards in public life—I issue a note of caution. Many proposed solutions—such as more stringent codes of conduct and endless training courses and ethics committees—seem more like process-driven bureaucratic box-ticking than a real enriching of public service. We should also acknowledge that initiatives to regulate standards themselves have become mired in contentious ideological scandals—for example, pushing values such as diversity, inclusion and equity, as though they were interchangeable with improving standards in public life.
In the last few days, there was an apocryphal DIE tale. Rachel Meade, a Kent social worker for 20 years, won a landmark claim after being subjected to a lengthy “fitness to practice” investigation by her own professional regulator, Social Work England, because she posted legal expressions of her belief that a person cannot change biological sex. A 51-page judgment described the standards disciplinary process itself as a form of harassment. We saw similar with the hounding of the now totally exonerated noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, where unfounded allegations of bullying at the EHRC were used to mount an ill-judged process. We must beware these processes, set up to police standards, being weaponised for malicious and politicised reasons, or we will inadvertently create even more miscarriages of justice than we have seen at the Post Office.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the Conservative member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The CSPL has occupied a unique position in the standards landscape since its formation in 1994. Although it includes cross-party representation, the majority of its members are independent. It provides advice for maintaining and improving standards, based on evidence gathered from a wide range of people. The most recent report, Leading in Practice, published in 2022, looked at how a variety of organisations have sought to integrate ethical values into their policies and ways of working. It has been widely welcomed across the public sector. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who led the committee with distinction over the last five years, and welcome our new chair, Doug Chalmers, who is already starting a programme of engagement with regulators and those responsible for standards across the United Kingdom.
The late Lord Nolan set out three golden threads for standards: codes of conduct, independent scrutiny and education. The key question for your Lordships’ House is who should exercise that independent scrutiny, especially when ministerial conduct has been called into question. One of the central pillars of our unwritten constitution is that the Prime Minister, appointed by and chief adviser to the sovereign, remains in that position for as long as he or she commands the confidence of the other place. Other Ministers remain in post for as long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. Not one of us in this place would object to raising standards in public life or disagree with the Nolan principles, but the Nolan principles work precisely because they are just that—principles and not rules. My noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned the recent excellent Policy Exchange report on upholding standards, which deals with this. My fear is that, by the patchwork codification of standards, whether statutory or quasi-statutory, covert or overt, we erode the functions of political accountability that are the proper province of Parliament.
These political mechanisms of accountability are a great success of the British constitution and one that other countries struggle to emulate. We should not abdicate standards enforcements to ethics tsars or unelected regulators who are accountable to no one. If we do, we invite the unedifying prospect of judicial or regulatory pronouncement on ministerial appointments and dismissals. This, I fear, will not improve the standing of parliamentary democracy but diminish it.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, we are discussing very serious issues, and therefore it is important that they are tackled in a meaningful way. One way would be to have some kind of constitutional convention, like the one that the Scots had, where we might debate these issues more sensibly and rationally.
I want to talk about parliamentary democracy and how we can steer our way out of some of the mess that we seem to be facing. When we say that we are a democracy, what do we mean? Minimally, we mean two things, which is why we desire democracy as a form of government: equal rights to all citizens and benefits to all citizens. It is a system of government where people decide things themselves and which promotes public interest and benefits to all.
Parliamentary democracy is one form of democracy. It is not the only one; there are many others. What distinguishes parliamentary democracy and makes the element of trust particularly relevant to parliamentary democracy is that power lies with the people, but it is not exercised directly by the people but through their elected representatives. It is a mediated democracy—a democracy in which power is mediated through Parliament. That means that to talk about parliamentary sovereignty would be a serious mistake. It would mean that Parliament replaces people and begins to take all kinds of decisions that should be taken by people. I suggest that what we want is a robust parliamentary democracy in which people are as well organised, alert and capable of controlling their destiny as Parliament itself.
My second point is that in a parliamentary democracy there is an expectation that Parliament will continue to monitor the system of governance and how the Executive exercise their powers. With parliamentary sovereignty, whoever controls Parliament is sovereign, so the party in power in the House of Commons becomes sovereign. That is exactly what we want to avoid. In my view, we should have a parliamentary democracy in which people control their own affairs through the mediation of Parliament and in which Parliament can control and monitor the system of governance—how Ministers behave, how public appointments are made, how government money is contracted out and so on. These have been the causes of recent troubles. It is very important that Parliament should be strengthened, but not at the cost of people themselves.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, today’s is a debate in which we all must declare an interest, as well as a responsibility. We are part of structures that are essential to making democracy work and we are all public figures, and we share standards that are expected of professionals. Even though we sometimes would like to think that we are different, when it comes to standards, we are not.
I want to talk about the Civil Service in general and my role as the first Civil Service Commissioner in particular. An effective, capable and impartial Civil Service, guided by the Nolan principles, which include honestly, integrity, objectivity and impartiality, is essential—but remember, being impartial does not mean being irrelevant or ineffective. It means serving the Government of the day. The Civil Service Commission has a statutory basis in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. We ensure that recruitment into the Civil Service is fair, open and based on merit, and we hear complaints brought by civil servants regarding conduct that is thought to conflict with Civil Service codes of conduct.
It is important that staff know who to turn to if they feel that they are being asked to do something which would be outside the code. In the first instance, they turn to their department, but, if it is still unresolved, the commission is a statutory independent body. The annual staff survey shows a very high awareness of the existence of the code in England, Scotland and Wales. There is a little less confidence that complaints will be dealt with speedily, but it is still between 70% and 80%.
In the last five years, we have received some 500 complaints, but the vast majority of them were outside the scope. The resolution of these things really has to be within departments and I am very confident that it is.
An effective, modern Civil Service requires people to move between the private and the public sectors. Entry into the Civil Service is just as important as exit, and that is why I am very grateful for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and his committee. It may be appropriate to say that ACOBA, the Civil Service Commission and the Commissioner for Public Appointments share secretarial and back-office staff.
I will say something about Civil Service impartiality compared to the independence of regulators. There is an important difference. Irrespective of the legal basis of institutions, there are three essential requirements to ensure independence. The first is the conduct of individual officeholders. For the commission, this is when we chair interview panels. The second is adequate resourcing that allows the regulators to plan their staff and workload in a consistent and strategic manner. The third is to fill officeholders’ vacancies as they arise. Basically, failures of standards cost time and money, and ultimately undermine confidence.
I conclude by paying tribute to the work of my fellow commissioners and a lot of very hard-working members of staff in the Civil Service.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, with whom I have very much enjoyed working and moving forward the agenda for improvement and change. I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests: I am the chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—ACOBA. The committee provides independent advice to former Ministers and senior civil servants when they leave government.
Approximately 40,000 officials left the Civil Service last year. The majority of these cases are considered by government departments themselves, under the business appointments rules, without formal reference to ACOBA. The rules are not fit for purpose; they have not kept up with modern career patterns and leave open major risks to the integrity of government. This failure has been apparent for years, and I welcome the commitment of the Government to reform the system announced last year.
Now is the time to get on with it for, in truth, the reforms differ little from the measures devised by me and my noble friend the present Leader of the House, a few years back. I pay tribute to my noble friend’s commitment to reform. The revised business rules need not just the confidence of the Prime Minister and your Lordships but, more importantly, credibility in the eyes of the public. To get over the threshold of credibility to be listened to by the public, there need to be consequences for breaking the rules. Currently, there are none, save an unpleasant letter from me and a couple of days of bad publicity in the press.
The revised rules will rightly be enforced through the Civil Service contract and a ministerial bond, up to and including a fine. The latter is crucial, because it goes to the often-neglected part of Nolan’s Seven Principles of Public Life—leadership. Ministers must set an example and lead from the front. They cannot expect others to follow the rules unless they are prepared to do it first.
Reform will bring sense to the system. It is not a good use of public money when we are currently forced to consider the merits of an ex-Minister consuming the more intimate parts of some luckless marsupial on television. There is no government interest here to protect. It is far better that there should be a light touch on journalism, entertainment, voluntary work or transfers to other parts of the public service, that those coming from the private sector have a clear idea of the restrictions they will face on leaving the Civil Service and for ACOBA to concentrate on more complicated cases that protect the interest and probity of government.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and his excellent words about ACOBA. I was a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when it published its reports Standards Matter 2 and Upholding Standards in Public Life, and I strongly commend all their recommendations to noble Lords for implementation.
Of the latter report’s 34 recommendations, the Government at the time accepted 14, partially met 10 and rejected 10. When you look at the detail, you can see that the Government accepted all the recommendations that would restrict other persons or bodies from crossing ethical red lines, rejected all those that would limit their own scope to transgress ethical boundaries and kicked into the long grass any idea of embedding any of the existing ethical guidance mechanisms into primary legislation. It is easy to be cynical about the motivation of that, but I want to be constructive and look forward to how we can genuinely improve the current ethical framework, which is far too dependent on the integrity of those it is intended to restrain who, in the past, have all too often finished by being judge and jury in their own cases.
The committee’s other report, Standards Matter 2, reinforced the urgency of safeguarding all ethics regulators from interference in both their initial appointment and their scope and power when operating. That report was triggered by the fiasco of the treatment of the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests by the Government of the day, and it set out the overwhelming case for embedding our ethical guidance framework in legislation and for the appointment process of ethical regulators themselves to be properly insulated from malign political veto.
The very disappointing government response to those reports came several Prime Ministers ago. Today, we have had multiple public resets of government, and I hope that the Leader of the House, in replying, will take the opportunity to give a more rounded response than was given then and to give noble Lords a strong signal that this Government accept that further reform is now urgently necessary.
When the political wheel turns and today’s Government become tomorrow’s Opposition, I predict that they will, in any case, be rapidly converted to the importance of having a statutorily embedded ethical system in our public life—when they are no longer in charge of running it. In short, it is in the interests of all parties for each Front Bench to declare today that they now heartily endorse the CSPL’s package of reforms and will set out a plan to deliver them. I look forward to hearing it in the winding-up speeches.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, public trust in the individuals and institutions that govern this country—those that have the power to affect millions of lives and to spend billions of pounds—rests on a sacred trust that those in power will act in accordance with the Nolan principles. Those principles, as set out by my noble friend Lady Warwick and the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, were established 30 years ago by then Prime Minister John Major.
In return, members of the public obey the law and expect others to do so, without a constant police presence. We all follow the Highway Code and expect others to do so, even when there are no traffic cameras. The British people will always do the right thing if they believe that others are doing the same. So much about Britain—our national character, constitution and reputation on the international stage—is vitally dependent upon a sense of trust and fairness. Our reputation has been hard won but is in danger of being too easily lost. In China, Russia and elsewhere, authoritarian leaders are blurring the boundaries between state and party interests, overriding judicial process with political convenience and prioritising the interests of their leaders over the welfare of their citizens.
Remarkably, China is exporting anti-democratic training and formally instructing its more repressive allies. Last year, it opened a so-called school for despots in Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, teaching officials from governing parties who have held power for decades—often via fraudulent elections, electoral violence and grand corruption—how to tighten their grip still further and eliminate their domestic political opponents. We can combat this rising tide of oppression by ensuring that our values—fairness and freedom for all, democracy and the rule of law—are upheld at home and unquestioned abroad.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, has given us a clear warning: the public believe that, overall, standards in public life have “gone backwards”. We are collectively wincing in anticipation of the next political scandal, fearing that public trust in politics may finally snap like an overstretched elastic band. Those of us in public life in Britain bear a great responsibility to our fellow citizens and to the wider world to act according to the Nolan principles and to ensure that we remain a beacon of hope. The world will be a far more dangerous place if trust in Britain breaks.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I will concentrate on the parliamentary democracy side of our debate, since others have eloquently put the obvious point that, unless we maintain the highest standards of behaviour in Parliament and ensure that Parliament itself upholds these standards, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, rightly reminded us, no one will renew the much-diminished trust in and respect for parliamentary institutions today, whatever the circumstances.
For a gloomy and very serious subject, this has been quite an enjoyable debate so far. Everyone knows that we are facing an age of disorder and potential disintegration, but my worry is that far too few people in practising politics, the media or the so-called influencer class, whoever they are, recognise the causes or consequences of just drifting along on the technological tide. Some people are now calling for something akin to a new Enlightenment, with the philosophers stepping forward where the politicians and parties are so obviously and clearly failing to make an impact, or merely trading stale abuse and accusations while the world rolls away from them and us.
All aspects of this scene are in a state of flux. All pave the way for multiplying grievances, for placard politics in place of argument, for dissent shading into hate and for unrepresentative democracy to worm its way in. All these trends are already being fundamentally twisted in new directions by the communications revolution, the loss of deliberation in the immediacy of online response, the ugly intolerance of polarisation, the demands of uninhibited transparency and the general evaporation of trust in and respect for everyone and everything. If we add in a new universal balloon of fakery and misinformation, now being further inflated by the misuse of AI, that makes it all the worse.
I have only two immediate answers to this fragile and dangerous situation in the few minutes that I have to speak. The first is to take our parliamentary committee structure far more seriously if we want to keep pace with and get to the bottom of ever-swelling executive activity. That requires our committees to be properly resourced and empowered, as they are in many other democracies but not here. The second is to give maximum encouragement and space to deep channels of discussion throughout the UK, often far from the public gaze and well away from the media, where new thoughts may be taking shape.
Whoever forms a Government at Westminster, most of the major issues of our time are well outside the control of our national government. The levers of growth which are believed to exist—I believe that Sir Keir Starmer believes in them—are now in practice outside the state’s diminished reach, as it tries to do more and more but with less success. If that reality alone is grasped by Parliament and its leaders, then order and a mannered public debate can continue to be combined with freedom of thought, speech and ambition for our institutions and constitution—and, above all, with trust, which is so obviously missing from the whole parliamentary and political scene.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, we must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for introducing what has become an interesting debate. I agree with much, although not quite all, of what has been said. I will simply express my concern about the trend towards plutocracy, the rule by the richest in our society, and the overweening power of money and capital in relation to our parliamentary democracy.
The undue influence of well-funded special interests can distort policy-making and compromise the public interest. The only answer to this is greater exposure and more openness. We need regulations and transparency to curb the corrosive impact of money on our democratic institutions. We need to be concerned about the pervasive impact of those who have the financial resources to influence policy-making. We all see it in this building: the people who have the time and resources to influence policy are those with money. It is a simple equation. We need to be concerned about corporate lobbying, special interest groups, campaign financing, the revolving door phenomenon and the wealth gap’s influence on policy-making. These elements collectively undermine democratic principles, causing real concern about fairness, transparency and public trust.
A particular concern worth mentioning is the funding of so-called think tanks. I pay tribute to the work of openDemocracy and its “Who Funds You?” exercise, which looks at who pays for these people popping up on our television screens and opining about this, that and the other. It is a crucial issue—who funds them? There is a simple answer. We do not know where the money of right-wing think tanks comes from. I could list a whole group of them, such as the Adam Smith Institute and the TaxPayers’ Alliance. They do not tell us who funds them, so we have to draw our own conclusions—it is the power of big money. The answer to this is greater openness and disclosure.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord, although he made some interesting and powerful points. It struck me while my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who always brings wisdom to our debates, was speaking, that what we have really lost in this country and Parliament is the ability to disagree agreeably. That is fuelled by social media and has done enormous damage to our public life.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone: she made a far-ranging and very interesting speech. She talked about Lord Judge. In the next couple of weeks, we will have the opportunity to remember at thanksgiving services two remarkable parliamentarians: Baroness Boothroyd, one of the greatest Speakers that the other place has ever had, and Lord Judge, who, although a great judge, was a parliamentarian to his fingertips. He understood the most important fact of all: the Executive are answerable to Parliament, not the other way around.
I will just touch on one other thing—this House. I have been in Parliament getting on for 54 years now, including just over 13 in your Lordships’ House. I believe in it. I believe that it does a very good job, and I believe that we have some remarkable Members in our midst. But we have to look at ourselves and the way we refresh ourselves. I beg my of noble friend who will be winding up this debate to give further thought to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norton. Doubtless he will say more about it when he speaks.
We cannot refresh ourselves by continuing to have resignation lists produced by a Prime Minister who has had barely 40 days and 40 nights in power. I say nothing about the individuals concerned—I will give them a courteous welcome; of course I will—but we have to look at this. The way this has been handled has done damage to our parliamentary democracy. We must look at the power of Prime Ministers. Of course, they must have the opportunity to nominate—although I am not sure they should if they have had only 40 days and 40 nights—but there should be a statutory appointments commission which has the final say on the integrity of those who come to this House.
We have many tasks before us. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for giving us the chance to air some of these things, although I am sorry that our rules mean we have had such a short time to do so.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, the Motion before us contains two key words: democracy and standards. I hope to say something briefly about each of them, and then to show they are fundamentally linked. Democracy is a precarious and precious achievement which is under threat in many places around the world—not just overt dictatorships but managed democracies, which have elections but then lock up political opponents, and which have a media, but one largely controlled by the Government or Government supporters.
We need to rediscover a real belief in the system we have in this country, because it actually allows us to express the better side of our nature—the desire for the common good—but also takes fully into account the darker side of our nature: our desire too often to pursue our own interests at the expense of other people, particularly organised groups pursuing their interests. As a great American theologian and political thinker, Reinhold Neibuhr, put it, the human
“capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary”.
People should be learning about this in schools, but the trouble is that citizenship education, which ought to be taught, is in a “parlous state”. Those are the words of your Lordships’ committee report, The Ties that Bind, which we have brought before the House a number of times. It says that citizenship education in schools has been degraded to a parlous state and needs to be radically and totally revised. I very much hope it is not too late for the present Government once again to look at citizenship education in schools, so that pupils come out of schools actually believing in the society in which we live and willing to take part in it.
Secondly, I will say something about standards. Even in a dictatorship, some moral principles are possible. There is a limit to the degree of corruption that even a dictatorship can put up with, but there is an integral link between moral principles and democracy. In much the same way that Adam Smith argued that moral principles were fundamental to the proper working of a free market, so they are absolutely fundamental to the proper working of democracy, quite simply because the people who rule us are elected. When we elect people, we do so because we desire to trust them: we want them to be trustworthy. We want them actually to try to put into practice the policies on which we have elected them. Unfortunately, as we have heard so often around the House today, that fundamental trustworthiness is no longer believed in by many people in our society—sadly and wrongly, perhaps, but that is the case.
I wonder whether, perhaps at the beginning of the new Parliament, the Lord Speaker in this House and the Speaker in the House of Commons might call a meeting in Westminster Hall where we can once again look at and think through those wonderful Nolan principles.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for today’s debate and I am glad to make a contribution to it. Debates of this kind are a bit like taking the temperature of our democracy. I am very interested in all the things that have been said so far, and I need hardly remind your Lordships that around the world today democracy itself is under attack, including in countries we count among our closest allies.
I grew up in a family that for generations had the greatest possible respect for the democratic legitimacy of the elected House of Commons. But I can also say that since being elected to this House, I have come to understand, appreciate and respect the role it plays and the very good work that can be and is done here. Both Houses complement each other, but they are not perfect.
Interestingly, as recently as Tuesday of this week, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of another place conducted its second evidence session and took evidence from former Speakers of this House and others on the size, role, composition and purpose of the House of Lords. We might like to reciprocate by our Constitution Committee conducting an inquiry into the nature, purposes, role and activity of the House of Commons.
I will say a word or two about the legislative process. As others have said, we live at a time of skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses, and the result is that Bills can be either absurdly large or ridiculously short. Either way, huge quantities of detailed policy are forced through Parliament by secondary legislation and SIs, which this House theoretically could amend but in practice does not. This is a pressure cooker waiting to burst. The balance of power between the Executive and the legislature—reference was made, of course, to our dear departed, collective noble friend Lord Judge—has gone too far in favour of the Executive.
I will say something about the electoral process. There is something so simple and powerful about the act of marking a cross with a pencil on a ballot paper and putting it into a ballot box, but I regret to say that the integrity of our own voting system has been put at needless risk in recent years. All sides of this House had reservations about the recent measure to introduce ID for voting. The evidence of fraud under the old system was certainly less than the evidence so far of the deterrent effect under the new system. I do not want our country ever to be accused of voter suppression. That is very bad for our democracy—and we have enough threats as it is.
For example, looking forward, many have warned, including our National Cyber Security Centre, that the coming general election will feature AI-generated deepfakes designed to unsettle us. The sophistication of deepfaked videos is such that, to take a random example, you could make a deepfake video of the Leader of the House ardently advocating the return of a Labour Government. I suppose this would be the equivalent of the Zinoviev Letter, whose 100th anniversary we are celebrating this year, but much more powerful because of the effectiveness of the technology and the power of social media to amplify fake messages. The World Economic Forum has just announced that disinformation from AI is regarded as one of the greatest global risks.
My time has run out, but I wanted to say this. like other Members, I enjoy going to talk to schools. Before Christmas, I went to Chiswick School. Its sixth form asked excellent questions, but one of the things that was uncovered in our discussion was cynicism, which I think is the greatest threat to our parliamentary democracy. We all support the principles of Nolan, which are in our code of conduct, but we must protect the new generation of voters from the cynicism that would otherwise undermine their support for the parliamentary democracy we are debating today. I very much hope that the new generation will take comfort from the fact that we need to uphold the greatest possible standards in public life, and that they will benefit from it when the time comes.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this debate is about standards in public life. I want to focus on audit and risk management in the public sector, particularly in local government. I should remind the House that I am a vice president of the Local Government Association, but I should make it clear that it has had no role in what I will say.
I mentioned audit when we debated the gracious Speech because the hoped-for Bill was absent. Since then, audit has been in the spotlight as never before. Robust audit is central to building public confidence in decision-making and particularly in major investment decisions by public bodies. Yet, too often, audit has become part of the problem. Since the abolition of the Audit Commission 10 years ago and the increased role for private audit companies, standards have slipped. Audits are delayed, too many local authorities have dangerously high levels of debt and risky investments are ploughed ahead without proper scrutiny. Earlier this week, the Financial Reporting Council imposed penalties totalling some £40 million, including costs, for audit failures in 2023. In so doing, its aim is to improve the quality of audits, whatever the sector, and it is right to do so. In local government, the timeliness and quality of audits have declined. Only five local authority audits for 2022-23 were completed by the deadline of September 2023. The Public Accounts Committee had previously expressed concern in June 2023 that only 12% of local government audits for 2021-22 had been delivered on time. There is a problem and it is getting worse.
I want to acknowledge the importance of the work of Oflog, the newly established Office for Local Government, in devising and publishing metrics that will lead to improvement by councils, which can compare themselves with other local authorities, as can the public and journalists. I welcome that, but I have two concerns. What will Oflog do to stop local authorities, such as Woking or Thurrock, getting into unacceptable and unmanageable levels of debt? Will Oflog examine the adequacy of local authority financial controls to prevent huge errors being made in the first place?
A moment ago, I mentioned journalists. When I entered local government, there were two full-time journalists reporting on Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council. They were part of the checks and balances of our local democracy. Today, a reporter in local government is rare. A few years ago, the BBC funded support for local reporting, but it appears that it is now being replaced by BBC online reporting, in direct competition with the webpages of local newspapers and their advertising revenue. What in this scenario is going to happen to investigative journalism?
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on initiating this debate. She raises some important questions. Parliamentary democracy is now under threat, not least as elected Governments seek to tackle problems that often go beyond their borders and with a public who respond to the failure to tackle those problems by embracing the calls of populist politicians. Some democracies, such as the United States, have a history of populist movements—a tendency now writ large—but we see it elsewhere as well, not least in some nations of Europe.
In the United Kingdom, we have largely managed, so far, to resist that trend, and the reason for that rests in the fundamental nature of our parliamentary democracy. Those calling for a codified constitution largely miss the point of what sustains the institutions of the state. Some nations have codified constitutions, but no culture of constitutionalism. By that, I mean an acceptance at mass and elite level of the legitimacy of the constitutional processes. That is what underpins the rule of law. We have a culture of constitutionalism that is so well embedded that it has facilitated our uncodified constitution and has provided stability through the fact that the constitution does not impose an unwieldy straitjacket. We benefit from a culture that has reinforced the value of that system. Some of the basic rules of society are so well ingrained that it is not necessary to enshrine them formally.
That culture still pertains, and it is essential to our well-being as a nation. If we start to move to a more formalised system, we are in danger of creating a society with some degree of rigidity. Problems with maintaining standards in public life have undermined confidence in the system, but that is an argument for recognising and bolstering the core culture, not an argument for eroding it.
Institutions matter, but in terms of public trust, the focus is on those who occupy them. We have seen some officeholders exhibit an egregious disregard of standards in recent years. We need to avoid displacement activity—advancing constitutional reform as if that is the answer—and instead we need to focus on behaviour. We need to embed a culture of responsibility and, instead of blaming our constitution, we need to be reflecting on how we recruit public officials, how we tighten the regulatory framework and how we inculcate a commitment to delivering outputs in the best interests of the nation.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, our parliamentary democracy and our standards in public life are things that have always been admired and envied throughout the world by other parliamentarians and the public alike. They look to us for guidance and advice as the mother of all Parliaments. When they visit our Parliament, they are in awe of our system and institutions, but, sadly, in the past few years some of our politicians in the Government have let that gold standard fall. Some of our politicians are as dodgy as that Post Office computer. In some quarters of the media, our democracy is now being compared with a banana republic. Some of our politicians have that third-world politician attitude towards their jobs: “Never mind my constituents or my country, what’s in it for me?” I am sorry to say this, but even our present Foreign Secretary, before he joined us, dipped his toe in some secret lobbying of Ministers.
There was a time when our Prime Minister stood up at the Dispatch Box and his or her words were the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But, as we all know, our Prime Minister has recently been found by the standards committee to be wanting on that. He repeated those words over and over again. During Covid-19 he was fined for breaching his own rules. Our present Prime Minister was no better. He was fined as well. More people were fined at the address of our Prime Minister’s residence than at any other address in this country. That says something about our politics and Government.
In an investigation by a civil servant, a former Home Secretary was found guilty of bullying her staff, yet she stayed in her job with the blessing of the Prime Minister. It was the civil servant who had to resign. Many MPs have been investigated by the standards committee over the years. I have lost count of them now. Why is it that our MPs have to have second jobs? They are elected to serve their constituents and to legislate, not to sit on foreign advisory bodies and lobby for companies that have no connection to their constituents to make money. Whatever happened to the Nolan principles of accountability, integrity, selflessness, objectivity, honesty, leadership and openness? We have to restore faith in our democracy before it becomes the laughing stock of the world.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for securing this debate. As evidenced by many reports, disillusionment and dissatisfaction with the political process, pronounced deviation from standards in public life, perceptions of corruption in government and low trust in politicians are having an adverse impact on our democratic system. Trust is at an all-time low, which is leading to levels of political disengagement and cynicism.
As we have heard in the debate, there is no shortage of recommendations which have been made for improving matters and restoring public trust. Regrettably, the Government have been slow to take comprehensive and urgent action. They appear reluctant to grasp fully that bold, comprehensive and decisive action is needed if we are to arrest this decline. Perhaps the Minister can explain why.
Recommendations, which have been made by various bodies and will be made later this month by a governance commission chaired by the right honourable Dominic Grieve, of which I am a member, to improve the governance of our country, are now, regrettably, absolutely necessary. But, as we have heard, they alone will not be sufficient. They will need to be sustained through self-supervision, constant vigilance, strong leadership and a culture which encourages adherence to standards and compliance with codes and instils the importance of good governance and why it is important for the proper and effective functioning of democracy.
Rules, regulations and codes should not absolve those in public life from taking personal responsibility for good behaviour and setting an example. They should not lead to a culture where rules are seen as irritable constraints and that encourages minimum adherence just to stay within the rules. Currently there seems to be a lack of understanding about the connection between constitutional principles, standards and integrity. Such attitudes have led to adversarial behaviour, where breaches are contested to defend actions and justify bad behaviour. This leads to a blame culture, which undermines relationships, morale and the standing of crucial organisations while feeding public cynicism. Will the Minister please tell the House what action, if any, the Government are taking to counter this culture and to ensure compliance, an area which seems to have low priority and to be seen as an irritant?
Finally, in an election year, can the Minister—and perhaps the leaders of the Opposition in this House—tell the House what priority will be given to governance and standards in public life in their manifestos and in the way that elections are conducted? Are they or will they be taking steps to impress upon prospective parliamentary candidates the importance of ethical behaviour, what it means to be in public life and what the Nolan principles mean in practice?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, as the final Back-Bench speaker, I will try to say something original. It is difficult, but I will try. Much of what has been said about the attitudes of the population to politicians and the political process is true. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has just said that it is at an all-time low, which I am not sure is quite historically true. Even I was not here then, but the politicians of the 19th century were held in pretty low esteem, which is why we had the Great Reform Act, although that never fully affected the House of Lords. Nevertheless, at times we have had to change our system.
What has been missing from the debate is the fact that we have to recognise what is going on in society. It is true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and others have said, that some of the lack of respect for our system and individual parliamentarians is due to the mistakes of recent Administrations and recent scandals such as the Post Office one, but much of it is due to changes in society itself. Deference and respect are no longer there in society. It is easier to access all sorts of information thanks to changes in technology, the growth of social media and more scandal-orientated mainstream and social media. All of this means that issues which were never really known to the public have become very well known, sometimes exaggeratedly so. That societal change has its drawbacks, but by and large I approve of a society that is that sceptical and that questioning of its so-called betters.
What is lacking is an effective response by the legislature, in particular, to those changes in society and those questions which society now raises. The bodies that government and the legislature have set up are inadequate to meet these concerns. I note the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, of why ACOBA does not have adequate powers. I pay tribute to the noble Lord and his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and to the staff who service the committee, on which I sat until last year, for all the systems that they have devised for making sure that potential jobs for retiring politicians and senior civil servants are not subject to corruption, potential corruption or the perception of corruption.
At the end of the day, ACOBA and the other bodies do not have the powers. Unless they are put fully on a statutory basis—let us say that those terms are written into the contractual terms of Ministers and senior civil servants—they will not have those powers. There will be no enforcement or penalties, and those sanctions need to be there. I hope that when we move to consider the constitution and indeed the reform of this Chamber, as I hope we will, we recognise that there is a special responsibility of the second Chamber, whatever its form, to ensure that the constitutional priorities as well as the personal priorities are met, and that there is a way of enforcing the standards in public life.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Featherstone for initiating today’s debate. The number of speakers demonstrates how much concern there is across the House about the issues we are discussing. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for responding on behalf of the Government. I know him to be a firm champion of democratic values and the need for all of us to follow the highest possible standards in our public life.
As has been made clear in today’s debate, there are widespread concerns about the way we run our parliamentary democracy in the UK and concerns that standards in public life in recent years have left much to be desired, to put it mildly. Indeed, I do not think it unfair to say that we currently face a crisis in terms of both the quality of our democracy and the standards in our public life. But there is a big difference in dealing with this crisis compared with the other major challenges which we face as a country, whether that is reigniting economic growth, getting towards net zero, rebuilding public services or dealing with major international crises such as Ukraine or Gaza. Unlike those challenges, the way we run our parliamentary democracy and the standards which we set for those involved in public life are entirely within our hands as parliamentarians to resolve. We do not need complicated international agreements to do so; we do not need to energise the private sector or to spend billions of pounds which we currently do not have. All we need is the political will to make the changes needed.
It is the lack of political will either to maintain or enhance standards, or to rejuvenate our democracy, which has characterised this Government. Remember the grand pledge in the 2019 Conservative manifesto: to establish a constitution, democracy and rights commission to look at the way we run our democracy. The day after polling day, it was quietly scrapped and the measures which we have seen, such as compulsory ID at polling stations, the reversion to first past the post voting for mayors and curbing the independence of the Electoral Commission, appear to have more to do with the Conservatives’ narrow party interests than with strengthening our democracy.
The debate has covered many specific issues and proposals for dealing with them. I cannot possibly cover them all today, but I agree that some of them need further and separate debate, not least the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about the relationship between government and arm’s-length bodies—an issue which the Post Office crisis has illuminated but which we have, as far as I can recall, hardly debated in your Lordships’ House at all.
The issues that we have debated fall into two separate but interrelated strands. The first is how to improve standards. It is tempting, if facile, to say that those engaged in public life, particularly in Parliament and government, need to behave honestly and in accordance with the Nolan principles. If they did so, there would be no need for reform but, given recent experience, it is clear that without reform high standards are unlikely to be consistently met. There is quite a wide range of proposals for doing this which are relatively uncontentious and have been set out in our debate.
We could start by implementing the ethics reforms recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which are now incorporated into the Private Member’s Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. We could do that, and I hope that we will in this Session. There are lots more things we could do. We should make the appointments process for significant public roles include a confirmatory vote by the relevant parliamentary Select Committee. We should also strengthen and expand the lobbyists’ registers. There are more points like that, all of which can easily be done. As chair of my party’s manifesto process, I think I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, an assurance that we will be setting out our commitment to many of those things when our manifesto is produced.
The second strand covered by today’s debate, though less discussed than the issue of standards, relates to how our democracy works and how we can better involve citizens in the process. The need for this is clear and pressing. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, pointed out, recent polling shows that some 60% of young people think we would be better off if we were run simply by a strong leader and did not have to bother with Parliament or elections at all. The reasons for such views are no doubt many and various, but they undoubtedly, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, include the increasing use of strident language and a declining willingness to listen to other people’s points of view. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. There is now a general sense of detachment from the political process, one which is forcibly expressed whenever you go knocking on doors. Many people are angry with all politicians, not just Liberal Democrats, and this sense is increasing, so what should be done about it?
I would like to suggest five things. First, all votes have to matter. The first past the post system means that many people rightly believe that their vote will have no impact on the result, so they are increasingly disinclined to vote at all. The introduction of PR to the Commons is the first big change needed to hand more power back to the citizen.
Secondly, your Lordships’ House must be reformed. Again, we believe that there are compelling arguments for electing this House on a regional basis, on the basis that in a democracy those who make the laws should be chosen by the people, not by party leaders. In the shorter term, given that I cannot see such a wide-ranging reform happening as far as I can see in the future, changes such as ending the hereditary Peers’ by-elections and introducing a retirement age would at least begin to tackle our bloated size.
Thirdly, local and regional tiers of government should be given more powers and resources. Far too many decisions in England are taken in Whitehall. This is a recipe neither for a responsive democracy nor for citizens feeling that they have any control over policies that most directly affect their localities and their daily lives.
Fourthly, our constitution is based on conventions and not clear rules. In recent years, many of these conventions have been torn up by arrogant and devil-may-care Prime Ministers. I am afraid I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, as I believe we need a written constitution to ensure that everybody is clear what the rules are and that they then have to abide by them.
Fifthly, we have reached a point where there are some decisions from which Parliament shies away but which need to be resolved. Assisted dying is a current prime example of this. We should take a leaf out of the book of Ireland, France, Canada and elsewhere and introduce citizens assemblies to debate and make recommendations on such issues. The case for doing so was compellingly argued by the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond, in a recent newspaper article. He concluded:
“This is a time of year to enjoy some trust in each other, with a generous spirit. … A bigger role for citizens is not the whole answer to the problems that will assail free societies in the year about to begin. But it’s part of the answer”.
I agree with him.
Obviously, there is little chance of any changes of substance on any of the issues which we have been discussing today happening before the imminent election. Beyond the election, however, a new Government will have the authority to make whichever of the changes proposed in today’s debate they wish. It is purely a matter of whether they will have the political will to do so. For the sake of our parliamentary democracy and the standards followed in our public life, we must hope that they do.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Newby. He described the “detachment” many people feel from our democracy, which was exactly the right word to use. We could have a longer debate on electoral reform and some of the other issues he raised, and I look forward to that, but he is right to express that in the way he did.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on her introductory speech. I particularly enjoyed her urging us at the beginning to resist the temptation to simply throw stones at the current Government but then doing an absolutely brilliant job of doing just that; I thought it was absolutely fantastic. I agree with whoever said not to mind too much what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. If you cannot turn up to your place in in Parliament and say what you really think, then we have a big problem on our hands. She has every right to say what she believes to be true.
This has been a helpful and in many ways timely debate. We have heard how personal integrity, robust and responsive institutions, and public confidence go hand in hand. I would add to that list effective public services, because democracy and Governments need to be seen to deliver in order to be seen as credible by the public who elect them.
Much has been said and written on standards in public life in recent years, most notably perhaps on the conduct of the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson during the Covid pandemic. I will not dwell on this, but it would be bizarre not to acknowledge the damage that episode has done. Rules were made and broken by the same people, and a spotlight was shone on the behaviour of people who were supposed to be in command of the country and themselves at a time of great uncertainty. Lies were told on parties, PPE, lobbying and Christopher Pincher, and resignations followed, eventually, but the damage was done.
That damage is done to all in public office, the vast majority of whom are decent, hard-working, honest and committed—although they often go unthanked—in this place, in the Commons, and up and down the country, particularly in local government. I would add that it takes courage now to put yourself forward for elected office. Two Members of our Parliament have been killed in recent years, and it takes courage for women in particular to step up in their community and put themselves forward. We should acknowledge that, thank them and respect them for what they do.
As with other episodes, such as the expenses scandal, the infected blood scandal, Hillsborough and now the Post Office, it has become clear to many that some in powerful positions use their authority to ignore, or even commit, blatant wrongs, and that it takes an almighty effort, and usually a great deal of time, before action happens. There is no doubt that these and other scandals have damaged confidence in our democracy, but for years there have been other warnings: low voter turnout, an unrepresentative political and media class, and the tragic hollowing out of local and regional media. Those in authority have sometimes behaved as though the institutions should be defended before they try to defend sufficiently our citizens. That is what lies behind the anger being felt on behalf of the sub-postmasters. There is also the collapse of Greensill Capital, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs and questions arising about lobbying and the oversight of financial institutions.
It is unsurprising, as my noble friend Lady Warwick reminded us, that investigations into public attitude towards our democracy reveal very high levels of dissatisfaction. My noble friends Lord Stansgate, Lord Sahota and Lord Leong, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, reminded us of the dire situation in other countries and our duty to uphold the highest standards here in the United Kingdom. Thankfully—not thankfully; that is the start of a paragraph I was going to read but now will not because of the shortage of time—the majority of those surveyed by the Constitution Unit here expressed the view that politicians have lower ethical standards than ordinary citizens. Having said that, the overwhelming majority of people in the UK still support parliamentary democracy; they just want it to deliver, and they want effective government and effective public services.
The effectiveness of government and confidence in our democracy go together. When accessing public services for your family can feel more like a battle than an entitlement, it is not difficult to understand why people feel frustrated, disillusioned and let down. Too many of the basics are not getting done, whether that is fixing potholes or providing access to dentistry. The experience for too many people in Britain today is that nothing works quite as well as it should, and pretending that everything is fine only makes things worse. The Constitution Unit found that being honest and owning up to mistakes was the most desired characteristic in politicians, and the same could be said for Governments. Citizens have not yet turned their backs entirely on democracy; they just want it to work a bit better.
Sadly, some of the safeguards that are supposed to protect the integrity of our institutions have been weakened in recent years, and now is the right time to reassess. An incoming Labour Government would make changes. ACOBA and the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests need to be overhauled and subsumed into a new ethics and integrity commission, operationally independent and free from government control. Reform of your Lordships’ House and further devolving power to our regions and nations are also needed.
Protecting our democracy means changing and updating it. We have done this previously and we can do it again. Intense media scrutiny can make political life uncomfortable, but the fact is that the increased accountability we have today, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, means that more wrongdoing is exposed than in previous decades. That is a very good thing—I am glad that the age of deference is well behind us—but it means we need processes that can act when needed. Nobody argues now that the recall of MPs should be abolished. That process is relatively new; it has led to by-elections and, with it, the engagement of local people. It proves that it is up to constituents to decide whether an MP continues to represent them or not, which is a very good thing. Change is possible. It is necessary, and it needs leaders willing to fight for it, along with rigorous vetting of parliamentary candidates and swift action when things go wrong.
There must be no despair here. I have sensed a little despair this afternoon, and I understand where it comes from, but despair leads to paralysis and a lack of action. We need that clear leadership, a fresh start and a rediscovery of integrity in public life to restore confidence in us—we are not elected, but perhaps one day soon we will be—as people in political office and in our democratic institutions.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to be here and listen to a most interesting debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for securing it and making this possible. I did not greet some of her sallies with the same rapture of the noble Baroness opposite, nor did I agree that they were justified—but we will leave it at that. It has been a most interesting debate, including the proposition from the noble Viscount. I draw attention early to his interesting suggestion that the Select Committee on the Constitution of this House might have a look at the effectiveness of the other Chamber. That is not something that I shall be proposing to my colleagues in government, but I shall be interested to see if he takes that forward, in the light of their activities.
Parliament is a human institution, and we are, as Parliament and as individuals, who we are, with all the frailties that come from the human condition—and all the genius, remarkable gifts, insights, passions and commitments that come from the human condition. We are not perfect. In Parliament, we are the duties we perform and how well we perform them. As your Lordships’ Leader, my judgment is that, in this place, we perform those duties well, to a high standard that deserves respect.
But there is a third thing we are. We are also seen by the outsider as who we ourselves say we are. While I think we should be extraordinarily conscious of our frailties—and I own to and condemn where people fall short of those high standards, of course, because I believe that high standards in public life are essential—sometimes in politics we throw so many stones at each other. I heard what my noble friend Lord Cookham said about expecting dirty campaigning; he can include me out on that one. There have been some in this debate who have thrown stones, and we contribute to a perception that Parliament is corrupt and that parliamentarians are interested only in themselves, are bad and not interested, et cetera. The more we contribute to that narrative—and you can make a case in a research paper for this, that and the other, and in footnotes—the more we contribute to the lowering of the esteem of Parliament, which includes this place.
In so much of this debate, with constructive suggestions, we have done that. I wish only that we would actually accentuate the positive about all that we do. I do not believe that the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party or the Conservative Party are corrupt—nor, indeed, do I believe that the Church of England is corrupt. There are bad apples, but I refer to what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said about helping people to understand civility, civics and citizenship. We need to help people to understand the good that Parliament does, as well as the follies that it may contain.
There were so many brilliant suggestions that came out in this debate. In saying that, I am not complacent or wanting to be Panglossian. There are changes that could and should be made. As my noble friend Lady Stowell said, it is true that we are seen as insiders by outsiders—we are seen sometimes as people “up there” who do not take an interest and do not do enough. We must always be mindful of our first and only duty if we are called to the high responsibility of being in Parliament, which is a duty to be public servants and to serve. I thought that my noble friend made a very powerful speech on that subject, as did others who spoke, as a matter of fact.
Having made those preliminary remarks, there are things that I do believe. I think that, really, in all our hearts, we do not believe we are as bad as we sometimes say we are, but we do believe that we could do and must do better. I believe also that we must not always privilege those who shout in the corner of the room. When I was a council leader and had young councillors come to ask me how you should address the business of service and the business of politics, I would say, think of public life and public service as a public meeting. You go into a great hall and start speaking—we have all experienced it; at least, those of us who have sought election or held public office—and someone in the corner of the room starts shouting out noisily, heckling and so on. You let him have one go—sometimes it is her, but usually him—and another go and then, finally, you say, “Look, Sir, we have heard what you think; I want to hear from all these other good people too”.
Sometimes in politics, with the ascendency of social media and the tribute we pay to it—a point made by a number of those who have spoken in this House—we privilege the shouters in the corner of the room. One great virtue of your Lordships’ House is that, in our careful scrutiny of legislation, we listen to the people who are not the noisy shouters on social media in the corner of the room. It is a vital part of parliamentary democracy that we should listen to that majority who are not always on social media, who are not always shouting and who bring their petitions humbly to the door of Parliament, as they have done for centuries.
The UK’s constitutional and parliamentary democracy is not in as bad a condition as some have said. Of course, it is flawed, like any other institution, and of course it needs consideration. I argued at the start of my remarks that its character is defined by the conduct of its actors, and that is true also of the Civil Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, in an important intervention, spoke of the role and duties of the Civil Service. The system must have the capacity to evolve and adapt in order to enable political actors to respond flexibly to the events of the day. But within this system—this was one of the abiding themes of today’s debate—a common set of principles must always underpin the standards expected of public officeholders. It is incumbent on us all to protect the good and to improve things where possible.
There was a distinction in today’s debate between those who believe, as I do, that ultimately, this must come from within us and must be supervised by parliamentary accountability; and those on the other side who said—this was set out in forthright terms by His Majesty’s Opposition—that parliamentarians can never be good enough and must be protected from themselves, and that we must lend responsibility for policing who we are, how we behave and how we perform our duties to unelected outside panjandrums who are accountable to nobody and known to nobody. Most people in this country could probably name a few politicians. I wonder if any could name a single member of the various bodies that exercise enormous power over Parliament and can make and break parliamentary careers. There are real questions of accountability if you are arguing that we should go forward towards statutory oversight of the activities of Parliament.
We are a representative democracy, and the composition of the elected Chamber reflects the will of the people as most recently expressed at the ballot box. All of us in this House need to remember that, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, reminded us. I will come back to the position of the people; the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke powerfully and importantly on that subject. It is germane and underlies the whole debate.
Our parliamentary democracy is effective. I was very struck by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth on this subject in his thoughtful speech. It is effective because it is grounded in a deep constitutionalism born of civil war, conflict, tremendous conflict between the two Houses, a honing of the constitution and a set of constitutional practice which is deep and profound. Anyone who, for example, witnessed the Coronation will have had that sense of the depth of Britain’s great national experience and what we can and have taught the world, and can still lend to the world, with humility. This system, this deep constitutional system, is flexible and adaptable to the circumstances of the day. It allows for the development of policy and the passage of legislation under the careful and proper scrutiny of Parliament. I therefore reject the proposition, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that we should frame a written constitution. I am also not greatly attracted to his proportional representation proposition: I think I have heard that one before. Whenever I hear PR mentioned, I always translate it, perhaps from my frailty, as “permanent representation” for the Liberal Democrats, whoever is in office.
We must examine ourselves with humility, self-criticism and so on, but we should not throw away the great strengths of the system we have—certainly not on a coalition deal, I say to the party opposite. I might think, looking at history, that we gave rather too much away in 2010, much as I enjoyed working with my Liberal Democrat colleagues in those days. I single out the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who was the only one, before the wind-up on the other side, to mention local government, which is such a fundamental part of the warp and woof of democracy: it is the limbs underneath Parliament and is so important. His remarks on audit were important and well taken, and I will certainly reflect on them.
The noble Lord, Lord Sahota, was a bit critical of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. For my part, I welcome the fact that my noble friend has come to this House. I think it redounds to the credit of this House: it was certainly the practice of the Labour Government after nineteen-ninety-whenever it was.
Lord True (Con)
That terrible year; I remember it. It is good that there are senior Ministers in your Lordships’ House. We are part of Parliament and there is good accountability: my noble friend appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons only very recently. I hope other people share my view that having a statesman of such experience here is to the benefit of the House. There is parliamentary accountability.
The other great thread of the debate was questions of behaviour and standards. I am not going to go into the issues of the other place—that is effectively a matter for them. Obviously, in this House, noble Lords are required to sign up to the Code of Conduct, which ensures accountability to parliamentary standards and is enforced by the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards. Members are required to comply with the behaviour code for Parliament. Sanctions can include suspension or expulsion from the House, and those procedures derive from resolutions of the House: they are subject to our judgment and our decisions, but they fall short of the kind of statutory approach the Opposition propose. By the way, I was interested to hear the noble Baroness commit the Labour Party to reform of your Lordships’ House in the first term; I am sure that will be examined quite widely.
Throughout this debate, noble Lords, beginning with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, highlighted the important role that the Nolan principles, as articulated by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, play in our political system. I agree that they are fundamental: they are what anybody who aspires to serve in any walk of life, not just politics, should live up to. The current Prime Minister stated in his first speech that his Government
“will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”,
and that “integrity in public life matters”—it does, my Lords.
The Ministerial Code details the Prime Minister’s expectations of his Ministers, setting out that they are expected to maintain high standards. Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the code, and must be mindful of it in discharging their duties. The code, however, is the Prime Minister’s document; he is the ultimate judge of the behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences for a breach of standards. Ministers will remain in place only as long as they retain the confidence the Prime Minister. Again, that is where accountability lies in parliamentary democracy. If, as is asserted by some, you give enforcement of that to an unelected, unaccountable, largely unknown body, you may arrive at a point where the judgments of whether somebody or other should be a Minister of the Crown would be decided in a court of law. This would be an unthinkable route to go down.
I am very grateful for the kind remarks of my noble friend Lord Pickles, and his outstanding, persistent and patient work in pushing forward reform of ACOBA will, I hope, be fully and finally recognised. Last July, the Government published Strengthening Ethics and Integrity in Central Government. It was a wide-ranging programme of reform which responded to various reports, including the Boardman report and those from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It will mark the introduction of stricter enforcement of the business appointment rules, with a clearer pathway towards sanctions, potentially including financial sanctions, for breaches. As my noble friend knows, that is very much actively under way.
We are increasing transparency and accountability in public appointments. We will be improving the quality and accessibility of departmental transparency releases, including an integrated database which will be put on GOV.UK for the first time. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others that its implementation is under way and proceeding quickly. The revised guidance will apply to all data from January 2024 onwards. We are also tightening up on compliance processes under the existing accounting officer Permanent Secretary system—all to shine more light on some of the recesses of government.
I do not have time to take up the point which my noble friend made, but it is one which has been alluded to so often that it is something we have to think about a lot more: the relationship between government and arm’s-length bodies. The process of finding effective accountability there, which has been so brutally illumined in recent weeks and months, is something that we must address and come back to. I will reflect on requests for further opportunities to discuss these matters, although obviously the upcoming Post Office legislation will enable some reflections in that narrow area.
The changes to which I have alluded come in addition to those made in 2022 to strengthen the Ministerial Code, which increased the independence, powers and status of the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests and introduced an enhanced process for the independent adviser to initiate investigations, and new details on proportionate sanctions.
There were so many other important speeches made. I alluded earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who was absolutely right when she picked up on what my noble friend Lady Stowell said: the people must never be allowed to feel that the system does not belong to them. The parliamentary system does not belong to any passing elite, or people who may think they are elite, who wander in here. It belongs to those whom we serve. I also agreed with what my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said about the importance of Select Committees in your Lordships’ House. We must work to strengthen their effectiveness. Since I have been Leader, and my noble friend Lady Williams has been Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, we have worked much harder to bring committee debates to the Floor of your Lordships’ House and I hope very much that that will continue.
Nothing is perfect, not least my timing. I fear that I probably wandered too widely at the start of the debate, but I assure your Lordships that I will study it very carefully. I wanted to come to this debate and hear what noble Lords said. I cannot undertake to respond to documents which are sent to someone else and I will not, unfortunately, be able to accommodate the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. My father taught me never to sign a blank cheque, so I am giving no undertaking I have not seen. But I will have a look at whatever document those people care to send to me.
It has been such a pleasure to have the privilege of responding to your Lordships. I thank all those who have taken part and I can assure noble Lords that I will carefully study Hansard in the days ahead.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions; they were thoughtful and intelligent. The sense I get from the debate is that we are all struggling in a world where the old ways no longer hold sway, trying to think our way through to making it work for everyone. I also sense that this House really cares about the state of parliamentary democracy and standards in public life—so thank you all.
Long-term Plan for Housing
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, there surely cannot be any debate on the fact that we are in the midst of a catastrophic housing crisis, which figures from Shelter tell us leaves almost 300,000 of our fellow citizens homeless every night, including 123,000 children, and over a million families on social housing waiting lists. A planning policy framework doing its job would at least put the steps in place to start delivering the numbers of homes that would resolve this crisis, but this plan is neither long-term nor a plan to deliver housing.
Sadly, the Government’s caving-in to Back-Benchers in the other place, and developers on housing targets, means this planning policy framework will mean housing delivery falling far from the mark for the foreseeable future. Data published this week showed that consents are at an all-time low, 20% down on last year, and the National House Building Council shows a dramatic fall in registrations, down 42% in quarter two compared with last year.
Commitment to delivering real improvement in housing delivery has to be called into question when we have had no less than 16 Housing Ministers since 2010, and when the Secretary of State delivered his statement on this planning policy framework to a press conference, rather than in Parliament. The National Planning Policy Framework should provide the link to ensure that local councils are taking into account the strategic need for housing, industrial and commercial land, food and farming requirements and the whole range of environmental issues as they apply in each area. Local plans are vital to deliver what is needed across the country, but also to engage local communities in how that is done and to provide the protections needed against speculative, unwanted or dangerous development.
However, the level of uncertainty the Government have generated by flip-flopping over their commitment to housing, by failure to create proper industrial strategy and failure to take environmental issues seriously enough, has fatally undermined all of that and has now culminated in 58 local authorities either scrapping or delaying their local plans as they wrestle with the uncertainty over housing targets. Yet this Statement seems to unequivocally point the finger at local authorities.
I suggest that the Minister in the other place might want to look in the mirror here. The example closest to home for me was that after extensive local research, two years of intensive public consultation and partnership working, and an extended three-week public inquiry, our Stevenage local plan was submitted to the Government on time—and then sat on the holding direction on the Secretary of State’s desk for 451 days until it was finally approved.
It is not just on housing that this framework fails to deliver. Because we have no proper industrial strategy, it is almost impossible for local plans to meet the needs for industrial commercial permissions, and the honourable Member for Buckingham in the other place raised on 19 December that it does not meet the stronger protections for food production land use either, with a wishy-washy statement quoted by the Minister:
“The availability of agricultural land used for food production should be considered”.
What does that mean? Question after question when the Statement was debated in the other place, largely from Conservative Members, sought clarification of exactly what is meant by the fact that housing targets are an advisory starting point. The best the Minister could come up with was:
“I cannot pre-empt or suggest exactly what that will mean in all instances”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/23; cols. 1275-6.]
One senior member of a respected planning stakeholder body told me that they stopped taking notes at the Secretary of State’s press conference on this topic because what he said just did not make any sense. Can the Minister please tell us how this process of advisory starting points for housing targets will deliver the 300,000 homes a year that are so urgently needed? We need to be clear here. There will be no levelling up unless we are at least aiming to provide a safe, secure, affordable and sustainable home for everyone. How does this set of policies deliver that?
On the key issue of resources, this is crippling local authorities’ ability to deliver against their planning obligations; indeed, the Royal Town Planning Institute reports 90% of local authorities as having a backlog of cases and 70% as having difficulties in recruiting. How will the Government support local authorities to resource their planning function as demand increases when their budgets are squeezed by the skyrocketing costs of children’s services, adult social care and, of course, homelessness? How do the Government reconcile their threats to remove planning powers from local authorities that do not meet the three-month deadline for delivery of their plan with the absolute obligation for authorities to consult local people? With a significant change on the issue of housing targets, surely it is understandable that further consultation must be undertaken. Has that been taken into account? If, as the Secretary of State has threatened, recalcitrant local authorities have their planning powers removed, who will undertake the planning work for their area? The Planning Inspectorate is already underresourced and its involvement in local plan-making would be a significant conflict of interest.
Time and again in debates during the passage of the levelling-up Act we were told that the Government would not accept amendments because provision would be included in the National Planning Policy Framework; for example, on ensuring that housebuilders focus on healthy homes and on making specific provision for housing for older people, flooding, access to open space, protections for historic buildings and a wide range of environmental issues. What assessment has the department carried out to ensure that all those issues—all those promises that were made to us—are incorporated into this new set of policies?
I return to my initial point: without a determined effort to deliver 300,000 homes a year, which we will need to resolve the housing crisis, we will continue to see the shameful situation where children are homeless, where they share beds with their parents because of lack of adequate space, where permitted development allows appalling housing conditions to prevail, and where poor housing affects the health and life chances of a whole generation. Perhaps it is time for a new ITV drama, “Mr Bates versus DLUHC”. In failing to tackle this through a clear housing strategy and the policies to support that, including targets, this policy amounts just to failure and another missed opportunity.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests as a councillor in Kirklees—where we have an up-to-date local plan—and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, just said, there are 1.2 million households on the social housing waiting lists and the Government’s own assessment is that 300,000 new homes need to be built every year. Having somewhere to live is a basic human right and a basic requirement that all Governments should fulfil. We have a housing crisis, and the response as set out in this Statement and the newly published National Planning Policy Framework fails to address that crisis. The policies are incoherent and fail on many levels. For example, the newly published NPPF refers to social housing only once and in a single sentence. There is a desperate need for social housing to rent. Can the Minister tell the House how long the 1.2 million households on the waiting list will have to wait for a safe, affordable home at a rent that is within their means?
I could tell the Minister of a family in my ward that contacted me this week. There is the wife, husband and a four year-old boy living with the grandmother, who has serious dementia, and a baby is on the way, in a two-bed Victorian terraced house with a front door that opens on to an A-road and the back door on to a ginnel, as we call it. It is an alley, I guess; we call them ginnels in Yorkshire. There is nowhere, literally no space, for that four year-old to play, or to put the baby. They rang me to ask what chance they had for a council house or a housing association home, and I had to tell them the awful truth: that virtually all the family homes have been sold under right to buy, very few replaced, and their chances are virtually nil within the next five years. How are the Government going to address that example and many, many more like it?
Debate on this vital national policy should have taken place when we debated the levelling-up Bill in this House. Many Members across the House, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said, asked for the information on the revised NPPF at that time, and it is now clear to me why the Government held back, because the National Planning Policy Framework as published fails to tackle this housing crisis by enabling local authorities to plan with confidence and with the goal of meeting their local housing need.
Housing need is defined not just by numbers of housing units required but also by type and tenure. The Government’s own figures show that 62% of the rise in households is of people over 65 living alone. Perhaps the Minister can say how the Government intend to ensure that this particular need is to be met, given the policies that they have now published. Is it possible, for instance, for local authorities to allocate a site for building with specific requirements to meet such locally determined need?
Next, the Government are relaxing housing targets by describing these as an “advisory starting point”. Can the Minister flesh out “advisory” in this context? How advisory is advisory? What advice will the Government be giving to the Planning Inspectorate on the definition of that word and what they expect it to mean?
Given that housing targets are to be determined more locally, can the Minister explain the rationale behind the requirement for 20 of the largest towns and cities to have 35% more homes than are determined by their local housing assessment? Why is it 35%, not 20% or 40%? Where does the figure come from, and what will it actually mean for those towns and cities?
One of the major holes in the Government’s planning and housing policies is that there are no penalties for developers who, having obtained planning consent, fail to start building or start a site and then delay building out. This is one of the major reasons for the crisis in housebuilding numbers: more than 1 million properties have planning consent but have not been built. Yet local authorities are to be penalised for failing to provide sites while, in those same local authorities, developers are failing to develop sites that have permission. What will the Government do about this dreadful state of affairs? What pressures will they put on developers to ensure that, once planning consent is given, the developer gets on and builds out the site?
Many residents oppose new homes because of the impact on local infrastructure, such as traffic, school places and access to health services. Many are justified in their complaints. For example, in my area of Kirklees, GP patient numbers are at 1,900 per doctor, as compared to the national average of 1,600. When residents raise the issue of more houses meaning greater numbers of patients for their local GP, where I live it is genuinely the case. There are already 20% more patients per GP where I live than the national average. What will the Government do to address the genuine complaints from residents about local infrastructure? That is just one example.
Providing the housing that we need is dependent on local authorities having up-to-date local plans, yet the majority of them do not have one. What action will the Government take to ensure that local authorities have up-to-date local plans? A local plan is the initial building block that unlocks sites for housing of a type and tenure that is so desperately needed. This Statement absolutely fails to address this. I look forward to the Minister’s replies to all the questions that have been raised; if she cannot answer them, I hope that she can give us written responses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, I will endeavour to answer the questions from both noble Baronesses as fully as I can, but it is first worth reflecting on what this update to the NPPF sought to do. Both noble Baronesses rightly situated it in the context of the broader changes in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act to bring forward a reformed planning system that allows more homes to be built in the right places, more quickly, more beautifully and more sustainably.
The right way to do this is through a reformed planning system. In December last year, we laid out our plan to do that. We made it abundantly clear that the only way to do so is through up-to-date local plans, which local authorities can deliver for communities to protect the land and assets that matter most and lay the foundation for economic growth. Part of that plan for reform was the update to the National Planning Policy Framework. In December 2022, we consulted on a series of proposals that received more than 26,000 responses, which we have worked through in detail. The updates that we made, which were announced at the end of last year, strike a careful balance between delivering homes that our communities need and protecting the things that we care most about, such as our natural environment, heritage assets, high streets and town centres—matters referenced by both noble Baronesses. The NPPF update acknowledges that different areas and different parts of the country must be approached in different ways and that local authorities and communities are best placed to ensure that the right homes are in the right places, where they are both needed and wanted.
Both noble Baronesses asked about the change to the NPPF which clarified that the standard method of assessing housing need is the starting point for local authorities. The NPPF expects local planning authorities to evidence and provide for their housing needs. The Government are clear that the standard method should still be used to inform the process. Local authorities can put forward their own approach to assessing housing needs, but this should be used only in exceptional circumstances. Authorities can expect their method to be scrutinised closely at examination. The standard method remains the starting point for this process and only in exceptional circumstances would we expect local planning authorities to move away from that. However, it is right that we allow for those exceptional circumstances. In the updated framework, the demographics of a particular area are pointed to as the factor which might mean that an alternative method would be appropriate for that planning authority to use.
Part of delivering homes in a way that meets community needs is about having a more diversified housing market. Therefore, the framework also strengthens support for SME builders and the wider diversity of the housing market by emphasising the importance of community-led housing development, ensuring that local authorities seek opportunities to support small sites to come forward and removing barriers to smaller and medium builders in the planning system. In the long run, that will also ensure that we make progress in delivering the housing that we need and keep us on track to deliver 1 million new homes during this Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about social housing. Her points were well made. These updates to the NPPF did not have that as a particular focus but the Government are absolutely committed to increasing the supply of affordable and social housing. That is why our latest affordable housing programme is backed by more than £11 billion. We have increased the delivery of affordable housing under this Government. I would be very happy to sit down with the noble Baroness and discuss specific planning barriers to affordable housing further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, referred to the resources needed to unlock the planning system. She is absolutely right. That is why we have increased the resources going into local planning services. The new planning rules that came into force on 6 December increase fees for major applications by 35% and minor ones by 25%. The indexing arrangements now in place also ensure that they rise in line with inflation. Beyond that, the planning skills delivery fund was boosted by £5 million to £29 million. In the first round of funding, 180 local planning authorities are receiving collectively over £14 million. We recognise that the changes we have made to the planning system in the levelling-up Act and through the changes to the NPPF need to be matched by additional resources, which we have put in.
I turn to housing standards and a range of other issues that were debated at length during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. The Government have committed to bring forward further changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, bringing in a national development management framework. We are committed to consulting on those changes this year but, for the development of local plans, we believe that the combination of the measures in the Act and those announced and changed in the NPPF at the end of last year provide clarity and certainty for local areas to be able to make their plans and deliver on them.
Where that is not proving possible for local authorities, the Secretary of State has been clear that the Government are prepared to intervene. That is why the Secretary of State issued a direction about plan-making to seven of the worst authorities. The best outcome from those directions is that the local authorities themselves bring forward plans within 12 weeks and set out a clear timetable to do so. Should they fail, we will consider further intervention, but it would be based on the particular circumstances of those local authorities and reflect their points. I do not want to pre-empt that, as the best outcome for those areas is for the local authorities to take forward those plans themselves.
We are also taking action in London, because the homes needed in the capital are simply not being built. Opportunities for urban brownfield regeneration are being left untaken, as a result of the mayor’s anti-housing policy and approach. His plan does not contain sufficient ambition for housing, and he is underdelivering against it. That is why we are undertaking an urgent review of it.
There are a number of areas from both noble Baronesses that I may not have addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned infrastructure and of course we have the housing infrastructure fund, which provides the funding needed to ensure that development can take place, is supported locally and comes with the schools, hospitals and GP places needed to support it. I undertake to write to both noble Baronesses in detail on any further points on which I need to follow up.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in the Statement—namely, the increase in planning resources—but it represents a major change in government housing policy, which was not there when the levelling-up Bill was introduced. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said, this was introduced to head off a rebellion in the other place. As a result, the targets are advisory, not mandatory, and we are already seeing a result—not just in plans being withdrawn but in South Oxfordshire doing something unheard of in planning by deleting from its plan for development sites that had already been included. We may end up with more up-to-date plans eventually, but they will have fewer homes in them than the country needs. How will a democratically elected Government, committed to building 300,000 new homes a year, deliver that if they are totally dependent on the good will of local authorities that do not share that commitment?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we announced a number of different changes at the end of last year. However, as I said to both the noble Baronesses, the standard method for assessing housing need remains the starting point for local authorities. It is only in exceptional circumstances that we would expect them to move away from that, and that must be well evidenced. In such circumstances, where it is not appropriate for that area, there is a way and method for those local authorities to put forward a well-considered and well-thought-out local plan, which would have a much better chance of being delivered than something that does not command local support and does not suit the needs of the local area.
We have made other changes that may result in the changes that my noble friend talked about—for example, by removing the buffers needed on land supply set out in local plans. They go over and above the amount of land needed to deliver against the assessed housing need for an area. Where local authorities have done the right thing, put a plan in place and identified the land they need to deliver against the local housing need in their area, it is not the right way forward to require those local authorities to hold a 5% or 10% buffer on top.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. If we could see the production of decent, accessible, energy-efficient, companionable, new retirement housing for older people needing and wanting to rightsize, we could free up tens of thousands of family homes, which are so badly needed. The planning system can allocate sites, not least urban sites that regenerate town centres, and those absolutely essential local plans can stipulate requirements for a proportion of such housing in all major developments. I add that at the same time removing stamp duty for purchases by those over pension age would stimulate the market, increasing revenue to HM Treasury through the chain that follows, and that housing for older people saves massive sums for the NHS and adult care services. Will the Minister get behind all those trying to boost the output of well-designed homes for the estimated 3 million older people who are interested in downsizing and rightsizing?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely support the remarks by the noble Lord on needing the right housing to meet the needs of people at all stages in their lives. There are changes within this update to the NPPF that will encourage the delivery of older people’s housing, including retirement housing, housing with care and care homes. In addition, the Government have the Older People’s Housing Taskforce, which is exploring broader changes that we might wish to see to encourage housing for older people to be built in the areas where it is most suitable and most needed. Also, there is the point that the noble Lord made: ensuring that we have the right solution for older people has a knock-on effect throughout our housing supply on the availability for those who may be trying to get on the housing ladder in the first place.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, the Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community recommended that the Government adopt a long-term plan to address the scale of the housing crisis in the UK. I am glad to see that they have adopted the language of long-termism, as the UK’s housing has been held back by short-term planning and decision-making for far too long. However, I believe that such a plan must be holistic, taking into account all elements that make up a good housing strategy, with consideration of both new builds and existing buildings. What plans do the Government have to improve the quality of the homes that we already have, for example by undertaking a programme to upgrade EPC ratings, or by equalising the rate of VAT on repairs for existing houses with that for constructing new homes?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right that, when we consider the quality of people’s homes, we absolutely need to think about existing stock, not just new homes. When it comes to new homes, we have just launched the consultation on the future homes standard, which will have in place regulations that mean that all new homes built from 2025 onwards will need to be net-zero ready and have much higher levels of energy efficiency. They would most likely have heat pumps installed as a way to deliver those net-zero targets. When it comes to existing homes, we have a huge range of government support in place to support increased energy efficiency. A lot of that has focused initially on those on low incomes: for example, looking at social housing, there is the social housing decarbonisation fund. We are broadening that out to support other people too. We have the boiler upgrade grant, which allows people to replace their old boilers with heat pumps, with a significant proportion of those costs met by government. We have debated VAT a number of times in this House, but I will say that we have introduced a reduced rate of VAT for energy-efficiency measures, and we extended the scope of the measures that that covers in the most recent Autumn Statement.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, as the National Planning Policy Framework’s primary purpose is more homes, is it not strange that His Majesty’s Government have yet to make any statement about a new concept of the new town movement? You can see on the ground the wonderful work that was done as long ago as the 30s with the garden city just alongside the A1—I drove past it yesterday. Then there are the new towns. My former constituency was Northampton, and there is the new city of Milton Keynes, which was only a village before. That concept surely has to have a role, modernised to meet today’s requirements in the future.
Secondly, my noble friend quite rightly says: “Yes, more new homes”. But is not the problem at the moment that the developers do not have the confidence that she clearly has? The figures for 2023 are very low. Are they not going to be only marginally better in 2024? Against that background, will His Majesty’s Government bring in new incentives for young couples to be able to provide some of that demand, so that developers can have some confidence to move forward?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend makes two very good points. England has a proud history of new town development, and well-planned, beautifully designed, locally led garden communities are playing a vital role in helping to meet our housing need, through providing a stable pipeline of new homes. The Garden Communities programme supports local authorities to build places that people are happy to call their home. That programme was launched in 2014, and has awarded over £58 million of capacity funding to assist places to deliver their proposals for housing. A further £12 million has also been invested to deliver the infrastructure critical to unblock the delivery of homes. The 47 locally led garden communities have the capacity to deliver over 300,000 new homes by 2050. That is something that the Government absolutely continue to support.
The number of planning consents being down was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. When it comes to the wider conditions in the housing market, we recognise that this is a challenging time. The broader economic conditions we face due to very high levels of inflation, and the high interest rates that are in place to bring that down, make it harder for people to get on the housing ladder. That is why this Government have been focused, laser-like, on tackling inflation. We met our commitment last year to halve the level of inflation, and are back on the road to the Bank of England’s 2% target. That is the most effective way in which we can make sure that people are able to afford their mortgages and access the housing market in the way they wish to. But there are also important things that we can do—for example, ensuring that our affordable housing programme continues throughout this period to provide more stability and certainty in terms of the pipeline of new homes while it is a difficult market out there for housebuilders.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister, following on from the question from the right reverend Prelate, about the certificates—the EPCs? We have had a problem and a review on EPC measurement. Could she let us know where we are on that review?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, my understanding is that the Government launched an EPC action plan to take forward a number of changes to EPCs. We are well on track for delivering against the majority of actions within that, but we continue to look at it. We recognise that there is potentially the need for wider reform to energy performance certificates; we are looking at that very closely and doing further work on it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I have the honour of serving on the Built Environment Committee in your Lordships’ House, along with one or two other colleagues here. We have been listening to evidence in the last few months from builders, planners and Ministers about why the 300,000 target has not been reached. I think the low point for me was evidence from an Environment Minister and the Housing Minister, who sat next to each other trying to explain why it was all very difficult. At the end of the evidence session, I thought, “When did they ever talk to each other? It is as if they are in completely different silos”. We have heard answers from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, this afternoon about the importance of the environment. She mentioned affordable housing once or twice. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned that it is only in the NPPF once, I think; I may have that wrong.
When I looked at the Housing Minister’s Statement on 19 December when he launched this, I was astonished to read one paragraph which used several phrases which to me indicate what is really important for this Government. One phrase was “gentle density”—I do not know what that means, but perhaps some experts can tell me—on the design of mansard roof development. Does that really go in a Statement? There was “well-designed places”—we know what that is—and then,
“‘visual clarity’ on the design requirements”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/23; col. 1266.]
Also, the word “beauty” comes into it, as the noble Baroness said. These are all very good things, especially if you want a lovely new house in the countryside, miles from anywhere, but are they the priorities for affordable housing? This is the problem. We have lost sight of what is important. I live in Cornwall and the lack of affordable housing there is just terrible. If we are to say that everything has to be a “gentle density” with “visual clarity” of place, I do not think we are going to get there—until we concentrate on what is important, which is affordable housing.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I do not think that the delivery of more affordable housing and the delivery of more beautiful housing need to be in tension with each other. In fact, the right housing in the right place allows more support for development to go ahead, which is one of the big barriers we see to delivering more housing in local areas, and affordable housing should be beautiful housing too. Noble Lords have had a lot of debates in this House about the standards within our homes, particularly within our social housing. We should be no less ambitious for the standards that people enjoy in their housing, whether it is social housing, affordable housing or private housing. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about space for children to play, for example. Taking into account that kind of amenity is important for the right development to go ahead. We should recognise that we have made significant progress in recent years in building more houses. We have had some of the highest housing delivery in the past four years that we have had in the past 20 years, and we seek to continue that, but without those measures necessarily needing to be in tension. The noble Lord spoke about Ministers talking to each other in different departments. I reassure him that, particularly on these areas that cut across different interests and on something like net zero or environmental impact, we bring together the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, my department and Defra to work together to provide solutions on these issues.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall follow the theme of social housing. I declare my position as a vice-president of the LGA and the NALC. Responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the Minister said that the Government are committed to social housing. We have just heard that again, and it is great, but the Minister may be aware of a document from the National Housing Federation, Let’s Fix the Housing Crisis: Delivering a Long-Term Plan for Housing. This crosses over with her former departmental responsibilities. It asserts:
“The wider fiscal, societal and economic benefits of social housing are poorly captured in current cost benefit analysis”,
and, particularly, in the Government’s Green Book. The NHF stresses that we need housing
“in the right location, with the right support for those who need it”,
which sounds very much like the Green Party’s Right Homes, Right Place, Right Price. Does the Minister agree that planning needs to think about this social element as well as the purely spatial element? We have been relying on the market for decades now. It has not worked out very well and has given the crisis we have now, plus the terrible privatisation of right to buy. I will pick up a point from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp: one of the things that the NHF report highlights is the increase in the long-term cost of housing benefit as a result of the increase in the number of retired people who are in private rental housing now. Do we not have to join up far more planning and financial considerations and pure human considerations to secure an affordable place for everybody to live?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, a number of the changes that we are making to the NPPF address some of the noble Baroness’s concerns. They are all about allowing a local area, using the evidence of local need, to produce a plan that works for that area. The noble Baroness touched on the Green Book and how we value social housing but also wider social benefits when we look at value for money in government projects. The Government have done work on reforming the Green Book over a number of years to ensure that we better take that into account. There is also better assessment of national well-being as a factor when we look at policies. We are looking, for example, at valuing our green space more clearly in our policy assessments, so that we can take a more well-rounded look. That is at the heart of my department’s mission. When looking at levelling up across the whole of the United Kingdom, one point that often gets made is that the old ways of doing things incentivises you to invest only in London and the south-east. While that is incredibly important, we know that investing in communities across our country is how we will actually deliver for people, and that is what my department has been created to do.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has said that it is not the purpose of this long-term plan for housing to address the need for more homes for social rent. She has also said that the Government are absolutely committed to increasing the supply of affordable and social housing. In the face of the 14% increase in the past year of people in temporary accommodation in our country—a trend which is likely to continue rising—what is the Government’s short to medium-term plan for getting more long-term homes for those being forced to live in temporary accommodation?
Baroness Penn (Con)
As I have previously said to noble Lords, we have over £11 billion for the affordable homes programme, but a number of other measures were announced, most recently in the Autumn Statement. For example, the local housing allowance uplift will help with the affordability of the private rented sector, reducing the chances that people might move into temporary accommodation. We also have the Homelessness Reduction Act, which is matched by funding to try to prevent people moving into temporary accommodation altogether. At the Autumn Statement, we also announced additional money for local authorities to increase the supply and quality of their temporary housing to bring down the costs of putting that provision in place so that we can invest in the longer-term solution, which is more affordable housing available to more people.
NHS Winter Update
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s urgent and emergency care recovery plan promised the largest and fastest ever improvement in emergency waiting times in the NHS’s history. Yet it has not delivered in preparing the NHS for the winter, which we should remind ourselves is a season that, as sure as eggs are eggs, appears every single year. It should be no surprise to any of us, including the Government.
To take just one shortcoming, the plan talked about lowering bed occupancy rates as “fundamental”, yet in November, at the start of winter, bed occupancy was at its highest level since the start of Covid. It stood at 94.8%, a level which will surely lead to serious issues. Did the Government consider taking any additional action to lower occupancy rates? What steps will they now take to ensure that this is not simply repeated every single year?
Today, there have been a number of reports in the media, and I want to refer to two of them. We have read reports that NHS England has confirmed that the NHS is failing to meet all of its key targets: patients are waiting even longer in A&E, even longer to start routine treatment, even longer for cancer diagnosis and treatment, and even longer to be admitted to hospital or for an ambulance to arrive. This is a damning indictment. Perhaps the Minister could tell us the Government’s response to the reports of NHS England today. Also in the news, the Health Service Journal reported that trusts are being told by service commissioners for Lancashire and South Cumbria that, due to the expected deficit, they should plan for a 10% cut in contract values on top of the annual efficiency savings that they are already planning for next year. What is the Minister’s response to this worrying situation? How will it affect services, not just in winter but all year round? How many other trusts across the country are in a similar position?
I would like to pick up a matter strongly defended by the Secretary of State in the other place when this Statement was first made to Parliament—the matter of 800 new ambulances. These ambulances were promised by the Government to help NHS trusts tackle the crisis of ever-worsening response times. But freedom of information requests found that, across 10 of the 11 ambulance trusts in England, there were plans to order only 51 new ambulances. I would like to give the opportunity to the Minister to share any information that is missing from the responses from ambulance trusts that would show that the information referred to in the FOI request was mistaken in some way. Perhaps the Minister could also provide more detail on what NHS England referred to as a problem in procurement due to the impact of global supply chain pressures, and on whether and when it is expected pressure will subside, so that we will see all the promised new ambulances. What performance improvements are to be expected from the 51 new ambulances that we know have been ordered? How would this compare with the full 800 that were promised, had they been procured?
The Government’s Statement presents as a combination of somewhat selectively chosen numbers and situations that do not recognise the reality of a health service in which patients cannot get appointments with their doctors, dentistry is in crisis, and unprecedented numbers of people are having to wait unduly for surgery, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and their ambulances—and all of this while striking doctors are being blamed for the whole situation. The strike action by junior doctors has been the longest in NHS history, with trusts declaring critical incidents and A&E departments telling some patients to stay away to lessen the load. This is a situation that I am sure the Minister will tell us cannot continue, but it continues to disappoint that the Government do not see it as their responsibility to show leadership and resolve the dispute. Could the Minister advise the House of the steps the Government are now taking, or will take, to ensure that we do not see a continuation of this damaging situation?
Finally, I would be keen to hear from the Minister on an aspect of the winter health situation which was not mentioned in the Statement regarding Covid. In the run-up to Christmas, according to the Office for National Statistics, 2.5 million people were thought to have Covid. What assessment have the Government made of this increased prevalence and what impact has it had on the NHS so far this winter? What assessment have the Government made of how the impact may continue? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, we should start by recognising and thanking the nearly 3 million health and care workers whom we depend on all year but who have to work especially hard during the winter months. We should also show our appreciation for the many millions more informal carers who spent the festive period looking after family and friends. That was the nice bit, but I now turn to some questions for the Government on what I thought was a predictably upbeat, “It’s all going swimmingly except for the strike” Statement; yet within it there were some significant gaps, some of which the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, pointed out.
It is notable that the Statement says nothing about primary care but instead focuses very much on hospital beds, which I will come to next. Can the Minister comment on how GP appointment waiting times remain unacceptably long in many parts of the country? This is a poor outcome both of itself and in terms of the knock-on effect it has on emergency services. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government have been monitoring GP waiting times during the winter months, and that he can indicate what they are doing about these.
The Government say they have added 3,000 hospital beds as part of their 5,000 target. That target was part of their response to last year’s crisis. Does the Minister have any new data on the utilisation of those beds and whether this matches up with the predictions the Government made when they set the target, and any analysis they made to come up with the 5,000 number in the first place? The Statement also highlights the 11,000 virtual beds that are now available, which instinctively seems like a positive development to me. But the important thing is how a broad range of people experience these and the health outcomes they deliver. What are the Government doing systematically to collect data about those virtual beds and whether they have been able to deliver a comparable level of care for people who are suffering during the winter pressures?
Another key area of delivering emergency care in winter is the availability of ambulances, which was rightly flagged by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. The Minister may have seen a report in the Health Service Journal from 30 November last year, which said that in some areas there is a mismatch between the number of paramedics recruited and the number of ambulances available. It is great that the paramedics have been recruited, but if they are sitting around in the base stations because the vehicles are not there, that does not deliver the improved waiting times we are all looking for. I hope the Minister can comment on this report and whether the Government are able to deliver the vehicles in lockstep with the newly trained paramedics, which is what we all wish to see.
A further element of the response is the 111 service for less-urgent services, which, again, is not mentioned in the Statement. There are concerns about whether people are being directed to the right place—111, GPs, 999 or accident and emergency departments. Are the Government monitoring the performance of 111 in respect of flu, Covid and other winter respiratory diseases?
Finally, we have often discussed patient flow through hospital and out into the community with the Minister, who I know takes a particular interest in this. We know that some trusts are piloting systems to improve flow that could be described as like hotel booking systems that enable beds to be made available in a much more efficient and timely fashion. Will the Government compare the performance of trusts that have these systems in place with those that do not, as they go through this acute period of pressure in the winter months?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I wish everyone a happy new year and share in the thanks given by noble Lord, Lord Allan—and, I am sure, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron—for the hard work all the staff put in over the Christmas period. We have done a lot of work to prepare for this winter, and that was based on expanding supply. I will go into more detail in answering the questions so far, but that included the 5,000 additional beds, of which 4,000 are currently in place. It included the 11,000 virtual wards and 800 new ambulances, and again, I will answer some of the specific questions about the utilisation of those. It included the £600 million for adult social care discharge and the 141 CDCs, with 6 million more diagnostic tests, and the 50,000 increase in nurses—as well as mental health.
Of course, there have also been 50 million more primary care appointments since 2019, to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan. That was accompanied by extensive planning, as I have seen. We have really tried to learn a lot of lessons from last year and get ahead of the curve with earlier plans, putting key management support teams in place to provide help in the areas where it is most needed. Everything is underpinned by a stronger technology infrastructure, digitalisation and the patient flow systems.
We are really trying to get ahead, so we brought forward the flu and Covid vaccines, so that, hopefully, we can make the situation better. I will not say that it is anything more than early days, or that one swallow makes a summer, but there are some promising early signs. On ambulance handovers, we have seen a 20% reduction in lost hours. The figure for category 2 response times is 45 minutes; it is still too long, but it is half that for this time last year. As for patient flow and the use of the system, we have seen a 10% reduction in so-called bed blocking, partly because of the flow mechanisms and partly as a result of early investment in the discharge fund.
All that is against the background of increased activity—and, of course, the strikes. To date, they have cost us 1.3 million lost appointments, 113,000 most recently. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, that we have tried to behave in a reasonable manner. We have reached agreements with all the other professions—the nurses, physicians, consultants and specialist doctors—and we have shown leadership, alongside the unions, in doing so. In contrast with that reasonable behaviour, the 35% pay demand is not reasonable, and nor is planning strike action at the busiest time of the year. Coming out only twice, when you have been asked 40 times by NHS trusts to act on patient safety, is also not reasonable behaviour. We want to resolve this issue. We have shown a capacity to resolve it in other areas, and we have shown leadership. I ask the BMA and junior doctors to come forward with reasonable expectations, and let us resolve this right now.
I have a polite suggestion to make. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, might raise the issue of NHS targets. People know that I am a reasonable person, and the last thing I am going to do is say that all is rosy in the garden, but we are showing some solid improvement. I am definitely not happy with the fact that the England targets for a four-hour wait and 62-day cancer care were last met in July 2015. But I note that they have never been reached in Wales, which Labour has been running. In Wales, the 62-day cancer care target was last reached in 2010. Also, if you are in Wales, you are much more likely to be on a waiting list: 21% of the population are on a waiting list, compared with 13% here. In Wales, you are likely to wait five weeks longer, on average; and 50% of the time, you will wait for more than four hours in A&E, compared with 40% in England.
The England results need to be better, and we are working to make them better, but I politely suggest that the Opposition might want to look at where they are running the NHS and see what they can do to improve that, because on every standard you see a poorer performance from the Labour action in Wales. That is what all the evidence tells us.
I will try to answer some of the specific points. On ambulances, 300 new vehicles have been delivered to date. There is an issue with one supplier, but we are confident that the 800 new vehicles will be delivered. It is those, alongside the paramedics, that are allowing us to address ambulance wait times and bring them down. The 111 number is now on the app and is really directing traffic; it is up 8% versus last year, so, again, we are seeing real improvements. I think I mentioned that patient flow is improving as well.
On Covid, bringing forward the vaccinations has been helpful in terms of prevention. While we would all accept that 2.5 million is a large number, if we look at the number of beds being taken up by Covid and flu this year, we can see that it is half the number that it was last year. It is still a big number, but it is half what it was. We are in the early stages and a lot more work is needed, but one reason we are starting to see these improvements is that we have tried to get ahead of the curve with those vaccinations.
As regards virtual wards, so far we have about 70% utilisation of those. We need to collect the data; noble Lords have heard me say before that the results from virtual wards in places such as Watford and elsewhere show good results in terms of both satisfaction and, most importantly, not returning to hospital. Where people have gone into a virtual ward rather than just going home, there has been a reduction of as much as 50% in people having to return to hospital environments. So we are seeing results.
In terms of primary care, as I mentioned, we have seen 50 million more appointments take place. Pharmacy First, which will be introduced shortly, is a key way of expanding that supply still further. So I say politely that, yes, there is a lot more work that will need to be done, but we really have expanded supply. We have put plans in place, and the early signs are promising. I hope, like all of us, that we will see far more of this and I look forward to updating the House as the season progresses.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, we are very grateful to hear the increasing focus on the need for urgent ambulance care. Obviously, for personal reasons, I am very grateful for that, because this is the sort of time when those things happen. I wonder, however, whether I could probe the Minister a little more. With regard to Covid, my impression—from making inquiries to various centres in London—is that the uptake has not been as good as they had expected. Does the Minister feel that we are doing enough to ensure that in particular those who are most vulnerable are coming to get vaccinated, first for flu and secondly, of course, for the coronavirus?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is correct; London is always our most challenging place. I have found that across the board, funnily enough. He is right in terms of Covid and flu vaccinations, but it is also the case for the take-up of all sorts of different services. We see technology as a key enabler; in fact, the number of people who have booked their vaccinations and follow-up through the app has multiplied significantly. I do not have the precise figures in my head, but they really have gone up. A lot of that is through people seeing their reminder through the app as well. It is recognised that London in particular needs more targeted action—in fact, noble Lords will see an advertising campaign come out in the next couple of weeks or so. We are really trying to promote usage of the app, which is a tool for all these sorts of things as well.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I should declare that I am a registered doctor with the GMC. I live in Wales, but I do not want to get into data-hurling over Wales, but I do have a comment to make. I would like to follow up on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, about virtual wards. The Minister may be unable to tell us now, but how many of those patients were actually terminally ill; how many of the virtual wards were providing 24/7 effective cover for these patients; and what is happening across the whole country in relation to 24/7 palliative care cover? All the evidence that is emerging is that it really is grossly inadequate. Families are left unable to access the care and support they need.
Ten years ago, NICE recommended that every area in England should have a helpline so that families can phone if there is a crisis, 24/7, when they are looking after someone with palliative care needs at home; yet the Marie Curie report Mind the Gaps—I should declare that I am a vice-president of Marie Curie—which has been developed with the Cicely Saunders Institute—again, I should declare my interest there as an international adviser—has shown that only one in three areas has such a helpline available. Two-thirds of the country has nowhere for people to phone.
Is the Minister prepared to meet me and others from palliative care to mirror what is happening in Ireland now? From this February, the Irish Government will be funding 100% of hospice clinical services, because they have recognised the inadequacy of relying on voluntary sector funding. We know that good care costs less than poor care. We know that where there is good palliative care in place, with 24/7 support, the number of emergency admissions goes down, the pressure on acute beds goes down and inappropriate transfers drop. Although I am not expecting an answer today, I hope the Minister will seriously consider looking at that situation.
I shall just make a comment from Wales and point out that in Wales, paramedics are now being trained specifically in palliative care. Some consultant paramedics are now attached to palliative care teams and are able to administer palliative care drugs out of hours as required.
My other question for the Minister is on what discussions he has had with the GMC over retention. Those doctors who were temporarily registered have received notice that, as from March, for those who had retired, their temporary registration because of Covid will cease. I just wonder, with the figures we have seen come out today, whether it would be wise to negotiate with the GMC, first, for that to be deferred and, secondly, for all those doctors to be contacted and asked directly how they would like to contribute to improving some of the services. There is a lot of skill there which is currently being unused and underutilised. Again, I guess I should declare an interest because my husband is a dermatologist and has been in that position but has never been called up and would have been quite willing to go and help with clinics. Those are some of my questions for the Minister.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for those points. Absolutely, I will need to come back on some of the detail on the virtual wards and how they are being used. One thing I will say about them, though, from my knowledge, is that the ability of people to communicate on a regular basis is one of the key advantages. On the point she makes about palliative care and the ability to have 24/7 communication, the beauty of the virtual wards is that they have that inbuilt, for want of a better word—they have that advantage. As noble Lords know, I am always eager to learn from practices all around the world, so I will very happily meet people and learn from them.
On retention, absolutely, we all know that the supply of doctors and medics is the key thing that we need, so I personally feel that we need to look at every avenue to make sure that we can maximise that supply. Again, it is something that I will inquire into as a result of that, and maybe when we have our meeting we can discuss that further.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the Statement and his response, but it takes the biscuit in terms of the Government really seeking to exploit the plight of the NHS by putting so much emphasis on the industrial action being taken. As the noble Lord has said, even before Covid the Government were way off meeting any of the core targets. In 2010, they inherited a health service that was running very well and met all the targets. They threw away that inheritance. When Covid hit, the health services were already running so hot that there was just no headroom at all to cope with the pressure that then came, with—my noble friend is right—hugely dangerous occupancy rates. There was simply no headroom.
Looking at the funding, from 1948 to 2019-20 the NHS received funding of 3.6% real annual growth, on average, per annum. The coalition Government slashed it to 1.1%. The May and Cameron Governments gave it 1.7%. Only with the Covid expansion were resources over that 3.6% average. It is no wonder that the health service is tackling such a momentous challenge. We need to hear from the Government some real plans to get investment back in the health service, to give it the kind of headroom it needs to start meeting the targets that are so important—would the Minister agree?
Lord Markham (Con)
I happily agree that we are investing record sums. The latest figures show that we are investing around about 11% of GDP in the National Health Service. I believe the figure in 2010 was somewhere in the 7% to 8% range—I am speaking from memory and so I will correct that if it is not quite right, but that is the sort of massive expansion we have seen. If I take one area as an example, the cancer workforce has trebled since 2010.
What we are seeing more than ever is a record level of investment in the health service but also a record level of demand. I was hoping to show in the Statement how we are looking to tackle that. I will freely admit the challenges, and that it is early days, but I believe we are showing signs of getting on top of it. As I have said many times, I really think that technology will be its future, and there will be lots more we can talk about when we show the profound changes it is going to make.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, one in seven UK-trained doctors has left the country to practise overseas. That is some 18,000 doctors, a figure which is up 50% since 2008. Last year, the General Medical Council did a survey of doctors departing the UK to practise overseas, and one of the key factors identified was that doctors were leaving to work in a place where they felt supported by the state and the employer. Does the Minister believe that the Statement—the Government’s general position—is sending a message to doctors that they are supported and cared for, and truly valued, by the UK Government, given that if we look at the financial valuation, junior doctors’ salaries are down 24% in real terms since 2009?
This is obviously an issue of money, but it is also an issue of attitude. Have the Government got their attitude to the junior doctors terribly wrong?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree with the sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness. Clearly, we want to make sure that we minimise any loss to the profession. Retention is key. The long-term workforce plan was all about trying to put a long-term footing in place, one which looked at not just the recruitment of doctors but their retention, which, as I say, is key.
Money is an element of that, clearly. As I say, I have not heard or seen anyone suggesting that we should be paying the 35% increase. I do not think that is a reasonable approach; I have not heard any noble Lords come forward and say that. The correct attitude of the noble Baroness is key as well. We need to make sure that we get that right and I like to think that we are trying to do that. The Secretary of State has been very positive in terms of trying to do that as well. I absolutely agree that, at the end of the day, this is a key workforce and its members need to feel that they are key, rewarded and motivated by what they are doing. That is key to any profession.
Climate Change: Impact on Developing Nations
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
That this House takes note of the United Kingdom’s contribution to international development, in particular with regard to the impact of climate change on developing nations.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate the number of noble Lords who have chosen to take part in this debate, and I look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. I also appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, is answering this debate, as the Minister spanning both FCDO and Defra. He has shown himself committed over many years to addressing climate change.
I start by declaring non-financial interests as a trustee of AgDevCo and MedAccess, both of which have been recipients of ODA, and as a council member of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
The UN’s millennium development goals, set out in 2000, saw considerable progress. By 2015, more people had been pulled out of poverty; more children were in school; and more women were able to access family planning, with the benefit this brought to the women themselves, their families and their communities. The MDGs were superseded by the sustainable development goals in 2015, aiming to end absolute poverty by 2030. The United Kingdom played a leading role in their development, with the UN committee co-chaired by the UK, and an outstanding—then DfID—civil servant, Michael Anderson, as the key negotiator and penholder. The UK was at the heart of the development agenda globally, as well as within the EU, and the biggest global contributor financially.
I had the privilege in the coalition Government to serve first as a DfID spokesperson in your Lordships’ House, and then as Africa Minister from 2014. During that time, we brought the UK’s commitment to international development up to the UN-recommended target of 0.7% of GNI. The last act of the coalition was to enshrine that commitment into law, with cross-party support.
Since then, without consultation, in 2020, Boris Johnson smashed DfID and merged it with the FCO. Later that year, he cut the aid budget. DfID served a long-term goal: working with huge expertise to seek to address poverty and the long-term economic development of the poorest countries, so that they could transition out of aid. The FCO, by contrast, focused on the UK’s more immediate foreign policy concerns. Both are laudable aims, with some compatibility in terms of global stability, on which the two departments, with the Ministry of Defence, had long worked together.
However, the two departments did not sit easily together. To put some budgets, for example, in the hands of ambassadors, great though they might be at their job, risked the long-term strategic aim of economic development, which was DfID’s raison d’être. With the collapse of Afghanistan to the Taliban in 2021, and especially the invasion by Putin of Ukraine in 2022, the ODA budget was turned inward, supporting refugees in the UK.
From 2020, of course, we suffered the pandemic, but so did every other country, with the poorest the least able to protect their citizens. However, what we face now is far more profound, and that is climate change. The overwhelming scientific consensus has long been that human activity is having a dangerous and profound effect on the climate. The world agreed collective action at Paris in 2015 to tackle this, seeking to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees centigrade over pre-industrial levels.
Nowhere in the world will escape its effect, but some places will be hit first and far worse than others. The small island states of the Pacific are even now seeing their settlements drowned, and I heard yesterday of the first indigenous groups in central America being displaced by climate change. Climate change is operating at four times the global rate in Greenland, with potentially devastating effects there but also in terms of sea level rises globally. We know that the poorest will be hit—are being hit—the most and the worst. We also know that women and girls, the old and the very young, are the most vulnerable, as the Lancet study and others have demonstrated.
Many people in developing countries, especially in Africa, are of course entirely reliant on small-scale, rain-fed agriculture. In east Africa, directly due to climate change, we are seeing the worst drought in over 40 years; Plan International and others report that 20 million people are now at risk of acute food insecurity and, potentially, famine. Whereas in the United Kingdom we have research institutes studying how best to adapt, and the infrastructure potentially to help—for example, converting apple orchards to vineyards—that kind of support and resilience is lacking in the poorest countries, so we will see more conflict and migration and an increased risk of pandemics. As now, these are likely to be exploited by populist and authoritarian movements globally, with associated risks. Yet we know we are not on course to tackle climate change. This week, scientists said that 2023 has been the hottest year on record. So what are we doing to assist developing countries and to tackle climate change?
Here I turn to the recently released international development White Paper. I commend Andrew Mitchell for his leadership in trying to undo some of the damage that Johnson did in dismantling DfID and cutting aid, actions which Johnson took even while apparently being concerned about climate change, simply not seeing the connections in what he aspired to do and what he did. The new paper seeks to take a long-term approach, and I would expect nothing less from Andrew. He has sought wide international and national endorsement, and, again, I would expect nothing less. He has launched the new UKDev—UK International Development—trying to resurrect some of what DfID was. The paper makes the case for development for global stability. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—I am glad he is taking part in the debate this afternoon—was a member of the UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change that made this case 20 years ago. It is as true now as it was then.
On climate change, Jim Skea, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is quoted as saying:
“The science and the evidence is clear, unless ambitious action is taken to combat climate change, we will not be able to secure development goals. We need a step change. Now is the time for action”.
The noble Lord, Lord Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute at the LSE, and so well known to us here in this House, says:
“Climate Change and biodiversity loss are existential challenges. Failure to act with urgency and on scale will have devastating effects on prospects for development, undermine poverty reduction, exacerbate conflict, and push the world further off track on the SDGs”.
The new Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, states:
“Climate change’s impact on lives and livelihoods is accelerating, affecting developing countries the most”.
Andrew Mitchell says:
“We know that poverty, conflict, and climate change often go hand in hand”.
The paper itself argues that
“The impacts of climate change and nature loss are being felt by everyone, everywhere. Extreme weather, sea level rise and ecosystem collapse are accelerating, with the impacts felt most acutely in developing countries”.
Who now would disagree?
I am struck in the paper by evidence quoted which is of past actions, when DfID existed and the aid budget stood at 0.7%. Projections forward include many suggested ways of seeking to influence the international community rather than actions the UK can take.
Elsewhere, Sir Mark Lowcock, former Permanent Secretary at DfID and UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs argues that:
“The government abandoned the 0.7 percent commitment in 2020. It then raided the remainder of the aid budget in 2021 and 2022 to deal with domestic problems, above all the cost of looking after refugees, especially from Ukraine. The effect was to reduce the aid budget … to about 0.3 percent of national income … A chunk of the remaining budget—about 15 percent … can, as a result of restrictions imposed by the Treasury, only be used to buy assets. Almost all of that has been going into continuous additional capitalisation of British International Investment (BII). BII has its virtues but it is currently ill equipped to play a major role in addressing the core poverty problem”.
What is more,
“all these changes have been landed on the aid budget with essentially no warning, making a mockery of any hope of rational planning or financial management”.
Quite so.
For poorer countries, addressing climate change requires external finance. However, as Oxfam and others point out, well-off and polluting countries have repeatedly failed to meet the agreed pledge to raise $100 billion annually in climate finance and have only recently established a mechanism for funding loss and damage. Poorer countries need such finance to avoid increasing debt burdens—finance that is new and additional. Can the Minister clarify whether the UK, as it seems, is not seeking to meet its commitment with new and direct funding but rather is including payments to development banks and BII? At COP 28, the UK Government pledged £40 million for the loss and damage fund. Is this new money, or has it been taken from an existing part of the aid budget?
The economic shocks of the pandemic and rising food and fuel prices have plunged 54 global South countries into debt crises. Debt Justice notes that they are spending five times more on debt repayments than they are on adapting to the climate crisis. Tackling climate change clearly needs to be a main focus of our international development strategy. The White Paper states:
“The UK Government will take a whole-of-government approach to deliver our strategic vision for international development … to end extreme poverty, tackle climate change and biodiversity loss”.
So what is this “whole of government” doing? The Government plan to issue new oil and gas licences. Alok Sharma, president of COP 26 in Glasgow, says that he cannot support these, arguing that the UK seems to be
“rowing back from climate action”.
Chris Skidmore, commissioned by the Government to review whether we were on course to deliver net zero by 2050, has taken the extraordinary action of resigning as a Conservative MP in protest:
“Where the UK Government once led in promoting climate action at COP26, it now finds itself opposing the International Energy Agency, the UN climate conferences and the Committee on Climate Change.”
This action follows those of the autumn, when the targets for banning the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles were slowed, undermining certainty in the automotive sector, and weakened commitments on heat pumps, where we are massively behind the rest of Europe. Is this what the “whole of government” is doing to deliver on the White Paper?
Mann Virdee of the Council on Geostrategy quotes Benjamin Franklin:
“Well done is better than well said”.
That is indeed the case. The United Kingdom had a long and proud record as a global leader in international development—something that was in our interest, as well as being the right thing to do. It is difficult to re-establish this without the means to achieve it. Meanwhile, the world faces the existential challenge of climate change, which will affect the poorest and the weakest first and the most. There is little evidence that this Government are joined-up in their approach.
I look forward to the contributions of others. I am sure that the Minister will set out all sorts of things that the Government are doing, but I think that, in his heart of hearts, he will wish that he had a stronger hand to play.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her thoughtful address, in which she made a number of extremely important comments. Like her, I much look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate shortly. I want to talk about climate change and then go on to focus more specifically on malaria.
The COP 26 conference was a great success. The Glasgow climate pact, with 90% of the world’s economies committed to net-zero targets, was a remarkable step forward. The House is well aware that developing countries disproportionately are affected by the impacts of climate change, severe weather events, rising sea levels, and disruption to agriculture and water sources. Indeed, at that time, the developed nations reinforced the pledge to provide £79 billion to developing countries annually. This was followed by the recent COP 28—two COPs later—where nearly every country in the world agreed to move away from fossil fuels after 28 years of international climate negotiations. It was a world first getting fossil fuels into a UN climate agreement; again, those in need were recognised.
Of course, I am a great expert in international climate events because I was a bag-carrier at the first international climate conference, in 1989, when Mrs Thatcher was fighting the ozone layer. She was doing so because the British Antarctic scientists had said that there was a gap in the ozone layer—had it been the Spanish, French or German Antarctic survey, I am not so sure how energetic she would have been. But it was the model, and it was rigorously science-based. It was very much the hallmark of British development policy. It was about industrial collaboration and innovation. It was about public relations and an NGO campaign, as well as international action. I would say that that formula has not changed greatly.
I said that I wanted to speak in particular about malaria, one of the world’s oldest and deadliest diseases. It still kills a child every minute, yet it is relatively cheap and easy to address. In the 19th century, Louis Pasteur, the great pioneering French chemist and microbiologist, said:
“It is within the power of man to eradicate infection from the earth”.
But that power has so far eradicated only two infectious diseases: smallpox and rinderpest. Polio is coming closer. The Global Malaria Eradication Programme began in 1955 but was later abandoned. During the 1980s and 1990s, with increased insecticide and drug resistance, and a general deterioration of primary health services, the burden of malaria increased substantially in Africa.
The launch of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has been a great initiative. Supported by seed funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, it has now had five directors. I must declare an interest because Sir Richard Feachem, the fund’s first executive director, was appointed by my organisation, along with around 40 other appointments. It has not used us again—I do not know what that means. This has been a wonderful development. We saw mortality fall by 50% between 2000 and 2015. Of course, Covid has set us back, but 25 countries achieved three consecutive years of zero locally acquired malaria between 2020 and 2021.
There is more that we all have to do, but, as the noble Baroness pointed out, with the UN sustainable development goals, the end of the malaria epidemic by 2030 is definitely achievable. I think that we all welcome the Government’s £1 billion contribution to the seventh replenishment of the global fund, supporting vital tools to combat malaria: the distribution of 86 million mosquito nets, 450,000 seasonable malaria chemo prevention treatments, and treatment and care for 18 million people.
British research, innovation and technology have all played a part. I accept that financial resource is always a great help and I appreciate the problems of limited budgets, but I do not think that anybody should underestimate the leadership of Britain in pioneering initiatives and in tackling global health and development issues. It is the leadership, the science base, the collaborative approach and the consistency that can ensure that we play a real part in reducing climate change and assisting developing nations further.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, and to recognise that questions of health, development, poverty and climate change are all interrelated. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for initiating this debate. I must declare that I am a shortly-to-retire member of your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee, and therefore will concentrate largely on that aspect.
Yesterday’s edition of the Times—which is not normally regarded as an ultra-green broadsheet—reported clearly and with alarm that last year was the hottest on record and probably the hottest for over 100,000 years. It also indicated that it was one of the most disappointing years for the COP process; although the Minister and the UK delegation were helpful in ensuring that it was not quite the disappointment that the petrostates and some of the fossil fuel companies were looking for, it still did not go sufficiently far forward to say that we were on target for the 1.5 degree limit to global warming that was set in Paris, which was concluded to still be possible at the Glasgow COP 26 but now looks to be within 0.02 degrees of being reached already.
I have three essential points. First, this more rapid than expected rise in temperature and the level of carbon emissions, with rising sea levels and extreme floods, extreme heat, wildfires and so forth, means that the very existence of some nation states which are party to the COP process is at stake. Obviously, the low-lying islands of the Pacific and some in the Caribbean are first in line, but there are large areas of other countries, such as low-lying areas of Bangladesh, where agricultural and industrial land could easily be flooded within a relatively few years.
It all makes the case for establishing an effective loss and damage fund, as was agreed in principle but does not seem to have been followed up sufficiently by other nations. The threat has already been sustained to the land, biodiversity and very existence of many of these islands. As far as Britain’s commitment is concerned, we have been more forthcoming than most rich countries in making our contributions to all the bilateral and multilateral arrangements. But we have not even ourselves fulfilled all our commitments, and many other countries are further behind.
What constitutes our ODA budget, let alone our abandonment of the 0.7% target referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is also a complex story. I am indebted to the Library for its briefing on this. The largest single element of ODA expenditure covers refugees in this country. The largest sums of bilateral aid to other countries, by far, were to Afghanistan and Ukraine. I recognise that there are good geopolitical and humanitarian reasons for those contributions, but I am not sure that they should be classed as development. Ukraine is still a developed country, although it is scarred by a vicious war, and Afghanistan is probably the country least threatened by rising sea levels. Pacific nations, which are most at risk, received a very small proportion of aid from Britain. Multilateral aid, as I say, is yet to be fully forthcoming.
My third and last point is that the whole process of COP and the IPCC recommendations mean that we need differential targets for richer countries, less-developed countries and large countries such as India and China—although there are disputes about whether they are to be regarded as developing countries, they are some of the biggest polluters and emitters. They need much sharper targets than we will give to the poorest developing countries. We need formally to recognise that in the COP process, otherwise unity across the nations will not continue.
We need to do that and to recognise not only that we were big polluters historically but that most carbon in the atmosphere has been put there not since 1945 but since 1990, when the world leaders in Rio recognised the truth of the science for the first time. That we have recognised that and let the globe warm to the extent that it has is a rebuke to us all.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate and draw attention to my entry in the register as a consultant at DAI and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, as a non-financial chair of Water Unite and as president of the Caribbean Council.
There is no doubt that the precipitate merger of DfID and the FCO and the accompanying slashing of budgets has had deeply damaging effects. The UK’s reputation as a world leader in development assistance was literally trashed, leaving many vulnerable people bereft and at risk. As my noble friend said, dedicated and experienced development practitioners left the sector and relationships with partner countries were damaged. In this context, I welcome the appointment of Andrew Mitchell and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but that alone will not undo the damage. Under the OBR forecast, the Government’s tests for the restoration of 0.7% will be met by 2027, but the Chancellor said it cannot be done in the next five years. His priority is domestic tax cuts rather than the poor people of the world.
The Motion calls for a particular regard to the UK’s development impact on climate change in developing nations. In 2011, Paddy Ashdown, the late and much-missed Member of this House, published a review of the UK’s response to humanitarian emergencies, commissioned by Andrew Mitchell. One of its key findings was that those best able to acquire resilience were those who had already experienced disasters. The focus had to be on anticipation, prevention, mitigation and rapid recovery. People in developing countries should, of course, benefit from renewable technologies but, for many, the more urgent priority is to mitigate the impact of climate change that developed economies have inflicted on them.
In headlines, the UK makes impressive statements on the commitment to funding climate resilience in developing countries. The 2023 results for UK international climate finance are impressive but they are not stand-alone statistics. How is the four-year spending commitment of £11.6 billion broken down? How much is UK ODA, how much is from other donors, how much is from the private sector and how much is designation of existing ODA spending? Can the Government provide more detailed examples? The only ones in the results are small case studies from Zambia, Madagascar and Mexico.
One of the travesties of the Government’s decision to disrupt aid was the destruction of the cross-party consensus behind the commitment to development spending at 0.7%. That was ended when Johnson and Sunak took over, and we should not let them forget that. Cutting it in the wake of Covid, Brexit and the cost of living crisis was a statement by UK plc to the world’s poor people that we are going to tackle our—partly self-made—problems by cutting development assistance, while their problems get substantially worse.
I will give specific examples. In 2019, UK support for sexual and reproductive health and rights was £748 million; by 2021, it was £534 million. In 2020, our support for the World Food Programme was £549 million; in 2023, it was £286 million. These two areas are crucial to poverty reduction and good development. Giving women access to contraception, to safer, supported births and to safe abortion reduces poverty and improves their contribution within the community, as my noble friend said in her opening speech. With floods, drought and famine, pressure on food supplies, consequent hunger and malnutrition intensify. The World Food Programme has a very good track record of anticipating events and tackling crises.
UK ODA in 2022 was £12.79 billion; it would have been £16 billion if we had not cut it. It was further reduced by the diversion of £3.69 billion to refugee support at home. Development assistance, as previously defined, was cut by £7 billion in a single year. The Government have stated that bilateral aid will be cut again next year to maintain multilateral commitments. It is important to fulfil our obligations, even if this Government have a pretty cavalier attitude to them when it suits them, but this unfortunate choice would not have been necessary if the Government had kept faith with their legal obligation.
In summary, there is a great deal of work to do before the international community will judge the UK to have returned to leadership in international development. An integrated programme of development requires balanced priorities between humanitarian response, climate change, international action and bilateral commitment. When the pressure is on, the Cinderella services suffer. We need to address this. Without doing so, the commitment to leave nobody behind will be impossible to deliver.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, my contribution to this debate will start with tributes to three people. First, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, not just for securing a much-needed discussion of Britain’s contribution to development aid but for her untiring and effective work as a Minister in the coalition Government and in opposition. Secondly, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her principled resignation in protest against the misguided decision to reduce our aid. Thirdly, I pay tribute to the Minister for Development, Andrew Mitchell, for having set out in last November’s White Paper the first reasonably coherent and consistent framework for our aid since the ill-advised upheaval caused by the amalgamation of DfID and the FCO.
Useful though that White Paper was, it lacked one essential element: adequate resourcing to face the worldwide challenges of climate change, pandemic disease, malnutrition, educational shortcomings and war and violent upheavals. The Government say that they will return those resources to 0.7% as soon as our circumstances permit, but what about the circumstances of the developing countries, recipients of aid, which have been just as adversely affected by the Covid pandemic, the cost of living rises and wars in Ukraine and the Middle East? The Government’s assurance has already been repeated several times and a cynic would say that it is all set for serial repetition in the years ahead. It has no credibility. Better, surely, if it is unrealistic—I accept that it is—to revert immediately to the full 0.7%, at least to set out on the path towards it, even if only modestly at first. The opportunity for that is the Budget on 6 March. I urge that it be taken.
How best to link global action against climate change to the situation of developing countries, many of which, let us recall, have contributed little or nothing to the climate crisis we all face? Obviously, we and other donor countries need to make a better job of fulfilling the commitment on aid we have collectively entered into at successive COP meetings, most recently in the UAE. What plans do the Government have to do that? We need to ensure that this increase does not come at the expense of other priorities of the developing country recipients, thus robbing Peter to pay Paul and expecting the global South to accept our priorities over theirs.
The prospect of a substantial number of developing countries, many of them in Africa, requiring urgent debt restructuring, including in some cases outright debt forgiveness, is already in sight. No doubt, as before, many donor countries will argue, short-sightedly in my view, against debt forgiveness. Would it not be better if we were to campaign to link such debt forgiveness to specific recipient country commitments on climate change expenditure? Would that not be a good deal for both? What is the Minister’s response to that sort of approach?
Since 2024 is going to be an election year, I have one final thought. Any change of government that might result will inevitably bring to the fore once again the issue of the government structures for handling our overseas aid. I have myself consistently spoken out against the last set of decisions, which led to the creation of the FCDO. It is not a question of one solution being clearly the right solution and the other being the wrong one; it is the damage caused by the Whitehall turf-fighting and the chaos of departmental reorganisations which make these successive zig-zags so damaging and undesirable. An incoming Government could perhaps give a higher priority to development aid issues other than that one, and in particular to those being highlighted in this debate.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for the opportunity to debate this hugely significant subject. I too am looking forward to the maiden speech by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Winchester, who has real expertise in this area.
When it comes to thinking about the impact of climate change on developing nations, the injustices at play are twofold. First is the fact that those nations that are being and will yet be most affected by climate change are those that have contributed least to the crisis. Secondly, much of the funds that fuelled our Industrial Revolution, wherein were sown the seeds of climate change, were generated by extracting and exploiting the resources of many of those regions, most devastatingly, of course, through the transatlantic chattel slave trade.
Our moral debt is as great as the climate emergency we face, so I was pleased to see that the Government’s international development White Paper, published in November, included “tackling climate change” in its title. I was also most encouraged to read the Government advocating for a move away from donor-recipient models of aid towards partnerships built on mutual respect, putting greater value on the voice, perspectives and needs of developing nations, as well as supporting local leadership. The paper hearteningly states:
“We will engage with humility and acknowledge our past”.
With that in mind, might the Minister inform the House of the outcomes of the Secretary of State’s meeting with the Barbadian Prime Minister in December, and whether they discussed the issue of reparations? Responding with humility and honestly acknowledging our past includes such complex issues, which directly affect a country’s ability or inability to respond to climate change.
I have said that we as a country carry a weighty moral debt, yet for developing nations the financial debt is a more tangible problem, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, have both already mentioned. According to the World Bank, in 2022 the external debts of countries with low and middle incomes reached $9 trillion, double the figure in 2010. The cost of servicing these debt payments is crippling, and drains funds away from what is needed to become climate resilient. Analysis by Development Finance International has shown that lower-income countries spend over 12 times more on debt payments than on adapting to the climate crisis. Indeed, some are turning to fossil fuel extraction to generate the revenue needed to reduce the burden.
We have an opportunity to build on our previous track record of debt relief. Under previous Governments, 49 low-income countries had all or part of their debts to the UK forgiven. Now many creditors are private commercial entities rather than organisations such as the IMF or the World Bank. As a result, 90% of global debt contracts are overseen by English law. We are in a unique position to legislate for private creditors to offer debt relief so climate-vulnerable countries can invest in adapting to the changes that are to come. At COP 28, the UK, along with France and the World Bank, committed to pause debt repayments when climate disasters hit. This is a valuable step forward but, when so little is owed to the UK, should we not at least ask the same of commercial creditors that operate under English law?
Debt and climate are inextricably linked so, now that the Secretary of State has put climate change at the centre of the new international development White Paper, will the Government revisit the International Development Committee’s report on debt relief and reconsider its recommendation for new legislation? We cannot undo the errors of our past, but we can let ourselves be changed by them and commit ourselves to doing justice to our global neighbours. I urge us to play our part in doing so.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate. I am an outlier because I am a pensioner of what was CDC and is now BII. Indeed, I was its chief executive about half way through its history. It is still there, and it is still doing development.
I hope for two things really. The first is that it will be accepted that, in CDC, we always thought of what we were doing from the point of view of the country where we were doing it. We never did it with the western agenda in our minds. Secondly, I hope that the pessimism, the difficulty and the incredible challenge of the debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, does not make us all so uncertain and depressed that in the end we stop trying to do anything. That is a bit extreme but it is a serious danger: if you do not keep trying, you stop doing things altogether.
There are 17 Commonwealth members in sub-Saharan Africa and 13 of them are in the bottom quartile of per capita incomes of the world’s countries. When we work in those countries, do we think about climate change first? I think the answer is: what do they think about first? I suspect that they think that climate change is just another aspect of the problems that they have, which are dominated by food security, so it is just a bit more of the same and not necessarily because there is so much uncertainty about the effects of climate change. People have to think more carefully about some of the certainties they are trying to express. We simply do not know why, perhaps, the yields of maize from the small farmers of Rwanda will start to drop. There is so much that we do not know about it.
I would like to refer quickly to BII, which is doing some very interesting things in relation to the prosperity of small farmers. It has made more than one investment in a Kenyan-based business which builds solar plants to drive pumps to irrigate. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, made a reference to rain-fed agriculture. Of course, we all know that if you can move from rain-fed in a place where there is enough groundwater available and irrigate, your yields will increase dramatically—not just by a little but, in east Africa, dramatically.
In addition, BII is investing in a 50 megawatt, sun-driven power station and distribution system in Sierra Leone—which is not an easy place. That is a very positive move. It has also formed a subsidiary which has just agreed with the Government of Burundi to do something similar. Burundi is the bottom country on the world list—so some things are being done. In addition, right from the beginning of CDC, power has always been on its agenda. Forestry has always been on it, too, and BII is doing some very interesting work on agroforestry. Smallholder farming has always been on the agenda.
I want to move very briefly to Kew, because there we are missing a trick. Kew does a great deal of very valuable work, collecting and distributing information. It is looking into all sorts of possibilities—the power of wild relatives to improve plants, and so on—but it does not do much after collecting and distributing that information. Does my noble friend see Kew joining in the development programme, as opposed to being simply a scientific institution that says, “If you want the information, please apply for it”?
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, we see all too often the terrible impact of climate change on developing countries, from devastating floods in Pakistan to appalling droughts in a number of African countries. Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland, has eloquently set out the impact of climate change on various groups, above all on the poorest of the poor in low-income developing countries. Surely a rich country such as the UK should be doing more to allocate new resources—I emphasise, new funding—rather than recycling money from other development aid allocations, greatly diminishing their impact.
It is also a regret that the Government have reneged on their original pledge to stop new oil and gas installations. It is damaging to our international reputation to increase reliance on fossil fuels, rather than investing in renewables and nuclear power. This of course led to the resignation of a much-respected Climate Change Minister. My first question to the Minister today is: why do the Government continue to provide generous subsidies and tax breaks to oil and gas companies, which are already making profits running into billions? A loophole in the Government’s windfall tax is said to result in £11.9 billion of tax relief for fossil fuel companies in the North Sea. Will the Government close this loophole and allocate the resulting savings to development aid to counter the effects of climate change in poor countries?
I turn now to the Government’s record on climate change finance for developing countries. So many times, we have been told that the Government will return when circumstances permit to 0.7% of GNI for development aid from the current 0.5%. I ask again what the criteria are for the circumstances in which that will be possible. Would the Minister also accept that the international aid budget is being decimated by the decision to cover the cost of asylum seekers and Ukrainian refugees from this source? The combination of these two decisions by the Government has meant massive cuts in many sectors where aid is desperately needed, including a failure to meet government pledges on mitigating climate change in poor countries. Given that the extreme effects of climate change are a fairly new challenge, is there not a case for establishing a special budget for it, beyond existing ODA spending?
Other speakers referred to the international development White Paper, published in November. The recommendations, including on climate change, were mainly welcomed when we debated the White Paper in this House. Regrettably, the Government’s approach does not now seem likely to meet their White Paper aspirations. In 2019, the Government pledged to spend £11.6 billion of the ODA budget on climate finance. Instead of a straightforward allocation of funding to meet this pledge, this Government have found various ways to massage the figures. They have expanded what they categorise as climate finance, increased the risk of double counting and backloaded greater proportions of spending to future years, so that the next Government—whoever they may be—will be landed with extra spending.
There are two good examples of this manipulation. First, the Government are including a share of their contributions to multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank, as climate finance. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, they are going to count more funding going to British International Investment as climate finance. NGOs such as Oxfam and Save the Children have justifiably criticised the Government for reclassifying climate finance in ways that are vague in transparency and accountability. Save the Children calculates that these measures, along with increasing the share of humanitarian aid classified as climate finance, amount to a cut of £1.6 billion to the UK’s climate finance. The Minister is shaking his head, but perhaps he can comment on these claims by the NGOs.
Lastly, I want to turn to the loss and damage mechanism by which higher-emitting nations may help address losses in poor regimes, which are the least responsible for climate change. In contrast to adaptation and mitigation, which help poor countries change their own practices, loss and damage finance relates to areas over which they have little or no control, such as sea level rises or extreme weather events. The UK pledged finance for the loss and damage fund at COP 28, which was welcome. I believe it pledged £60 million to this fund but, yet again, it is financing it by taking funding from existing mitigation and adaptation funding. What is the point of robbing Peter to pay Paul?
I end by saying that poor countries are calculated to have been responsible for only around 5% of global emissions over time. They deserve a better response. There is an overwhelming humanitarian case for generosity. It is also in our long-term interest to avoid the future global disruption entailed by millions of climate change refugees.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am conscious of the immense privilege that is mine to have a seat as of right in your Lordships’ House. I am very grateful for the welcome and help I have received from noble Lords and staff, both today and as I have been inducted into its ways.
The See of Winchester, which I serve, was founded in 660. In 838, at the Great Council of Kingston, King Ecgberht of Wessex entered into a compact with the Sees of Winchester and Canterbury, in return for their promise of support for his son Aethelwulf’s claim to the Throne. Aethelwulf was the father of Alfred the Great. That ancient compact was a key moment in the developing relationship between Church and state that has done so much to shape to the life of this country, as together we have sought the common good—and it is to that theme of the common good that I will return later.
I turn specifically to the matter of this debate. In looking at this issue of international development, I believe we must pay proper attention to two cardinal principles: internationalism and localism. It is vital that, as a country, we take an internationalist approach to international development. Global problems, including climate change, require global solutions, and nothing less will do. But, in all that, the local must not be lost. Effective development must always have purchase at the grass roots in specific contexts and communities, or it will be simply unsustainable.
In my clerical career, I have been immensely privileged to have been given both a broad international perspective and unique insights into the local and particular. I have led a church in a rather unremarked but wonderful corner of south London, and I have led another at the heart of Paris, exercising ministry at the crossroads of the world. I have led a global mission agency deeply committed to pursuing a global agenda through the context of the very local. I have been Bishop of Truro in Cornwall, a place with great international reach historically and with its own much-prized local culture.
I now serve in Winchester, a diocese that can lay good claim to having shaped the wider world—think of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes overseeing the compilation of the authorised version of the Bible and its global impact. But it is also a diocese made up of truly distinctive local places: Winchester, England’s ancient capital; the great port city of Southampton; the burgeoning boroughs of Bournemouth, Basingstoke and Christchurch; our historic market towns; and innumerable picture-perfect Hampshire villages. Each is a place of value in its own right but also part of a greater whole.
This theme of globalism and localism has particular relevance when we look at one theme critical to international development: freedom of religion or belief—FoRB. It is critical because the denial of FoRB is inimical to effective community development. As Bishop of Truro, at the invitation of the then Foreign Secretary, the Member for South West Surrey, the right honourable Jeremy Hunt MP, I authored a report on FoRB, the recommendations of which became and remain government policy. I am hugely grateful to my friend in the other place, the Member for Congleton, Fiona Bruce MP, who holds the role of Prime Minister’s special envoy for FoRB, for her dogged commitment to the implementation of those recommendations, which have even led to the passing of a UN Security Council resolution on this issue for the first time.
In this global struggle for FoRB, in which the UK plays a leading role, we value both the international—this is a universal right and a global problem—and the local, in that it is minority communities that are most under threat from its denial. The denial of FoRB is a scourge on local minority communities and, therefore, on their development. Its denial can be laid squarely at the feet of both weak government and intolerant, authoritarian and nationalistic regimes that brook no dissent. This is therefore a growing global problem that requires a global response, and I am honoured to play my part, along with many others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in such a response.
It is vital that we act globally to protect the distinctive and the local, and there is a moral connection between the global struggle for FoRB and the challenge of climate change. In the end, only plural states with a heart for the common global good, rather than their own self-aggrandisement, will truly care about these issues. So action on FoRB and action on climate change spring from a common concern for the common good. In tackling both, we seek the health and welfare of the whole planet, and a common good that, in the end, can be expressed only through flourishing local communities. Promoting FoRB promotes plural, prosperous and stable states, contributing significantly to international development and global security.
In tackling climate change and FoRB together, we must stand against those regimes that are more concerned with preserving their own power than seeking the local rights of minorities and the global good of the whole planet. I urge His Majesty’s Government to maintain a broad international perspective and to value and treasure the local and particular, both things which make this world so rich and so blessed a place.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to respond to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and, on behalf of the whole House, to welcome him to his place. He is greatly admired here and, as a former Africa Minister told me only this morning, in another place too.
The right reverend Prelate has reminded us of the historical significance of his diocese. Christianity here is said to have had its origins in that part of the world, thanks to the efforts of St Birinus, the Apostle to the West Saxons. Like the right reverend Prelate, Birinus was a missionary, arriving just 37 years after Augustine came to Kent. He was also a predecessor of another saint in Winchester, St Swithin. With such illustrious forebears, we will expect great things of the right reverend Prelate.
The story of the right reverend Prelate’s diocese underscores the long-standing relationship between Church and state, the spiritual and temporal. In referring to Lancelot Andrewes, and his central role in the translation of the King James version of the Bible, the right reverend Prelate reminds us of its hugely influential role in shaping our culture, as well as that of the whole, wider English-speaking world.
The Bible was the right reverend Prelate’s lodestar while serving as executive leader of the Church Mission Society and in his parochial work in London and Paris, following his ordination in 1989, five years after he married Ruth, his wife. In 2018, following his appointment to Truro, and beyond his greatly admired diocesan work in Cornwall, he was asked to put his international experience to good effect. The Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, as we heard, asked him to prepare a report on global persecution. It followed a Times leader, which referred to persecution of Christians and said:
“We cannot be spectators at this carnage”.
Yet silent observers we have too often been.
Open Doors says that more than 360 million Christians suffer at least high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith, that in 1993 Christians faced high to extreme levels of persecution in 40 countries, and that that number had nearly doubled to 76 countries by 2023. When the right reverend Prelate launched his report in 2019, he said:
“If one minority is on the receiving end of 80% of religiously motivated discrimination, it is simply not just that they should receive so little attention … however, this must also be about being sensitive to discrimination and persecution of all minorities”.
In that landmark report, the right reverend Prelate painstakingly set out 22 recommendations, which sought to restore the importance of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the right to believe, not to believe or to change your belief. In giving FoRB—freedom of religion or belief—far greater definition, the Truro review was hugely influential, and I have no doubt that, in joining your Lordships’ House, the right reverend Prelate will bring an authoritative and greatly welcome voice to our proceedings and that from all our Benches we will wish him well in his time here.
Before concluding in the brief moments I have left to speak, I remind the Minister that the full implementation of the Truro recommendations is a manifesto commitment of His Majesty’s Government. I hope that he will look at the link between the implementation of recommendation 7 of the Truro report and genocide and, in the light of what we have seen in Sudan, Tigray, the Middle East and Ukraine, that he will agree to meet me to discuss my Private Member’s Bill on genocide determination and examine the impact of atrocity crimes, especially on developing nations. I would like him to look particularly at the situation in Nigeria and the absurd suggestion—made, I might add, by a Head of State—that climate change was the cause of 40 people being murdered in a church in Ondo on Pentecost Sunday. That claim was strongly contested here, at a meeting I chaired for the Bishop of Ondo, Jude Arogundade.
Climate change and cuts to aid certainly impact development, but so does jihadist ideology, and we should not be frightened in saying so. On Red Wednesday, just a few weeks ago in November, I met Mr and Mrs Attah, two of the Ondo victims. Margaret’s legs were so badly damaged by the jihadist bomb that they had to be amputated. The couple wanted to know—and so do I—why no one has been brought to justice in this culture of impunity. Who is being brought to justice for the further 200 killings in Plateau State in Nigeria just two weeks ago, over Christmas? Why is Leah Sharibu—whose case I have raised regularly in your Lordships’ House and whose mother, Rebecca, I escorted to the Palace of Westminster so that she could meet Members of both Houses—still in captivity, having been abducted, raped and forcibly converted at the age of 14?
Persecution and conflict are major drivers in the displacement of 110 million people worldwide. These drivers destroy lives, such as those that I have just mentioned, and set back development. Conversely—and here I will finish—robust academic work demonstrates that, where persecution is contested and Article 18 freedoms are upheld, those countries are the most stable, the most harmonious and the most prosperous. I hope that the Minister, who I know takes a deep interest in some of these subjects, agrees and will commission more work to push policies based on the Truro recommendations higher up the political, diplomatic and development agenda.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who has done so much on these issues over so many years, deserves and has our thanks for instigating today’s timely and important debate.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly thoughtful and incisive debate, but I gently remind the House that it is time-limited. We want to hear everyone’s contributions and have time for the Minister to answer the questions raised. I therefore make a plea: if all noble Lords could stick to time, that would be marvellous.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, reminded us that 2024 is an election year, and not only for us. More human beings will have the opportunity to cast a ballot in this year than ever before in history. That must be good news, not only intrinsically in itself but from the perspective of climate change.
One of the odd things, although it is rarely noted, is that the democracies are the countries taking the lead in global collaboration. You might think, from first principles, that this would be one of those areas where you could have a benign dictator doing things that would be unpalatable to the electorate, but that is not how it has worked out. Our country has become the first to halve its carbon emissions from the peak—the only developed country so far to do so. We do not see any equivalent action from Russia, China and so on. The spread of democracy, as well as being a good thing for the people of those countries, is good from our perspectives.
However, when we drill down and look at some of those elections, we see that the picture looks rather different. We had the first big election last weekend, in a country with a big population: Bangladesh—I think it has something like 170 million inhabitants. The UK, the US and the European Union have all said, with reason, that it was not a free and fair election. That is unsurprising: the opposition party there, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, which used to alternate with the Awami League in office, has been broken and exiled and its leaders chained. We have the next big election coming up on 8 February in Pakistan, where it is a similar story: Imran Khan has been imprisoned and the PTI party has been broken, with its leaders arrested or exiled. We are moving towards a situation where more and more countries are voting but it is in a performative and perfunctory way. The chief benefit of democracy—namely, the ability peacefully to change your leaders—is being lost.
This ties into our aid policy. Bangladesh and Pakistan were immense recipients of our aid, particularly under the coalition starting with David Cameron’s premiership. There have obviously been cuts since Covid but, just before Covid, Pakistan was getting £330 million-plus a year and Bangladesh more than £200 million. Yet that massive increase in aid coincided with a decline in democracy—they were imperfect democracies, but they are plainly in a worse place now than when that aid money began. I am not saying, by the way, that that aid was useless—it may have had all sorts of good effects in promoting girls’ education or whatever—but it did not correlate with any democratisation.
If we are not using aid as a way of spreading democracy, and therefore getting all these other public goods that we get from it, what can we do? Democracy has been in retreat, globally, probably since the financial crisis. We can measure it in all sorts of ways. The Economist Intelligence Unit has a thing called the Democracy Index. It was expecting a bounce-back in 2022 as the Covid restrictions were lifted, but did not find one: there has been a continued loss of freedom. The International IDEA found the same thing: it saw six consecutive years of decline in democracy. Freedom House says there have been 17 continuous years in which more countries have ceased to be free than have become free. This correlates to the increase in autarchy and self-reliance, as its defenders would call it, since the banking crisis. Just like between the two wars, protectionism and authoritarianism go hand in hand. Indeed, autocrats are as much products as sponsors of economic protectionism.
What can we do if not use our aid budget? I put it to noble Lords that one thing we can do is recall our historic mission as a nation and try to spread globalisation as an instrument of poverty alleviation. It was the single most effective way of doing that. After the Second World War, we saw billions of people lifted out of poverty as their countries ceased to be autarchic and joined global market systems.
This is a much harder argument to make now than it was pre-Covid. We have mercantilist and protectionist policies in Washington, Brussels and Beijing—indeed, sometimes it is being done in the name supposedly of fighting climate change, as with the absurdly misnamed Inflation Reduction Act in the US. If our country has one historic dream and task, it is to raise our eyes above that and to be the place that drags the rest of the world to greater prosperity. It was the elimination of obstacles to trade that lifted this nation to a pinnacle of unprecedented wealth and happiness in the 19th century. It is our task once again, now that we have the opportunity, to do the same, and to lift the rest of humanity with us.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lady Northover for initiating this debate, and I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester on his eloquent maiden speech. I declare my interests as chief executive of United Against Malnutrition and Hunger, co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Africa, and council member of the Royal African Society.
As we have heard, over the past three decades the world has made significant progress in tackling some of the core challenges of development, and the UK’s contribution to that success has been significant. The Department for International Development, now sadly dismantled, was a beacon around the world. The expertise of our academic, scientific and research institutions, and the hands-on knowledge and experience of UK-based INGOs, helped the UK deliver real and lasting impact as part of a sustained global effort to bring about change and progress. That effort brought results. Over recent decades, the proportion of people who were undernourished almost halved. The share of the global population living in extreme poverty fell even more dramatically, from 47% in developing regions to 14%. The incidence rate of TB fell by 17% and of malaria by 40%. The proportion of the world’s population without sustainable access to safe drinking water more than halved. At a global level, gender disparity in education was eliminated.
These are huge successes, and I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that at this time, when the future can seem so bleak and progress can appear almost impossible, it is particularly important that we celebrate this success as a reminder of what we can achieve as a global community if we have the will to do so. Sadly, however, some of these successes have gone into reverse in recent years. As Action Against Hunger pointed out in its excellent briefing, the number of people facing extreme food insecurity is rising, with millions of children dying unnecessarily every year from malnutrition-related causes.
Across the sustainable development goals, progress is well off-track and in several cases has gone into reverse. As the UN Secretary-General has warned:
“Unless we act now, the 2030 Agenda will become an epitaph for a world that might have been”.
The climate crisis is only exacerbating these challenges and, cruelly, the people on the front line are those who have contributed least to climate change and are most vulnerable to its effects.
The facts are stark. The World Bank estimates that climate change could push an additional 100 million people below the poverty line by 2030. The Pentagon describes climate change as a threat multiplier and a key driver of fragility. Stanford University research estimates that climate change has increased economic inequality between developed and developing economies by 25% since 1960. Yet no country in the rich world is acting with anything like the urgency the situation demands. Sadly, the UK’s record in the vanguard of action has now been put at risk as a result of decisions by the current Government in the past year.
The Africa APPG’s inquiry into just energy transition, which is being conducted in conjunction with the Royal African Society and Oxfam, has highlighted the risk of a dangerous disconnect between the global north and global south on what justice means in this context and how it can be delivered. The inquiry has also shown that if we are prepared to work in genuine partnership with the continent, a huge opportunity exists dramatically to increase energy access across Africa, spurring sustainable economic development, while reducing carbon emissions and the health impacts of burning carbon fuels.
For a long time, we talked as if climate change was something that might happen if we did not sort things out soon, but it is not that. It is happening now and has been for a long time. We all know the story about the frog which, if put in a pot of cold water and gently heated to boiling point, will not jump out. Some people say that experiments show that a frog is not so stupid, and these prove the story is not true, but they are wrong. The story is true: it is just that it is not about frogs; it is about humans. The water is literally heating up in the oceans around us, yet we continue to throw fuel on the fire. Now is the time when we have to choose whether to wake up to our responsibilities to the world and to ourselves, and to act with the urgency the moment demands, or to continue to slumber and eventually boil.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and I join in the tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for bringing this vital debate. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate on a wonderful maiden speech.
What we are now doing to the world by degrading the land surface, polluting the waters and adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate, is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is 3 billion tonnes, and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution remains in the atmosphere. At the same time, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical rainforests, which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.
We should always remember that free markets are a means to an end. They would defeat their object if, by their output, they did more damage to the quality of life through pollution than the wellbeing they achieve by the production of goods and services. Each country has to contribute, and industrialised countries must contribute more to help those that are not.
A framework is not enough. It will need to be filled out with specific undertakings and protocols, in diplomatic language, on the different aspects of climate change. These protocols must be binding and there must be effective regimes to supervise and monitor their application; otherwise, nations that accept and abide by environmental agreements, thus adding to their industrial costs, will lose out to those that do not.
These are not my words, though I cite them in a forthcoming book. They are not even borrowed from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, or the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who is to follow me, or David Attenborough, or Greta Thunberg. Whose words are these? For noble Lords who do not immediately recognise them, the clue was in the earlier speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley. I am citing Lady Thatcher’s 1989 address to the UN General Assembly. Daily Mail, please take note.
The problem with Paris is that it contains no individual binding obligations, let alone sanctions relating to the meeting of targets. The regime, as we have heard, lacks a sense of international or historical fairness, given that some of the greatest industrial polluters since 1850 are both most the enriched and least affected by the damage.
Alongside other proposals that have been put to the Minister—and I guess to all five of the warring families of the party opposite—I urge a move back towards internationalism and improving the rules-based order, not just in relation to human rights, as has been advocated by the right reverend Prelate and possibly even the noble Lord opposite, but climate security. We need more internationalism and less unilateralism.
People say that Lady Thatcher responded in that way because she was a trained chemist, and I have no doubt that that was part of the special contribution. However, she was also a lawyer. Lawyers are denigrated by some current Conservatives, but I believe that those two sides of her education inspired that very important speech: science and law. We need both to deal with this crisis.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who made a very powerful point about externalised costs. Currently, the few in many sectors—the few giant multi-national companies—are making a financial killing, while the rest of the human and non-human world pay.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing this debate and introducing it so clearly. Like many, I am tempted to talk about the inadequate, non-manifesto compliant level of UK official development assistance. The fact is that we would all be more secure in a more stable world if we were spending more on ODA. The Green Party says double the Government’s current level, and that should be applied to real development assistance, not housing refugees in the UK—as much as we should be doing that as well.
After the year we have just had, the warmest in probably 100,000 years, I was tempted, like the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to focus on the extreme urgency of climate mitigation. That is roughly half the time our species has been on this planet, and this is the warmest year. It is certainly, by a substantial margin, the hottest since records began. I was also tempted, as Debt Justice has been doing, to focus on the way the global debt crisis is preventing climate action, particularly in the 54 hardest-hit global south nations. Global south countries are currently spending 12.5 times more on debt repayment than they are on climate adaptation.
The Minister might be surprised to hear that in the short time available to me, I am going to focus instead on some money that the Government could stop spending on official development assistance, money that might instead be redirected towards supporting women and girls’ grassroots organisations as a foundation of a feminist foreign policy, for example. This area is of particular interest to the Minister: agriculture. I am relying in part on a briefing from Compassion in World Farming and on some excellent research for which I credit the House of Lords Library, which conducted it for me at speed. Compassion in World Farming, as the name suggests, is focused on the well-being and welfare of non-human animals. It points to an independent review for the FCDO that suggests that the department should
“work through its programmes, with the Governments in programmes’ countries of operation, to establish agreed levels of animal welfare”.
My direct question to the Minister is: will the Government be doing that?
However, we are focused today on the climate emergency, and with that in mind I want to look in particular at the activities of the International Finance Corporation, which is a member of the World Bank Group. Andrew Mitchell MP, in his role as Minister of State for Development, is a member of the IFC board of governors. The IFC has in recent years funded private sector projects including: a multi-storey pig farm in China; industrial pig production in Vietnam; industrial broiler chicken production in Uganda; and industrial pig and chicken production in Ecuador. Will the UK use its influence to stop that damaging funding of factory farming? As I often reflect in your Lordships’ House, it is a huge threat in terms of antimicrobial resistance and is wasting food that could be fed to people, instead feeding it to animals which convert cereals and plant proteins very inefficiently into meat and milk. Globally, 40% of crop calories are used to feed animals when they could be feeding people.
Of course, these factory-farming installations also contribute to massive deforestation and other environmental damage, creating manure as a major pollutant, even though, if we had small-scale agricultural agro-ecological regenerative approaches, it could be a fertiliser on arable crops. Many studies have shown that will not be possible to meet the Paris targets without a reduction in global livestock production. Therefore, will the Government do something—take action to seek to persuade the IFC to stop this damaging funding—and, furthermore, commit to ensuring that no direct UK aid goes to factory farming?
On agriculture more broadly, I am sure the noble Lord is aware of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact paper, UK Aid to Agriculture in a Time of Climate Change, from June 2023. The Government then, in responding to that, committed to
“ensure all new UK bilateral aid spending does no harm to nature”
by ensuring that it is all “nature positive”. That was a commitment in the international development strategy of May 2022. Can the Minister tell me whether that is true of everything that was funded in 2023?
Finally, we have to tie all this together: the welfare of our natural world, of our climate and of people. Food security is one of the crushingly important issues of the coming age. The Government themselves, at least sometimes, acknowledge that small-scale agro-ecological production is crucial both to improving nutritional standards and to ensuring that we live within the Paris Agreement. Are the Government ensuring that they stop funding both industrial agriculture of all forms, and that they are funding the agro-ecological small-scale production the world needs?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, we need developing countries to join us in the progress towards net zero, but we also want them to develop. I am delighted to see that this conundrum was dealt with at COP 28 and that it was widely recognised and supported that developing countries need what was referred to as transition fuel. In other words, we need to accept that they will burn more hydrocarbons for some considerable time in order to develop, and therefore they will go through a process of development, at the same time moving towards net zero as they become rich enough to afford that.
That is a process that we, through our international development operations, really ought to be supporting. We have the expertise in this country—we have some great consulting engineering companies, such as Buro Happold and others—and there is an awful lot to be gained from collaboration. Although each country will be different, there will be a lot of similarities. Helping countries through this process in a co-ordinated way is something that we ought to be really good at, and by being involved in that we will earn ourselves respect and credit in the help we are giving to countries that wish to develop. However, if we are to go through that process, we have to be truthful. We have to talk about real costs and real performance; we cannot afford the comfortable myths that we indulge in ourselves. These are countries at the margin where every bit matters.
To pick up on what the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, have said, we need to look at systems, not individual bits. You must look at the whole picture, and we have not been doing that. I asked the Library for help on three particular aspects of that. It is widely said that cows cause climate change, but there is no scientific demonstration of that. They are just part of the carbon cycle. Methane and carbon dioxide are emitted all over that cycle. If you removed the cows, something else would be doing the emitting. You have to look at the whole system: cows against what?
There is a lot of argument that aeroplanes are a lot more CO2 intensive than, say, railways, but they are much cheaper. There is no analysis that the House of Lords Library can find that looks at the system and reconciles the fact that trains are more expensive with their total CO2 emission, which is being paid for by those fares, and compares that with a similar analysis for planes.
On microplastics, which people get very exercised about, there is no science that says they are harmful. What is obvious is that they are sequestering carbon dioxide. They are burying carbon for a long time. They may be untidy, but that is what they are doing. There is nothing to show that they are harmful to any biological system. They are present, but there is no science to show they are harmful. We can say “Oh, we don’t like it, and we won’t tolerate this stuff”, but you cannot impose those additional costs if you are doing something in developing countries.
We should also be looking at positive things we can do to help. It is clear that there is a new ocean developing in east Africa. We know from the Icelandic experience that this is potentially a huge source of geothermal energy. We really ought to be helping the countries along the Rift Valley to benefit from that in a co-ordinated way to help them reap that source of CO2-free energy. In other areas too, we ought to be looking at how we can bring the technology which countries will need to go carbon neutral to them in a co-ordinated, supportive way and to use all our accumulated expertise and make it available to them through our international development efforts.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, it is an extremely hard act to follow the noble Lord, so I shall not. My thanks today go to the noble Baroness, who over many years has been a stalwart of international development in this House and, more recently, on the effects of climate change in developing countries. My particular interest is in Sudan and South Sudan, because of the continuing conflict and genocide there. I am especially concerned about migration, like my noble friend Lord Alton, and the limits of international aid in that region.
Climate change is one of the drivers of migration and therefore concerns us directly as we attempt to reduce the numbers coming across the channel. The Government have got wound up over these numbers, and in my view are not doing enough to slow the original causes through our aid programme, to address the trafficking problem in north Africa as a whole, or to publicise what we and other European countries are already doing. The result is that the country’s concerns seem to be entirely insular, concerned with our backlog and lack of hospitality, and we are even donating some of our limited aid to the Home Office. We have, on the other hand, pioneered the international response to climate change, as we have heard, and our efforts towards climate finance need more recognition and evaluation. I will come back to that.
The situation in north Africa and the Sahel has become more chaotic. Libya in particular is now one of the main sources of trafficking via a string of unsafe detention centres, despite EU funding. France is withdrawing from the Sahel countries where Russia or the Wagner Group have provoked changes of government. The UK’s involvement in the Sahel is minimal, yet the instability and threats from jihadi groups there are bound to rebound on us, as on other European countries. We need to pay more attention to those areas.
It is often impossible to separate climate change from conflict, since the two go together. A well-known example is the long border dispute at Abyei, half way between Sudan and South Sudan, where pastoral interests have clashed with settled farming for years, even within the Dinka people. Exceptional floods and droughts have recently exacerbated this conflict, and now civil war in the north has caused thousands to flee south into that area. International intervention has failed and will probably fail again, but—I note the experience of our new Member on the Benches of the right reverend Prelates—civil society, especially local churches, is struggling to resolve it. The Minister may confirm that the FCDO has been behind some of these efforts. Christian Aid, for example, helps church leaders in Sudan to represent grass-roots voices in advocating for peace and to lay the groundwork for reconciliation. I live in the Salisbury diocese, which is also supporting this effort through its Sudan partnership. Other NGOs work on conflict prevention.
That leads me back to climate change. The ICF, our international climate finance programme, is currently spending £5.8 billion over a five-year period. I am glad that ICAI, the watchdog, has been following the ICF’s progress quite closely and positively. It is going to report to Parliament soon in a rapid review; in particular, it will explain how the ICF contributes to enabling global climate action. It may help to sort out the confusion in my mind about the use of our aid programme. For example, one of the FCDO’s oldest projects is the productive safety net programme in Ethiopia. Much of it is being recategorised, yet that will do nothing to improve Ethiopia’s global response. Is that really the intention? Can the Minister explain this when she answers the similar criticism from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone?
I have no time to talk about Sudan. I say to the splendid remarks from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that we must keep trying. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that we are doing soft power.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl; I always find myself in agreement with him. I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester for his commendable maiden speech. I add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Northover for securing this important and timely debate. Time is short so I am grateful to her for laying out the issues so comprehensively. I associate myself with her remarks, in particular her rebuke—and those of other noble Lords—of the Government for playing fast and loose with the reduced ODA budget by shamefully reclassifying spends and redefining climate finance. In effect, they are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I will start with some facts. They are mostly taken from NASA’s website; I hope that they will provide context for my call to our Government to stop sending mixed messages. First, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 420 parts per million, an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Secondly, the rate of global warming since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia and accelerating. Thirdly, global emissions from fossil fuels reached record levels again in 2023. Fourthly, last year saw an unexpected and unexplained spike in global sea temperatures, especially around the North Atlantic and the seas around the UK, and last year was the warmest year on record globally. I will stop there, but there is plenty more hard evidence pointing to accelerating climate change, maybe more aptly referred to now as climate breakdown.
We are in the last chance saloon. The time for action to save our planet is now. This is the decade in which we must act. It is also time to equip developing countries to join the fight against increasing emissions, but they need resources to do so. Some, such as the small island developing states, are fighting for their very survival. COP 28 gave them early hope, when agreement was reached on the loss and damage fund. However, the end goal of reaching agreement to phase out fossil fuels was watered down by the weaker agreement to transition away from fossil fuels. Their disappointment was bitter. They were in effect being asked to sign their death warrant. Will the Minister work to make the loss and damage fund meaningful, so that countries are not left saddled with crippling debt and existing funds are not used to fill it?
I will say a few words about the impact of climate breakdown on global health. As a trustee of the Malaria Consortium, I will use malaria as an example. The fact is that wetter, warmer conditions mean that malaria is on the increase. For example, catastrophic flooding in Pakistan in 2022 led to a fivefold increase in malaria cases, and WHO’s World Malaria Report 2023 tells us that cases worldwide have risen to 249 million. With the two vaccines now at our disposal, this terrible disease, which has been with us for millennia, could be consigned to history, but in 2022 we reduced our contribution to the Global Fund’s seventh replenishment by a third, from £1.48 billion to just £1 billion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, pointed out, the Global Fund leads the charge against the scourges of TB, HIV/AIDS and malaria. What does our reduction to that fund signal to the world? Does the Minister agree that our Government must do much more to support the eradication of this dreadful disease, which is now within our grasp? It would be nothing short of enlightened self-interest. The West is fast becoming a hospitable climate for the malaria mosquito and the mosquito that spreads dengue fever.
In conclusion, the mixed signals that I talked about at the start of my contribution must stop. We cannot mouth support for the loss and damage fund and then reduce our historical support for the Global Fund. Nor can we welcome the COP 28 text calling for countries to transition away from fossil fuels and give the go-ahead for a new coal mine in Cumbria, as well as put into legislation the farcical offshore petroleum Bill for an annual round of new oil and gas licences. I put to the Minister that we must behave more honourably if we are to continue to claim credibility as a leader in climate action.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I too express my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing this debate and congratulate my right reverend friend the Bishop of Winchester on his informative and passionate maiden speech.
The UK rightly has a distinguished record in overseas development aid and I look forward to the urgent return to the Government’s manifesto commitment of 0.7% of GDP being spent on it. There also needs to be transparency in new funding announcements about whether the funding is new money or comes from salami-slicing existing programmes. The priorities for climate change aid must be focused on three areas: mitigation, resilience and emergency response. I will look briefly at each in turn.
The first is working both locally and globally to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. There is a myriad of small projects, often led by faith communities, to protect land, restore habitats, nurture soil and plant trees. Faith actors are accessible as they are in every community. They are affordable, due to their existing structures and volunteers, and they are acceptable due to being trusted partners on the ground in local cultures. But they also connect globally, giving a bigger picture and attracting solidarity from faith communities around the world. Welling up inspiration from their faith, they are great advocates for the care of creation.
One such initiative—I declare an interest here as I am much involved in it—is the global Anglican Communion Forest, which seeks to conserve, protect and restore ecosystems across the world. Last year, the Anglican Church in Tanzania planted more than 300,000 trees across 69 villages. The Anglican Church in Kenya planted 2 million trees and is planning to plant 15 million more by 2026. The Anglican Church in Mozambique is involved in restoring mangrove swamps, which both protect coastlines and enhance biodiversity. These small projects inspire people to go further to protect and enhance their environment. Will the Government work more closely with faith communities, which are so often on the front line of the delivery of ecosystem services that absorb carbon as well as on the front line of the adverse impacts of climate change?
Secondly, we need to build resilience to the impact of more extreme weather events caused by climate change. As your Lordships have already heard, last year was the hottest on record and it is no coincidence that floods, cyclones, droughts, et cetera, killed or displaced millions of people. If we do not build resilience, we will see increasing health inequalities, poverty, conflicts and migration, due to the impact of climate change on people’s lives, resources and safety. The UNHCR estimates that 70% of all refugees from conflict come from countries that are highly vulnerable to climate. Aid in this area is money well spent for the future. I express my gratitude to the Government for, on various occasions, providing match-funding opportunities to lever in further faith-based support for the world’s poorest communities.
Finally, we need to respond really well by providing the right emergency aid to affected nations. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned Christian Aid; a new analysis by it said that the 20 costliest extreme climate disasters in 2023 revealed a
“global postcode lottery stacked against the poor”,
where the relative economic impact of disasters varies considerably across countries. In the world’s economically poorest nations, few households have any financial buffer to help them bounce back after a disaster. As well as more deaths in the immediate aftermath, this means that recovery is often slower and more unequal, with many people pushed further into poverty as their assets have been destroyed or damaged.
Part of our moral duty as a nation is to reach out to our global neighbours. Part of this can be seen in the commitment we might make to the loss and damage fund, so will the Minister make its operationalisation an urgent priority? This is the task for our generation in this decade.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, as the last Back-Bench speaker, I will try to be brief and avoid repetition as far as possible, let alone hesitation or deviation. I thank and pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, not just for her compelling introduction but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, for her long record in this field in and out of government. I will focus my remarks exclusively on the role that sustainable media plays in international development generally, particularly in relation to climate change. I declare my interest, as included in the register, as chair of the not-for-profit Thomson Foundation, which, along with its sister organisation in Berlin, promotes sustainable media development and trains journalists in countries with either low incomes or low press freedom, or both.
Six weeks ago, I attended the annual awards ceremony of the Foreign Press Association, addressed this year by Her Majesty the Queen. One of the award winners was the documentary film “Under Poisoned Skies”, directed by Jess Kelly for BBC News Arabic, which revealed the devastating effect on the health of local people caused by gas flaring in the giant oil fields of southern Iraq, over and above the deeply damaging level of emissions. So far, this film has had neither the ratings nor the political impact of “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, but it demonstrates vividly the role of the media in raising awareness and prospectively spurring action against climate change and related threats to the health of people in developing nations.
“Under Poisoned Skies” was financed by the BBC World Service, whose funding since 2014 has been predominantly from the licence fee rather than the then FCO, following the ill-judged settlement between the BBC and the Government, which paralleled the later raids on the international development budget described by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and other speakers.
Policies to combat climate change cannot be imposed on developing nations: they must emerge with the wholehearted consent of those countries’ people, based on accurate and truthful information. That is why the Thomson Foundation strongly believes that local journalists in developing nations have a vital role to play in changing the narrative around the world’s environmental breakdown and climate change. The foundation, funded inter alia by the FCDO, the British Council and, through Berlin, the EU, provides online e-learning courses and webinars and holds competitions for environmental journalists and workshops in countries including Lesotho and Ethiopia.
Media developments straddled the FCO and DfID when they were separate departments, so if there were any positive arguments for their merger, as opposed to a continuation of the cross-departmental co-operation described by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, this might have been one. It is therefore disappointing that November’s White Paper, welcome as it is in other ways, made no attempt to capitalise on the merged department by including any reference to the vital role that strong and free media plays in achieving international development objectives. Will the Minister urge his colleagues in the FCDO to incorporate the promotion of sustainable media as a priority in the international development policy that I hope will emerge from the White Paper?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the House welcomed the maiden speech, as I do, and recognised, rightly, the exceptional introduction of this debate by my noble friend Lady Northover. I pay tribute to her distinguished role as a DfID Minister and for raising the associated issues with such consistency in this House. Her role as a DfID Minister and her contributions are one example of why I think the case is very strong for there to be an independent development department again—not one that simply will recreate DfID but, in my mind, an independent development department for global transition, which is focused on the issues we have been debating today, and one where the UK would be seen as a dependable, predictable and reliable leader, but also a partner when countries are grappling with those challenges of transition towards zero poverty and also on climate.
This is traditionally the week when we wish Members a happy new year. For many people around the world, it is hell on earth they see—in Sudan, with the ongoing conflict there, and in Palestine, where women and children are bearing the brunt of conflict. If you add the climate emergency, which impacts disproportionately on women and children, particularly the newborn and the most elderly and frail, this is not a happy new year for those people.
During the Christmas break, just before Christmas, I was in Nairobi with Sudanese civilians in the Takadum programme, who are seeking an end to the conflict in Sudan, which has caused the greatest humanitarian crisis on the planet at the moment. I returned this morning from Malawi, a country which is one of the most vulnerable to the climate crisis. I visited the parliament yesterday, and MPs; the UK has recognised that it is a priority country. The FCDO website says that
“Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world and ranks 171 out of 189 in the Human Development Index, with 70% of the population below the ($1.90) poverty line”
and is
“vulnerable to climatic shocks and demographic challenges”.
The UK supported Malawi in 2018-19 with £82 million. This year, that is now £23 million. The UK response to one of the most desperately needy and vulnerable countries in the world is to give support that is less than a third of what it was before, and that is not estimated even to grow to more than £28 million in 2027.
With regard to climate, my noble friend Lady Northover welcomed the fact that the Minister responding has a dual portfolio, with environment and also FCDO, because she raised the need where the UK has offered practical support and transition advice for many of those advisers that have been so welcomed working with other countries. The Minister will know the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, in its review on aid and agriculture, found that we now have cut the experts for agricultural advice by 25%. That means that countries are less equipped, because there are fewer UK advisers working with them with regard to climate transition and agriculture.
On climate, no doubt the Minister will refer to the £100 million of UK funding announced at COP 28; I am sure that is in his contribution. He will cite the £18 million for an innovative new programme to adapt and strengthen health systems. I suspect what he will not say is that the cuts for neglected tropical diseases and cuts in health systems made prior to that included a 95% cut for neglected tropical diseases and health systems, where the UK had led a global flagship programme on transition and climate. We know that one of the impacts of climate change is the increase in disease and those debilitating conditions which the UK has cut aid on, so there is little point in issuing press releases announcing £100 million extra, where just a few months before, £150 million had been cut from health systems.
Taking us for fools is one of the more wearisome policies of this Government. Deliberately misleading statements on development have become a bit of an art form. For example, restoring the legal requirement of 0.7% of GNI on ODA “when the fiscal circumstances allow”, a position now depressingly adopted by the Labour Party too it seems, is misleading because the fiscal tests were designed never to be met. Unique across all departmental expenditure, a distinct set of fiscal tests was put in place, but the Government hit a bit of a snag. When they announced the fiscal tests in July 2021, the Chancellor said, in a Written Ministerial Statement, that
“the Government commit to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when the independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s fiscal forecast confirms that, on a sustainable basis, we are not borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/21; col. 3WS.]
In March 2022, page 129 of the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook said:
“At this forecast, the current budget reaches surplus and underlying debt falls from 2023-24”.
The Government did not expect the fiscal tests to be met, but they were, so what did they do? They changed the tests. We are now in a situation where it is very hard to believe the Government when they say that they are committed to restoring 0.7% when they set tests to be judged by an independent body and, when those tests are met, they simply change the rules.
It is suspicious, because we also might see some of that with regard to the commitments to international climate finance. The Minister no doubt will say that we are committed to £11.6 billion on international climate finance. He is nodding, and I am looking forward to hearing it, as it means he is able to answer the question I am about to ask him. The commitment given by the Government on international climate finance seems to have a fair amount of double-counting in it. From what was announced, we understood it to be £11.6 billion of new money. What we now understand is that the Government are double-counting humanitarian assistance on climate finance of £542 million and double-counting commitments to multilateral development banks of £920 million, and £159 million which has been committed through BII, which has been referred to, is seemingly included within the £11.6 billion. The Minister is clearly going to be saying something about the commitment, and I am sure the Box will be able to give him information that all of that £11.6 billion is new money, not that which had been committed beforehand.
We are now in a situation where the UK is not a reliable partner, is not predictable and is not dependable. My party favours an immediate restoration of 0.7%, because it is in our interests and the world’s interests. We would establish an independent department for international development and we would put the sustainable development goals, particularly the elimination of absolute poverty and climate transition, at the heart of international development spending. We would immediately restore full funding for programmes supporting women, girls and equality.
I close with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, referred to: the record number of people around the world voting this year. There is likely to be a fair number of people in this country doing so, and many of them will be looking at parties’ commitments on international development. Boris Johnson promised he would not get rid of DfID and then shortly got rid of it. Liz Truss promised to reverse the savage cuts to women and girls aid programmes and a month later reneged on it. Our current Foreign Secretary criticised the unlawful cuts to ODA, which he now defends around the Cabinet table. Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, David Cameron: why on earth would many of those people who will be casting their democratic vote trust Conservative Foreign Secretaries and aid funding ever again?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for initiating this debate. She has a tremendous record on this subject; of course, when I first met her, she was an International Development Minister. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. We first exchanged comments at the conference on freedom of religion or belief, which I was at because that is such an important subject. It is about not only the freedom to practise religion; it is also the freedom not to have one. Countries that allow that can cherish and protect all human rights, as he said. That is why it is so important and I welcome his ongoing contribution.
At the launch of the Government’s recent White Paper on international development, Andrew Mitchell acknowledged the United Kingdom’s historic role in such development. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I welcome its future focus but we need a clear understanding about where we are heading. To have that, we also need a frank assessment of where we have been.
One of Labour’s lasting achievements had been to forge a new political consensus around development. To his credit the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, sustained that commitment as Prime Minister, keeping Britain on the path to 0.7% that Labour had set it on. But under the direction of Rishi Sunak, this Government have retreated from Britain’s commitments: cutting our development target from 0.7% to 0.5%, as we have heard, and stripping billions from vital aid programmes in the process. The speed of those cuts is what was most damaging. Without any proper planning, they caused huge damage, particularly to our credibility as a trusted partner. We also then saw delivery undermined through a bungled merger between DfID and the Foreign Office, deprioritising development, sapping morale and pushing out expertise that we had built up over so many years.
I want to give a bit of focus for hope to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, because Labour’s foreign policy will focus on delivering security and prosperity for Britain. Our development policy will be no different by rebuilding Britain’s reputation, reasserting Britain’s partnership and, as my noble friend Lord Chandos said, developing a clear soft-power strategy. That is crucial in building the alliances needed to take on the foreign policy challenges of the 21st century and tackle the underlying causes of instability, which threaten Britain and the multilateral system.
There is an abundance of economic potential in the global South, with young populations eager to make change, and a new generation of political leadership, particularly women. They are being held back by the challenges of climate change, debt and the risks of conflict. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, it is important that in this debate we focus on debt and its direct linkage to the climate crisis. It is vital that climate finance mechanisms do not force vulnerable countries deeper into debt.
As we also heard in this debate, multilateral partnerships such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria have been critical in the progress towards the 2030 agenda and the SDGs, yet multilateral aid is projected to fall to just 25% of aid spending by 2025. We need to continue to raise awareness of the intersection between global health and climate change on the global stage, while working to improve climate resilience in healthcare systems and ensuring that climate-sensitive diseases such as malaria, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, highlighted, are factored into health programmes. We know that malaria is a climate-sensitive disease, threatening hard-won progress in many areas.
I declare an interest as co-chair of the Nutrition for Development APPG, and I have raised in previous debates the issue of food insecurity and malnutrition. Investment in nutrition has a key multiplying effect. It plays a critical role in health, education, economic advancement and gender equality. It is fundamental, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, to achieving most of the sustainable development goals. Climate change is a key threat to previous global progress on malnutrition and hunger. Changing weather patterns are leading to more frequent and severe droughts, flooding, poor crop yields, lower national content in produce and destroyed harvests. It is not only affecting people’s access to food, but the quality of food and therefore nutrition. Studies have made that absolutely clear.
Last November’s global food security summit in London—I welcomed the fact that we were engaging with others to address this issue—demonstrated the UK Government’s recognition of the importance of food security and nutrition. But we need more than just words; we need action. We need a clear understanding that we will maintain all the commitments we made at the last nutrition for growth summit in Tokyo, and that we will focus on the targets set out at that summit.
We need significant investment in climate-resilient food systems and a proper focus on food and security systems. That is why what was decided at COP 28 was so important. There, Britain took an important step by committing £100 million to support communities particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. I hope the noble Lord can focus on the questions about how that will be delivered and the timetable for delivery.
By focusing on where Britain has most to offer, Labour will refocus development co-operation back on to eliminating poverty by supporting partners with economic transformation, prioritising conflict prevention, working for fairer deals on debt and unlocking climate finance. Our new approach will be based on respect—a genuine partnership with the global south, supporting its plans, as the noble Viscount said, to build stronger partnerships while supporting jobs and innovation at home. What we want to see, and what will give hope to global partners, is a Britain reconnected as a trusted partner, providing longer-term sustained development funding and support. Working in partnership to strengthen the multilateral system, we can leverage more of the funds needed to meet the global goals, modernise developing economies and build resilient public services to create lasting change.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the nature and environment activist Tony Juniper, now chairman of Natural England, wrote a very good book called What Has Nature Ever Done For Us? He showed the equivalent of the life of this planet in a train journey from London to Cambridge. Humanity’s existence on that journey is the equivalent of just walking from the train to the ticket machine. Only the last few steps of that equivalent journey have created the existential threat of climate change and the loss of nature that we know is so damaging and that can deliver such appalling insecurity and poverty, and which we are seeking to tackle.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I do not have time to do all the contributions credit, but I pay great tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for tabling it and for her years of dedication to international development.
Tackling climate change and ending poverty are two sides of the same coin, and we cannot achieve one without the other. The United Kingdom has a crucial role to play, working with our partners to address these critical global challenges. I thank the noble Baroness for setting the debate in context, and I pay great tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester for an outstanding maiden speech, in which he stated both the internationalist and the local approach, picked up by so many noble Lords. His was a really thoughtful contribution, and we are lucky to have him among us.
We cannot achieve our climate or development goals without full-scale economic transformation to deliver the trillions of dollars of investment needed. This must be coupled with unprecedented action to tackle climate change and to protect and restore nature. Our White Paper, which has been much commented on in this debate, was published in November. It establishes seven areas of transformative action, and this is how we will deliver a step change in international development by the end of the decade, ending extreme poverty and tackling climate change.
Among the key elements is going further and faster to mobilise international finance and increase private sector investment in development, while strengthening and reforming the international system to improve action on trade, tax and, crucially, debt, which was mentioned by many noble Lords—as well as tackling the scourge of dirty money, of course. This is also the key to unlocking the money needed to tackle global challenges, including climate change. We will build on resilience and enable adaptation for those affected by conflict, disasters and climate change. We will harness innovation, new technologies and scientific research to solve the problems that money alone cannot solve.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was right to remind us that linked to this is the whole humanitarian piece. The Pentagon first described climate change as the great risk multiplier, and, with that risk to security, systems of governance collapse. With that comes increased authoritarianism—my noble friend Lord Hannan referred to this. In the White Paper, there is a stark graph showing the number of people in the world who now live under authoritarian regimes, compared to a few years ago.
The global context for international development has changed, and the White Paper sets out our approach and how it is changing with it. We will work in partnership, based on mutual respect, with leaders, communities and individuals shaping the solutions they need. This includes our work to reduce emissions, adapt to climate change and protect and restore nature. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Eccles for mentioning Kew. At a number of recent COPs, we have seen how Kew is at the heart of this, with its 500 scientists delivering an extraordinary piece of soft power for Britain and a real gift to the world, in the understanding of the importance of plants and natural systems. I am grateful to my noble friend, who led it so well in the past. It is absolutely key to the kind of partnerships that we are creating around the world.
We also partner with countries to improve access to climate adaptation finance. For example, we co-chair the climate and development ministerial meetings with the UAE, Vanuatu and Malawi. The forum has already taken significant steps, including raising support for debt-suspension clauses in times of disaster and launching a task force to improve access to climate finance. Overall, the UK will prioritise its grant resources for the lowest-income countries and communities, which are particularly vulnerable to the effects of conflict and climate change. We will go further and faster to mobilise more finance to help end extreme poverty and tackle the climate crisis.
I will mention the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich’s absolutely vital point about using local actors, as well as Church-based and faith-based organisations, along with civil society—this is so important. As was mentioned, in countries such as South Sudan, it is really important that we use them as part of the tools we need to win through.
Beginning with our work to reduce emissions, we remain committed to delivering net zero at home and driving progress internationally to keep 1.5 degrees centigrade within reach. Over the past 12 years, our international climate finance has provided almost 70 million people overseas with improved access to clean energy. We also reduced or avoided 86 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. The deal at COP 28 is a key moment in efforts to get to net zero by 2050. For the first time, there has been a global agreement to transition away from fossil fuels, and I am proud of the UK’s pivotal role in the negotiations—but we still have a long way to go. We will continue to work with countries around the globe to accelerate action in this critical decade. I remind noble Lords who are concerned about recent announcements that we are reducing our dependency on our own oil exploration by 7% a year.
I turn to critical minerals. The green transition must not come at the expense of countries—often less developed ones—with critical mineral resources. The UK is working through the G7 and G20 with the IEA, through forums such as the Minerals Security Partnership, to support diverse, responsible and transparent critical mineral supply chains. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and her colleagues in the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Critical Minerals for their efforts on this vital issue.
I turn to adaptation. Over the past 12 years, our international climate finance has helped more than 100 million people cope with the effects of climate change. Our negotiators helped to agree a framework at the COP 28 summit to bring a global goal on adaptation to life; although there is further work to be done, this is a critical step towards more meaningful action. For those who doubt Britain’s place in multilateral diplomacy, on climate and nature, we were really at the heart of that COP and previous ones—and I pay huge tribute to all those who take part. We demean them if we talk it down; this was an extraordinary result. We were extremely gloomy about the possibility of getting the kind of agreement that we did, and certainly to start the whole thing with an agreement on loss and damage was very welcome.
My colleague, the Minister for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, announced at COP 28 £100 million of UK funding to help vulnerable people adapt to climate change. That includes £36 million for action in the Middle East and north Africa to support long-term climate stability; that will mobilise $500 million for clean energy and green growth projects, and support 450,000 people to adapt to climate change.
COP 28 also reaffirmed the importance of forests—and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for mentioning that—and nature, in tackling the climate crisis. I could list all the amounts of money that we have put towards that, but it is a crucial part of the work that we need to do globally to get the planet back on track.
We know that aid alone will not be enough when the annual financing gap for achieving the sustainable development goals is $3.9 trillion. We must unlock finance from other sources, and mobilise more private capital to low- and middle-income countries—a key point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. The UK is a major donor to international climate finance. At the G20, the PM announced that the UK will provide $2 billion to the Green Climate Fund, which is the biggest single funding commitment that the UK has made to help tackle climate change. Half of that contribution will go to adaptation.
Overall, we remain committed to spending £11.6 billion of new money on international climate finance by April 2026, including £3 billion to restore and sustainably manage nature. We are committed to tripling UK funding for adaptation to £1.5 billion next year to support those experiencing the worst impacts of climate change. The UK is delivering on its commitment. I have been party to lengthy discussions on this, and I assure noble Lords that we are serious about this.
We have heard the increasing calls from developing countries to reform the international financial system. The Prime Minister launched the global climate finance framework at COP 28 alongside leaders from Barbados, Kenya, India, France and others. This sets a new ambition on reforming finance to address our climate and development goals. A key pillar of reform is multiplying our impact by unlocking hundreds of billions of affordable finance from international financial institutions for key development priorities, and I shall visit one of those next week.
Our guarantees to multilateral development banks—a point that was raised—are also doing this. At the UN General Assembly, we announced a guarantee to unlock up to $1.8 billion of climate finance, supporting vulnerable people across Asia and the Pacific to adapt to climate needs. To note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the UK is leading the way on making the global financial system more shock responsive. We were the first to offer climate-resilient debt clauses in loans from our export credit agency, pausing repayments when disasters strike. COP 28 saw the UK announce take-up of this offer in Senegal and Guyana, with 73 countries backing the UN call to action for creditors to offer CRDCs by 2025.
I am conscious that I want to address the point made by my noble friend Lady Bottomley about malaria, which was also raised by others. We are making a range of investments to fight malaria, which include our £1 billion contribution to the seventh replenishment of the Global Fund. This supports vital tools in combating malaria, including the distribution of 86 million mosquito nets, 450,000 seasonal malaria chemoprevention treatments, and treatment and care for 18 million people—but the future is where the benefits really lie. We are funding R&D support on next-generation bed nets and vaccines and are supporting research that has paved the way for the rollout of RTS,S and R21 malaria vaccines, mainly targeting children under five who are at much greater risk of malaria. Additionally, we have supported the rollout of these vaccines through our £1.6 billion funding to GAVI, including for further clinical trials. This is really important work and, with our biotech industry and ability to move fast on vaccines, we can benefit from some of the tragedies we have had in recent years, such as Covid, and see real benefit to the world in what we are delivering.
Some noble Lords raised the issue of loss and damage. The UK’s contribution to the new fund is a new commitment that will be met from our ODA budget. It is part of our ongoing commitment to support developing countries to tackle the causes and impacts of climate change. I just want to take one of the dying minutes of this debate to mention SIDS—small island developing states. These are people who are facing the reality of climate change on a daily basis. We are absolutely at the heart of trying to support them. I do not have time to go into it, but it is an absolute priority for our country.
We must accelerate progress towards the sustainable developing goals; that matters now more than ever. We will continue to use all the tools that we have to deliver the transformation that the world needs to see, including building a bigger, better and fairer international system that addresses poverty and climate change. Together with our partners, we are building a healthier, greener and more prosperous future for generations to come.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I thank all noble Lords for their wide-ranging contributions and their very kind comments. I thank the Minister for his response and for granting me some of his time so that I could respond to the debate. I also look forward to what I hope will be his written response to the questions he has not managed to answer, not least from my noble friend Lord Purvis.
What strikes me about this debate is the cross-party agreement that climate change is real, dangerous and must be tackled. I am also struck by the common agreement that we must look and act globally as well as locally, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said in his excellent maiden speech. I am sure that we will return to these issues. On that, I hope, positive note of what we can and must do—for the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—I thank everyone again for their contributions.
Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]
Lord Roborough
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3, The Schedule, Clauses 4 to 8, Title.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 November 2023 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 January.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.