House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
The BBC is a hugely valued institution, and the mid-term review seeks to ensure that it continues to provide an outstanding service by improving its processes in relation to both impartiality and complaints. I regularly meet the BBC’s chair and director-general, and I will continue to use those meetings to raise these important issues.
Rob Butler
I started my career as a BBC reporter, and I firmly believe in the importance of our national broadcaster being both independent, particularly at moments and eras such as this, and completely impartial. However, every year, many people complain that the BBC is not as impartial as it should be, even that it is biased, and the BBC then dismisses the vast majority of those complaints. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the public would perhaps have more confidence in how those complaints are investigated if they were investigated independently from the outset?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The public rightly expect the BBC to be an exemplar of impartiality. Our review highlighted issues in relation to both impartiality and complaints. As a result, the BBC will undertake significant reforms on both impartiality and complaints. At the charter review, as I have already said, we will examine whether the BBC first process remains the right complaints model.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
My innate lack of deference has probably not got me far in this place over the past 22 years, but it is good to see you in your rightful place this morning, Mr Speaker.
The BBC is a great British institution, as the Secretary of State says. In considering the mid-term review, will she reflect on the importance, in this era of fake news, biased comment and social media, of having a space in which information and news are presented impartially and in accordance with editorial guidelines? The BBC is criticised from the left and the right, which probably reflects the fact that it generally gets things right.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the BBC plays a critical role. It is extremely trusted not only here but across the world. The BBC is an important institution, which is why it is so important that it remains impartial. I know that the director-general agrees and, like me, thinks there is more to do. That is why, in the mid-term review, we set out things that the BBC continues to need to look at. The BBC agrees with our mid-term review and has accepted all our recommendations.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
The Government have delivered the legal framework for a registration scheme for short-term lets in England under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and have consulted on the scheme’s design. On Monday we announced that we will implement a national mandatory registration scheme across all of England. We will set out further detail later this year on how the register will operate.
Selaine Saxby
I thank the Minister for her answer, and I thank the Secretary of State for her engagement on this issue both now and in her previous role as Housing Minister. It is great news that there will be a mandatory short-term lets register, which will hopefully begin to relieve some of the pressure on our local housing market. How can we ensure that North Devon’s tourist economy fully benefits from these changes?
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend is a real champion for her local Devon tourist economy, and she is aware of the challenges that tourism can present in local communities, especially when it comes to short-term lets, which can make it too expensive for people working in the tourism industry to live near their job. This is a difficult issue, and we are trying to strike the right balance between people being able to have second homes and ensuring that hotels have a level playing field and that the local community has the right accommodation.
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s campaigning on this issue. The next phase of the project will work with the sector to get the details of the registration scheme right. We will be reaching out to representatives of the visitor economy and likely users of the scheme to make sure it delivers for everybody as simply as possible.
Duncan Baker
North Norfolk has a significant number of holiday lets, Airbnbs and the like. I am glad that the Minister says the Government will look at this in moderation because, in life, too much of anything is sometimes a bad thing. There is a difference, a nuance, between a person who rents out a room in their home via Airbnb to earn some extra income and whole streets and areas being turned into holiday lets. Can the Minister assure me that we will properly consider the nuances?
Julia Lopez
I can provide my hon. Friend with that assurance. We are aware that the proliferation of short-term lets has caused real concern in communities such as his. We do not want to clamp down in a way that will make life difficult for people who rent out their rooms on a very irregular basis, but as he said, when whole streets are causing a problem, we think the most important thing is that we get an understanding of the scale of the problem. Our scheme is designed to give us that data and the next steps can be taken after that.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Cambridge has long suffered from the antisocial behaviour problems associated with short-term lets and Cambridge City Council has long asked for action, so I welcome this long overdue announcement. Will the Minister say more about enforcement and the resources that are needed for councils to enforce, so that we can actually deal with the antisocial behaviour problems that, sadly, too often come with short-term lets?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Member for raising the issues in Cambridge city, and I appreciate that in a city such as that that there will have been significant problems in this area. He may be aware that this was a joint announcement with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We are there to put the mandatory register together, which gives us the data that local authorities can use, but it will be for DLUHC to look at the some of the powers that can be implemented to deal with the antisocial behaviour problems that the hon. Gentleman cites.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for those answers. Tourism and short-term lets are very important to my constituency, and I understand the issues clearly. There are benefits—it is not all negatives—and it is important that the positives are marked up as well. Let me ask her a simple question: now that we have a reactivated Northern Ireland Assembly on the go and working hard—[Interruption.]—will she share some of her ideas on this issue with it, and in particular, with the council in my Strangford constituency?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Member for his question, but unfortunately, on the point of substance, somebody coughed and I slightly missed the key point—I apologise. I think he asked about sharing expertise with Northern Ireland. We will be happy to do so, because it is important to learn the lessons of how these issues are being addressed across the country. In Labour-run Wales, there is a real mess over how to deal with the issue of holiday accommodation, and the situation is similar in Scotland. We want to learn those lessons for the English scheme and we will be happy to share the lessons with Northern Ireland.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
The Government launched three consultations following the gambling White Paper. We are considering all the evidence that was received and will publish the Government response soon. Our response to the consultation on the introduction of the online slots limit is due to be published imminently, and we are on track for implementation of the recommendations by the summer.
Mary Glindon
Will the Minister ensure that the highly regulated land-based industry can better innovate and grow by, for example, ensuring that the right option is chosen on the changes proposed to machine rules for the adult gaming sector, which are out for consultation?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady is right that the rules for the land-based sector have been very out of date for some time. That is why doing these consultations has been really helpful; it has identified further work that needed to be done. We have had a second consultation on some of that but, again, we will still be on course to implement the changes by the summer.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The unregulated black market for gambling causes untold devastation to people’s lives, even when they are trying to quit, so what are the Government doing to protect families from the illegal black market in gambling?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the dangers of the black market. That is why, as part of the White Paper, we said that we would give more powers to the Gambling Commission to be able to close down those black market websites which, frankly, are really quite dangerous.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in the cultural development fund. As the application process for its fourth round is live, unfortunately Ministers are unable to meet bid promoters at present.
Mr Hollobone
Two remarkably talented and enthusiastic individuals from Kettering, Beccy Hurrell and Lindsey Atkins, have put together a really ambitious £2 million bid to repurpose the former Gala Bingo hall in Kettering High Street, changing it into a community arts, music and family hub, which will be transformative for Kettering town centre. Expressions of interest in the Department’s cultural development fund must be submitted by 15 March. Is there no way that I, Beccy, Lindsey and the council can meet the relevant Minister before 15 March to see whether our bid might be appropriate?
Julia Lopez
I congratulate the two women who are putting forward such an exciting and interesting bid for that important building on Kettering High Street. In preparing to answer my hon. Friend’s question, I looked at a potted history of Kettering’s bingo hall and I appreciate the important role it has to play in regenerating the town. I spoke to my noble Friend Lord Parkinson, as his ministerial brief covers this topic. He is happy to meet and look into the issue, but there is a question about the appropriate timing for that meeting. I noted the recent debate about levelling up. I hope the bid will be successful, but I am afraid I cannot influence that.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
Leisure centres provide important community hubs, connect individuals within areas in which they live and help to deliver important social and mental health outcomes. In recognition of this and of public leisure, we have provided £60 million to swimming pools across England.
Helen Morgan
Whitchurch swimming pool in my constituency closed in March 2020. Thankfully, there will be spades in the ground to reopen it in the coming years, but the council announced last week that swimming pools and leisure centres are at the top of its list for significant budget cuts in the coming year. Given the lack of public transport, I am concerned that young people will not be able to learn to swim and the wider community will lose access to the healthy lifestyle that leisure centres offer. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we ensure people in such a stretched out, rural area will be able to access leisure centres going forward?
Stuart Andrew
We provided that funding for swimming pools precisely because we recognised the particular challenges they faced given high energy bills. More broadly, we are providing over £300 million of support for facilities up and down the country, including rural areas. That will help us to get more people active, which is a key strand of our Get Active sports strategy.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend the Minister be willing to meet me to discuss the challenges faced by leisure centres in local authority areas facing budgetary pressures, such as Shropshire? He mentioned the swimming pool fund, but there might be other opportunities to sustain these vital resources for local people, including those in Shropshire.
Stuart Andrew
It sounds as if I need to have a cross-Shropshire meeting to discuss facilities in that area. We have been clear about the funding provided for swimming pools. As part of our strategy and determination to get more people active, we will be doing a piece of work to understand the location of black spots where we need to do more to provide more facilities and what those facilities should be to address local needs.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
The Government have invested millions of pounds to support charities across England with the cost of living pressures, including the £76 million community organisations cost of living fund, which has now awarded all funding to frontline services helping vulnerable households.
Liz Twist
Charities across my constituency in Blaydon do an amazing job in supporting people and communities in what are really difficult times. Today, a triple threat of rising costs, falling income and higher demand has created what the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has called a cost of giving crisis, with half of all charities saying they are at full capacity and some having to turn people away. What further steps can the Government take to ensure charities can continue with their vital work?
Stuart Andrew
Having been a head of fundraising for a charity, I recognise the position charities face when donations fall at the minute they need to help more people. That is why we have provided £100 million in funding and added another £76 million from dormant assets to help charities in that difficult situation.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
On Monday it was a privilege to speak at the launch of the “State of the Sector” report, which found that charities are propping up Government services by £2.4 billion a year. Will the Minister tell me why the Government expect the charitable sector to pick up the tab for Government responsibilities in the first place?
Stuart Andrew
Clearly, the hon. Lady does not understand the charity sector if that is the position she is taking. Having worked in it for 16 years, I will not be lectured on this. For example, I found that the hospices I worked in were able to respond to the needs of families in a much better and more holistic way than the state sector could. I am proud of the contribution that charities make to this country, and long may that continue.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
I recognise the enormous potential of AI, but also its risks. I have had extensive engagement with the creative sector on these issues, including a series of roundtable talks on AI with, among others, media, music and film representatives. I am now working closely with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on a programme of further engagement with the sector.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but creators across the creative industries are concerned about AI developers, some of whom are worth as much as $100 billion, using their works without consent and without compensation. The inability of the Government’s working group to agree a code of practice on AI and intellectual property fuels concerns that the status quo is working only for the developers. This will be a growing problem. If a voluntary code is not going to be possible, how will the Government and her Department in particular ensure that creators will be paid fairly when their work is exploited?
Lucy Frazer
I understand this issue and the concerns that my hon. Friend has mentioned. I know that, as Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, she understands and appreciates these matters. I want to assure her that the conclusion of the initial public offering working group is absolutely not the end of our work to find an appropriate regulatory solution for AI. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that AI development supports rather than undermines human creativity. For example, we will be focusing on ensuring greater transparency from AI developers and that AI outputs are properly attributed. It is also right, as she highlights, that creators should be compensated for their work.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. AI firms are committing large-scale abuse of copyrighted material, using copyrighted images and pieces of media to train their AI tools without consent or compensation for copyright owners. The United Kingdom Government say that they want to reduce barriers to AI companies, but that can only come at the expense of creators and artists. How does it make sense to sacrifice the 10% of UK GDP that comes from the creative sector in favour of less than a quarter of a per cent of GDP that AI produces?
Lucy Frazer
I recognise the point that the hon. Member makes in relation to the importance of protecting creative rights—the creative ingenuity that is such an important part of both our British culture and economic value. That is why I am hearing from the sector, and why, in the Government’s AI White Paper, we recognise the importance of ensuring greater transparency from AI developers. We are continuing to work on that across Government.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am sorry, but the Government’s answer to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was a load of hot air that could have been written by ChatGPT, except ChatGPT would have done a better job of it. The truth of the matter is that the Government’s flagship on AI as it relates to creative industries, which is meant to be protecting the moral and economic rights of artists, musicians, and authors, while at the same time recognising the important advances that AI can bring, has sunk. Last June, the Secretary of State said that if the code of practice was not achieved, legislation could be considered. So, in the words of Paul Simon, when is she going to make a new plan, Stan?
Lucy Frazer
I would just point out that the Labour party has said absolutely nothing in relation to what it would do, so to stand up here and say that we have no plan is absolutely unacceptable. I can be absolutely clear that we do have a plan. We have worked very hard with the sectors. We have already set out in our White Paper the steps that we are taking on a very important aspect in relation to transparency. I will continue to work with the sector on all these areas to ensure that this extremely complex matter comes to a satisfactory conclusion for the creative industries.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
The limits for society lotteries allow them to raise funding for charities but to remain distinct from other forms of gambling and from the national lottery. The limits were last increased recently, in 2020, but I am aware that some operators want to see the limits raised or removed entirely. It is important that any decisions that are made are based on strong evidence. As such, I have commissioned research in this area, which I hope we will review by the end of the year.
Kim Leadbeater
The People’s Postcode Lottery funds some brilliant organisations across Batley and Spen, including the fantastic Rainbow Baby Bank in Heckmondwike and the Game Changerz youth provision in Birstall. However, the current sales limits prevent the People’s Postcode Lottery from giving away even more grants to worthy community organisations across the country, in all our constituencies. Will the Minister therefore explain why casinos and bookies, for example, do not face a sales limit but charity lotteries, which are low risk and fund so many valuable local charities, face that barrier?
Stuart Andrew
As I said at the reception that the People’s Postcode Lottery held the other night, it was my privilege to set up a society lottery when I worked in a hospice. I recognise the value of such lotteries to charities, and I am aware of the issues that the PPL has raised. I have worked with the Gambling Commission to suggest ways that it can grow under the current network, as it is the largest brand in the sector, but as I say, I want to see more research. We need to understand what the potential harms are, and what the potential effects are on the national lottery. There is not enough data at the moment. That is why I am commissioning independent research, so that we can make decisions based on evidence.
Jamie Stone
Clearly, in my vast and far-flung constituency, it is difficult for charities to raise money, as Members can imagine. To date, some £432,000 in community grants has been awarded to those charities. That is very welcome indeed. The Minister mentioned that consideration will be given to raising limits, or perhaps abolishing them altogether. May I make an impassioned plea that the particular circumstances of remote parts of the UK are considered when the decisions are made?
Stuart Andrew
I recognise the vast contribution that these lotteries make to charities, particularly those that work in rural areas. Of course, we will make sure that we take evidence on all those issues. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that we want to make sure that we are developing policy based on evidence, but that does not detract from our recognition of the enormous work that these lotteries do, and we are incredibly grateful to them.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
The Government have committed over £325 million to multi-sport grassroots sites across the whole of the UK. This is part of our mission to ensure that every community has the pitches and facilities it needs. So far, 2,300 sites have been supported. That includes funding for grass pitch maintenance at Waveney football club in my hon. Friend’s constituency, creating many more opportunities for people of all backgrounds to get active.
Peter Aldous
The development of multi-sport grassroots facilities is very often led by one sport, which then faces a variety of obstacles in getting other sports authorities to participate in a particular project. What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to remove those barriers, and to promote collaboration between different sports authorities so that much-needed facilities can be built?
Lucy Frazer
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question because it allows me to champion the fact that, as a requirement of the Government’s investment in grassroots facilities, 40% of projects need to clearly benefit a sport other than football, such as cricket, rugby, basketball or netball. In England, the Football Foundation and Sport England work closely with the national governing bodies of other sports to encourage the development of multi-sport projects, to promote collaboration between clubs at a local level.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Over 1 million girls lose interest in sports when they become teenagers, mainly due to lack of confidence and feeling judged, but we know how beneficial sports are for mental health, and there are many other benefits. How has the Department included gender in the implementation of the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme?
Lucy Frazer
I welcome that question. We have a national sports strategy to get 3.5 million people more active. That is focused on trying to get those who are currently inactive into sport. As the hon. Lady rightly mentions, women and girls are less active in sport than boys and men, so we are focusing in particular on that, with a national taskforce that brings together all relevant Departments and national governing bodies to ensure that we get more women and girls involved in sport across the board.
Sir Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State accept that grassroots sports can play a hugely important part in levelling up? As part of Darwen’s £120 million town deal, we have invested in our football club, our cricket club and our skate park, and we are about to open a brand-new five-a-side pitch. Will she talk with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to see what part her Department can play in ensuring that sport plays its proper part in enriching the cultural lives of people in areas with levelling-up bids?
Lucy Frazer
My right hon. Friend is a huge champion for his area and for the north in general. He is absolutely right that sport, drama, creativity—all those things—level up an area. I am very happy to talk to my right hon. Friend in the Levelling Up Department to consider how we can continue, across Government, to support the north.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I have recently visited sports clubs in Honiton, including youth rugby, gymnastics and football. They are all seeking support from the local authority, East Devon District Council, on the basis of its 2017 sports pitch strategy. The Government’s multi-sport grassroots facilities programme is very welcome, but does the Secretary of State consider it generous enough for youth sport, given that the co-benefits of sport for young people include a sense of camaraderie, good health and civic pride?
Lucy Frazer
Our strategy is helping sport across the board, but I recognise in particular the importance of getting young people involved in sport. We have invested around £1 billion in sport for young people, including £300 million for multi-sport pitches and £600 million in schools so that more children get the required two hours of physical education. We are also investing across the board in youth services to get more young children active in constructive activities rather than in less appropriate ones.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
I am proud of our Government’s record in supporting the creative industries. Figures published last week, which I am sure Opposition Members will welcome, show that our powerhouse creative industries grew by 6.8% in 2022, generating an enormous £124 billion for UK plc, putting us ahead of our ambition to grow those sectors by an extra £50 billion by 2030. Of course, much of that depends on the amazing talent of Britain. Many in the creative industries are benefiting from the Government’s targeted tax breaks, which are powering those industries.
Sarah Dyke
Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to support local initiatives to encourage more girls to get into—or back into—and remain in sport? I myself enjoyed a long and prosperous rugby career playing in national league 1. Will she join me in congratulating Somerton rugby football club on its new girls rugby “skills and social” nights?
Lucy Frazer
More girls should have the opportunity to play sports that are traditionally the preserve of the boys. That is why we are encouraging all schools to offer all sports to all their pupils, whatever their gender. In addition, we are backing women’s football, with £30 million for 30 pitches across the country to which girls will have priority access. It is absolutely right that we continue to encourage girls and women to take up more sport.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the beauty and heritage of Gainsborough. Heritage, of course, has a vital role to play in levelling up, and can act as a powerful catalyst to increase opportunities and prosperity. We recognise the opportunity that historic high streets give us, and we have a £95 million high streets heritage action zones programme that is driving the regeneration of 67 of our towns and cities. I believe that Gainsborough has previously been a recipient of heritage lottery programmes, and we also have a scheme to help with historic churches.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Coverage of yesterday’s Commons chaos showed how desperately we need good-quality journalism, so I am concerned about BBC Scotland’s request to Ofcom for a reduction in its broadcast news output, especially the loss of “The Nine”. BBC Scotland’s TV news had something of a couthie image until “The Nine” came along, placing Scottish news in the context of UK and international news. It was a compromise offering for those who wanted a “Scottish Six” on BBC 1. Although “The Nine” created a pathway for young talent, I said at the time that its slot—tucked away on a channel that many struggled to find—could be its undoing, and now it has been pulled. In an election year, we need more scrutiny of politicians, not less, and the need for a properly resourced “Scottish Six” remains. I hope Ofcom will say no to the proposals, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary for culture, Angus Robertson, opposes the reduction in news output. Does the Minister?
Julia Lopez
I am aware that the BBC is looking at changing its programme mix in relation to news in Scotland. My understanding was that those changes were cost-neutral, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and appreciate that he has concerns about them. He will be aware that we do not hold direct power over the BBC’s programming mix. I am sure that the director general has heard his concerns. As I say, I think the BBC is still investing in quality news content in Scotland, but it may be that the mix is changing, and the hon. Gentleman is clearly unhappy about that.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Cheadle Town FC have been a member of the north west counties football league since 1983. However, the oversubscribed division leaves Cheadle Town and other south Manchester clubs at risk of being moved laterally into a midlands division, meaning a significant increase in the club’s travel costs and an impact on gates, breaking their identity as a northern club, and challenging their future viability. I have met the Football Association and raised the club’s concerns. Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in urging the FA to review its processes and listen to south Manchester clubs that want to keep their teams northern?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is a massive champion for her area—she has previously raised this issue with me and with the sport Minister. As she rightly recognised, levels five to 10 of the English football league system are administered by the FA, and decisions regarding which league a team plays in at those levels are for the FA in its role as governing body. I am sure the FA is listening to my hon. Friend’s concerns and will have heard her plea this morning.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
This week in the House, I raised with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury the fact that serious delays in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs issuing A1 forms mean that touring musicians are waiting months to be paid. A1 forms ensure that musicians do not have to pay additional tax when touring in the EU, but some musicians are waiting six to nine months, or even a year, for those forms. One leading singer told me that musicians feel like “hostages” of HMRC incompetence, so what is the Secretary of State doing alongside Treasury Ministers to sort out this mess, which is hitting UK musicians so hard?
Lucy Frazer
I recognise the importance of touring to many of our fantastic industries. We have bilateral agreements with many other countries to ensure that touring can take place, but I will continue to ensure that as a Government, we take every step across the board to make sure that our musicians can tour appropriately.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
What assessment has the Minister made of the BBC’s proposals to launch four new national music radio stations and to relaunch an existing station, Radio 5 Sports Extra? To my mind, those proposals are a direct imitation of commercial broadcasters’ innovation, and the time and resource that the BBC is investing could be better spent in reversing the cuts to BBC local radio—a source of distinctive public service content that is not available anywhere else on the same medium.
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend is a stalwart of the radio scene. I would like to pay tribute to the 40-year career of Steve Wright, another stalwart of BBC radio. I have spoken to the director general about the launch of new radio services, and he is very aware of the strength of feeling in this House about the proposals for local radio. The mid-term review says that the BBC should engage much more closely with the market ahead of the launch of any new stations, but Ofcom also has powers to make a judgment on these matters before any new station is launched.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Lucy Frazer
I am very proud that we have a free press, and I think it is really important that we repeal section 40 to ensure there is not a chilling effect on our reporting. Of course, since that was first proposed, we have had greater self-regulation, and I am sure the press will continue to ensure that they do their outstanding job in an appropriate fashion.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Can we recognise pickleball as a national sport, and will the sport Minister come to the Dunstable Hunters pickleball club, where he will see men, women, grandparents and grandchildren having a wonderful time?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
How can I possibly resist such an invitation? [Laughter.] People are laughing, but this is becoming a more and more popular sport. For me, anything that gets people active and enjoying sport can only be positive, so I am happy to come to see it in action.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Stuart Andrew
I think it is important to put it on record that almost every other society lottery is nowhere near those limits, but I do recognise that it may be getting tight for some of the individual trusts in the People’s Postcode Lottery. We have been speaking to the Gambling Commission to see what else it can do by using some of the other trusts at its disposal to increase that funding, but I take on board the points the hon. Member made.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that individual sports clubs have a role to play in providing youth services? In that respect, can I thank the Government for funding Lichfield sports club and Chasetown football club, which have both received grants for the work they do—grants that reach up to £2.5 million?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a fabulous champion for Lichfield, and I am pleased that young people in Lichfield are getting the benefit of Government funding.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Lucy Frazer
I wish Labour Members would actually read our White Paper on AI, because in that paper we recognise the importance of this issue and the importance of protecting the creative industries. The White Paper sets out what we are doing about transparency, which is a key issue. We are of course continuing to work with both sides of the industry—the AI tech giants and the creators—to ensure we come to an appropriate resolution of this issue.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Will the Minister please update us on the independent regulator, and can he quite literally get the ball rolling to get this Bill in front of the House?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner when it comes to the issue of football regulation, and it was good for me—
Stuart Andrew
Do you know, I was told that the hon. Gentleman is a difficult man to ignore, but it is always worth trying.
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this area. We are absolutely committed to introducing the recommendations of the White Paper, which we have published, and a Bill will be published shortly.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The chair of Girlguiding UK has recently informed me that with Government funding, Girlguiding can at least be sustained in three overseas military bases. Will the Minister update me on his discussions to ensure that girls living on UK overseas military bases can continue to access Girlguiding?
Stuart Andrew
I know the hon. Lady has done a lot of work in this area, and we had a good Westminster Hall debate on this. Girlguiding is an independent organisation, and must make its own organisational and directional decisions. The Department is working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Defence, Girlguiding, and representatives from overseas territories to see whether we can come up with a solution.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
What are the Government doing to promote facilities for padel tennis?
Stuart Andrew
We work closely with national governing bodies such as the Lawn Tennis Association. It has done amazing work training 17,000 teachers across the country to teach tennis, padel tennis and so on. I went to see it myself recently at the national centre—[Interruption.] I am not doing very well here, I know that, but my hon. Friend raises an important point, and I will continue to raise it with the national governing body in due course.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
There have been a number of late postponements of football matches recently, causing massive inconvenience and putting many fans, including Barnsley football club fans, seriously out of pocket. I have suggested to the English Football League that it adopts a postponement promise that would stop that from happening. Will the Minister work with me on that?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I have heard that from fans in my constituency. It is a decision for football, but I will be happy to raise the issue with the various leagues. I recognise the impact that such postponements have on fans up and down the country.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the large number of inquiries that Ofcom has launched against GB News, for conducting itself in exactly the same fashion as other channels routinely do, is in danger of looking biased and political, and that Ofcom is in danger of putting itself in judicial review territory?
Lucy Frazer
The Government and I are in favour of media plurality, and it is important that different channels express different views across our vast political landscape. I am pleased that GB News has chosen to be regulated by Ofcom, and I know that Ofcom carries out its job appropriately.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will read quite a long answer into the record.
It is essential that Members and their staff can perform their parliamentary duties safely and securely, both on and off the estate. The Commission considers that to be of the highest importance. Members should report immediate threats to the police on 999. Members can report any other threats, whether online, on the street or in their constituency, to the parliamentary liaison and investigations team of police officers based on the estate.
The House administration recognise that threats and intimidation can impact MPs’ emotional health and wellbeing. The parliamentary health and wellbeing service offers direct psychological support for Members, such as counselling and a confidential helpline, and assistance to family members who live with a Member of Parliament. Occupational health experts in the team are always on hand to support Members who might be subject to threat.
While we do not discuss security measures on the Floor of the House, I confirm that the Parliamentary Security Department supports Members with a range of other processes, which are kept under continuous review. I shall briefly cover those, Mr Speaker, and then come to a close. It provides protection at Members’ homes and constituency offices, and can provide security operatives for constituency surgeries and Members’ other parliamentary duties off the estate. It gives Members tailored advice for their individual circumstances. That includes security and situational awareness training, which is available to all MPs, their families, and staff. Members can access hands-on cyber-security advice for their personal mobile phones. A team monitors social media and other open-source sites for threats to Parliament or Members. As a member of the consultative panel on parliamentary security, this cause is close to my heart and I will continue to champion it as a member of the House of Commons Commission.
Mr Sheerman
Some Members of the House will know that I had a death threat. A gentleman was arrested and went into a mental institution. When he was released, the House authorities and the Met police met me and said, “This gentleman is now out and he knows where you live.” I listened very intently to what the hon. Gentleman said, but that was the last I heard. I am a person who watches where he walks and does not stand by the side of the platform on the tube. I alter my way of coming into the House. It is very stressful. I have to say that in all that has been said by the hon. Gentleman— I know that he believes it and is passionate about it—there does not feel like there is very much for those on the receiving end.
Sir Charles Walker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his question. I am so sorry that he has experienced this after giving more than 40 years of service to this Parliament and this country. I will endeavour to meet him next week with security officials to go through his concerns one by one. I hope to see him at a meeting next week if he is free.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
Before I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, may I pass on my condolences, and I am sure those of the whole House, to the family and friends of Alan Wilson, the Bishop of Buckingham, who died suddenly last Saturday?
There is comprehensive advice to all parishes on the Church of England website about how to keep buildings secure, which we regularly update. All buildings used for religious worship are also eligible for the Home Office’s hate crime protection scheme.
Greg Smith
I join my hon. Friend in passing on my condolences to the family of the late Bishop of Buckingham.
Vicars tell me that theft from churches is a continuing problem in my constituency and that the insurance sector is now demanding that churches must be locked unless someone from the church is present inside. That clearly creates a big challenge for those wanting a moment of quiet prayer or reflection or to just enjoy the beauty of our historic churches. Can my hon. Friend tell me what the Church Commissioners are doing with the insurance sector to ensure that our churches can remain, while secure, open for quiet prayer and reflection?
Andrew Selous
I am sorry to learn of the experience in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I can tell him that he is completely right about the importance of keeping churches open for those who want to come. The good news is that keeping churches open increases footfall, and that deters criminals. Locking up churches is a poor deterrent to thieves. I can also tell him that funding for roof alarms was provided by the diocese of Oxford back in 2019, when there was a spate of thefts from church roofs in his area. I encourage churches in his constituency to contact the diocese again to see whether that might be made available.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his answers thus far. He will recall that I have previously asked at Church Commissioners questions about thefts from churches in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies, St John’s and St Andrew’s. At St Andrew’s, the theft took place during the mass, which is outrageous, to put it mildly. In my view, the Church Commissioners are not listening to the police’s advice and support. What needs to happen is for churches to get at least the same support and assistance from the police as other places of worship. Will he use his good offices to go back to the Church of England and ensure dialogue between the police and the Church to protect our churches as places of worship?
Andrew Selous
I am sorry to learn of my hon. Friend’s concerns. I will certainly feed that straight back to the hierarchy of the Church and ensure that those meetings happen. However, I am pleased to tell him that following his question to me on this issue last month, the police have arrested a suspect for a series of church burglaries in Barnet, Brent and Harrow, and he is remanded in custody. I have been told that the Metropolitan police is in close contact with the diocese of London and local churches, but there clearly needs to be more dialogue. I will ensure that that happens.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Holy Trinity church at Dunkeswell, which sits on the site of the Cistercian Dunkeswell abbey in my constituency. Visiting it is a moving, spiritual experience. Given that some sites such as that are in rural, remote areas where there will simply never be the footfall that the hon. Member describes, can he assure us that we can continue to keep them open in spite of any threat of theft?
Andrew Selous
I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Like him, I am a lover of our rural churches. I suggest that he points the churchwardens and the priest to the comprehensive advice on the Church of England website and perhaps has further conversations with the diocese and local police. If there are still issues, I ask him to come back to me about that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner for that answer. We live in an age where modern technology is available as a method of addressing these issues but is incredibly expensive. What funds are issued to us in Northern Ireland through Barnett consequentials to ensure that churches can adequately secure buildings with security cameras and CCTV? If there is currently no funding, could that be considered when we take into account the rural and isolated status of so many church buildings?
Andrew Selous
I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am aware, this area is not covered by Barnett consequentials. Again, I direct him to the advice on the Church of England website, which can be seen by churches in Northern Ireland. If there are particular issues, I am happy to have a quiet conversation with him in the Tea Room to see how we can share best practice to try to help his churches.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Andrew Selous
Both archbishops have offered to meet the Home Secretary, and the Church has provided advice and guidance for clergy to consider when dealing with requests for baptism from asylum seekers. The guidance refers to the need for discernment and recognises that there may be mixed motives on the part of asylum seekers requesting baptism.
Mr Hollobone
I welcome that meeting. Those who are genuinely seeking to convert to Christianity should of course be allowed to do so. But is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern in this country that the Church of England—naively at best, and deliberately at worst—is being seen to aid and abet asylum seekers in getting around the laws of this country and remaining in the United Kingdom? May I urge the Church of England to update its guidance entitled “Supporting Asylum Seekers—Guidance for Church of England Clergy” as soon as possible to ensure that it is in alignment with new legislation passed in this House?
Andrew Selous
That guidance is being updated, so I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. He is right that clergy will always rightly tell everyone they come across about the love of Jesus, but clergy do not determine asylum claims. Of course, priests are expected to uphold the law and make truthful representations of character. I hope that reassures him. I also note that in the recent Times investigation of 28 cases heard by the upper tribunal where a claimant cited conversion to Christianity as a reason to be granted asylum, only seven were approved, 13 were dismissed, and new hearings were ordered in eight other cases.
Michael Fabricant
My hon. Friend will have heard the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) at Prime Minister’s questions. The problem is, this brings the Church of England into disrepute. It implies that some vicars are naive, foolish and innocent. It is important for the credibility of the Church of England that training is more robust and that well-meaning folk do not endanger our society.
Andrew Selous
I hear very clearly what my hon. Friend says. I know that he, like me, takes seriously the reputation of the Church of England. He cares a great deal about it, and I am grateful to him for that. I repeat the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone): priests are required to use discernment, to recognise that there might be mixed motives, and always to put forward truthful representations of character.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I heard the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) as well. When there is plenty wrong and plenty to complain about, it is not always the case that we should blame the established Church, is it?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Any institution run by humans will never be perfect, but he is right that the Church of England was unfairly accused of being involved in some cases, when it had no involvement at all.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Andrew Selous
In February 2023, the General Synod passed a motion to welcome the decision by the House of Bishops to replace a document called “Issues in Human Sexuality”. The House of Bishops has published pastoral guidance that partially replaces that document. It is working on further pastoral guidance that would allow the document to be replaced entirely.
Mr Bradshaw
Papers going to tomorrow’s General Synod once again recommend backtracking on the agreements made, not just in February but in the autumn General Synod, regarding same-sex blessings and the rules governing priests in same-sex relationships. That is totally unacceptable. Yesterday’s report by Professor Alexis Jay on safeguarding in the Church of England was excoriating. It pointed to serial failures, and recommended setting up a completely independent body, the Church being stripped of its responsibilities, and those being handed to an independent regulator. It pains me to say this, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that dealing with both those very important historical challenges for the Church appears to be beyond the capacity and will of its current leadership, and that perhaps our established Church might benefit from a fresh start at the top?
Andrew Selous
The right hon. Gentleman takes these issues very seriously and has a long involvement with the Church of England. Starting with the second issue, the Church commissioned Professor Jay’s report. The Church gets the seriousness of these issues, and it will consider very seriously how to respond. The archbishops have described her report as a “vital next step”. We are not in denial, and we will put things right. The right hon. Gentleman also knows very well how the General Synod of the Church of England works; it is a sovereign body. It meets again this weekend. Reconciling different viewpoints so that we can walk together is not easy, but we are committed to that. I know that his words will have been heard and noted by members of the General Synod in advance of its debate.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne)
The Parliamentary Digital Service supports the Commission by delivering technology for Members, and tools are under constant development. A range of productivity tools are already available to Members and their staff from Microsoft via the Parliamentary Digital Service. They include Microsoft Forms, which helps with tasks such as collating constituents’ information. Microsoft Planner can track workstreams in an MP’s office and is used by some offices to induct new staff. “Bookings with me” can arrange one-to-one time with external guests, such constituents.
PDS independently investigates and works with Parliament’s suppliers to explore new technologies that could benefit MPs in their work. The team welcomes volunteers from the Member community to pilot such services ahead of full roll-out. As the Chair of the Administration Committee, I would be happy to arrange for the hon. Lady to meet any relevant officials.
Chi Onwurah
Like most Members, I receive hundreds of invitations every week, and much more spam. It takes a member of my team hours—sometimes days—to go through them all. That is time that could be much better spent supporting constituents, particularly in a cost of living crisis. There are digital tools that can help with that; none that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will do so. Microsoft recently demoed its Copilot tool, which uses artificial intelligence. Other tools are available. While there may be issues of privacy, security and bias with such tools, as with much AI, can he confirm that the Commission is looking specifically at AI tools to help us in our work for our constituents?
Sir Charles Walker
I can. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: there are security issues that need to be looked at closely, but I have an answer, specially prepared. Copilot is Microsoft’s version of ChatGPT, a generative artificial intelligence service. Now, this is the relevant bit: PDS has arranged a series of internal workshops with Parliament’s Microsoft partner to allow PDS staff to explore how this technology could be used in the parliamentary network. The outcomes of those workshops will feed into Parliament’s overall AI strategy—I am nearly there, Mr Speaker. I speak as the proud owner of a Nokia. The recent and rapid development in artificial intelligence, especially generative AI, presents exciting opportunities.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
Through the sister Churches of our communion and our linked missionary societies, the Church of England continues to provide both prayerful support and practical assistance to all parts of the Anglican communion where freedom of religion or belief is threatened or impaired. The Church works with our Government, other Governments around the world, and multilateral bodies such as the United Nations to advocate forcefully for freedom of religion or belief.
Fiona Bruce
Following the implementation of much of the groundbreaking Truro review, the UK is now seen as a global leader on religious freedom. However, sadly, persecution is exponentially increasing across the world, so we need to embed that work. Does my hon. Friend agree that, like Governments, religious leaders need to commit to strategic thinking, structural change and the provision of additional resources if together we are to effectively tackle this global scourge?
Andrew Selous
Indeed I do. On embedding that work, it is good news that my hon. Friend’s International Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill had a successful Second Reading in this House on 26 January, and that it goes to Committee in April. I am glad that the Bill is strongly supported by the Foreign Secretary, and that the Bishop of Winchester has offered to take it forward in the other place; of course, he was the person who wrote the original report. However, my hon. Friend’s challenge is fair. As our Government step up on this global challenge, the Church of England and the Anglican communion need to as well. I will pass her remarks back to Lambeth Palace.
Mr Speaker
That completes the questions, but I would like to answer Sir Charles. The security of all Members really matters. It is taken very seriously in this House. Work is ongoing, and I am having serious conversations about what we do going forward. I can tell you that we have some of the best people working on it, and I would like to thank them for what they do.
Post Office Horizon Scandal
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if she will make a statement on financial redress for sub-postmasters and outstanding issues relating to the Post Office Horizon scandal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
As a Back Bencher, I first spoke on the matter of compensation for victims in March 2020, which is obviously long after the right hon. Gentleman first campaigned for it. I pay tribute to his campaigning on this subject, which remains undiminished. My appetite for compensation for postmasters is equally undiminished, although I accept the need to increase the pace of delivery.
As of this month, £160 million has been paid in financial redress to more than 2,700 victims affected by the Horizon scandal. More than 78% of eligible full claims received have been settled as follows: 102 convictions have been overturned, and 42 full claims have been submitted, of which 32 have been settled; 2,793 applications to the Horizon shortfall scheme have been received, and 2,197 have been settled; 58 full claims have been submitted to the group litigation order scheme, and 41 have been settled.
Our top priority remains ensuring that victims can access swift and fair compensation. We have introduced optional fixed-sum awards of £600,000 for victims with overturned convictions and of £75,000 for group litigation order members as a swift means of settlement, and 100% of original applicants to the Horizon shortfall scheme have received offers of compensation. Today we are discussing what other measures can be taken to speed up compensation with the Horizon compensation advisory board, on which the right hon. Gentleman sits.
Since the Prime Minister’s announcement on 10 January, officials in the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have been working at pace to progress legislation for overturning convictions related to the Post Office’s prosecutorial behaviour and Horizon evidence. I will provide a further update to the House very soon.
Mr Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. I draw the attention of the House to my interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board.
I like the Minister. He campaigned on this issue before he was a Minister, and he has been a very good Minister, but a lot of that good work was undone on Monday by the performance of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. I am disappointed that he has not taken the opportunity today to talk about the overturned convictions. I understand that later today, at 12 o’clock, there will be a written ministerial statement on the subject. I do not think that is the way to do it, as the House needs an opportunity to discuss the overturned convictions.
I will ask the Minister a few questions. It is quite clear now that Nick Read, the Post Office chief executive, wrote to the Lord Chancellor basically opposing the overturning of all convictions, saying that up to 300 people were “guilty”. It is not yet clear who instructed him to do that. On Monday, the Secretary of State said it was done off his own bat. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
If there are to be overturned convictions, they cannot just be about Horizon; they should also be about Capture. Evidence that I have put to the public inquiry and sent to the Minister yesterday clearly indicates that the scandal predates Horizon. Those affected need to be included in both the compensation scheme and among those with overturned convictions.
The board is meeting this afternoon, and we have made recommendations to the Minister on how to simplify and speed up the compensation scheme. Will he give an assurance to the House that once the recommendations are agreed, we can announce them quite quickly, primarily to restore to the sub-postmasters some faith, which was wrecked by the performance of the Secretary of State on Monday?
If the Minister’s written ministerial statement at 12 o’clock is about overturning convictions, will he give a commitment to come back to the House on Monday to give an oral statement, so that the House can interrogate him and discuss that issue?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The overturned convictions are a key priority for me and my Department. I am always keen to update the House whenever I can. There always has to be a sequence to ensure that we follow proper process. What we are doing potentially affects the devolved Administrations, so it is really important that we engage with them properly. That is one of the reasons why we need to make the written statement later today. I have never been unwilling to come before the House and report on what we are doing. I will, of course, continue to do that.
On the letter from the chief executive to the Justice Secretary, I am aware of the allegations by Mr Staunton. They are very serious allegations that should not be made lightly or be based on a vague recollection. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the letter from the former permanent secretary, it is clear that she believes the allegations are incorrect, and that there was never any conversation along the lines referred to by Mr Staunton. I think it is pretty clear that those allegations are false.
The right hon. Gentleman has regularly brought up Capture. We are keen to continue to engage with him on that to ensure that those affected are included in any compensation where detriment has occurred. I note his point about an oral statement. As I say, I am always keen to give such statements whenever possible, and to be interrogated on our plans. I do not think he will be disappointed by what we announce later today.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
Now that the then permanent secretary has outlined that she did not implicitly or explicitly tell the then chairman of the Post Office to slow down compensation, I hope we can spend time less time talking about someone who has lost his job and more time talking about postmasters who have lost everything. Will the Minister, who is doing great work in sorting this out, recommit to August as his target date for getting compensation—life-changing compensation —out of the door as soon as possible?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this matter; as my predecessor, he did a tremendous job. The most concerning allegation we heard over the weekend was about the delay in the payment of compensation. In her letter, which is publicly available, the permanent secretary wrote:
“It is not true that I made any instruction, either explicitly or implicitly. In fact, no mention of delaying compensation appears in either note.”
So I agree with my hon. Friend that we should move on from that and focus on what really matters, which is getting what he rightly described as life-changing compensation to postmasters as quickly as possible. That is his, and will remain our, No. 1 priority.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Let me first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for securing the urgent question, and indeed for all the work he has done over many years, along with other Members, in trying to secure justice for sub-postmasters.
The Post Office Horizon scandal is one of the most insidious injustices in our country’s history. It has robbed innocent people of their livelihoods, their liberty and, all too sadly, their lives. At least 60 sub-postmasters have died without seeing justice or receiving compensation, and at least four have taken their own lives. More than 20 years on, the victims and their families are still suffering from the consequences and the trauma of all that they have been put through. They have been trapped in a nightmare for too long. We all want to see the exoneration of all who remain convicted, and the delivery of rightful compensation to all affected sub-postmasters, as quickly as possible. Labour wants to see a swift and comprehensive solution to this insidious injustice, and we are willing to work with the Government to ensure that happens.
Will the Minister please provide an update on the timeline to which he is working to amend the seismic damage that this scandal has caused, and will he please give an assurance that he is acting with the appropriate speed that is required for necessary legislation to go through? Victims have already waited too long for justice, and we must act now, with the speed and urgency that this awful scandal requires.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has approached this matter. There was nothing in his remarks that I disagree with. As I said earlier, 78% of claimants have received full and final compensation, but we fully share his wish, and that of his party, for a swift resolution and a swift end to this, and we have engaged significantly and extensively with his colleagues on the Front Bench. As for how we overturn convictions, the measures that we are taking are clearly unprecedented, but this is an unprecedented situation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the timeline. We have always said that it is weeks, but it is fewer weeks now than it was. I do not think he will be disappointed— I said this to the right hon. Member for North Durham as well—by what we will say, hopefully, later today, but this has taken too long. We are working daily to resolve these issues, and the overturning of convictions, the legislation and the compensation cannot come too quickly.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My hon. Friend has done a great job, but I am conscious that there are still many people waiting to settle. Much of that is due to the fact that the Post Office is not releasing information that has been requested by my constituents or, indeed, their solicitors. I hope that my hon. Friend can put across to the chief executive of the Post Office how critical it is to regain trust by releasing that information, because I fear that other sub-postmasters, or people who might otherwise have been interested in dealing with the Post Office, will start either to move away or not to take up those business opportunities, which would also damage communities—and that is already happening in my constituency.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and for making that point; she is absolutely right. Disclosure both to the inquiry and on individual cases, which is required to be able to compile claims, has been too slow. If Post Office Ltd and its management team are going to rebuild trusts with claimants and the wider public, it is absolutely incumbent on them that this is done properly and that the governance around it is done properly. That is part of the reason why the Secretary of State acted as decisively as she did, but I absolutely concur with my right hon. Friend. Alongside her, I urge Post Office Ltd to deliver disclosure more quickly.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Documents published this week by the BBC reveal that the Swift review, dated February 2016, noted that Post Office Ltd “had always known” about the balancing transaction capability that allowed transactions to be addended remotely, which is what happened. The lawyers for Post Office Ltd did nothing about that, and many people still do not trust it. A letter has been circulated, and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) deserves all the praise we can give him today. I have a copy of his memo, which says that anyone can write to him on any issue and get advice on how to pursue claims.
The Minister has given us a list of percentages and so on, but it is still not fast enough. It is still not good enough, and one of the reasons is that Post Office Ltd is still not trusted; people want nothing to do with it. I cannot fix that, but I do not think that the spat between the Secretary of State and Henry Staunton this week did anything to increase sub-postmasters’ confidence, and we really need to get this sorted. Yes, the Horizon shortfall scheme has been well managed in some regards, and claims are going through and being paid, but how much is being paid? So many sub-postmasters are getting derisory offers—not just people in the GLO scheme, but normal, everyday sub-postmasters who have been putting in money for years. We need to get this sorted. I appeal to all sub-postmasters affected to put in a claim.
Kevin Hollinrake
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady on that point and on a number of other points she raised, and I thank her again for the work she has done in this area for many years. I, too, am concerned about some of the information that came to light this week, and the public inquiry is there to examine any allegations relating to who knew what and when. It would be wrong of us to duplicate the inquiry’s efforts, because it is a public inquiry that has the powers to summon witnesses to give evidence and to carry out other forms of evidence gathering, which is the right way to do this. I agree with the hon. Lady that compensation cannot come fast enough and that Post Office Ltd has to rebuild trust not just with the wider public; key to this are the postmasters.
Yes, of course we want to make sure that people get fair compensation. May I point gently to the performance so far of the group litigation order scheme? Fifty-eight full claims have been received, 48 offers have been made and 41 have been accepted without going to the next level, which is the independent panel. That tends to indicate that those offers are fair, because people have recourse to the appeal process. I am aware of one or two high-profile cases where people say they have not been offered a fair amount. I cannot talk about individual cases, but we urge any of those individuals to go to the next stage of the process, which is the independent panel. The whole scheme is overseen by Sir Ross Cranston, who has a very good reputation both in this House and further afield. We absolutely believe that the process will offer fair compensation, but we urge people to return to the table and ensure that their claim is properly considered by all means available.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done on this issue—not only on the Front Bench, but on the Back Benches. No amount of compensation can compensate the victims of this complete scandal. However, it does help, and speeding up the process is obviously important. Will he, during the passage of the legislation that the Government have promised to introduce, ensure that innocent victims are not only compensated, but completely exonerated? In their communities, they have suffered the stigma attached to all this, and they need to have their names cleared and their reputations restored.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his regular contributions on this subject, which he frequently raised prior to the ITV series. I appreciate his work.
My hon. Friend is right to say that no amount of compensation can make up for what happened to many people’s lives. We want all the innocent people to be exonerated. We know there is nervousness, with some victims not trusting the process—they have simply had enough. We met Howe & Co., one of the solicitors, to talk about this issue yesterday, and its contention is that around 40% of the people who received a letter saying, “We will not oppose an appeal,” still will not come forward. We need a process that does not require people to come forward if we are to have a mass exoneration of those affected by this horrendous scandal. We hope to announce that later today.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I associate myself with the words of praise for the Minister’s speed and attention on this issue. I think a legally binding instruction for the Post Office and the Department to deliver at speed is a necessity in the new Bill. The Minister has told us today that about £160 million has been paid in compensation, but there is provision for about £1.2 billion, which means that only 13% of the money has been paid out. He updated the House on the number of claimants, and there were 555 people in the GLO group and 700 who were convicted. As the Minister told us, only 73 people have had their final compensation fully paid, which is only 6% of the two groups.
The confusion at the beginning of the week about who said what to whom shows there is confusion about the instruction to deliver at speed. When the Bill comes before us, will the Minister reflect on the necessity for a legally binding deadline under which the Post Office must make information available in 20 to 30 days and an offer must be made to settle within 20 to 30 days, with a legally binding deadline for final resolution? Otherwise, frankly, I worry that the ambiguity will still cause delays. He knows as well as I do that justice delayed is justice denied.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for paying regular attention to this issue. I know that the Committee has a session next week and will be asking some of those questions.
We are keen to get compensation to victims as soon as possible. We are somewhat at the mercy of claims, and we cannot offer compensation if claims do not come in. Like others, I am very keen for people to come forward to submit a claim. One of the reasons why we put forward the fixed-sum awards of £600,000 for overturned convictions and £75,000 for members of the GLO scheme is to try to accelerate the payment of compensation, which contradicts the claim that people are trying to slow things down.
I am meeting the Horizon compensation advisory board this afternoon to look at its recommendations for accelerating compensation. We have taken nothing off the table, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House recently voted to extend the compensation deadline from 4 August, on the recommendation of Sir Wyn Williams, because we do not want people to be timed out of compensation. The maximum budget for compensation has, thus far, been set at £1 billion.
One of the issues we are trying to resolve urgently is the fact that people are reluctant to come forward to have their convictions overturned by the Court of Appeal, which is one of the reasons why we have not compensated enough people with convictions. We cannot compensate them until we overturn their convictions, which is exactly why we have proposed the legislation. Once we have done that, the door will be opened for compensation to flow freely. That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman and I want to see.
There has never been any confusion in our mind about the need to deliver this quickly. I have focused on that every single day, both since I have been in office and before. I have never been resisted by anyone in my Department or in other parts of Government. There may be confusion, but I promise that there has been no confusion in Government.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I add my thanks to the Minister for his work in helping me to advise my constituents who have come forward asking many questions about the situation that they found themselves in. I am very pleased that the Government are working to compensate postmasters who were convicted in a court of law, but there are many individuals who worked for the Post Office and faced disciplinary proceedings who did not end up in court. However, their professional reputations were trashed, they had no ability to find jobs when they were dismissed, and they were significantly out of pocket. The Post Office must know whom it disciplined; it must have records through the disciplinary procedure. Will the Minister outline what steps the Post Office has taken to contact those individuals so that they can get the compensation that they rightly deserve?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for so ably representing his constituents who have fallen victim to this scandal. People do not need to have gone before a court of law to be compensated. A postmaster with a contract with the Post Office can access either the Horizon shortfall scheme or the GLO. A prosecution of any form is not required to be able to claim through those schemes. I think he raises a point about somebody who worked for a postmaster or for the Post Office. That is separate and I am very happy to talk to him about that point, which has been raised by a number of Members. The Post Office would not necessarily know whether a postmaster who is working independently and runs an independent business had disciplined their members of staff, so it might not be as straightforward as he sets out. Nevertheless, I am happy to engage with him on that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The problem for many sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses is the quantification of what they are due to be repaid under the shortfall scheme, because payments were made out of their own pocket on several occasions over a long period. It is difficult in those circumstances for the claimants to know that they have been properly compensated, because the Post Office cannot tell them how much it should be repaying. To take a step back, is it not apparent that we cannot continue to leave the Post Office to mark its own homework and that the independent elements of scrutiny need to be strengthened? Somebody independent of Government and the Post Office must be put in charge of not just sorting this out, but doing so at speed.
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree with the right hon. Member’s points, and he is right that quantification is very difficult. These situations are complex. It is about not just financial loss, but the personal impact, including the impact on mental health, physical health, reputation—all those things. In those situations, we should give the claimant the benefit of the doubt where this cannot be evidenced. In many cases, the records are no longer available.
We have independent people in all parts of the process. Members of the Horizon shortfall scheme include eminent KCs, such as Lord Garnier from the other place. We have Sir Ross Cranston overseeing the GLO scheme, and in the overturned convictions scheme, we have Sir Gary Hickinbottom—they are eminent retired High Court judges. I have great faith in their holding our feet to the fire and getting the right quantum of compensation to the right people at the right time. Indeed, the Horizon compensation advisory board, with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and Lord Arbuthnot, is also holding our feet to the fire, making sure that we do the right thing and deliver the right amounts of compensation. I will meet it again later today.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I know that the Minister means well and that he also understands that my affected constituents have had enough of being told that the Government are working hard to get them the justice they deserve and promises of swift compensation. One of my constituent’s claims was submitted in October. She heard the Minister say in January that all claims would have offers within 40 days, but she still has not had an offer. She is right to conclude that the allegations of delaying payments to benefit the Treasury are true, is she not?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am sorry that the hon. Member has taken that tone, but that is not true. As I set out, I think Henry Staunton has got this completely wrong. It is not the case, and there has never been any situation while I have been in this role—my predecessors have said the same—where we have tried to delay compensation. If the hon. Member wants to write to me, I am very happy to look at an individual case. Our commitment on the GLO scheme is that once we have received a full claim, we will respond to 90% of cases within 40 days. Some cases are more complex, but I am very happy to look at her specific case, as I have for other Members when people have contacted us directly. I am very keen to make sure that we get a resolution to her constituent’s case as quickly as possible.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on his tenacity in relation to this issue. When does he expect the inquiry to be completed? It seems that Fujitsu is hiding behind that inquiry and is unwilling to commit itself to compensating the taxpayer for the compensation the taxpayer will be paying.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The inquiry is due to conclude by the end of this year and to report some time—early, I hope—next year. At that point, we will know more about Fujitsu’s exact role and the amount of the final compensation bill. I welcome the fact that at the Select Committee Fujitsu acknowledged its moral obligation to the victims and the taxpayer in contributing to the compensation bill, and we will hold it to its promises in that regard.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The Minister is a perceptive man: he must see the problem of his reassuring the House from the Dispatch Box on a Thursday, after the Secretary of State’s reassurances at the Dispatch Box on a Monday. The House and the country’s patience is wearing thin. Many of the sub-postmasters, who are the victims in all this, including my constituents, have had their lives blighted and scarred for well over a decade. The delays to the compensation scheme are only exacerbating the pain and the problem. The public can see a pattern, whether it is the Horizon compensation scheme, the infected blood compensation scheme or the vaccine harm compensation, and it does not reflect well on the Government.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will be the first to admit that we want to deliver compensation more quickly than has happened in the past. As I said, 74% of claimants have received full and final compensation. It is absolutely right that the remaining 26%— as well as any more who come forward, and I am pleased that more are coming forward—receive that compensation too. It has never been a case of our trying to delay compensation. I do not believe there is a pattern here. These issues are complex but we are doing much to accelerate the process.
We did much to accelerate compensation payments prior to the ITV series, which is critical. The £600,000 fixed-sum award, which has been very effective in delivering rapid compensation, was brought in last October. We were looking at a blanket overturn in convictions some months before that series. We are trying to deliver the scheme at pace. It is not always straightforward to do that, but the hon. Gentleman has my commitment that we will do everything we can to deliver that compensation as quickly as possible.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Post Office Horizon scandal is now commonly called one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history—so many lives devastated, some lost. An inevitable consequence of that is to undermine public confidence in the Post Office, in technology, as misrepresented by the Post Office and Fujitsu, and in the Minister’s Department, particularly following the performance—that is the right word for it—of the Secretary of State on Monday. What is he doing to restore public confidence in the Post Office, in technology and in his Department? Does he recognise that swift payment of compensation is an important part of that?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, it is the most important part of that. It is right that the Secretary of State responded to the serious and false allegations in the newspapers over the weekend. I hasten to add that those allegations were not about the Secretary of State but about a senior civil servant, who has been very clear that the allegations are false. The No. 1 way we can give confidence to those who might be submitting a claim, or have done so, is the fact that the processes do work for the vast majority of claimants. Of course, we want to improve the processes but we also want to reassure claimants that there is independence running through every single part of them. The No. 1 message we can give from the House is that if people come forward, they will be treated fairly and receive compensation as quickly as possible.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
How can the public have trust in the Government to stand up for whistleblowers when, by her own account, the Secretary of State attempted to cover up the departure of Henry Staunton?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not think that is an accurate portrayal of events at all. I am very happy to talk to the hon. Member about that particular issue. It was decided that Henry Staunton was no longer the right person to lead the Post Office. He then decided to make some allegations about what happened during his tenure, which have proven, in my view, to be completely false. I do not believe that Mr Staunton is a whistleblower. He spoke out, but I think the allegations he made have been clearly demonstrated to be not accurate. What the hon. Gentleman has just said is not an accurate portrayal of events. The No. 1 thing we should all focus on now is ensuring that people are properly compensated, that the inquiry is allowed to do its work and identifies those responsible, and that those responsible—be they individuals or corporates—are held to account.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I have a constituent who was part of the group litigation order. They were not convicted, because the process was paused in 2015, but they have pretty much lost everything, having borrowed substantial amounts of money to make up the shortfall over a long period of time. They have now been told that the £75,000 up-front payment would be net of any interim payment that they have received. They are not confident to go forward with the full assessment, because of some of the highly publicised very low—derisory—compensations that have been offered. Can the Minister offer my constituent any reassurance that it is worthwhile pursuing that extensive and independently assessed claim? My assessment is that they have lost significantly more than £75,000.
Kevin Hollinrake
If that is the case, they should definitely submit a claim. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to talk about her particular constituent. I am aware that some individuals have come forward and said that they received derisory offers. We urge them to engage with the rest of the process, which has not yet happened. There is an independent panel for the GLO scheme. Again, I would direct her to the actual performance of the GLO compensation scheme so far: 58 full claims received; 48 offers made; and 41 offers accepted without reference to the independent panel, which would tend to indicate that the offers being made are fair. However, I do understand that the people affected by this will not be satisfied by my assurances until they have gone through the process. I urge her to tell her constituent to do exactly that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I also add my thanks to the Minister for his very dedicated response to all the questions that we have asked and for his energy in trying to make this scheme a success for those who have been victimised? On those who have had to take out loans to repay moneys that they never owed anyway, will calculations be carried out to allow repayment of not simply substantive amounts but moneys borrowed from family, friends or banking institutions, and the interest that they have had to pay them?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Member for all the work that he has done in this area. I think he has spoken in every single debate that I have responded to in the House on this particular matter. [Laughter.] And every single debate across this House as well. That was also the case when we were working together, fighting for justice for banking victims. I pay tribute to all the work that he has done in this House in all these different areas.
On the hon. Member’s question, the key principle is that somebody is returned to the position that they would have been in financially prior to the detriment taking place. That could take into account, for example, consequential losses, pecuniary losses—financial losses—as well as non-pecuniary losses, which are other impacts such as those on reputation or on health. The short answer to the hon. Member’s question is, yes, absolutely.
Mr Speaker
That completes the urgent question. We now move to the next one.
Inter Faith Network Closure
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): Will the Minister make a statement about the closure that has been announced today of the Inter Faith Network?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of the Inter Faith Network? I am grateful for all his work as chair of the all-party group on faith and society and as a long-standing advocate for dialogue across faiths.
As the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said during an Adjournment debate in January, we know full well the role that faith communities play in our society. We are extremely supportive of efforts by faith groups and others to bring together people of different faiths and beliefs.
The Secretary of State wrote to the co-chairs of the Inter Faith Network on 19 January this year to inform them that he was minded to withdraw the offer of funding for the 2023-24 financial year. This was because of the appointment of a member of the Muslim Council of Britain to the board of trustees of the IFN. As the House will be aware, successive Governments have had a long-standing policy of non-engagement with the MCB. The appointment of an MCB member to the core governance structure of a Government-funded organisation therefore poses a reputational risk to the Government.
The Secretary of State invited the IFN to make representations on this matter, which it subsequently did. He carefully considered the points raised by the IFN before concluding that its points were outweighed by the need to maintain the Government’s policy of non- engagement with the MCB, and the risk of compromising the credibility and effectiveness of that policy. Inter-faith work is valuable, but that does not require us to use taxpayers’ money in a way that legitimises the influence of organisations such as the MCB.
The Department regularly reminds our partners, including the IFN, of the importance of developing sustainable funding arrangements rather than relying on taxpayers’ money, which can never be guaranteed. The potential closure of the organisation is therefore a matter for the IFN, as an independent charity, and not the Government. The Government continue to be fully supportive of developing and maintaining strong relationships across faiths and beliefs.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Since 1987, the Inter Faith Network has been the UK’s principal vehicle for inter-faith dialogue, supporting the annual Inter Faith Week, and activities and dialogue undertaken by inter-faith groups across the whole country. The network has been supported by Government funding for some 20 years. The IFN was told on 31 March last year, before the trustee appointment that the Minister referred to, that its funding would be ended from the following day. Why has the organisation been treated in that extraordinary way? Last July, the network received a letter from the Secretary of State to inform it that it would, after all, receive funding for the current financial year. That promise has never been honoured. Why not?
Given the debate in this Chamber yesterday, is it not extraordinarily stupid to be shutting down at this precise point our principal vehicle in the UK for Muslim-Jewish dialogue? Surely we need more, not to be shutting it down? Why has the Secretary of State not honoured the commitment that he made to me to meet me, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and the noble Lord Singh to discuss this matter before making his decision, and will the Minister pay tribute and express thanks to the trustees and officers of the Inter Faith Network for the very important contribution that they have made to UK national life over the last 37 years?
Felicity Buchan
I truly believe that inter-faith work makes a good contribution to our society. My constituency is one of the most diverse in the entire country, and I have on a number of occasions brought together my mosque, my synagogue, Christian churches and my gurdwara. We recognise the benefits of inter-faith activity. I thank the Inter Faith Network for its work; however, we have always been clear with that organisation and any other organisation or charity that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities funds that they need to put in place alternative sources of funding. As I said, the Government cannot fund this organisation when a trustee is part of the MCB.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I was contacted last year by my constituent Esmond Rosen of the Barnet Multi Faith Forum, who expressed concern about the imminent withdrawal of funding from the IFN. As we have heard, it looked in July as if the problem was resolved —at least for the financial year—so it is regrettable that we are in this position. I completely understand the importance of not engaging with organisations that have hard-line views, but surely we can find some compromise to keep the IFN in business, because it does incredibly valuable work to foster respect and mutual understanding between different faith groups.
Felicity Buchan
I thank my right hon. Friend for all her work on inter-faith matters. What has changed since July is the appointment in November of a trustee who is a member of the MCB. In terms of inter-faith work, there are so many examples of positive, thriving initiatives across the country that are bringing people together. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities funds a number of those partners, including Near Neighbours and Strengthening Faith Institutions, which organise local-level inter-faith events to foster community cohesion.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for securing the urgent question.
Inter-faith and multi-faith dialogue are absolutely essential components of society, not only to resolve differences but to build strong and collaborative communities that are able to come together in times of need. Given recent events—the war and violence in Gaza—that is more important than ever. As I am sure the whole House recognises, the Government have a special responsibility to facilitate positive relationships between different faith communities, and although I appreciate that the Minister has now given some explanation of why they have chosen to withdraw funding for the IFN, outstanding questions remain.
Let me ask the Minister some straightforward questions. When was the decision to withdraw funding from the network made? What impact assessment was made, and what discussions were had about the vital need to continue to promote understanding about and between different faith groups, and to encourage co-operation? When was the Inter Faith Network notified of the decision? Does the Minister have plans to increase support for other groups to make up for any loss of provision arising from this decision?
Every Department will inevitably monitor and review the grants that they award, but the House should expect that to be done in the spirit of due process. As politicians, we have a responsibility to bring communities together. At a time when divisions are being exposed, I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the Government remain committed to inter-faith and multi-faith dialogue.
Felicity Buchan
I thank the hon. Member for her comments. Again, I stress the importance of inter-faith work. I see it in my own constituency; it is very important. The Government are already supporting other institutions that do such work.
The hon. Member asked specifically for timelines. The Secretary of State wrote to the IFN on 19 January saying that he was “minded to withdraw” the offer of funding in light of what we have discussed. He invited the Inter Faith Network to make representations to him on this matter, and he received its response on 22 January. After careful consideration of those representations, he confirmed that he wishes to withdraw the offer of funding to the Inter Faith Network for the reasons that we have discussed. He wrote to the co-chairs on 21 February to inform them of his decision. I stress again that the Department has been very clear that the Inter Faith Network should have been developing other sustainable sources of funding.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I am proud to represent the constituency in this country with the greatest adherence to religious faith, and many of those faiths are minority religions. We have a very strong inter-faith council that brings together people of all religions to sort out their differences and sort out tensions. I have had representations from the Jain community, the Zoroastrian community and others, expressing their concern that the majority religions—the larger religions in this country—will always be able to have their say because of their strength and power, but the minority religions will not. Given the Government’s decision to withdraw funding from the Inter Faith Network, what is going to take the place of that important organisation that brings together people of all faiths, enabling them to settle their differences?
Felicity Buchan
I thank my hon. Friend for everything he does with his faith communities in his constituency. As I have said, DLUHC continues to fund a range of partners, including Near Neighbours and Strengthening Faith Institutions; we believe in inter-faith work to strengthen community cohesion.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for having secured this urgent question; back in January, I secured an Adjournment debate urging the Government to think again about their decision. One of the things I find most concerning about how this decision has been handled is that, on occasion, journalists seem to have been in possession of letters from the Secretary of State to the Inter Faith Network at the same time as the IFN received them, or possibly before. That is no way to carry on. There has been very little attempt to have any serious conversations with the Inter Faith Network without those letters being in the public domain almost immediately. This work is more important now than ever before, so will the Minister think again about funding this organisation into the future? It is not too late.
Felicity Buchan
As I have said, very proper consideration went into this decision after we had heard representations from the Inter Faith Network. The decision on Government funding has now been made. We have always been clear that the Inter Faith Network needs to develop alternative sources of funding; institutions such as these cannot be solely reliant on Government funding.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Is that not the point? This organisation has had about £2 million in income in the past five years, and three quarters of that income has come from the Government—from the taxpayer. Is not the message for other organisations that they should not be too dependent on taxpayer funding?
Felicity Buchan
My hon. Friend has expressed that point very well.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I have been contacted by my constituent, Diana Francis—who is a Quaker—about her deep concern regarding the sudden withdrawal of funds for the Inter Faith Network. My inter-faith group in Bath has done invaluable work to bring communities together, nurturing tolerance, understanding, and the dialogue that is so important between people of different religious backgrounds. Can the Minister not see how this sudden decision to withdraw funding at a time of heightened tensions only drives division, and that people in my constituency are really concerned that there is nothing that will replace an organisation as unique as the Inter Faith Network?
Felicity Buchan
As I have said, we strongly welcome all of the inter-faith work that happens across our communities. We have always been clear that the Inter Faith Network needed to diversify its funding sources, and we were also very clear that funding would not be given after 2024 in any instance. That was communicated to the IFN back in July.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest: I am an active member of Christians in Parliament and a former parliamentary churchwarden of St Margaret’s. The closure of the Inter Faith Network is not seriously about a relatively small amount of money; it is about the message it sends at this time in our country, when all of us in this House are working for inter-faith dialogue, trying to cool the atmosphere and address the problems we know about in many communities in this country. Psychologically, it is the wrong time and the wrong move. Please, for the good of our country and for community relations, will the Government think again?
Felicity Buchan
As I have said, inter-faith work is very important, and we fund a number of organisations to do it. I will not repeat the names; I have already mentioned them. This decision was taken because, as part of the core governance of the Inter Faith Network, there is a member of the MCB, with which the Government do not maintain relations.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I reiterate the points that other Members have made, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). For this to happen in the current international context is absolutely outrageous. It is a politically obtuse decision. May I press the Minister on the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) about the risk assessment the Government have done to understand the impact on community relations?
Felicity Buchan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As I have said, very careful consideration went into this decision. It has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments, first introduced in 2009 by a Labour Government, not to engage with the MCB.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), when she said that the Government take inter-faith work very seriously, but actions speak louder than words. Cutting off funding with just a few hours’ notice is not helpful to this important organisation. What steps will DLUHC now take to support dialogue in any areas where it has been lost?
Felicity Buchan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As I say, DLUHC funds a number of organisations that work very intensively at a local level to support inter-faith work and community cohesion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. As images from outside this House last night made clear, it is very important that people of all faiths have a point at which to meet and to focus on the things that draw us together, rather than those that divide us. How will the Government and the Minister achieve that when this body, the Inter Faith Network, closes? How can we—that means all of us in this House together, and those outside this House—continue on journeys of embracing all faiths and increasing awareness of those faiths?
Felicity Buchan
I think understanding of faiths is incredibly important, and that is why we encourage inter-faith work, especially at a local level. I have already talked about what I do in my constituency, and I find it very valuable. In this particular instance, we cannot continue to fund the Inter Faith Network, but we do fund other organisations, and we wish them well. We have always made it clear to the Inter Faith Network that it needed to develop alternative sources of funding.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.
Business of the House
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I ask the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 26 February will include:
Monday 26 February—Consideration of a Humble Address following the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, followed by a general debate on farming.
Tuesday 27 February—Remaining stages of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill.
Wednesday 28 February—Second Reading of the Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 29 February—Debate on a motion on language in politics on International Women’s Day, followed by a general debate on Welsh affairs. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 1 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 4 March includes:
Monday 4 March—Debate on a motion on risk-based exclusion following the recommendations from the House of Commons Commission, followed by a general debate on a subject to be announced.
Tuesday 5 March—Second Reading of the Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 6 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Thursday 7 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 8 March—The House will not be sitting.
Lucy Powell
Yesterday was a very difficult day in the House of Commons, and for Mr Speaker personally, as he did his utmost to do what he thought was in the best interests of the House. We should all reflect on how we got to where we got to and accept our part in it. I welcome Mr Speaker’s desire to resolve these matters in discussions with us and others across the House, and I am sure that the vast majority of Members accept his genuine and heartfelt commitment to this House, and that he always has the best intentions in making his decisions.
I do not want to go over those issues now, except to say that I am grateful to Mr Speaker for seeking to enable the widest possible range of views to be expressed. No one could have foreseen events unfolding as they did. As it was—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Let us not have a repeat of the behaviour last night. Can we listen to each other with respect? It is not good to have this shouting at the shadow Leader of the House—calmness, please.
Lucy Powell
As you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, it really is not a good look.
No one could have foreseen what happened. As it was, with the Scottish National party indicating that it would vote for our amendment, along with many Conservative Members, it was right that it should be put. The Government made an extraordinary decision to withdraw from the debate, raising a number of questions.
However, let us not forget that we were discussing the most serious of matters—those of life and death, war and conflict, and how we as a country, and as a Parliament, can play our part in bringing about a much-longed-for lasting peace, based on a two-state solution. It is to be regretted that at such a time we did not show ourselves at our best and that parliamentary antics were the story, not Parliament coming together with one voice, saying, “We want the fighting to stop, with an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and a meaningful process.” We can all reflect on that. My final reflection is that I hope this place will have more time, not less, to debate and discuss these profound matters. It should not be left to Opposition day debates and urgent questions to get them aired in the first place.
As we debate these important matters, a long shadow is increasingly cast over us: threats, intimidation and security concerns—[Interruption.] I mean, it’s remarkable. I know that this issue is of huge concern to Mr Speaker too; it is something that keeps him awake at night and is his first priority. I join him in praising the security team working to keep us safe. The legitimate lobbying of Members is part and parcel of our job and our democracy. That, at times, can be robust, and we can all disagree strongly, yet increasingly we are seeing a line being crossed.
I know that Members feel uncomfortable discussing their experiences for fear of attracting more unwanted attention, or because we do not want to come across as whingeing when we have such privileged positions, but during recess we saw another line being crossed, with the intimidation of a Member and their family at their family home. Reports that other organisations will be targeting the homes of MPs ahead of and during the election have caused huge anxiety. It is a totally unacceptable development. Oh, there is no noise for that one. It not only causes anxiety for MPs and their families, neighbours and staff; it is antidemocratic and is undoubtedly starting to affect people’s decisions and behaviours. That is wrong, and we must do more to address it. Does the Leader of the House agree that the police should take a much more hard-line approach to so-called protests outside the homes of Members of Parliament? Can she confirm that the police should use the powers they have to stop such protests, and say whether further guidance can be issued?
Does the Leader of the House agree that we need to look at the causes, not just the symptoms, of this sometimes toxic and febrile environment? First, does she agree that we have a duty to be careful with our language and in how we conduct ourselves and challenge one another, and that we should avoid stoking division? Next, does she agree that more should be done, with extra powers given, to regulate social media and elsewhere to tackle the spread of misinformation, disinformation, deepfakes and other dangerous material? With the rise in antisemitism, Islamophobia and hate, can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will bring forward a hate crime and extremism strategy with urgency? Finally, does she agree that the defending democracy taskforce should have a broader remit to defend democracy from threats within our borders, and that we should take a more cross-party approach as we head towards what is likely to be a very testing general election?
Penny Mordaunt
First, may I join with all those who have paid tribute to Alexei Navalny? In the wake of an assassination attempt, he returned to stand with his fellow countrymen against Putin’s tyranny, knowing full well what that might mean for him and his family. He put his country and his countrymen before himself.
I remind the House that the Government will again outline our position on the very serious matter of Israel and Gaza in a written ministerial statement soon.
I join the hon. Lady in her thanks to the security services, particularly those of the House authorities, for keeping us safe. I point to our record on adapting legislation to cope with the evolving nature of some pretty awful protests that not just MPs but the general public have been putting up with. There is also the work we have been doing in the House on social media, the new services in the House of Commons Library and the defending democracy taskforce. It would be nice to have the Opposition’s support on those matters, in particular on the legislation that we will bring forward.
I want to say that this House will never bow to extremists, threats or intimidation. It has not, it will not, it must not. I ask all Members not to do this House a further disservice by suggesting that the shameful events that took place yesterday were anything other than party politics on behalf of the Labour party.
Let me bring the House up to date. Two significant things happened yesterday, and I am not sure all hon. Members have clocked them. First, it fell to those on the Government Benches to defend the rights of a minority party in this House. If the hon. Lady cannot bring herself to reflect on the appalling consequences of her party’s actions yesterday—if she cannot rise above the narrow and immediate needs of her weak and fickle leader to fulfil her duties to this House as its shadow Leader—perhaps she might like to reflect on the damage her party has done to the office of the Speaker. I would never have done to him what the Labour party has done to him.
Secondly, we have seen into the heart of Labour’s leadership. Nothing is more important than the interests of the Labour party. The Labour party before principle; the Labour party before individual rights; the Labour party before the reputation and honour of the decent man who sits in the Speaker’s Chair; the Labour party before fairness, integrity and democracy; in Rochdale, the Labour party before a zero-tolerance policy on antisemitism; and—many of us knew this about the Labour leader; I saw it in his frustration at our country getting the best deal possible when we left the EU—the Labour party before country.
I must tell the hon. Lady that the people of this country do not have a copy of the Standing Orders of this House lying around their home, and they have not been chatting about parliamentary procedure over their cornflakes this morning, but they value fairness and they want the rights of all to be protected. They cannot abide bullies and cheats. They cannot abide people who trash our nation or fail to defend its interests, or the institutions that protect them. Government Members often rightly criticise the former leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), for the things he stood for and for being wrong on matters, but I will say one thing about him: at least he thought he was right on them. The current leader of the Labour party is quite happy to do what he knows to be wrong. He puts the interests of the Labour party before the interests of the British people. It is the Labour leader who does not get Britain, and the past week has shown that he is not fit to lead it.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I suggest that the priority of the House should be to command the confidence of our voters? I do not think that they, or indeed a majority in the House, feel that we resolved anything on the question of Gaza and Israel yesterday, so may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the Government take up the suggestion made by the shadow Leader of the House and hold a debate on the subject in Government time, on a Government motion, so that the motion and every amendment can be considered? That would draw a line under this matter.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. It is sad that what happened yesterday with regard to the Speaker happened when the SNP was trying to hold an Opposition day debate on the most serious of issues. I heard what he said, and will be speaking to business managers.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Yesterday was incredibly disappointing, from our point of view. It was meant to be an Opposition day, and it was one of only three times in a calendar year when our party gets an opportunity to put forward its business to the House. I do not think that what we came forward with was a surprise to anyone. We were allocated an Opposition day four or five weeks ago, but totally understandably, it had to be moved when the Northern Ireland Assembly was reconvening. At that stage, there were conversations, and I was asked when people would have sight of the Gaza motion that we would bring forward, so it is quite extraordinary for anyone to suggest that they did not know we might come forward with a motion on that topic. When it got to our Opposition day—one of the very few times when we can put forward our policies—our voice was silenced: our motion could not be voted on. That is incredibly disappointing for me and a significant number of my constituents, and those of my hon. Friends and hon. Members from across the Chamber who wanted to support the motion.
Given that, in effect, we did not get an Opposition day yesterday, can we be allocated an alternative date? As others have said, we lost a significant amount of time at the start of the debate, and because of the Speaker’s decision, unfortunately we lost 40 minutes at the end of the debate. That meant that colleagues were cut short, and some withdrew from the debate. What consideration will the Leader of the House give to that suggestion—and, beyond that, to protection for the smaller parties, so that they are not simply railroaded for the political purposes of either of the bigger parties?
I echo the comments of the shadow Leader of the House, but it is critical that all Members of this place, whatever their position or status, be protected from bullying and intimidation. If reports from many media outlets are to be believed, it is entirely unacceptable that significant pressure was put on Mr Speaker to come to his decision yesterday. What steps will the Leader of the House take to investigate those very serious claims? If there is any substance to them, it is an affront to democracy that a party leader can direct decisions of the Chair of this place.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am, as Chief Whip, involved in a number of conversations on how business comes forward. I had direct assurances that I would have a vote on the words of my motion yesterday. Everyone knew well in advance what the potential outcome would be at the end of yesterday’s debate, so to suggest that no one knew is utter nonsense. The reason we are in this position is that convention and the Standing Orders of this House were overruled, against the advice of the Clerks. That only happened because the Labour party wanted to be dug out of a hole. That is unacceptable.
Penny Mordaunt
It is no secret to anyone who regularly tunes into these sessions that frequently I disagree with Scottish National party Members on every point that they raise, but they have a right to say these things on the Floor of the House and to debate their issues. If I were able to speak in yesterday’s debate, I would have been critical of how they brought forward their motion, and perhaps of their motives for doing so, but it was their right to do as they did. Our Standing Orders protect the ability of minority parties in particular to have those debates. Yesterday’s decision has serious consequences for minority parties and for the Government; for instance, our amendment was the only one that mentioned the violence against women and girls that has taken place. It is important to ensure that the rights of minority parties are protected. I am very sympathetic to the SNP being given more time, and to it being knocked off the Labour party’s allocation.
With regard to the serious matter of Mr Speaker, he came to the House yesterday and apologised. I know that he is meeting all parties on this matter, and I will meet him later today.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware that I represent Romford in the London Borough of Havering, a historical Essex market town. Will she please arrange for a debate to take place on the Floor of the House about the fairness of local government funding? My borough is nearing bankruptcy because of the failure to have a fair funding system. We are also fleeced by the Mayor of London, who takes huge sums of money from places like Havering to fund the Greater London Authority. Can we have a debate about reform to local government in Greater London, and fairer funding for boroughs such as Havering—and hopefully a referendum, so that we can go back to being fully part of Essex?
Penny Mordaunt
I welcome my hon. Friend back to his place. He is quite right to raise the matter of pressures on his council, particularly those born of the actions of the Mayor of London, whose budget is in crisis. Local government has had about a 7% uplift across the board, but London boroughs clearly face local issues and particular pressures because of the Mayor’s mismanagement. My hon. Friend will know that the next questions to the relevant Secretary of State are on 4 March.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and, in particular, for announcing the Backbench Business debates for next Thursday. I think the Leader of the House will be aware that between now and Easter, the Backbench Business Committee has little or no time to allocate for debates in the Chamber beyond next Thursday, due to other business encroaching into Thursdays, including the Budget debate. I therefore wonder whether, if there is any additional time between now and the Easter recess, the Leader of the House could tip me the wink as soon as possible, and if she could tip us the wink, via the normal channels, when the date of the estimates day debates is known. We would really appreciate that, so that we can get the wheels in motion.
Of course, we continue to welcome applications for debates in Westminster Hall on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Our Committee has written to the Procedure Committee to ask for a change to Standing Orders, so that Westminster Hall debates on Thursdays can begin at 12.30 pm instead of 1.30 pm. It seems that the start time has not caught up with changes to the parliamentary timetable over the years; the change might facilitate better attendance at debates on a Thursday afternoon.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman, again, for his advert for the Backbench Business Committee. He knows that I am keen to give him time, and early sight of the allocation, so that he can fill in slots for debate, and will certainly make him aware of the dates for estimate day debates. I hope to be able to update him very shortly.
Sir Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hard for market towns to thrive without an open bank? That is why I hope she will join me in congratulating the people and businesses in Bacup in Lancashire, as well as Link, Cash Access UK and the ATM network, which have worked with me to deliver on my pledge to bring banking back to Bacup. I hope we can find time in this House to have a debate on the new banking hub that is opening in a fantastic historical market town in Lancashire.
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his constituents who have worked to ensure that these services continue. It is understandable, as banks look to cut costs, that they give up bricks and mortar, but that does not mean the disappearance of those vital services from our communities. Well done to all. I am sure that many hon. Members will ask him for advice in the future.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Devon and Cornwall police have been in special measures since 2022, after multiple failings. Last week, it was revealed that seven current and former women police officers are suing the force for failing to deal with rapes, beatings and psychological torture by male colleagues over a number of years. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a Home Office Minister to make a statement reassuring the people of Devon and Cornwall and serving women police officers that these allegations will be thoroughly and independently investigated, and any wrongdoing punished?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this terrible situation. He will know that the next Home Office questions is on 26 February, and I encourage him to raise it directly with the Home Secretary there, but given the serious nature of this issue I will make sure the Home Secretary has heard what he has said today and that at the very least his office is updated.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real issue of the events of the last 24 hours is not the party political shenanigans suggested by the shadow Leader of the House, but that this House appears cowed by threats of violence and intimidation? The mother of Parliaments appears weakened and diminished as a result. We have allowed our streets to be dominated by Islamist extremists, and British Jews and others to be too intimidated to walk through central London week after week. Now we are allowing Islamist extremists to intimidate British Members of Parliament. This is wrong. It has to stop. Will my right hon. Friend organise a debate on extremism and how we tackle this challenge, which is one of the central issues facing our generation?
Penny Mordaunt
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. British Jews are suffering a grotesque level of hatred and abuse, which quite frankly shames our country. He is absolutely right that there cannot be any tolerance or quarter given to individuals who threaten and try to prevent Members of Parliament conducting their business and honouring the obligations they have to their constituents to use their judgment when they come into this place. He will know that there is a tremendous amount of work going on with the House and within the Government to ensure that we protect democracy and protect all communities in Britain. I will make sure the Home Secretary has heard his remarks today.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
This is quite a ticklish question. I am the longest-serving Member on the Opposition Benches and I have seen scenes like those we saw yesterday on, I think, only one other occasion. Indeed, it was shameful that the BBC had to blank off the proceedings at one stage because of the crude and vile language that was coming from one end of the Chamber. Can we seriously review what went wrong yesterday and get it sorted? I have every confidence —[Interruption.] Can I be allowed to say this? We should learn from what happened yesterday, rather than carry on the awful rowdy behaviour we saw.
As this is business questions, may we have an early debate on people up and down the country, mainly in the north of England but also in Wales, who have been fleeced by lawyers and legal companies over cavity wall insulation? People who have got bad cavity wall insulation are being absolutely ruined and are losing their homes because of predatory lawyers.
Penny Mordaunt
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I do not think there is any doubt about what took place yesterday. It was completely shameful. I do not think there is any doubt about the procedural consequences—if Members are still in the dark about that, the Clerk of the House has provided some very clear advice. I do want to take the heat out of this. I think that we do need to reflect on what has happened, but I can tell him, as Leader of the House, that I will defend the rights of all Members to air views and the right voices of Opposition parties to be heard in this Chamber. It was to my great sadness that it fell to me yesterday to do that for this place. With regard to the other matter the hon. Gentleman raises, I shall make sure the Secretary of State has heard what he has said.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a point of order that is germane to the proceedings.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Points of order will come after the Select Committee statement. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted to intervene in business questions, I would of course have called him if he had been here at the beginning, but I am afraid that I have to direct him to make his point of order at the end of the Select Committee statement.
While I am about it, it might be useful for me to remind right hon. and hon. Members that any criticism of the Speaker or the Deputy Speakers can be made only on a substantive motion. Bearing in mind what the Leader of the House said about taking the temperature down, I wanted to remind Members that that is the case.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In order to be here at this time, I have delayed giving a personal statement to the police on the latest individual who thinks that Members of this House are fair game to be harassed, stalked and threatened. It is clear that the lack of transparency over the reasons why we sometimes vote one way or another means that our votes are often wilfully misinterpreted and used to drum up hatred against parliamentarians, and that that perverts our democracy.
Let me make a suggestion. The European Parliament has many flaws, but in that place it is possible to place a written explanation of vote on the Parliament’s website, beside one’s voting record. The Opposition and Government spokesmen do it on behalf of their parties, and any individual Member can submit their own written explanation of why they have voted the way they have. It prevents the votes from being misinterpreted, it keeps Members safer, and it stops democracy being perverted. Will my right hon. Friend take that idea on board, stop the Opposition wilfully misinterpreting our votes on Opposition days, and help to keep our democracy safe?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that I speak on behalf of all in the House when I say how sorry we are to hear that my right hon. Friend is having to endure the abuse that she has described. As I said at the start of my statement, this House will never kowtow to extremists or intimidation, and right hon. and hon. Members take their responsibilities in this place and to their constituents extremely seriously.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her very helpful suggestion, and I will certainly look at that. Let me just say, however, that while we can update practices and do other things in this place to help members of the public understand what is actually going on and draw clarity in relation to what our proceedings are focused on and what we are voting on and why, we are all obliged to act with honour and integrity and to support democracy in this place. I have no jurisdiction over Opposition attack ads, and if there is any reflection to be done following the last 24 hours, I ask the Opposition to reflect on that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
May I add my thanks to the security services who are working so hard and effectively to keep us all safe? They did sterling work at a community meeting that I held last week in my constituency, and I thank them very much for that.
As the Leader of the House will know, I am a member of the Restoration and Renewal Programme Board. We all love this magnificent place of work and appreciate being able to work in this wonderful Palace of Westminster, but the structure of the place is not in a good way. As has been said during the programme board’s meetings, it needs open heart surgery. [Interruption.] I am talking about the structure of this place. For much of last year, my colleagues on the board and I were working hard to identify a shortlist of options for delivering restoration and renewal that we felt would command the support of Members throughout the House. Given all the work we have put in, it is frustrating that we are still no closer to making progress. We need to maintain momentum and get on with R&R. When and how will Members be updated on the various options and proposals so that we can move forward and restore the building? This is important work that needs to be done to keep us and everyone who works here safe.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady and all those who have been serving on both the programme board and the client board. The House will be pleased to know that great progress has been made. We have been able to get some real grip and granularity into the programme, and we also have a number of projects that we can get on with while we are looking at decant options and other things that will take more time. She knows that the next client board meeting will be on Monday and will look to take some of those decisions, but this House needs to be sighted on programmes that are going forward and on the options, and it must have a say in those too.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Leader of the House was right to withdraw from yesterday’s debate when it was clear that conventions were being broken. Those who put pressure on the Speaker to break with convention should reflect on their actions. If it was because Members of Parliament could be intimidated or at risk for how they voted, that is even worse and actually quite frightening. Having said that, the Speaker has said he made a mistake, and the House relies on us having confidence in the Speaker. We should move on now, and I would recommend that we do not put in motions of no confidence. Instead, we should restore our reputation as soon as possible by having a proper debate on a Government motion, whereby all amendments can be considered.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said and the tone he has struck in saying it. The Speaker came to this House last night, took responsibility for his actions and apologised. He is reflecting on what has happened, and he is meeting all parties. I hope that everyone who was involved in the events yesterday, and in the consequences of them, will also reflect on their actions and take responsibility for them.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My constituent Charlie McKerrow has campaigned for redress for victims of sodium valproate and fed into the Baroness Cumberlege report, which, as far back as 2020, recommended a compensation scheme. Another constituent, Gillian McQueen, has contacted me. She states:
“I will not be around forever, I need to know my children will be financially secure.”
The Patient Safety Commissioner has also recommended that compensation be paid, and has submitted a report to the Government. When will the Government design a compensation scheme for victims of sodium valproate? Will they confirm that it will be a UK-wide scheme, so that the children of my constituents get the compensation and support they deserve?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The report was recently published, and the Government have committed to respond to it very swiftly. He will know that the next questions to the Secretary of State are on 5 March, but I will make sure that the Government have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and update his office.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Leader of the House will have heard me ask the Prime Minister a question yesterday about the threat to food security posed by a string of monstrous pylons that will run down the east coast and through some of the most productive farmland in the country. Simultaneously, we face applications for huge solar plants on the best land we have, which feeds the nation; 30% of our fresh produce is grown on this land. Given her exemplary answer to me last week, will the Leader of the House, in that vein, arrange for a meeting with the relevant Secretaries of State and a delegation—inevitably led by me—of affected colleagues, so that we can immediately put an end to these threats to our food security?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for all the campaign work he is doing on this very important issue. It is an important matter not just for his constituents directly affected by it, because it has implications for our food security if large swathes of high-quality agricultural land are not being used to grow food and build this nation’s resilience. He will know that the next questions to the Secretary of State are on 14 March, but I will write this afternoon on my right hon. Friend’s behalf and encourage a meeting with a Minister and all colleagues affected by this issue.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I have to say that I was ashamed to be a Member of Parliament last night. However, I understand from what the Leader of the House has said this morning that she agrees that we should observe the Nolan principles. I was going to ask for a debate on that matter, but given that the Chair of the Liaison Committee and others are calling for a debate on Gaza, could she confirm that there will be a debate on Gaza in Government time, which will allow all of us to vote?
Penny Mordaunt
The issue of substance yesterday is a very important and serious matter. I can assure the House that there will be ample opportunities in the future to debate it on the Floor of the House, and I will announce further business in the usual way. I gently say to the hon. Lady that I am not ashamed to be a Member of Parliament, and I was not ashamed to be a Member of Parliament yesterday. I think if I were a member of the Labour party, I would be ashamed of that.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is with regret that I have tabled early-day motion 412.
[That this House has no confidence in Mr Speaker.]
May I ask the Leader of the House about a procedural point, as my EDM continues to gather names this morning? Could she confirm from the Dispatch Box the process by which that motion can be brought as a substantive motion to the Floor of the House in order to be debated and voted on?
Penny Mordaunt
The Government will always listen carefully to the views of this House, and the Speaker needs to command its confidence. The future of the speakership is therefore a matter for Members of the House, not the Government, but we will of course listen to any requests for debates in Government time. Members will also know other routes by which they can secure a debate. I reiterate that Mr Speaker has made himself available to speak to all the parties, and I am sure that his door is always open to Members individually too.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Yesterday I took the opportunity to pop into the Young Lives vs Cancer event, which was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan). I met a very inspiring young person, Amy, who told me about the obstacles that young people face when they receive a cancer diagnosis. Closer to home, my dear Uncle Tommy has just received a terminal diagnosis and been given four months to live. He is facing that news with great courage and determination, and with his usual sense of humour. Would the Leader of the House like to join me in sending the House’s best wishes to both Amy and my uncle, Tommy Aitchison, who is back home in Viewpark? Could we have a debate on the Floor of the House about cancer outcomes for all people across all nations of the UK? The reality is that we must do better from the start to the very end for people who have a cancer diagnosis.
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House in sending our good wishes and support to the hon. Gentleman’s uncle and his loved ones following that very sad news. Cancer outcomes have improved dramatically over the past few years, thanks to our incredible science base, our third sector, which supports such research so critically, and of course the work going on in our NHS and the organisations that support it, but there is more to do. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said today, and all our good wishes go to his family.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Collectively, last night was not our finest hour, but Mr Speaker has apologised to the House for his role in what happened, showing evident contrition, and I think we should respect that. If we err in this Chamber, we are expected to apologise to him, and we hope that he will accept our apology in good faith. I think that we should pay him the same courtesy.
Speaking purely personally, I well remember everything that Mr Speaker did to help me, and all of us, when our great friend—my best friend—was murdered by, as it happened, an Islamic extremist, who told his trial that he did it because of how David voted in the House of Commons. Mr Speaker went the extra mile to help us all deal with that tragedy. Look at that plaque behind me.
We should put last night right by rerunning the debate in Government time. Mr Speaker is a decent man, as the Leader of the House said; he is not the villain here. We should rerun the debate, and he should be in his rightful place presiding from the Chair. We are lucky to have him, aren’t we?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. I think there is no need for me to add to that; he said it very well.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is rare that I find myself in complete agreement with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) but, on a personal level, Mr Speaker—both as Speaker and as a Deputy Speaker—has always taken my security concerns, and those of other Members, very seriously.
Despite the House’s disagreements, I know that my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth are not interested in debates about procedure; they are interested in the facts on the ground in Gaza. There is sincere concern about the suffering and horror that we have seen. Could the Leader of the House urgently provide some updated guidance for how all Members can respond to concerns raised by constituents who have family in Gaza? Many of us have been trying to deal with individual cases, as well as trying to support colleagues, and we need guidance for British citizens trapped in Gaza, for citizens of allies and other countries with which we have good diplomatic relations, and for those who do not have citizenship of other places. What can be done to support those who are, for example, being denied healthcare or are in perilous situations? We need urgent guidance so that we can all help to deal with the real issue, which is the suffering and horror we see in Gaza.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing us back to the matter of substance. He will know that I have worked with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and particularly its consular teams, to ensure that Members can get information fast, particularly during recess, when dealing with cases in which people are in peril or immediate danger. I will touch base with the FCDO and with Members after business questions to ensure that all the advice and guidance is up to date.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I have been pleased to help obtain additional funding for urgent A&E services at Northwick Park Hospital, on which many of my constituents rely for their healthcare. The Northwick Park, St Mark’s, Central Middlesex and Ealing hospitals now have a collective backlog of £56 million-worth of urgent repairs. It is clear that hospitals across the country are crumbling. We need to have a debate in Government time on what we can do collectively to ensure that we have the medical facilities in this country that the public rightly demand and that we have a duty to provide.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued campaigning to ensure not only that his constituents have the healthcare professional uplift that they needed, and that they now enjoy, but that the buildings from which those professionals operate are fit for purpose. The next Health and Social Care questions are on 5 March. I know my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate on this issue, and I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard what he said this afternoon.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is important that we discuss what happened last night in a moderate, reasonable and respectful way. We all have lessons to learn, but in order for those lessons to be learned we must be clear about what actually happened and the precise chain of events, so I would like to ask the Leader of the House a simple question: why did she decide to withdraw the Government’s amendment?
Penny Mordaunt
I direct the hon. Gentleman to the advice of the Clerk of the House and the consequences that stemmed from it. The result of yesterday’s decision is that minority parties would never be able to vote on their own motion in an Opposition day debate. That was a break with the procedure of this House, and I know there are ongoing conversations between Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers about how we can ensure that the office of Speaker is never again put upon in the way it was yesterday. We all know what happened yesterday. If the hon. Gentleman is not aware, he should talk to those on his Front Bench.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The most worrying thing about yesterday is that Members were being intimidated for what they say and how they vote, because of fears about their physical safety and that of their staff and family. Added to that, we have a climate of hard-line support that has seen antisemitism on the streets of our capital city. My constituents from the Jewish community feel intimidated about coming into the centre of London, so may we have a debate on how to address this intolerable climate? We cannot go on like this.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this very important point. It is beneficial to air these matters and to ensure that we focus the services of the House and other resources, such as the police, on protecting Members of Parliament when they go out to perform their daily duties for the people who sent them here. I know that people often like to beat up on Members of Parliament and what they do, but we are sent here by the British people. What we do protects their interests, and we have to be free to use our judgment to vote in the way that we think is in their interests. Anything that interferes with that is an assault on democracy, and we need to ensure that Members and the public can go about their daily lives and do their duty for their country without intimidation or worse.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
If we are to believe Mr Speaker that his selection of amendments yesterday was to allow the widest possible debate, can the Leader of the House explain why he did not select the Lib Dem amendment? The reality is that the SNP was stitched up by yesterday’s deal with the Labour party. Does she share my incredulity that a Speaker who insists that we cannot speak in this place without wearing a tie now wants us to move on and modernise?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for affording me another opportunity to direct Members to the Clerk’s advice. Anyone who peddles the line that this decision would have led to a wider debate has not read that advice.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I met the Watford Hackney Carriage Drivers Association last year to discuss the challenges faced by our brilliant taxi drivers. The closure of Watford’s Pryzm nightclub in January is a devastating blow to the local taxi trade. How can I encourage ride- hailing companies such as Bolt to consider including drivers from the Watford Hackney Carriage Drivers Association on their black cab scheme, which would contribute greatly to the local night-time economy?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising awareness and for demonstrating that a thriving night-time economy is vital for local taxi drivers, and the reverse is also true. I encourage him to seek a debate in which the Minister can hear his views; he knows how to apply for that. Our taxi drivers play an essential role in our communities, and he will know that the next Transport questions is on 21 March.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Many of my constituents, including members of the Sikh community and local gurdwaras, have written to me regarding their serious concerns about the safety of protesting farmers in their attempt to march towards the Indian capital, New Delhi. Yesterday, a protester was killed during a reported stand-off with police, where the cause of death was
“a bullet wound to the head.”
The Punjab health Minister confirmed that a second boy also sustained a bullet wound but “luckily he has survived”, with another 13 people being treated for injuries in hospitals.
The BBC have reported today that X—Twitter—admitted to being compelled, against their wishes, to take down the legitimate posts and accounts of activists. Does the Leader of the House agree that freedom of expression, the safety of protesters and their human rights must be protected? What representations have the Government made to their Indian counterparts to that effect?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that very serious situation. Of course, the Government support the right to protest in safety. I shall ensure the Foreign Office has heard his concerns and ask the relevant Minister to get in touch with his office.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is good to see you in the Chair. May we have a debate on rogue councils? Mid Devon District Council, which I have talked about many times, has now threatened its former leaders—other parties as well—with legal action for disputing what has gone on with the 3 Rivers development. There has been a lack of scrutiny and a lack of accountability. This is millions of pounds, not thousands. The chair of scrutiny, believe it or not, had a party on public funds—the chief exec is up to his neck in this—and the leader of the council, who, as we know, packs perfume for a living, is unprepared to do the work that a council leader should do, regardless of persuasion. Can we please have a debate in Government time about councils’ responsibility for dealing with situations that have gone wrong and not suing their former colleagues who are trying to do their job?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is very diligent in pursuing these matters at all opportunities, including business questions. I suggest that the issue is perhaps best raised with the Secretary of State on 4 March in departmental questions.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
A lot has been said about the events of yesterday, but let us not forget that the outcome was that this Parliament has given a clear mandate on our position on Gaza— [Interruption.] That is very important.
Let me move on to a constituency matter. People in Oldham work very hard for a house for their family to live in and they expect security for that, but some are having the roof literally taken from over their heads, including Mr Potter through an agreement with A Shade Greener, a solar installation company. Thousands of people are affected by companies who were not clear about the terms and conditions and are now taking out loans on the properties, making remortgaging almost impossible. Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of mis-selling in the solar industry?
Penny Mordaunt
On the hon. Member’s latter point, I will certainly make sure that the Secretary of State has heard what he said, and he can put that to Ministers directly on 27 February. With regard to his former point, it is in the interests of the British people that democracy is protected. As I said, the interests of the Labour party are trumping democracy.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Yesterday, we saw the politicisation of the situation in Gaza by SNP Members to engineer an issue within the Labour party—their Opposition day, their right. Labour Members were reportedly concerned about their security, as we are, but the Labour party frequently confects issues towards the Conservative side. We have seen Conservative Members called “scum” by a Labour Member, inside and outside this Chamber. We have been accused of starving children and dumping sewage in our seas. These are false assertions to generate intolerable hatred, death threats and abuse against Conservative MPs. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the Conservatives have ever asked for special treatment or convention to be overturned to protect us? Does that illustrate that both sides of the House, not just this side, need to take a responsible approach to debate in this House and public discourse, and in public life?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend has made her point extremely well. Whether those debates were on storm overflows or free school meals, when Conservative Members faced very unfair slurs and intimidation, we did not ask that the procedures of the House be upended and put pressure on a decent man in the Speaker’s Chair to change those processes. That is because it is at the heart of our party that we put the interests of this country first. One of those interests is that democracy in this place is protected.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Last evening, we saw the best of this House in its ability to debate, and we also saw the worst of this House as it descended into farce. I think I speak for everyone in the Chamber now, and yesterday, when I express my deep sorrow that that was able to happen, given the content of what we were debating.
Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, it descended into farce because of a decision that you—and you alone—made to ignore the advice that was given to you by the Clerks. In doing so, on the Opposition day of the Scottish National party, my colleagues and I were denied the ability to vote on a matter which is of grave concern to us, and which, over recent months, we have sought to raise in this Chamber at every available opportunity. It ultimately turned into a Labour Opposition day. That, quite frankly, is not acceptable. As I have expressed to you privately, prior to today’s proceedings, we do not, on these Benches, believe that you can continue in your role as Speaker. We do not have confidence in your ability to do so. I would therefore welcome clarity, either from you or the Leader of the House, about how we can best facilitate the earliest possible vote in this Chamber to that effect.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I hope that he can see, in my actions yesterday, that I am a servant of this House, and that even though it may not be in the Government’s narrow interests to do so, I will protect the rights of all minority parties to be able to air their views in this place and ensure that the parties who are afforded Opposition day debates can have those debates in the fullest sense and have votes on their motions. We create the rules of this House and the Speaker serves at our behest. Given the range of views that have been expressed on the Floor of the House today—many interventions have been supportive of the Speaker, pointing out the pressures that were put on him yesterday—I think that we should take time to reflect. Mr Speaker has said that his door is open to all parties and individual Members, as is mine. But as I said, the Government will listen to this House. I am a servant of this House and I will do its bidding.
Mr Speaker
I will also come in at this point. I reiterate that I made a judgment call that did not end up in the position where I expected it to. I regret it and I apologise to the SNP—[Interruption.] Just bear with me. I apologise to the House. I made a mistake: we do make mistakes and I own up to mine. We can have an SO24 to get an immediate debate because the debate is so important to the House.
I will defend every Member in this House. Every Member matters to me in this House. As has been said, I never, ever want to go through a situation where I pick up a phone to find a friend, on whatever side, has been murdered by a terrorist. I also do not want another attack on this House—I was in the Chair on that day. I have seen, I have witnessed. I will not share the details, but the details of the things that have been brought to me are absolutely frightening for all Members of the House, on all sides. I have a duty of care and I say that. If my mistake is looking after Members, I am guilty. I am guilty because—[Interruption.]—I have a duty of care that I will carry out to protect people; it is the protection that led me to make a wrong decision. With the risk being put on all Members at the moment, I had serious meetings yesterday with the police on these issues and on threats to politicians as we head towards an election. I do not want anything to happen again.
Yes, I will apologise, as I always will when I make a mistake as I did. I offer an SO24—that is within my gift and power—but I will also do whatever it is to protect anybody in this Chamber or anybody who works in this House. That is my duty of care.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I was in Israel last week meeting with hostage families, survivors and friends. I actually felt safer in Israel than I do in this country at this moment in time. I have two reflections on that visit and on what happened yesterday. First, nobody in this House has any business or agency at all in telling the state of Israel where it is able to operate to seek to rescue hostages who are being raped by the Islamic terrorists who hold them. Secondly, if we have a rerun of yesterday’s debate, exactly the same thing will happen again and Members will not vote with their hearts because they are frightened and scared.
What do we expect? For months I have been standing here talking about the people on our streets who are a demanding deaths for Jews, jihad and intifada, as the police stand by and allow that to happen. Last night, a genocidal call, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, was projected on to this building. That message says no Jew is welcome in the state of Israel—in that land. This is going to continue to happen because we are not dealing with it.
Will the Leader of the House explain what will be different if we have a rerun of the debate? How will hon. Members be able to vote with their hearts and consciences? Too many will not do that at the moment because of the threats we are receiving—threats that in some cases are telling us to leave this country and that we or our families should be subjected to pain and death?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. I do not think there is any Member of this House who has not received threats, intimidation and, increasingly, death threats to them and members of their family. I have had many such threats and other hon. Members have spoken about their experiences on the Floor of the House. We can do many things with regard to physical security, and I again thank the House authorities for what they did yesterday. The matter he raises of the projections on to this building last night is being looked at by the Speaker’s Office, parliamentary security, the Metropolitan police and Westminster City Council, which will be responsible for pursuing prosecutions.
I say again to all Members of the House: we are elected to carry out our duty and take our responsibilities seriously. It is often a frightening task, but we cannot let those threats change this place or what we think is the right course of action. If we do that, they will have won. They will never win. We have to show courage and our constituents need us to show courage on these matters. We must vote and do what we think is right.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Despite huge and growing public interest and concern over excess deaths, there remains a reluctance to engage with the issue, or in some cases even to acknowledge it, by Front Benchers across this Chamber. How convenient that this week the Office for National Statistics announced it has suddenly found a large increase in the UK population —not newborns, but older people. Where have these seniors been hiding for all these years? The effect of that increase will be to supress and mask the number of excess deaths. Can we have a debate on rebuilding trust in public health policy? We will not do that by fudging the figures at the ONS, which are now in complete conflict with those issued by other Government Departments, such as the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities.
Penny Mordaunt
I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman is asking the Government Front Benchers for a debate while at the same time asserting that we will do everything we can not to have one. He knows how to apply for a debate. He has had many debates—Westminster Hall debates and Adjournment debates—and he is able to ask questions in the House. Many Members from all parts of the House take these issues extremely seriously. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on what has been said on the Floor of the House today about our conduct and what we say about other Members, and the security consequences.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
E-bikes and e-scooters are becoming increasingly popular as a mode of transport, but I am concerned that last year London Fire Brigade attended 155 e-bike fires—an increase of 78% on 2022—and 28 blazes involving e-scooters. Three people have lost their lives and approximately 60 people have been injured in those fires. Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate in Government time on e-bike and e-scooter safety and regulation?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point. She will be aware that London Fire Brigade has issued new guidance, alongside the guidance put out by the Department for Transport, on safety for users of e-bikes and e-scooters. On 1 February, the Government published guidance on consumer safety when purchasing such vehicles. She is right to point to the fact that future regulation might be prudent in this area, given that we do not want people to have to focus on these matters in the way she has suggested.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you are entirely correct that the level of intimidation against hon. Members is unacceptable, but many of my constituents have also faced a level of antisemitism never seen before. It is welcome that commitments to prevent antisemitism are heard in this place, but often actions undermine that commitment. My constituents remind me about the calls for jihad on the streets of London, but the Metropolitan police refusing to do anything about it, and about men driving through north London threatening to rape Jewish women, but the Crown Prosecution Service declining to prosecute them. How do I reassure my constituents that this place does not treat issues of interest to my Jewish constituents differently, when last night the Labour motion came after the moment of interruption and was nodded through without a vote?
Penny Mordaunt
I know hon. Members will be asking questions about what happened with last night’s vote. I have consulted the Clerks of the House and the vote stands because it is a matter for the Chair. I encourage colleagues to talk to the Clerks of the House to understand that more, but I fully appreciate the anger and disappointment from all sides of the House about people not being able to vote on particular motions or amendments last night and about what happened after the moment of interruption.
With regard to my hon. Friend’s substantive point, he is right. We have to end the climate that he describes. We have to ensure that every community in this country can feel safe. He will know that the Home Secretary has been doing work with police forces across the country, particularly with the Met, about the additional powers that they need to be able to tackle these issues and to identify the individuals behind this violence and intimidation. He updates the House on a regular basis and will continue to do so. We have to end this.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Given the unprecedented breach of convention yesterday and the unseemly antics that we saw, despite the fact that we were debating the very serious slaughter in the middle east, will the Leader of the House make a statement to set out her view on the need for this House to have full disclosure on exactly what conversations took place between Mr Speaker and the leadership of the Labour party, amid grave allegations of the Labour party engaging in dark practices and possibly even blackmail before this unprecedented breach of convention, which has very sadly undermined confidence in our Speaker? Does she not agree that this is important in the interest of transparency? May I press her further and ask her to ensure that the SNP will be allocated another Opposition day, so that we can air our views, have our vote and express the concerns of our constituents about the slaughter in Gaza?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady has put her views on the record and I thank her for that. As I have said, I am sympathetic to the SNP being given additional time. She will understand that I will announce further business in the usual way, but I am very happy to speak to the leader of her party group.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I wish to associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). People are intimidated every day on the streets of this country. Having heard the heartfelt words of Mr Speaker yesterday, it is clear that he is worried about the intimidation of people in this place. We are reminded by the plaques of the people who have been murdered off the estate and on the estate. We walk into this Chamber under the shadow of world war two, when this Chamber was bombed by people who wanted to stop this Parliament sitting; the entrance to the Chamber is still there to remind us of that. The only time we went through the Lobbies yesterday was on my ten-minute rule Bill. It still surprises me that the Labour party encouraged Members to vote down a Bill that would have helped community transport and disability transport operators—I still find that astonishing.
To return to formal business, the “Draft Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain” was laid yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. It is supposed to be subject to an affirmative resolution. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that I have been concerned about our not being able to debate national policy statements. I would be grateful if she could find time for a debate on this, given that it is subject to an affirmative resolution.
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly raise my right hon. Friend’s latter point with the relevant Department and make sure that it has heard what she has said today. On her former point, it is absolutely right that we do all we can to protect Members of Parliament. It is absolutely right that we hold to account those who seek to intimidate or threaten individuals, elected Members of Parliament and those holding local government office, and that they face the full force of the law. However, we cannot adapt our processes and procedures in this place to not have difficult debates. We have to be able to debate difficult issues. We have to stand up for our constituents and make the judgments that we think are right. If we are adapting the procedures of this House because we are fearful of the consequences of standing up and saying what we think is right, then democracy has failed and the extremists have won. We must never do that and, as long as I am Leader of the House of Commons, that will never happen.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Leader of the House may be aware of Newport Wafer Fab in my constituency, which is part of the south Wales semi-conductor cluster. It is currently waiting for a new owner, but the transition process is in limbo because the site is awaiting a decision by the Cabinet Office under the National Security Act 2023. This process has been dragging on for months. I have written to the Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office twice and the Secretary of State for Wales, and I have met with a number of Ministers. I have had no response to my letters. Can the Leader of the House advise me on what my next step should be, as staff morale at the site is plummeting and jobs are in danger of being lost with this ongoing delay?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that matter. If she gives me further details, I will certainly chase up the correspondence. Even if Departments have to send out holding letters, it is important that those letters meet the deadlines that we expect in this place. She will know that the next questions to the Minister for the Cabinet Office will be on 29 February. She will also know that it is important that these processes are gone through thoroughly. I encourage her to raise this matter in the next question session, but I will also make sure that we chase it up on her behalf.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
There are businesses that want to establish themselves in my constituency or to extend their existing premises, but they are being told that it will take years to get a grid connection. In addition, there are concerns up and down the constituency about plans for pylons. Can we have a debate in Government time about the role of the National Grid?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for standing up for his constituents and pursuing their interests in that respect. We want people to be able to get on and create businesses and to do all that their ambitions and their calling require of them. He will know that the next question session in which he can raise this matter will be on 27 February. I encourage him to do that, but I will also make sure that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has heard what he has said.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Schools in my constituency are far more likely to travel to the Scottish Parliament for educational enrichment than to this place. After the events of last night, when the third party’s voice was silenced due to bullying and intimidation and for no other reason, who can be surprised? The UK Parliament Education Centre subsidises travel by up to 75% of the cost, up to a value of £2,000. However, unsurprisingly, travel costs from Scotland are significantly higher and, as a consequence, the vast majority of schools have to cancel, including two from constituency just this week. Can the Leader of the House provide for a statement to be made on how we can fix that inequity?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that question. He will know that the Finance Committee of the House recently did a review of the travel subsidy for different parts of the country, and there are some changes that will be made to that with regard to school visits and the opportunity for people from all parts of the UK to come to this place. I suggest that he speaks to the Chair of the Finance Committee about that. She sits on the House of Commons Commission and her recommendations come to us.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Homeowners on two recently built housing developments in my constituency were promised a GP surgery. The development at Appleton Cross has been completely finished and the section 106 money paid across, but there is no GP surgery. That is putting extreme pressure on the existing facilities that are provided elsewhere in Warrington South. May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time to look at how we can ensure that, when planning permission is agreed and the infrastructure that is needed to go with it is agreed, the local authority responsible for approving that planning permission ensures that the GP surgeries are delivered as required?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter on behalf of his constituents. He will know that in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 we introduced powers to create a new infrastructure levy to replace the existing system of developer contributions. It aims to generate more funding for infrastructure such as he mentions—GP surgeries and shops, for example—to mitigate the impact of new development and ensure that the needs of new people moving into the area and increasing the population size are served. We have committed to further consult on the design of the levy before drafting regulations. He may wish to raise the matter directly with the Secretary of State on 4 March.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House kindly join me in congratulating North Tyneside’s Benton Dene Primary School on topping the national leaderboard for active travel when taking part in the charity Living Streets’ WOW walk to school travel tracker? Working with Living Streets and North Tyneside Council since last October, Benton Dene School has reduced traffic outside the school gates and reached an average walk to school rate of 57%. Will she also ask Transport Ministers to support Living Streets’ call for a nationwide default ban on pavement parking to create safer routes for walking and wheeling to school, as it is now over three years since the Government consulted on the issue?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that we all join the hon. Lady in congratulating her local school. It is a tremendous achievement, and I thank her for raising it. Not only will I ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport hears her asks on pavement parking, but I will encourage him to send a letter to her local school congratulating it on its achievements.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am very proud to represent historic Runnymede and Weybridge. I was in the Chamber yesterday evening when two motions of great concern were passed without a Division. I disagree with SNP Members on many, many issues, but I respect their position in this place as elected Members of Parliament. Right now it is on the record that the motions were passed unanimously, which I believe, given the clear vocal opposition, misrepresents the will of Parliament. [Interruption.] Does the Leader of the House share my deep concerns about the implications of that for our democracy and the rule of law, and does she agree that Opposition days must be upheld and respected in line with convention—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The shadow Leader of the House should not be shouting from the Front Bench. Simply don’t!
Dr Spencer
Does the Leader of the House agree that Opposition days must be upheld and respected in line with convention as an essential part of the democratic operation of this House, and will she work to remedy the injustice of yesterday’s debate?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why the Government took the actions that we did yesterday. It is not to the Government’s advantage to facilitate debates that are likely to be critical of the Government, but it is in the interests of our democracy that we do so, which is why we did what we did to protect the rights of minority parties in this place. As I said in response to earlier questions, I fully appreciate the frustration at how yesterday’s vote was recorded. I have raised it with the Clerks and taken advice. It is a matter for the Chair, and I am afraid to tell my hon. Friend that it will stand as it is.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Kellogg’s factory in my constituency is an iconic reminder of the industrial heritage of Trafford Park. Like so many of my constituents, I was shocked and saddened recently to hear of parent company Kellanova’s plans to close the factory. Given the devastation that this will cause not just to my local community but particularly to the 360 Kellogg’s employees who now face an uncertain future, could we have a debate in Government time on how we can safeguard manufacturing jobs in this country, now and in the future?
Penny Mordaunt
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to raise the issue with the Secretary of State at the next Question Time on 7 March. I will also write on his behalf, if he has not already done so, to the Minister overseeing the redundancy service and the Minister for Employment in the Department for Work and Pensions. They will be able to provide his office with support in ensuring that the interests of his constituents are taken care of, and that they avoid hardship.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
We all face difficult votes in this House. I saw the consequences of one such vote when, after an Opposition day debate some time ago, my elderly parents were threatened with being stabbed to death. This is the first time I have revealed that information publicly. I know that colleagues on both sides of the House have faced similar threats recently.
It is very important, though, that when we vote on difficult matters we all do so under the same set of rules. Yesterday, many Government Members felt that changing the order of business meant that while, entirely legitimately, Labour MPs were protected from potential threats of violence and murder, Government Members were consequentially more exposed to such threats. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot continue like this? Such breaches of procedure are unacceptable. The right of everyone in this House to vote in the way they wish, and their security, should be equal across all Benches.
Penny Mordaunt
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who has said it very well. I hope that all Members of this House have got that message. With regard to intimidation, as I say, it is not just about what is directed against us; it is about what is directed against members of our family, and perhaps most appallingly, against hon. Members’ children. There have been many instances of that. We will ensure that individuals who make such threats face the full force of the law. While others reflect on what has happened, particularly in the last 24 hours, those who are, while not committing a crime, encouraging and giving licence to people on social media ought to reflect on their behaviour as well.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I have been in this place for about a year, and have spent almost all of it trying to get some progress on agricultural flooding and water management boards. The issue is of grave concern to my constituents in rural West Lancashire. A statutory instrument was expected on water management boards last summer. We have not seen hide nor hair of it. In answer to a written question, the Secretary of State said that it will come after a consultation, but that has not been scheduled. Can the Leader of the House advise me of how this relatively simple instrument can be expedited so that my constituents can move forward on this pressing matter?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her diligence in pursuing this matter for her constituents. She can obviously raise the matter at the next Question Time, but I sense her frustration, and will write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ask him to update her office.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
In view of the Labour party hijacking the SNP’s Opposition day debate yesterday, can we have a debate in Government time to discuss the role of the Standards and Privileges Committees or the Procedure Committee, and whether there should be an inquiry into the role of the Leader of the Opposition and his chief of staff, and the Opposition Chief Whip, in Mr Speaker overruling the advice of the Clerks on yesterday’s Opposition day debate?
Penny Mordaunt
I refer my hon. Friend to the response I gave to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). I think that the Leader of the Opposition needs to reflect on what he did yesterday, as well as what everyone else will have been doing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, this Tuesday, in responding to my point of order in relation to Sinn Féin’s Short money, your fellow Chair, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), suggested that I raise the matter during business questions; I do so now on her advice.
As the House is aware, the Northern Ireland Assembly has been re-established. Previously, the salaries of Members of the Legislative Assembly had been reduced for a period of at least two years. The clear rationale was that if elected MLAs were not doing their job, they should not receive full pay. The general public saw the sense of it, and supported that decision.
Since the establishment in 2006 of representative money, as a scheme analogous to but separate from Short money, over £11 million has been paid to a small number of Sinn Féin MPs. Sinn Féin does not attend debates or scrutinise, amend or vote on legislation, so money paid from the public purse for that purpose is not used to that end. That has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), by my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and by me and other colleagues. Just when will Sinn Féin moneys be reduced, and when will necessary steps be taken in this Parliament to stop the continued and unacceptable abuse of representative money?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for getting that on record. I have had some correspondence with other Members about it. He will know that it is primarily a matter for the House. He will have helped his particular point of view by getting it on record today, and I have listened to it.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Research shows that those who intentionally inflict cruelty on animals are often also guilty of offences such as child abuse and domestic violence and involved in bullying and organised crime. Can we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the establishment of an animal offenders register?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for all his work on animal welfare, for which he is very well known. He can ask that of the Home Secretary directly on 26 February. It is an interesting suggestion—such abuse is, of course, a clear indicator of further and more serious crimes to come.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I place on the record my thanks to Mr Speaker for returning to the House last night, for the clear explanation and heartfelt apology that he made then, and for his comments today. I was in the House from 1 o’clock through to the end, and I spoke in the debate. I came here to represent my constituents, but I was unable to. That was a shame on us all. If there was any interference in the process, it has to be looked into.
Mr Speaker came to the House, and has apologised twice. On behalf of the people of Southend, that apology is accepted. I came into this House recently under very difficult circumstances, and Mr Speaker has been a great help and support, and has shown me and the Amess family a great deal of kindness. However, the point remains that if long-standing rules and conventions were put aside because of Mr Speaker’s concern about Members of this House, and if the ultimate cause of that—this is not what he said—is Islamic extremism, that is a very serious situation, and we must, as a House, look into it. We must have an inquiry on exactly why those rules and conventions were not abided by yesterday, because those rules have been developed over many centuries not just to protect us but to protect our democracy. That did not happen yesterday, so I repeat the call for an inquiry into exactly what went on yesterday.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for getting her views about the Speaker on the record; she has done it well, and I am sure that he would appreciate it. I reiterated at the start of my response to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) that if we are to do better than we did yesterday, we must focus on the reasons why things were done. This House has never kowtowed to terrorists. Members of this House will never be dissuaded from what they think is the right course of action by intimidation, bullying or threats, and that is not what happened yesterday. What happened yesterday was that the procedures of this House were corrupted to advantage one party, and to disadvantage Members on the Government Benches and minority parties.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
That is unparliamentary language!
Penny Mordaunt
We have to be clear about that, and I will tell you why—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I think the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is trying to make a point of order. I do not know what he is trying to say.
Madam Deputy Speaker
No—[Interruption.] Order. Please, it really is time to calm down and take the heat out of this. Let us calm down. I did not hear what the Leader of the House said.
Penny Mordaunt
I fully understand why right hon. and hon. Members have raised the point about intimidation, but they should reflect on the message that that sends to people outside the Chamber. Members of this House will not be moved from carrying out our duty to the people who send us here by intimidation and threats outside; that has not happened. That is not the reason why what happened yesterday was done. We should do everything we can to ensure that that remains the case. It is the case, it will be the case, and it must be the case.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That concludes the business question.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Points of order are taken after statements, Mr Blackman, but if yours relates directly to the business that we have just concluded, I will take it.
Bob Blackman
It does, Madam Deputy Speaker. The long-standing convention is that during oral questions, Ministers may, for the convenience of the House, choose to group similar questions to be answered together. When that happens, it is with the permission of the Chair. By custom and practice, the individuals whose questions have been grouped are notified by the Department in advance that that will happen. Twice now, when my question has been lower down the Order Paper, it has been grouped with another, but I have not been granted the courtesy of being told in advance that that would happen. As a result, I have not been present when those questions have been called. Clearly, that is unacceptable for those on all sides. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, through your good offices, encourage the Leader of the House to reinforce the view that Departments must notify Members in advance when questions have been grouped?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. As it happens, I recall the first of the incidents that he describes because I was in the Chair; I called him, but he was not here. Knowing that he is an assiduous attender of this Chamber, I was very surprised. He then told me that he had not been here because he did not know that his question had been grouped. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Members ought to be contacted, and that the Department ought to be sure that Members have received the message that their question has been grouped. Grouping does indeed happen with the permission of the Chair. It will be stopped if it is not properly carried out, I should think. Is the Leader of the House happy with that, or does she want to add anything?
Penny Mordaunt
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have heard what my hon. Friend said, and you are absolutely right. If he wants to give me the details of the Department, which I am confident is not the Ministry of Defence, I will deal with it.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I will take the point of order if it relates to this business.
David Linden
It does indeed relate to the proceedings just now. I had hoped that Mr Speaker would be in the Chair for this point of order. I did give notice to the Chair that I would make this point of order, and to the Leader of the House.
It is with a huge amount of regret, because I like Mr Speaker personally, that I have signed early-day motion 412, indicating that I do not have confidence in him. If my understanding is correct, he outlined today that his desire is to allow the House to express its view. In the space of about 13 or 14 hours, scores of MPs—approaching 60 at the last check—have signed that early-day motion expressing no confidence in the Speaker of this House. Can I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ask Mr Speaker to make it clear to the Government, as he said he would, that he has no objection to that motion of no confidence being tabled, and to allowing the House to express its view? Whether we like it or not, the conduct of the Speaker of the House of Commons has raised wider questions. The fact that 60 Members of this House have indicated that they do not have confidence in him means that the matter now has to be put to a vote. He cannot object to that.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very clear point of order. Let me clarify: he is asking me to convey to Mr Speaker the message that he has just given, and the question that he has just asked.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Is the point of order directly in relation to this business?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to a point of order that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), I seek your guidance on why a Division was not called yesterday. It was clear that there were shouts of both “Aye” and “No”, and it is clear from the Standing Orders that in such a scenario, a Division should be called.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I thank him for his point of order. I will simply say this: at the point just after 7 o’clock last night when Questions were put to the House, the noise and turmoil in this Chamber made it impossible for the then occupant of the Chair, my colleague Madam Deputy Speaker—who was doing her best in very difficult circumstances—to ascertain whether she could hear any calls of “No”. She has told me that she could not hear calls of “No”, and she acted accordingly. It is always very easy to go back in hindsight and examine what each of us might have thought happened, but I can assure the House that Dame Rosie did her very best in difficult circumstances, and that she thought—and I think, too—that she was carrying out the wishes of the House at the time. I was standing beside the Chair at that moment. I appreciate that other people have different views on the matter, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will accept my assurance that Dame Rosie did her very best in difficult circumstances.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am very reluctant to take further points of order. Is it directly related to this business?
Madam Deputy Speaker
In that case, I call Mr Alan Brown to make a point of order.
Alan Brown
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance; perhaps as Chair of Ways and Means, you might be able to give further clarity. My point of order is regarding the response that Mr Speaker gave earlier to the SNP group leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), about the sequencing of the decisions he took. Yesterday, the guidance he gave at the start of the debate was that there was precedent for selecting an amendment by the main Opposition party to a smaller party’s motion, but the letter from the Clerk makes it quite clear that there is no precedent for that. Mr Speaker also said that that was about having the widest possible debate, but last night, the rationale changed to security.
In his response just now, Mr Speaker really homed in on security as the primary reason for his decision, and he intimated that lives were at risk. That is a very grave matter; it implies that as things stood, decisions that Members took on the SNP motion would effectively have put their life at risk. It implies that somehow, debating the Labour amendment took away that security risk, which in turn implies an assumption about how Members were going to vote. Why were those security concerns not shared with other party leaders? What do the security services say, and does this not set a precedent that mob rule can change the business of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have to stop the hon. Gentleman there: he is trying to continue the debate, and he is again asking questions that Mr Speaker has already come to the Chamber and answered. Mr Speaker has dealt with those matters, and it is not for me to deal with them any further. I think there will be further opportunities to explore these matters, both in public and in private, and the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party will no doubt have discussions with Mr Speaker, but I will not continue debate on these matters.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
If it is another point of order directly relating to this business, I will take it now.
Dr Spencer
Thank you for taking my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on an issue of substantial constitutional importance. It has been made fairly clear in my question to the Leader of the House, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) and several other Members, that there are concerns about the motion yesterday evening. The BBC is reporting that the House approved the motion, and the Labour party is putting out adverts saying the same, yet there is concern as to whether it was a valid vote. It is critical that the public have faith in our democratic process. What mechanism is there to void yesterday’s motion and have a rerun?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Once again, the hon. Gentleman has reiterated matters that have already been considered. On behalf of the people whom we all represent, I plead that this matter should now calm down, and that tempers and anger should not be encouraged to flourish further. These are matters that might have to be further explored, and Mr Speaker and the Leader of the House have both made clear to the House this morning that there will be other opportunities to consider and fully debate them. I will take no further points of order on this matter, recognising that Members on all sides of the House have strong feelings, most of which have been expressed. I now plead for calm.
Ukraine
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on the conflict in Ukraine, as we prepare to mark two years since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion.
Like many in this House, I remember exactly where I was on 24 February 2022. Just before sunrise, I was woken by a phone call to be told that Russia had illegally invaded Ukraine, and that a car would be outside at 6 am, headed for Cobra. After that meeting, Ministers were all asked to speak to their respective Ukrainian counterparts. At the time, I was Transport Secretary, and my arrangement was to speak via Zoom with my then opposite number, Oleksandr Kubrakov. Oleksandr, who I have subsequently got to know very well, was standing in the middle of a field outside Kyiv. I asked him about the situation, and he told me that quite frankly, he did not know how much longer the city would last. The Russian army was understood to be just kilometres away; the wolf, or in this case the Russian bear, was literally at the door; and expert opinion suggested that Kyiv would be taken in perhaps three days.
However, as this war drags into its third year, far from winning, Russia has been pushed back since those early days. Putin has achieved none of his strategic objectives, his invading force has suffered a staggering 356,000 casualties, and Ukraine has destroyed or damaged about 30% of the Russian Black sea fleet and retaken 50% of the territory that Russia stole from it.
Meanwhile, Oleksandr Kubrakov is now the Deputy Prime Minister, and his job is the restoration of Ukraine when this is over. Putin arrogantly assumed that this conflict would be over in days, and he was wrong. He reckoned without the strength of the international support that would rally to Ukraine’s cause. I am proud that, over the course of the past 730 days, Britain has been at the forefront of that global response. Our efforts, always a step ahead of our allies, have made a genuine difference. From the outset, we declassified intelligence specifically to scupper Russian false flags. Our NLAW anti-tank missiles, provided in advance of the full-scale invasion, and our Javelins helped brave Ukrainians devastate Putin’s menacing 40-mile armoured convoy, which was headed directly at Kyiv. We were the first to send main battle tanks with our Challenger squadron, plus 500 armoured vehicles and 15,000 anti-armour weapons.
All of this helped to degrade Russia’s once formidable fighting force, with Putin losses amounting to 2,700 main battle tanks, 5,300 armoured vehicles and 1,400 artillery pieces. Throughout this conflict, our 4 million rounds of small arms ammunition have allowed Ukraine to maintain a rate of fire, and recently helped keep the Russians at bay during their winter offensive. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has been unable to achieve the air superiority that it assumed it would have, in part thanks to our donation of 1,800 air defence missiles, and over 4,000 British drones have been sent to date.
This conflict has indeed demonstrated that drones are changing the face of modern warfare, and we are already learning the lessons from that. That is why, earlier today, my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement launched the UK defence drone strategy to stay ahead on this new frontier of technology—backed by at least £200 million, announced by the Prime Minister recently—making the UK the biggest drone partner for Ukraine.
Yet it is actually at sea where the allied contribution to Ukraine’s cause has been most keenly felt. Our mighty Storm Shadows and our uncrewed sea systems have helped Ukraine achieve a breakthrough in the Black sea. Not only has Russia’s fleet lost seven different surface ships plus a submarine, but a Black sea corridor has opened up for trade, allowing Ukraine to export 19 million tonnes of cargo, including 13.4 million tonnes of agricultural produce. At the end of last month, Ukrainian agricultural exports from its Black sea ports reached the highest level since the war began, far exceeding what happened under Putin’s Black sea grain initiative.
As President Zelensky said to me when I visited, the UK’s contribution has been monumental. He pointed out that, since the start of the conflict, the UK has sent almost 400 different types of capabilities to Ukraine. Together, we have shown that when Ukraine gets what it needs, it can win, which is why the UK is continuing to step up our support. Last month, the Prime Minister announced that we will be investing a further £2.5 billion in military support for Ukraine, taking our total military package so far to over £7 billion and our total support to over £12 billion, accounting for humanitarian and economic support as well.
In that spirit, today I can announce a new package of 200 Brimstone anti-tank missiles in a further boost to defend Ukraine. These missiles have previously had significant impact on the battlefield, in one instance forcing Russian forces to abandon and to retreat from an attempted crossing of a river. Members will recall that, a few days ago, President Zelensky told the Munich security conference that an “artificial deficit of weapons” will only help Russia, and he is right.
So today we are giving Ukraine more of the help it needs, inflating its capabilities so that it can defend freedom’s frontline. Other capabilities will also be coming its way. Our UK founded and administered international fund for Ukraine has pledged more than £900 million to help Ukraine plug gaps in its capabilities, delivering cutting-edge drones along with electronic warfare and mine clearance capabilities, with millions of pounds of kit to come.
We are investing not just in weapons, but in the brave personnel who serve. So far, Britain has put more than 60,000 Ukrainians through their paces here in the UK, but Operation Interflex, our main training effort, is going to expand even further. I am delighted to announce that Kosovo and Estonia have joined us, Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania and Romania in all training Ukrainian troops here in Britain. Together, we will train a further 10,000 in the first half of 2024.
Meanwhile, we are building capability coalitions. Alongside Norway, we are leading a maritime capability coalition, and we have been joined by a dozen other countries in this enterprise. This is about mine detection drones, raiding craft and Sea King helicopters, which have already been sent its way, so that Ukraine can build its navy and defend its sovereign waters.
Last week, I met my NATO counterparts in Brussels, and I announced that, together with Latvia, we would lead the drone coalition. That will allow us to scale up and streamline the west’s provision of miniature first-person view—FPV—drones to Ukraine, while supporting the establishment of a drone school for Ukrainian operators and a test range, as well as developing AI swarm drone technology, which will surely be critical in the next phase of this war. Britain has earmarked some £200 million to procure and produce long-range strike and sea drones, and become Ukraine’s largest supplier of drones.
Yet this is far from the summit of our ambitions. In December, we set up a new taskforce to build a strong defence industrial partnership with Ukraine, ensuring that Ukraine can sustain the fight for years to come. In January, the Prime Minister signed the historic security co-operation agreement. This is the start of a 100-year alliance that we are building with our Ukrainian friends. Once again, it is the United Kingdom that has signed the first such agreement, with welcome signings from France and Germany having followed.
The Ukrainians have the will and they have the skills, and they have shown that if they are given the tools, they can do the job, but their need today remains particularly urgent. Russia is continuing to attack along almost the entire frontline, only recently decimating and then capturing the eastern town of Avdiivka. The Kremlin continues to callously strike at civilian targets, most recently hitting a hospital in Selydove. Putin is making no secret whatsoever of being in this for the long term. Russia’s economy has indeed shifted on to a full-time war footing, spending some 30% of its federal expenditure on its defence—a nominal increase of almost 70% just on last year alone.
If the cruel death of the remarkable, brave Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has taught us anything, it is that Putin’s victory is something that none of us can afford. The tyrant of the Kremlin is determined simply to wait out the west. He believes that we lack the stomach for the fight, and we must show him that we are wrong. This House may not be united on all matters, as we have seen in the past 24 hours, but we are united on one thing: our support for Ukraine. So the UK will continue to double down on that support, and all freedom-loving countries must be compelled to do the same. This year will be make or break for Ukraine, so it is time for the west and all civilised nations to step up and give Ukraine the backing it needs.
Two years ago, when I spoke to an anxious Oleksandr Kubrakov, who had retreated to that field outside Kyiv, he did not know what would happen to Ukraine. Now, entering the third year of this conflict, it is remarkable to see that Ukrainians remain in full fight. I know that the whole House will join me in saying that the UK will not stop supporting the brave Ukrainians, our friends, until they have won and have victory.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just for the record, Secretary of State, I think you may have misspoken —those on the Front Bench were smiling. I think you intended to say, “we must show him that he is wrong”, but I believe you said, “we are wrong.”
Grant Shapps
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to correct the “we” to “he”, for the avoidance of doubt.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am sure that Hansard can correct that to what is in the statement.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement. This is his first statement on Ukraine, and he could not have chosen a more important moment, as we mark two years since President Putin’s brutal, illegal invasion began; two years, in which cities have been smashed, hospitals hit by missiles, power plants bombed, civilians raped and children abducted to Russia; two years of war in Europe that has shattered wider European security. His statement today gives this House, on behalf of the British public, a chance to show that the UK is totally united and committed in support for Ukraine, as it fights for its freedoms, its territorial integrity, and its right as a democratic country to decide its own future.
The UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to win. We know that is the strong message that the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary convey to Ukraine. When the Labour leader met President Zelensky in Kyiv last year, he said that, on military help for Ukraine and on reinforcing NATO allies, the UK Government have had, and will continue to have, the fullest Labour support. Two years on, I am proud that the UK continues to be united on Ukraine; proud that British families have opened up their homes to Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s war; and proud that people across Britain in all walks of life have organised donations and deliveries of assistance to Ukraine.
The Ukrainians are fighting with huge courage, the military and civilians alike. They have regained half the territory taken by Putin and disabled his Black sea fleet. They have developed new weapons at record speed. But Russia is far from a spent force, and if Putin wins he will not stop at Ukraine. The Defence Secretary mentioned Avdiivka, and the forced Ukrainian withdrawal there is a warning to the west. They had the heart to fight but they did not have the ammunition. So as Russia steps up its war effort, as the Defence Secretary said, so must we step up UK support. Putin is not just fighting on the battlefield; this is a war on the diplomatic front, the economic front and the industrial front—a struggle on all fronts against Russian aggression. We need a broad UK plan to help defend Ukraine and defeat Putin.
First, we must ramp up military support throughout 2024 and beyond by implementing the UK agreement, extending UK training and creating a clear path for Ukraine’s NATO membership. Secondly, we must reboot the diplomatic drive to maintain western unity and support and hold Putin to account, by working through the G7, the UN, NATO, the International Criminal Court and a special tribunal for the crime of aggression. Thirdly, we must take immediate action against wider Russian aggression by enforcing sanctions, closing loopholes in the supply chain and reinforcing NATO allies on the Russian border. Fourthly, we must boost UK industrial production by fast-tracking in full the spring Budget’s £2 billion to restock UK armed forces and Ukraine. Fifthly, we must get ready for Ukraine’s recovery with more de-mining help, and enabling seized or frozen Russian state assets to be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
Defence of the UK starts in Ukraine, and I am proud of UK leadership on Ukraine. I want still to be proud in six months’ time, so may I press the Defence Secretary? We welcomed the extra 200 Brimstone antitank missiles. Will he now go beyond these ad hoc announcements and set out a fuller military aid action plan? We welcomed the £2.5 billion for 2024. Will every pound be spent on Ukraine, and not on UK operational costs at NATO bases? We strongly endorsed the UK-Ukraine agreement on security co-operation. Will he now follow that up with an implementation plan, so that Ukraine gets the urgent and sustained help it needs? Finally, we backed the Ukrainian homes and visa schemes. Will the Government rethink their decision this week, with no consultation and no notice, to close the family visa scheme? In conclusion, Ukrainians are watching elections around the world very closely this year. That is why when he met President Zelensky, the Labour leader pledged on behalf of Britain:
“There could be a change in Government this year, but there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes.
Grant Shapps
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support, and indeed all Members of this House from all parties, for the tremendous support that Ukraine has experienced from this Parliament. As he said, whatever else our divisions, no one should be in any doubt about the united voice with which we speak on this subject. He is right to mention the exceptional work done with training. I imagine he has seen some of the Interflex training, and there is no greater pride than seeing, with other world leaders, their own trainers training here in the UK. We can be truly proud of that and, as I mentioned, we will be doing more of it.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right about NATO membership as the ultimate path for Ukraine. We have the 75th anniversary of NATO coming up in summer in Washington D.C., and it is important that the west helps to set that path for Ukraine’s membership even more firmly. He will be pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend the Attorney General is working proactively on the legal matters, as are the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on sanctions, which will only work, as recent reporting shows, if they are done in a collective manner, including with the G7 and other bodies.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a military action plan. In conversations with my opposite number, Minister Umerov, as well as President Zelensky and others, what they want is for us to work privately with them on the £2.5 billion, and that is what we are doing. There are strategic reasons for not producing a published plan on that. We will release information to the House as appropriate, but there are military reasons to do it rather differently on this occasion. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that not only do we spend the published amount, but we go over and above that in a variety of different ways.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of the partnership co-operation agreement, and we will be publishing a series of follow-ups. For example, one measure is to teach English as the second language for Ukraine, and I know from talking to my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary that 100 universities are in the process of being linked to Ukrainian institutions to press that plan forward, and much else besides is involved with that agreement on security co-operation.
Lastly, the shadow Secretary of State mentions the family visa scheme for Ukrainians. As he knows, I had a Ukrainian family of three and a dog live with us for a year after the invasion, and they are still living in this country. They are keen to return home to build Ukraine back when this war ends. In the meantime, this Government have put in place further visa arrangements, which, if not the most generous in the world, are among them. I know from speaking to the family who lived with me that they were delighted with that statement by the Home Secretary recently.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Defence Secretary has recently drawn parallels with the 1930s. He spoke powerfully at Lancaster House about our transition from a post-war world to a pre-war one. In a similar vein, I was part of a Conservative Friends of Ukraine delegation to Congress recently to lobby Republican congressmen to support the aid package. In one such conversation, a Republican perfectly reasonably asked me, “Why should I tell the people of my district to send their taxpayer dollars to Ukraine?”, to which I humbly replied, “Because as a member of NATO, it is ultimately cheaper than sending your sons and daughters.” In that context, does the Defence Secretary agree that while we must respect American domestic politics—it is not for us to tell them what to do—this, again, is a time for the new world in all its power and might to come to the rescue and liberation of the old?
Grant Shapps
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that matter. I am aware of his work in Congress—in fact, I think we were there at roughly the same time last month—and his clear explanations and lobbying of Congress to help release that money to Ukraine. His point is absolutely right: the aid package is in America’s interest not just to come to the rescue of Europe but because other despotic leaders, other autocrats and other regimes of any type will be looking at whether we simply lose and give up because we get bored of the fight and then walk away. They will draw conclusions about that and whether they can always take on the red line of the west and the no-go area if all they have to do is wait it out. This is why my right hon. Friend is right to say that it is indubitably in America’s interest to step in, because otherwise they will find it far more expensive in the future, perhaps in other parts of the world, to defend the world order.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Let me thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement and reiterate the unequivocal support of SNP Members for the defence and, we hope, liberation of the rest of Ukraine in its battle against Vladimir Putin. I know he recognises that part of being an Opposition party is to highlight where we think there may be improvements, and I will highlight supply chain issues, which were alluded to by the shadow Defence Secretary.
Today, Ed Conway of Sky has been highlighting issues around sanction-busting exports from the UK, critically around heavy materials, notably car exports, saying,
“let's imagine you’re a Russian unit needing weapons. Imagine you rely on a certain input or tool from the UK. Back in the past you’d get it directly. But you can’t anymore.”
One solution that Ed alludes to is the setting up of shell companies in friendly Caucasus states, and notably in Kyrgyzstan. He says that since the sanctions, implemented not only by the UK, but other allies, exports from the UK to Kyrgyzstan of the very materials that those frontline Russian troops need have increased by more than 1,100%. Can the Secretary of State advise the House whether he will take that information away, engage with his Cabinet colleagues and write to me or the Defence Committee about how the Government will seek to block off those sanction-busting processes? Will he highlight to those companies that are participating that they are undermining the democratic value of the future Ukrainian nation?
Grant Shapps
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support from the SNP, adding to the weight of support from this House for Ukraine, and for raising that issue. I read at length the excellent thread from Ed Conway this morning talking about this issue. It is the case that when sanctions are set up, initially they tend to work, but then, rather like water flowing around a boulder in the stream, people will eventually work their way around and find another route to market. It is important that we continuously look at and assess whether those sanctions are doing the thing we initially intended them to do. As Ed Conway points out in the thread, this is an international problem. He takes the UK as an example, but extends it out and says that it is happening elsewhere, too. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the British Government will be taking a close look at what is happening in reality. This is clearly a Treasury and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office lead, but I undertake to work with them, and I thank him for raising the issue.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to emphasise that the light attendance in the House this afternoon is not an indication of any lack of resolve among Members or any of the political parties to stand up to President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which the Prime Minister recently described in the Liaison Committee as an “existential” threat to European and transatlantic security? Can the Secretary of State also share with the House whether he believes there is evidence of an emboldening of Russian aggression, particularly towards Moldova, perhaps being threatened from Belarus, which appears to be preparing for an entry into this conflict? Can he shed any light on that?
Grant Shapps
On his first point, my hon. Friend is right. It is a Thursday, and many Members will have returned to their constituencies, but the Russian viewership of the Chamber should not mistake the level of attendance with the level of interest. The reason that people have felt confident to return to their constituencies is that they know there is no dispute in this House, as we have heard from all sides, in our solid, iron resolve for Ukraine.
On the wider picture, Members will see the news. They understand that with Putin, he simply murders those who stand up to him. He will go to any lengths. He turns his entire economy on to a war footing, and he tries to work with others to further his means, whether that is Belarus at the beginning or more recently North Korea, Iran and other pariah states. I had better not go into the detailed intelligence on the Floor of the House, although I am sure more briefing can be announced. It simply adds to the overall need for us to stick together—not just in this House, but with the civilised countries of the world—and ensure that Putin understands that no matter how long he carries on, we will always be there to help defend Ukraine.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Defence Secretary was certainly in full Duracell bunny mode today, but it is clear that Britain and this Government have much to be proud of in our response to the Ukraine crisis. It was also clear, however, that right from the outset of the invasion it would be an industrial munitions war, harking back to the last century. While Russia has got itself on to a full war economy footing, our Government machine frankly seems to have failed to mobilise British industry in the same way. To highlight that, I will pose a simple question. Why did it take from February 2022 to July 2023 to place the vital order for additional, desperately needed artillery shells?
Grant Shapps
I do not entirely agree with the right hon. Member’s characterisation of the UK response in terms of deindustrialisation. I do agree that it is difficult overall to suddenly ramp up from whatever level we are producing at on a non-war footing, but it is heartening to know—I think this is right, but it is off the top of my head; I will correct the figures if I have got it wrong—that our munitions and missile production is now eight times the level it was before the war, so we have certainly stepped up.
In addition, we are carrying out rounds of procurement through the international fund for Ukraine, which we established and which is still receiving new contributions. I am delighted that Australia has just donated $50 million to that fund. I think—again, this is off the top of my head—there have been 27 rounds of contract procurement so far. I am not familiar with the particular case that the right hon. Member cited, so I will write back to him on the detail, but it is encouraging that we have been able to set up a mechanism so that other countries that have not had our scale of ambition and footprint on Ukraine can put in their own money, so that we can buy in coalition on their behalf. We will continue to do that.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Yesterday, I and several other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were in Warsaw to speak to members of the Polish Government and British military and security officials based in that country. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to British military officers for the work they are doing in supporting Ukraine and other allies such as Poland and the Baltic states? Will he comment on the increase in Russian air incursions into NATO airspace? Sadly, last year missile incursions killed two people, and missile incursions have taken place in recent weeks. What can we do to strengthen air defences not only to defend Ukraine against Russia’s aggression, but to ensure that democracy in Europe is strengthened?
Grant Shapps
I am delighted that my hon. Friend was in Poland yesterday. The Poles have been right on the frontline next to Ukraine on this. They have been tremendous in their support for Ukraine and in investing in their own defence sector. He is right to highlight British military assistance, which comes in many different forms, much of which we cannot discuss, but it has certainly assisted in Poland and elsewhere in the region. He will be pleased to hear that we also contributed to Poland’s own defence: before its election, we provided two Typhoons to prevent escalation and exacerbation by Putin. We also provide other air defence mechanisms to Poland. I would be happy to provide him with a further briefing.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I very much thank the Government for the statement and offer our wholehearted support for it. This week, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev asked the rhetorical question, “Where to stop?” Medvedev, who is now deputy head of Russia’s security council, answered, “I don’t know.” He continued:
“Will it be Kiev? Yes, probably it should be Kiev.”
He went on to make an outlandish claim that there is a threat to the Russian Federation from Kyiv, and he made outrageous threats, including to the UK. Will the Defence Secretary first condemn the ambiguity of Medvedev’s rhetoric on Russia’s ambitions? Secondly, will he rebut the wild claim that the Russian Federation is somehow threatened? Thirdly, will he ask his counterparts in Delhi and Beijing to urge Medvedev to halt his nuclear sabre rattling?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Member is absolutely right to point out those irresponsible comments, which very much follow in the footsteps of what Putin goes around saying. It is completely irresponsible in the modern era to have world leaders going about threatening others. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for an autocratic state or any state walking into a demographic neighbour and claiming it as its own. To go further than that and to start threatening other states on a trumped-up charge that NATO somehow wishes to do the same in reverse is, as the whole House will know, complete fiction. NATO has no desire to do anything but defend the existing borders. That is why NATO is no threat whatsoever to Moscow.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement. He is right that the House is united in its support for Ukraine. We should be proud of the UK armed forces personnel who have trained so many Ukrainian recruits. I think he said earlier that there will be another 10,000 in the first half of the year, which is obviously welcome. Will he take the opportunity to confirm that our vital training programme will not stop in the summer but will continue for as long as it takes for Ukraine to win the war?
Grant Shapps
We are always looking at the best ways to train people. My expectation is that that training will continue, but we are always looking at how to improve it further. I mentioned that our friends from Estonia and Latvia are joining us in the training, so in a sense it continues to expand. We always want to ensure that we are providing training that is actually needed. It is extraordinary to know that having had that training in the UK dramatically improves people’s chances when they get to the frontline towards the east of Ukraine. We will always want to do more. The hon. Member is right to point out that the figure was 10,000 for the first half of the year, and the plans will be assessed from there on.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
May I urge the Secretary of State to step up pressure on his colleagues to shut down sanctions evasion? The Business and Trade Committee recently took evidence from the National Crime Agency, which said that the UK is still one of the world’s favourite places for economic crime and sanctions evasion. Companies House and the proposed new identification regime were widely criticised by the stakeholders we heard from. Of course, we also have the whacking great loophole called limited partnerships, which the Government are not currently proposing measures to shut down. We must shut down the spigots of cash that are funding Putin’s war machine, and we can play a role in that in the UK as well.
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. As I said, after a period of time, sanctions become holed, and people can get around them and through them. I have always taken a particularly tough line on the basic principle that people should not be friends with Putin and be able to benefit from that. Indeed, at least one yacht and a couple of private jets are grounded as a result of measures I took in the early days of the war when I was Transport Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman made a wider point on seizing assets. The way to do that and make it work is through the G7 and international partners, so that it is completely solid. Again, as in many other areas, we will try to lead that debate. As I have promised the House before, we will also look at what may have worked initially but now is not working. I respect the work that he has been doing on it, and I will certainly encourage my colleagues in government to follow through.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for his important statement and for answering questions from Members throughout the House.
Royal Assent
Mr Deputy Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Act:
Finance Act 2024.
Points of Order
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is there an orderly way in which I can raise the plight of my constituent Marte Prenga, who is currently in Italy with her two-year-old daughter Starya? She travelled abroad for medical reasons and is unable to return to the UK despite having pre-settlement status because her daughter is not being allowed to travel back with her. Before she left, she contacted the settlement resolution line four times to ensure that, if she travelled, her daughter could come back with her to the UK. She was told that there would be no problem with that. However, in the meantime, her daughter’s visa for pre-settlement status has been turned down and is under appeal. She wrote to me:
“Kevin, is there anything you could possibly do to help me return to the UK with my daughter, so she can see her father again and we are able to defend her when the appeal for her visa comes around? The whole situation is…badly affecting me… I just want to take my baby home where she belongs.”
I wonder if I could raise that issue on the Floor of the House to draw it to the urgent attention of Ministers.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and his forward notice of it. This is clearly an urgent matter, and I know that he is a diligent MP and will have already contacted the Home Office on it. I ask those on the Treasury Bench to bring it to the attention of the Home Department today so that we can at least get some clarity on where it could go. I appreciate that.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to make a helpful suggestion, and seek your guidance on it. The Speaker is a good, decent and honourable man, and we are lucky to have him as the Speaker of the House of Commons. He has my 100% full support and my total confidence. He made a mistake yesterday and, unlike most politicians, he has been big enough to come to the House and admit that. If only other MPs would admit when they made mistakes, we probably would be seen in a better light. I am pretty certain that he retains the full confidence of the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the House. By the way, if we all had to lose our jobs every time we made a mistake, I would have lost mine 19 years ago, and probably every week since. Let us be reasonable about this and put it in perspective.
May I make a suggestion? There have been many reports about what pressure was or was not placed on Mr Speaker before his decision yesterday. I do not want him to be asked to breach any confidences, because conversations between the Speaker and Members should remain private —we should respect that. However, it would be helpful if the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means could issue guidance to Members of this House on what is an appropriate way to make a request of the Speaker, and what would be considered undue influence or inappropriate, over-the-top requests.
If we could have some guidance on that, it may stop instances in the future where Members are accused of putting intolerable pressures on the Chair, because we would all know where we stand and what is and is not acceptable. I ask if you could go away and think about that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Hopefully, we can draw a line under this matter and get on with what the people who elected us want us to focus on—important matters nationally and internationally.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s point of order. He said that if he had to resign every time he made a mistake, he would have been gone 19 years ago. I expect he would never have even got here! None the less, I am grateful for his warm words, which I will pass to the Speaker. I know that there are ongoing discussions, and I am sure that he will be in touch with the hon. Member.
UK Accession to CPTPP
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement, which should be brief and not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning. I call Liam Byrne.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful for the chance to make a brief statement about an excellent report that the Business and Trade Committee published on Monday, to coincide with the opening of the period of reflection, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, on the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
It is timely for me to make this statement because, like many in the Chamber, I am old enough to remember that a major Brexit benefit was, allegedly, the freedom for us to negotiate free trade agreements more quickly than the EU, and to sign those free trade deals in a way that suited the UK. It is fair to say that, since Brexit, we have learned some hard truths about the difficulties of negotiating free trade deals, not least because the world has changed since then. Economic security is now a much more significant issue, which makes trade barriers harder to bring down. We have to navigate new imperatives on economic security and there are new dilemmas, which is why statements such as this are so important.
The Government have discovered that they cannot just rely on bluff, bluster and a bit of boosterism to get trade deals over the line. I remember the manifesto produced by His Majesty’s Government at the last election, which said that 80% of our trade would be covered by trade deals. We are at about 60% now. The Government promised around £1 trillion in exports by 2030—I am not sure that we are on track to hit that. The Australia trade deal was criticised by UK farmers for being a giveaway, and the Canadian trade talks are in a state of some confusion. The India trade deals, after 14 gruelling rounds, have some hurdles before the Indian elections. The broad point is that we have all learned a lesson about how difficult trade deals are. That is why it is important that the Government do not oversell the deal before us. The role of the Select Committee is to throw some light on what has been put before us, so that we can have a proper debate in this House.
I have five brief points that I want to draw from our report. The first is about precise gains, which in the short term are hazy, and in the long term are hazier still. Without doubt, geostrategic gains are to be had from joining the CPTPP. That was the objective set out in the integrated review, and it is a good and real one. There is a prize there. The impact assessment on economic gains said that the boost to UK GDP would be about £2 billion a year—less than one tenth of a per cent. by 2040. Even that number is in doubt, because in the evidence we took from the Secretary of State, she resiled from the models used by her Department and was unable to give any alternative numbers.
We heard evidence from exporters that the treaty would be good for export growth, but we noted that it would be limited because we already have many trade agreements in place with CPTPP members. Some UK sectors could lose out because of international competition: electronic equipment, transport equipment and semi-processed food. In our conclusion, we asked the Government to explain what steps they will take to ensure that UK businesses fully exploit the treaty.
The second point is about the future. Much has been made about the future possibilities of the CPTPP because it is a gateway to the wider Indo-Pacific region, which is expected to account for the majority of global growth between 2021 and 2050. We made the point that the members of this particular trade treaty account for about 15% of the Indo-Pacific market. That is quite small. Perhaps we were expecting to hear more about the Government’s game plan for using this treaty to grow. China will apply to join, but the Secretary of State is not willing to go on the record to explain the Government’s road map for expanding this trade agreement in future, or say whether they would endorse or block China’s application, if it materialises. We are at risk of willing the ends and not the means, which is not necessarily good policy. In our report, we asked that the Government update their trade model, give us some numbers to look at and set out their idea of what a future road map might look like. If the great prize in the Indo-Pacific tilt is economic trade of the future, let us understand how we will use the CPTPP in a strategic way to cover a bigger fraction of that market with free trade agreements for our country.
Thirdly, we looked at trade standards and food standards. We took lots of evidence and noted the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s advice to the Secretary of State. We noted that there was lots of evidence about the risks of maintaining UK bans on imports on beef and pork. We noted that the Trade and Agriculture Commission was pretty confident that existing protections could be kept in place. We also noted that protections on imports using more pesticides were unlikely to be diluted. There was evidence on either side of the argument about increases in palm oil, although the Minister addressed that rather well in the Bill Committee on Tuesday.
The fourth point on which we took evidence was the investor-state dispute settlement. That was the subject of lively debate in the Bill Committee on Tuesday. Again, we flagged that there are arguments on both sides of the debate. The Government are within their right to say that they have not lost a case like this, but the big strategic concern is that if such provisions are in a treaty, it may have a chilling effect on regulatory innovation in the UK. The point is that there is an argument to be made.
That brings me to my fifth and final point. Whatever the merits and drawbacks of the UK joining the trade agreement, the Government must allow that House to play a meaningful role in scrutinising trade policy. There are contentious issues raised by this treaty—there is no doubt about that. That is why my Committee recommended that Government should permit the House a debate on the ratification of the accession protocol. That debate, we said, should be on a substantive motion; it should take place during the 21-day scrutiny period under CRaG, which would give the House the option of exercising its power under that legislation to delay ratification. When we asked the Secretary of State about this in evidence, she said that she was happy to support a general debate. I very much hope that those are not hollow words, and that the House will get to debate this treaty in the way that was initially envisaged when CRaG was passed by this Parliament.
Those are the key five points; I hope they are of use to the House. Let me conclude by thanking, on behalf of my Committee, all the trade officials at the Department for Business and Trade for the hard work they have put into getting this treaty signed and over the line. It is in the national interest, and it is appreciated. I commend this report to the House.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On behalf of the Labour party, I thank my right hon. Friend and indeed the other members of the Business and Trade Committee for their sterling work. We referred to much of the Select Committee’s work in the Bill Committee earlier this week. The Minister will be aware of some of the amendments tabled by Labour, and of the concerns not just of the Labour party, but of civic organisations and bodies such as the Trades Union Congress, on issues such as workers’ rights and investor-state dispute settlement. I hope that the Minister will take on board all those various points.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that before the CPTPP is finally ratified—Labour is firmly of the view that that would be in the national interest—it is important to iron out those concerns? To do otherwise would be to the detriment of our country. We also look to the Minister for clarification on issues around parliamentary scrutiny, on which there was an amendment in Committee.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I think the Minister made the point in the Bill Committee on Tuesday that this is not necessarily an under-scrutinised treaty, as it has been the subject of quite a lot of debate; my Committee has certainly taken lots of evidence on it. However, when we left the European Union, one of the big arguments made was that this Parliament would reassert its sovereignty and—in those infamous words—take back control. That means that this House needs to have a strong hand in scrutinising trade agreements.
We hope that there will be many more free trade agreements to come. I know that they are getting harder, but this House none the less needs to develop expertise in scrutinising free trade agreements, so that we can ensure they are genuinely in the national interest. That is why I hope the Government will, within the 21-day CRaG period, find Government time for debate on an amendable motion, to give the House the opportunity to delay ratification, if that is the judgment we all come to. That is the process; we have to test it, use it, and make sure it works.
We have to get much better as a House at navigating the dilemmas of free trade in a world where economic security is a much sharper imperative than before. That means we have to have better debates, but also better numbers. We cannot have a situation where we produce models using very old data—going back to 2017 in the case of the models used for this treaty’s impact assessment —and when the Secretary of State comes to our Committee, she resiles from the models of her own Department. That is not a good way of producing evidence-based policy.
I hope we can have a discussion across the House on how to ensure that the economic models that we use are good. Free trade agreements are choices, and sometimes free trade agreements in one part of the world rule out those in other parts of the world. We have to judge what is in the best interests of the country, and it is difficult to do that if the numbers are flaky.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I would like to pick up on the point from the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). During the passage of the Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill through this place, many concerns have been raised about investor-state dispute settlement arrangements. It is good to see that the Select Committee is calling for a debate to resolve some of the contentious issues around that. However, does the Select Committee Chairman consider the provisions of the CRaG legislation to be sufficient, or might this be an opportunity to look again at how the specific requirements of trade deals are dealt with by Parliament?
Liam Byrne
That is an excellent question. The hon. Lady may have seen a really good report produced by not our Committee, but the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on 29 January 2024, which makes precisely that point. We need a better way of scrutinising trade agreements. The CRaG structure allows us to delay things, but not necessarily veto them. When CRaG was introduced back in 2010, it was an innovation, because in the past, that was something that Governments did without any scrutiny whatsoever. Now we are in a different kind of world, in which we are signing free trade agreements at, I hope, increasing pace. However, the House will still have to navigate when we want open trade, when we want to de-risk trade, and when we put economic security first and free trading second. These are dilemmas in which there is not an obvious answer. We cannot prejudge the answers to those questions; they will have to be debated case by case. It could well be that a Government will come to the wrong conclusion about that balance between open and free trade and maximising our economic security as a country, and therefore we in this House must be able to apply a brake —put a hard stop—to trade deals that we think are ultimately not in the national interest.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I represent a rural constituency in Devon. Farmers in the west country were alarmed at the sorts of concessions made in the Australia and New Zealand trade deal. Until yesterday, we thought that the UK and Canada were negotiating a roll-over trade agreement. Canada is a member of the CPTPP and it will be crucial, if the UK-Canada trade talks resume, for the UK to avoid paying twice, because we will want to avoid further market access concessions. Can the right hon. Gentleman offer any reassurance that, through CPTPP accession, we will not open up our markets to unmanageable volumes of produce that will damage British farming and put farming businesses in danger of going out of business?
Liam Byrne
The way that we approached our analysis was to look at food standards and whether they would be diminished by our joining the treaty. The Trade and Agriculture Commission looked at three questions, which are talked about in paragraphs 40 to 42 of the report. We reported the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s advice, which was that there would not be a diminution in the statutory protection of food standards in this country, and that we would, in fact, be allowed to reinforce some of those protections.
However, as the hon. Gentleman importantly flags, we are now finding that sometimes the devil is in the detail. Despite having joined CPTPP with Canada, we now appear to be struggling to get in place a free trade agreement with Canada. The Canadian Government are very clear that technical discussions have stopped. I understand that the Secretary of State, or a spokesman for her, told the Financial Times yesterday that discussions were ongoing, but discussions are not trade talks. If discussions were trade talks, we would be having trade talks with the entire world right now, because our diplomats around the world are in constant engagement with their counterparts in different parts of the planet. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to flag that issue. The reassurance that I can give him is that we do not see this treaty lead to a softening of the trade standards that we so treasure in this country.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
I welcome the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and his report. I think that this is the first time that I have had an interaction with him since my return to the Department and since he became the Chair of the Select Committee. Of course, as two former Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, we are well used to a bit of sparring over the years. His report is good, strong and constructive, and he makes some strong points about FTAs being, of course, choices. I welcome his statement that CPTPP has been well scrutinised in this House.
I do not intend to give an answer to any general questions raised, because it is not me who is being asked. However, I point out to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) that the National Farmers Union does welcome the UK joining CPTPP. I say to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill that a new FTA implementation unit in the Department for Business and Trade is looking at the important point he raised about how, post-signature, we ensure that the agreements work for British businesses and British consumers. On investor-state dispute settlement, nothing prevents a right to regulate in this country and it can be of benefit to British businesses overseas, guaranteeing jobs at home.
My only question for the right hon. Gentleman is really just a clarification. He says that CPTPP represents 15% of the Indo-Pacific area, which I think is true in the sense that China and India are not in CPTPP, and that therefore it is quite a small economic bloc. But if I can just take issue with him, CPTPP is currently about 12% of global GDP and the UK joining would make that 15%. So he is not wrong in what he says, but if he could just acknowledge that the part of global GDP in CPTPP is also 15%, not just a portion of the Indo-Pacific trade.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the Minister for that question and for welcoming the report. We look forward to welcoming him before the Committee at some point in the near future to talk about some of our forthcoming reports on export-led growth. The point he makes is right and I am glad that, for once, he and I agree on the numbers—that has not always been the case. The reason we wanted to flag it is that the Government’s impact assessment states:
“CPTPP membership acts as a gateway to the wider Indo-Pacific region which is expected to account for the majority…of global growth between 2021 and 2050.”
We appreciate that all Governments need to hard-sell their policy achievements—that is the nature of the game we are in—but it is important that we do not oversell the treaty. The reality is that it accounts for only quite a small fraction of the Indo-Pacific market, which is trumpeted in the impact assessment and in the integrated review as one of the treaty’s virtues. We must be clear-eyed and hard-headed about precisely what gain comes from this treaty specifically, and it would help us all, frankly, if the Government set out their road map for growing the treaty in future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for making his statement and responding to questions.
Backbench Business
Civil Nuclear Road Map
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the civil nuclear roadmap.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for a debate on this very important subject. This is probably the biggest moment for the nuclear industry in the UK for 50 years. The Government have set a very important and ambitious target of an extra 24 GW of nuclear energy into the grid by 2050. It will require a huge feat of civil engineering to create the facilities required to deliver that. We will do that in the context of wishing to see less reliance on imported oil and gas in our economy, with more clean sources of energy and electricity, and recognising that other changes in technology are creating enormous demands for new energy. The impact of artificial intelligence on energy demand will be very significant indeed. A researcher in the Netherlands estimated that the amount of electricity just to power AI in the world by 2027 will require enough electricity to power a country the size of the Netherlands. That is a not insignificant amount and an entirely new demand, in addition to the high levels of water required to power the cooling systems required for the amount of computing power and energy. Our demands for the electricity market are changing, but technology is also changing the impact it will have.
The review that the civil nuclear road map sets out has to consider not only those challenges but the requirement set in 2011, when the current nuclear site list was agreed by Parliament, that it would need to be reviewed in 2025 for the next period. I remember very well, as a new Member of Parliament, the 2011 review, and with the nuclear power station at Dungeness in my constituency. The idea of the site list then was to try to give certainty to communities that nuclear power stations could be developed there, largely alongside existing facilities. Eight locations were agreed. Dungeness in my constituency was not expressly ruled out, but it was not included at that time. I have tried to be an advocate for looking at what is possible for nuclear sites such as Dungeness, and not just looking to say, “Well, if they can’t accommodate a nuclear reactor the size of Hinkley Point C or Sizewell C then there is no future for them at all.”
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Does that not indicate why there ought to be greater latitude in particular when considering small modular reactors, and preferably those produced in the United Kingdom?
Damian Collins
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I will come on to that in more detail—that is normally an excuse to say I am not going to answer his question, but I wholeheartedly agree with what he says and I want to give it some attention as I go through my remarks.
The advent of advanced nuclear technologies and small modular reactors is the big thing that is different now compared to 2011. They give us more flexibility in the technologies that can be deployed. I also agree with the premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s point: this is exciting not just because it opens up new opportunities for nuclear power in the UK, but because it creates an opportunity for a renaissance in the civil nuclear industry in the UK. It is particularly exciting to see British firms such as Rolls-Royce leading the development and design of new small modular technologies. While the Government have their competition to identify best bets in terms of technologies to invest in, we need to look not just at the unit price of that technology, but at the wider impact and benefit to the UK economy of investing in the new technology, in particular the modular reactors that can be factory built and assembled. They can be designed not just to meet our energy demand; they could also be an export industry for the future for the UK. That is an incredibly important part of the equation.
In designing the civil nuclear road map and through the creation of Great British Nuclear, the Government have tried to make it as easy as possible for the industry to work with the Government, to understand what the Government’s needs and objectives are, and to understand the technologies that they may seek to invest in. I think all of that is welcomed. Certainly, the people in the industry I have spoken to welcome that step, which creates a degree of certainty. We are looking at far more players to be involved in the UK nuclear market than was the case in the past, with a far greater range of technologies and different businesses investing in them and developing them in the UK, Europe, the United States and further afield. This is all to be welcomed and encouraged.
I appreciate why it is difficult for the Government now, as it would have been in the past, to say, “These are the technologies that we know with certainty we can back” because the range is so great, but nevertheless we need to give certainty to the market and investors. The Government’s competition for SMRs is also important, but there will be developers of technologies that do not necessarily require Government subsidy and support, but simply seek sites where they can deploy their technology and know they connect to the grid.
John Spellar
The hon. Gentleman talks about the competition. I would also mention the time it is taking. Is the underlying problem not that while we have a manufacturer with a proven capacity to produce modular reactors, as it has been doing for the Royal Navy for many decades, the United States is out there selling its technology with the full backing of the US Government and their various departments right the way across Europe and other parts of the world? We are just considering it. Are we not hobbling British industry and the possibility of us being involved, as he rightly said, in this exciting new development?
Damian Collins
I am sure the Minister will speak for himself on that particular point, but that is not a characterisation I would share. What the competition and Great British Nuclear are doing is giving a very strong signal to businesses such as Rolls-Royce not only that this is a sound technology to invest in, but that there is potentially a very robust market for it in the UK. That is what I would like to see and why I said earlier that when these technologies are considered we need to think about the broader impact on UK manufacturing and jobs that supporting and backing these technologies would bring, not just the manufacture of modular reactors and electricity.
I have met Rolls-Royce and seen its SMR plans and designs. They are incredibly exciting. As the right hon. Gentleman says, this is technology that has been developed for the Royal Navy, and its applications for civil nuclear are very exciting indeed. I hope that it is very successful with it. I would certainly be very happy to see a Rolls-Royce SMR in my constituency at Dungeness.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I do support the introduction of small modular reactors, but I hope the House would not want Rolls-Royce to be given preferential treatment by the Office for Nuclear Regulation in its generic design assessment, because we need to ensure that it is safe. Does my hon. Friend agree that while Sizewell C is now getting under way, it is important that the contractors do honour what they say they will do, such as sourcing the water and ensuring that skills and jobs are happening locally, in order to give people confidence? We know how long these projects have taken to get off the ground.
Damian Collins
I agree with my right hon. Friend, particularly on her point about the labour markets, and in the Sizewell area that is incredibly important. I know from Dungeness in my constituency that it is the certainty of having long-term employment that attracts some of the best talent and encourages people, including apprentices, to join the industry. The Minister will probably want to comment on the substance of my right hon. Friend’s remarks.
In the time available to me, I want focus on the site lists consultations element of the civil nuclear road map. The Government are saying that the criteria that were applied to nuclear sites in 2011 should still apply today, and in most cases that is true. Safety, access to water—where appropriate—and grid connections could all be important considerations when it is being decided where the sites could be, along with habitat implications and, in coastal areas, flood risk. All those are constants. The one factor that has completely changed since 2011 is the size of the footprint of the nuclear facility itself.
In Dungeness, an important factor has been the existence of a special protected area as a consequence of the unique shingle peninsula on which it sits, which is the second biggest in the world and a habitat that is unique in Europe, let alone the UK—the biggest shingle peninsula in the world is Cape Canaveral, in the United States. The protections are there for areas of the shingle banks that have never been disturbed. However, there are plenty of areas surrounding existing nuclear sites that are, in effect, brownfield sites where that disturbance has taken place. As they are not in special protected areas, I believe that future development would be possible.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman is advancing a powerful argument. If we are to persuade people that SMRs are suitable for use outside conventional nuclear sites, siting them in places such as Dungeness and Trawsfynydd which do not fit under the 2011 list conveys an important message. We have to be able to persuade people that small modular reactors can be used in other areas, as well as not misusing sites that might be better used for larger nuclear projects.
Damian Collins
I completely agree. I have a request to make to the Government, who will be considering the responses to the consultation on the road map. I was keen to hold this debate now, during the period of the consultation, so that Members can have their own views as well. I appreciate that it would not be easy or desirable for Great British Nuclear to make technology-by-technology recommendations for every nuclear site in the country, but there should be a recognition of footprint size. There are sites, such as Dungeness in my constituency and Sizewell in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), where smaller facilities could easily be built. They could be built on decommissioned land, where old power stations have been subject to advance decommissioning. They could be built on land that was used as the building works site for the construction of the existing Dungeness B station, or even on the land that is currently a car park for the existing nuclear stations.
We need to give the market some certainty that buildings of a certain size can sit within the footprint of an existing nuclear site, on land that does not have the highest levels of habitat protection, but at present that is not envisaged. What the consultation envisages is that every site on the list must be able to do everything. If there is to be no distinguishing feature between different sources of technology, we are not distinguishing between a single SMR unit and something as big as Hinkley Point C. There must clearly be some relaxation, because otherwise other sites that are currently among the eight locations on the existing list will not be included on the new list.
The industry will have an opportunity to come forward with recommendations to the Department and make a case for individual sites—but obviously without the certainty of knowing that it is believed that technologies below a certain footprint would be suitable there—and to take into account all the other important site considerations such as the local workforce, grid connections, access to water for cooling if it is required.
I think it would be much better if, following the consultation on the civil nuclear road map, we could provide certainty about the types of technology that are possible on some of the smaller sites, so that developers and businesses coming forward with those technologies would know they look with confidence at some of those sites. I think that would make a huge difference to sites such as Dungeness, which in other respects ticks every box in respect of its suitability for new nuclear. It is on the grid, it has a domestic labour market, and it has strong support from the local community. In almost every case, the existing nuclear sites are the most supportive of investments in new nuclear, because people are already familiar with the industry and know how many jobs would be created.
If the Minister could say something about this today it would be much appreciated, but I should certainly like it to feature in the Government’s response to the consultation. As I said earlier, I am not seeking site-specific information about each technology, of which there could be many more in the future, but I hope it will at least be recognised that the big difference between SMRs and reactors the size of Hinkley Point is literally that: their size. SMRs will not be suitable everywhere—in fact, they will be suitable in relatively few places—but other technologies will be suitable on a wider base. If the Government are to meet their target, they will have to do so by deeming sites that are not currently being deployed to be suitable for SMRs. We should give the industry as much backing as possible in making that investment.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for initiating the debate. It may not surprise him that I will approach it from a different angle, providing the opposition, as it were.
In my view, this should be called the nuclear road map fantasy. Even if we put aside my objection and that of my party to new nuclear power, all the evidence and all the understanding of the development or non-development of nuclear power in the UK over the past decade point to the fact that this will not happen. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the 2011 plan never came to fruition. It is obvious that the nuclear ambitions have not been fulfilled in the past 13 years.
Every pro-nuclear enthusiast seems to ignore the fairly recent market failure whereby Hitachi walked away from Wylfa and Oldbury and Toshiba walked away from Moorside. Notwithstanding the intended competition for the construction of all these new nuclear sites, EDF and China General Nuclear remained the only show in town, and EDF is still the only show in town as the only company willing to build large-scale nuclear. EDF has a blank cheque when it is at the negotiating table, because there is nowhere else for the Government to go. Large-scale nuclear ambitions also ignore the fact that as a concept the EPR design has been a failure, with every single EPR project in the world being over budget, late and experiencing technical difficulties. Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 was 15 years late. Flamanville in France is 12 years late and at four times its original budget. Taishan in China was held up as the delivery exemplar when it was commissioned, but has been plagued by safety concerns owing to rod damage, and has been offline as much as it has been online since it was commissioned.
We were told that the lessons learned from all the problems with all the other EPR projects would be put into place in Hinkley and that it would be much more efficiently delivered, so let us look at Hinkley Point C. In 2016, its estimated cost was £18 billion, but EDF has recently updated that estimate to £48 billion in today’s prices—a mere £30 billion overspend. Instead of generating power in 2025, it will now be as late as 2031. As costs have continued to spiral, the Government’s attitude remains that it does not really matter for the taxpayer, because all the risk sits with EDF.
However, China General Nuclear, which is a partner in the project, has already reached its cap on the money and capital it is willing to put in, so clearly EDF is now having to find a lot more borrowing than it anticipated. Frankly, it beggars belief that the Minister and the Government claim not to be speaking to EDF about this, especially when just last week the chief executive of EDF, Luc Rémont, stated:
“We’re confident we can find a pathway with British authorities on Hinkley Point C and Sizewell.”
When will the Government admit that Hinkley Point C will need some sort of bailout to allow it to get to completion, or is the intention to throw more money at Sizewell to offset Hinkley’s financial black hole for EDF? The Government also need to come clean on why they put back the contractual payment cut-off dates for Hinkley by six years. Do they know that there is potentially further bad news for Hinkley?
The lessons learned have not worked out for Hinkley, but now we are told that it has been a good learning project and that Sizewell C will be different and will be delivered efficiently, learning from the lessons of the delivery of Hinkley. Again, this is head-in-the-sand stuff. The last Government estimate for Sizewell C was £20 billion, but we now know that Hinkley will cost nearly £50 billion, so it is quite clear that Sizewell C will cost £50 billion—a lot more capital than the Government have intimated they are required to raise. It is no wonder that pension funds have been running a mile from investing in Sizewell C.
Dr Coffey
It is not a straightforward comparison, because I think Sizewell C is still in line with its 2015 prices. It is fairly standard to try to stick with an estimate, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As the local MP for Sizewell C, I am concerned that there have been significant delays at Hinkley. I appreciate that the SNP does not approve of nuclear power at all, but I would like to understand why he is concerned that the Government will have to bail out Hinkley C, when that is clearly not the situation. I would be interested to explore why he thinks that is the case.
Alan Brown
I quoted the chief executive of EDF, who says he hopes to find a pathway with the British authorities, which suggests that EDF wants to be talking about getting more money. The reality is that if there is a £30 billion overspend, EDF must recover that money somewhere, if it can afford to deliver the project without getting a bailout and in line with the 35-year contract it has for selling electricity. If the company has been able to swallow that level of overspend, it shows that the site rate originally agreed in the £18 billion estimate for construction was way too high, because the original £18 billion was supposed to cover contingency as well. Something does not stack up, given that there is such an overspend and such a delay. The delay means that it will be even longer before EDF starts getting payment for the project, so something is not quite right and we need to get a better understanding of that.
I disagree that Sizewell C is still in line with its 2015 prices. At the end of the day, although some lessons can be learned and replicated, the site for Sizewell C is smaller, more constrained and geologically different. It is surrounded by marshes and adjacent to an internationally renowned nature reserve. It is also in one of the fastest-eroding coastlines in Europe, which is subject to rising sea levels and more extreme weather events. In other words, I would argue that Sizewell C is a daft location for a new nuclear power station. With the groundwork and initial civil engineering that will be required, it is not a straightforward carbon copy of Hinkley. We need to know the official estimate for Sizewell C. Taxpayers deserve some transparency, especially given that the Government have already allocated £2.5 billion of taxpayers’ money to EDF for the development of the project, just to get to the stage of a final investment decision. Enough money has already been ploughed into Sizewell C, yet there is still a lot of uncertainty.
On the wider programme delivery considerations for these large-scale nuclear sites, Hinkley will have taken 15 years to complete, if it is completed, by 2031. Even if we are optimistic about Sizewell C, which will be delivered much more quickly, it is still going to take at least 10 years, so it could be between 2035 and 2040 before it is delivered. These timescales alone show the folly of relying on nuclear for decarbonisation and of planning for nuclear to deliver 25% of generation output capacity by 2050, as set out in the road map. It also shows the folly of the road map stating a delivery target of 3 GW to 7 GW every five years. It is a fantasy target, as is 24 GW overall, unfortunately.
The concept of 24 GW, or 25% of generation output, is the wrong model, given that nuclear power is so inflexible. Such a large nuclear output on the grid means that, at times, even greater constraint payments will be paid for renewable energy companies to turn off their turbines.
Large-scale nuclear cannot deliver the intended five-year targets, so how will those targets be met? As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) outlined, the road map talks about small modular reactors. The name sounds innocuous, but do people really believe that a footprint the size of two football pitches is small? It clearly is not, and there is not yet a single licensed prototype in the UK. Good luck in the competition for SMRs, considering that none has been licensed and approved for construction in the UK.
Of the designs that the Office for Nuclear Regulation is considering, the only one to have reached stage 2 is the Rolls-Royce proposal, with the ONR’s stage 2 assessments due to conclude in July 2024. Stage 3 timescales are still to be confirmed, so the reality is that SMRs are just a glint in the UK’s eye at the moment. There is no understanding or certainty on timescales, even if SMRs do come to fruition.
NuScale is supposedly the world leader in SMR technology, and it has just given up on its proposed SMR in Utah because costs have ballooned to £7 billion. The cost of electricity generation has rocketed, too. Our road map tells us that the UK will pioneer and lead the way on new nuclear and SMRs, but that does not make sense. The Government estimate that SMRs will cost £2 billion a go, which makes no sense given the cost of the project in Utah. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), is in his place, and I welcome the questions he has put to the Government. The Government need to consider this closely, and I look forward to their response.
Why does the road map outline two possible funding models—contracts for difference and a regulated asset base? At a £92.50 per megawatt-hour strike rate over 35 years, Hinkley Point is way more expensive than renewable energy at circa £40 to £50 per megawatt-hour over just a 15-year concession period. When we debated the legislation on the regulated asset base funding model, the Government told us that the CFD model does not work for nuclear as it is too expensive, and that switching to RAB would save £40 billion to £80 billion over the lifetime of a nuclear project. If that is the case, why are two funding models listed in the road map? Are the Government now concerned that RAB transfers too much risk to the bill payer? Are they concerned about repeating what happened in South Carolina where, under a regulated asset base model, a company abandoned the construction of a nuclear power station and ratepayers were left paying for a power station that was never completed? What is to stop that happening at Sizewell?
The road map outlines the need for a geological disposal facility, but there are no plans in place to show how such a facility will be identified, constructed and paid for. What is the estimated cost of a GDF? How big will it need to be? Will it be one facility or will there be more, depending on how many nuclear power stations are built? Worryingly, the road map talks about having interim storage in the meantime. This shows that there is still no solution in place for disposing of radioactive nuclear waste, other than burying it for hundreds of years. Our current decommissioning legacy is estimated to be £124 billion, so why do we want to create another generation of nuclear waste for future generations to pay for? There is always a risk that a future Government will need to pick up the tab for decommissioning, no matter what companies sign up to at the outset.
Finally, we are told that nuclear is required because of its reliability and because it produces power when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Over the last 12 years, however, each nuclear reactor has been offline for roughly a quarter of the year, so the dependability of nuclear is not a given. Indeed, Heysham and Hartlepool power stations are offline and have been since December, so two out of three in the existing fleet in England are offline. Before Hinkley comes online, seven of the original eight nuclear stations operating just a few years ago will have gone offline. If we can operate with such a depletion of the existing nuclear fleet before Hinkley comes online, that undermines the argument that we need nuclear to supply the baseload. The Government clearly do not think that the lights will go out when the rest of these nuclear stations are being decommissioned before Hinkley comes online. To me, the road map seems to be all false aspiration and not enough substance, and it flies in the face of the reality of what we know about the operation of nuclear in the past few years and how the market really sits at the moment.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for referring to the letter that the Environmental Audit Committee has just sent under my name to the Secretary of State. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) allowed the letter to be tagged to this debate when he secured it, and I congratulate him on doing so. It is on an important subject and, from our Committee’s point of view, it is timely, because we wrote to the Secretary of State only a few weeks ago, before the recess.
Some members of my Committee—it is a very diverse Committee, with a complete range of opinions on this subject—have very strong reservations about the role and scope of nuclear energy in the UK, but I will start by placing on record my personal support for nuclear energy and the SMR programme, which was the subject of our letter and will be the subject of my remarks today. It is an important part of the path to net zero, contributing not just to baseload, but to the significant increase in electricity generation that will be required if we manage to decarbonise our economy, as is supported across the House.
I look forward to listening to the contribution from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), but the Labour party’s energy policy is in complete disarray. I therefore welcome the stark contrast that the Minister has provided—particularly in his new role as Minister for nuclear—by getting nuclear on the road to regeneration as a core part of our energy mix as we move towards net zero. It is precisely because the Labour party, during its last period in office, made no decisions and would not even debate the subject that we have such a skills shortage in the UK civil nuclear sector. That was picked up in an intervention by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). No new nuclear reactors have come online in the UK since 1995 because of that indecision, so I welcome the civil nuclear road map, which sets out the Government’s ambition to reach as much as 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050. The intent to deploy SMRs will assist the UK in reaching that target, as is set out in the British energy security strategy.
I ask the Minister to consider the concerns that I raised in the Committee’s letter of 13 February to the Secretary of State, among which is the fact that the investment decisions sought between 2030 and 2044 are likely, on current plans, to realise generating capacity of between 9 GW and 21 GW. The Minister, who is very good at maths, will recognise that that is quite a range: 12 GW, or half the Government’s 24 GW upper target for nuclear capacity by 2050.
Great British Nuclear told our Committee that the Government’s target of producing up to 24 GW of nuclear power was not sufficient to give industry confidence about the scale of investment that would be required and suggested that a specific programme should be required to facilitate industry confidence. Further clarity—this was the essence of my letter—would be welcomed. Despite the Government’s assertions in response to the Committee’s recent intervention, as it stands the road map does not offer as much clarity as industry and investors require.
Given the increasing international interest and competition in investment in building nuclear energy capacity, we need to recognise that the UK market for creating that additional capacity cannot be considered in isolation. We are in an international race to transition our economy into a decarbonised world in which many other countries are looking to build nuclear capacity. Those involved in delivering that capacity will have choices: where to invest, to build and to bid.
A key role for Government in achieving their objective of introducing SMR nuclear energy is to provide as much clarity as possible in the process for decision making, the timescale to which they are working and the manner of the procurement process, including funding and contracting models. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make the Government’s expectation on gigawatt roll-out as clear as possible, so that the contribution SMRs are expected to make to the electricity generation mix in the UK by 2035 is made available to industry. That will give it the confidence it needs to invest in the programme to the extent the Government would like and according to the timetable they have indicated in the road map. I assume Ministers are as convinced as I am about the future role of baseload generation in supplying electricity to the grid, alongside the power to be provided by renewables, and I am sure the Minister will need no further invitation to set that out in his response.
On current estimates, it seems unlikely that SMR deployment will be contributing generating capacity to the grid until 2035, the date by which the Government expect the GB electricity grid to have been decarbonised, with both Hinkley and Sizewell likely to be operational in the early 2030s. Quite how the Labour party believes it can decarbonise the grid by 2030, a full five years ahead of that, against all consensus of prevailing expert advice, is a matter for Labour, but it seems wholly fanciful and frankly misleading to the British public.
So what will the additional generating capacity to be delivered through an SMR fleet provide? There are strong suggestions in the road map and its supporting papers that a fleet of SMRs based on advanced nuclear technologies will have applications beyond power generation, but until those technologies are proven to be viable for deployment in SMRs, with the benefits that a modular approach to construction is expected to provide, which were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) in introducing the debate, they remain some way off being ready for investment.
Not only is nuclear, and the SMR approach to deployment, a crucial component of reaching net zero, but there are significant economic benefits to the UK if we are a leader in this technology, including a large potential export market for SMR units. The UK’s SMR programme is in an advanced position among western countries. It has the potential to facilitate a nascent export market and deliver new skilled jobs across the UK.
Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), in 2015, when I was Minister for defence equipment, science and technology and had responsibility for defence nuclear procurement, I was proud to launch the coalition Government’s programme for sustaining the UK’s nuclear skills. The competitive advantage we have in this field is potentially huge, if properly resourced and incentivised.
However, all of this requires the Government to flesh out the road map in ways that further demonstrate a long-term commitment to the UK’s nuclear future, and to learn from the issues in procuring gigawatt-scale nuclear when developing its strategy to deliver nuclear through SMRs. Simon Bowen, whom I commend for his clear leadership of Great British Nuclear, explained to the Committee that between one and four SMR designs are to be selected for Government contracts, with at least one SMR project to be taken to final investment decision by 2029.
On the issue of the timetable, I was disappointed that the road map removed reference to clarity of the timeline for the conclusion of the current design competition, signalling that the Government may push back awarding contracts to winners of the SMR design competition beyond summer 2024 as originally intended. I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to clarify when he expects to announce the outcome, and hopefully that will be prior to the summer recess. Any of us who have held responsibility for procurement in Government will know that time is a constant pressure, so I encourage the Minister to do all he can while in post to put in place the right processes early, so that deadlines do not slip.
Our Committee has said that, in the interests of parliamentary and public confidence in both the expenditure of public money and the timely delivery of expected benefits, the SMR programme should be fully subject to a value for money audit by the National Audit Office, provided that this in itself does not add delay to the delivery. I recognise the pressure to streamline planning and regulatory processes, but the Committee thought it vital that robust governance and safety arrangements were maintained. This is not an area where Ministers will want to cut comers.
While I am on my feet, I ask the Minister to comment in his closing remarks on media reports that Great British Nuclear is in discussion with EDF to purchase a part of the existing nuclear site at Heysham as a likely location for one of the first SMR facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris)—a neighbour of yours, Mr Deputy Speaker—in whose constituency Heysham sits, cannot be here for this debate, but he has told me that the site in his constituency has grid and rail connections, a supportive community, and, clearly, a highly skilled workforce—the largest of any generating nuclear site in the UK—which could support the operation of any future nuclear development at Heysham. In order to help accelerate deployment once the successful designs have been selected, which other speakers in this debate have called for, can the Minister confirm whether GBN could make a start on preparing one or more sites for the eventual successful bidders, once the Government have announced which sites they have designated for initial deployment?
Finally, the fact that every nuclear power plant started life under a Conservative Government demonstrates our willingness to make important decisions for the long- term future of this country. I welcome the Government’s plans, as they represent the biggest expansion of nuclear power for, I believe, 70 years—my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said 50 years—which will lead to a quadrupling of nuclear capacity by 2050. The UK can once again become a leading nation in providing civil nuclear energy, and this Government can take credit for taking the key decisions to bring that about. It would be great to expedite those decisions as soon as possible.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We have already had mention of the significance of net zero. We know that, alongside that, the demand for electricity will increase exponentially. We know, too, that energy security not just for the United Kingdom, but for the supplies of electricity that we currently receive from European countries—or the prices that they will be prepared to pay for electricity and energy—will affect what we produce here. Ireland, to the west of the United Kingdom and, very significantly, to the west of Wales, is also going through the same thought processes about its needs for electricity.
The all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy paid a visit to Finland. Alongside the great significance of employment, which is in no way insignificant in any of our constituencies—least of all in one such as Dwyfor Meirionnydd, which is one of the lowest-paid constituencies in the UK—there are other socioeconomic drivers, which could be part of this programme and which are implicit in the road map. One of those drivers, which we have not considered in sufficient depth, is the cost of electricity in the United Kingdom.
Again, I speak for my constituency when I say that we, alongside Merseyside, pay among the highest standing charges—if not the highest standing charges—in the UK. Yet we have a tradition of generating electricity. I can think of a hydro production facility in Tanygrisiau, which is producing and feeding into the grid and goes over some of the poorest-built housing that we know of in my constituency, and certainly among the poorest-built housing in western Europe. There is a deep anomaly here. We know how much energy poverty is hitting our communities. We must be looking in future not just at the boon that comes with employment, but at the boon that comes from generating electricity. In Finland, for example, large-scale power stations pay in to real estate taxes. They pay so much that everyone else pays less. In France, people pay less for electricity when they are in the environs of a generating station. These are things that we need to consider, because as things stand we are dealing with inequality and people suffering from power poverty.
Like the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), I want to speak about the decommissioned power station in my constituency, but first I welcome the announcement on Wylfa. It is the policy of my party, Plaid Cymru, to support development at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, although not at any more sites in Wales. I previously worked in further education. We saw expectations and hopes raised and then dashed in communities, which is of course what has happened at Wylfa in the past. I urge the Government to ensure that what is proposed is robust, resilient and sustainable, and that the development is brought forward. I remember a programme of apprentices who had to finish their apprenticeships elsewhere because they were no longer able to do so at Wylfa. That is very damaging. There is immense potential, but this must not be just a political boon in the run-up to a general election. These schemes matter immensely to our communities, and must not be handled lightly.
Trawsfynydd, just like Dungeness, is a site that did not find its way on to the 2011 list, for reasons that were perfectly understandable at the time, but I would strongly argue that it should be under consideration in the here and now. Why? First, I will namecheck a constituent, Rory Trappe, who, when he worked at Trawsfynydd—he was also the Prospect union rep—almost single-handedly got Trawsfynydd mentioned in the Financial Times and elsewhere as the first site for which an SMR was being considered. That raised people’s hopes in my constituency. As I mentioned, the difference that would make to salaries in an area such as Meirionnydd in Gwynedd is immense. It has been part of the Ambition North Wales growth deal as well. Public money has been allocated to Trawsfynydd, but there is now a question mark hanging over that funding.
Another advantage of the site is that we have grid connectivity. I know that for some other sites that will be a question; there will be a cost, public controversy, and issues over pylons, but at Trawsfynydd, grid connectivity exists. The site is entirely in public ownership. There is a question about the best use of public money. Trawsfynydd was not on the 2011 list because it was on a lake, rather than on the sea. It was recognised then that the site was not sufficiently supplied with water for large-scale development in the future. That comes back to an argument that I raised in my intervention: if SMRs are to be shown to be suitable on sites other than conventional sites, the Government should look at how they can show that on the ground. Again, that was one of Trawsfynydd’s original positive points.
Alongside that, the Welsh Government have invested Cwmni Egino as a development company for the site. That appears to have been disregarded in the criteria. I am sure that the criteria for GBN were very worth while, but that factor, which was unique to Wales, was not considered. I strongly urge that it now be considered. Finally, there is a mix for the area. We have a hydro-generation scheme at Maentwrog, so old that it existed even before the national grid. We also have a company called Ynni Twrog with a local scheme for energy and a scheme for community energy. It wants to engage with the profits generated from Maentwrog. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss that further, and everything else that I have raised, with the Minister.
Trawsfynydd ceased to generate over 30 years ago. The fear is about what is being proposed now. I will be told that Trawsfynydd is not off the list, and I know that other sorts of technologies will be mentioned, but they are 30 years away. That is 60 years without any generation at a publicly owned site. That is more than a professional lifetime. This is a waste of a resource. We are talking about something that would make an immense difference to the area, and to north-west Wales as a whole. I would like to know what the Minister proposes for the site. Is there a possibility of an SMR? If the Minister proposes an alternative technology, what is it? How realistic is that? Are we talking about medical isotopes as well, because that has been mooted? I have mooted it, because there is a security question over their supply. I reiterate that this is a waste of a public resource. Just like at Dungeness, we have so much that we could be making better use of. I urge the Minister to consider how best to do that.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I am a little cautious about rising to speak, because like other Members in the past, I have great enthusiasm and a great understanding of the need, but considerable ignorance of the physics involved, having left physics behind 30 or 40 years ago.
I have two personal links to this matter, the first being a slightly amusing one. I lived in a little place called Richmond in the north of the south island of New Zealand. Just down the road is a place called Appleby, which is even smaller. In the 1870s, the school at Appleby had four pupils. One of them was Ernest Hemingway. Sorry, it was not Ernest Hemingway. [Interruption.] It was—our nuclear man. His first invention was a potato masher for his grandmother, which I thought was quite an interesting link because, as we all know, he went on to smash the atom, as it has been put. My enthusiasm comes from recognition that we must have nuclear power in this country, even if we take into account the point about hydroelectric, but without the facilities, we cannot have it.
My second link to this matter is that a firm in my constituency, KBR, is a power in nuclear production. It welcomes this road map, but has concerns about it. I invite the Minister to have a roundtable discussion; he could bring in the key players to sit down with him and talk the whole project through. KBR’s feeling—and I sense this as well—is that we have a classic case of UK caution in this area. We had a positive response to small modular reactors in the case of Rolls-Royce and TerraPower, but we do not seem to be getting stuck in with and behind advanced modular reactors, as has already been mentioned.
Sir Paul Beresford
I think the right hon. Member might make this rather difficult for me because of my lack of knowledge, but I will give way.
Mark Tami
I promise the hon. Member that I will not. As someone who is very pro-nuclear, I believe that one big issue is that we have loads of reviews, and identify all the problems and what we will do, and then never actually do it. If we do get around to building a station, we build one—not a number of them; just one. Then, a number of years after that, we might build another one, but to a completely different design. That is how we keep going in this country. Does he agree?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Beresford, I think the name you were struggling to find was Ernest Rutherford.
Mr Deputy Speaker
It was Ernest Rutherford. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), is the genius, not me.
Sir Paul Beresford
Thank you. The Whip has saved me! I had actually worked it out and was going to bring it up. The other thing that rather kicked my memory was that when I went out to the same place last September, I stayed at the Rutherford hotel. Oh dear; my English and English literature are better than my physics, I concede.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). That is the point that KBR and others are making: this is an opportunity that we have the distinctly British possibility of missing. KBR is going in particular for AMRs. It has come back to me and complained, as it will to the Minister—just to prepare him for that meeting—about our clumsy development consent order, which delays everything, is bureaucratic and problematic, and could be considerably easier. As a result, we are slipping behind some of the rest of the world. For example, the United States advanced reactor and advanced modular reactor technology developer, TerraPower, has a financed match programme well under way that will achieve power generation in the US by 2030. We have that opportunity, and we have the right attitude, but we are not doing it.
I stop at this point, having made my complaint and missed Lord Rutherford’s name. We owe our nation the facilities to produce the extra 40% of power that we will need when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. The water will keep running, but that is a very minor part of our power. We do not have those facilities, and if we miss this opportunity, we will hand our children a low-grade state. While I welcome the road map, it is not enough. It does not move fast enough, and it does not contain the funding we need, but it does have the co-operation of the industry, which will bring its money bags with it. As such, I invite the Minister to come along and talk to some of the key people in a short roundtable discussion. Lord Rutherford will be there in the walls behind us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before we go into the wind-ups, I remind Members that there is a second debate, which we would like to get on to as quickly as we can to give other Members as much opportunity to discuss their issue as possible. I ask Members to leave two minutes at the end for Philip Dunne as well.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I will be mindful of that, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is fair to say that while there are very different opinions on nuclear energy, and indeed on the civil nuclear road map, we can all agree on how important energy is to our future—the future of all nations across the UK—and, indeed, that it is becoming an increasingly important resource across the world. As a member of the SNP, representing the Scottish constituency of Livingston, I am proud that we are an energy-rich nation. We in Scotland are particularly rich in renewable energy, and we want to see those resources made the most of. I do not believe, nor does my party, that nuclear is the way forward.
The effects of climate change and resource competition have demonstrated that access to the amount of energy we need is not a given, and we must act to ensure that we have secure and sustainable energy resources. However, the goal of energy security cannot be achieved by going backwards, which many SNP Members feel is what is happening. It is interesting that even Members in this debate who support nuclear energy are critical of the road map. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who is not supportive of nuclear energy, made a very pertinent point; he described that road map as a fantasy. That is probably the best and fairest description that could be given.
None the less, Members—particularly those who have constituency interests—raised pertinent and serious issues about cost and delivery throughout the debate. As we have heard, the cost of nuclear energy is staggering. The numbers we have heard in this debate are almost inconceivable: £35 billion for Hinkley Point C, including a £2.3 billion budget increase this year alone, and an eye-watering approximation of £20 billion for Sizewell C’s budget. For some context, the UK Government will spend only £1 billion to increase the availability of hospital beds in NHS England, and only £4.1 billion on England’s new childcare plan—a stark contrast to the cost of nuclear energy.
Every single project run by EDF, the company commissioned to build Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, has run over budget and between six and 14 years behind schedule. At a time when we face a cost of energy and cost of living crisis, that is not value for money; the plan is not efficient, effective or practical. What is more, those large investments come at the expense of green energy development in the UK. Non-nuclear renewable energy sources are credible options to solve energy instability. Scotland has proven that it can fuel its entire country and more just with wind power—in fact, according to National Grid, Scotland’s full energy mix has been keeping the lights on in England. We are doing our good turn, but the reality is that money invested in nuclear projects is taking away from investment in green energy, particularly in Scotland.
Turning to grid connection, an issue that a number of Members have raised, I recently met with a developer who is trying to develop a solar project in my constituency. I had concerns about how close it was to houses in my constituency; these are new developments, and there are still lots of areas that are being looked at. However, that developer said to me that if the project had been built in the south of England, it would have been half the size—it needed to be twice the size because of the grid connection charges. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the grid connection charges and the standing charges in her constituency are absolutely outrageous. The green industrial revolution is the greatest economic opportunity of the 21st century, and it will deliver more jobs, cheaper energy and greater economic growth, but this focus on a blank cheque investment in unproven nuclear power is utterly ludicrous.
At the end of the day, we need energy in order for the United Kingdom to function, and fuel is becoming a scarce resource. Action must be taken to resolve that—this much we can all agree on—but the civil nuclear road map does not even solve the problem. In fact, the plan, as we have heard, focuses largely on the great development of small modular reactors, but the proposed 300 MW SMRs appear to be based on the 1,500 MW design that has not actually been built, making the technology in the civil nuclear road map unproven. To have such an important road map and spend so much public money on it, and to have at the heart of it a technology that is unproven just does not make sense.
As if that was not enough, these SMRs are thought to produce up to 30 times more waste than conventional nuclear reactors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun highlighted, waste is one of our major concerns. We are seeing water pollution across the UK, with sewage being pumped into rivers and seas, particularly on the coasts of England, and now we want to dump nuclear waste in bunkers—or, according to this road map, not actually to have any proper plans, but just to kick the can down the road.
Scotland, and the rest of the UK, needs a Government who will deliver a comprehensive energy strategy that includes jobs and lower bills, and that grows the economy. We deserve a plan that can unleash our full green energy potential, and Scotland’s future growth and green future will come from investment in renewable energy, not nuclear. The UK-wide focus on nuclear energy runs counter to common sense, frankly. We have seen projects—and I know the Minister knows this and, I hope, feels it keenly—that were cancelled, as when I worked in the north-east of Scotland in the energy industry myself, and saw that repeatedly with carbon capture, with the devastation that wreaked on the industry.
Sadly, we cannot trust the UK Conservative Government with our energy policy. At a time when other countries are ramping up investment in green energy, Westminster is showing itself to be incapable of delivering a credible plan. It is clear, as this debate has shown, that the UK Government’s civil nuclear road map does not deliver.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this timely debate via the Backbench Business process. That is extraordinarily efficient, since the road map was published only on 26 January. To get a parliamentary debate in less than a month of that publication is good going indeed, so congratulations go to him.
I need to say at the outset, for the elimination of any doubt, that the Opposition consider that nuclear will play a significant role in our low-carbon economy for the future, and we therefore support its development over the future period. However, the very substantial questions that have been raised this afternoon are about what that development will consist of, how it will be organised, and what sites may or may not be available for its development, as well as a number of related issues.
It is good that we now have a nuclear road map, but I think it is fair to draw attention, as other hon. Members have done—the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe—to a number of the issues in the overall headline in the nuclear road map, which is that there should be a 24 GW target for nuclear development out to 2050.
By the way, contrary to the suggestion that the previous Labour Government did nothing on nuclear, in 2009 there was a nuclear national policy statement that set out the sites that should be made available for new nuclear and started the process of discussing those sites with developers. The problem is that since then, yes, there was a revised EN-6 national policy statement, but not a single electron of nuclear power has appeared between 2009 and the present. We are talking about a target for the future in the context of serious delays as far as nuclear is concerned.
Yes, we must talk about that target and what the energy mix will consist of for the future, but we must also talk about whether those things will materialise in the way envisaged, and about how we can overcome the substantial delays that seem to be baked in to the process of nuclear development. It is not clear whether that target will largely be filled by gigawatt-sized plants or by small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors. It is not clear what consideration should or will be given to the mix of nuclear, as it will sit in what will be a very different power mix from hitherto. What planning will be undertaken to ensure that such a mix will be optimal, given the need to have power systems that can act compatibly with other forms of power?
The road map commits to at least one gigawatt power station in addition to those under way at the moment, but as we have heard this afternoon, substantial delays in existing large nuclear plants are the order of the day. Hinkley is now 10 years delayed, Sizewell C does not yet have financial closure, and it does not look as though there will be any power from that until the early 2030s. The good news is that Sizewell B is likely to have a 20-year extension on its life. It is currently due to close in 2035, so that will be effectively the equivalent of a new large power station generating in the late 2030s onwards.
So far the Government have put £2.5 billion into Sizewell C and not one stone has yet been laid on another. I imagine there would be a need in principle for similar sums to be laid before future gigawatt nuclear power plants, if that is what the Government envisage for their 24-gigawatt strategy in the main. It is not indicated on the road map whether the Government are able or prepared to do that. Indeed, the money that has already been put into Sizewell was not planned.
On the other hand, while we are having a competition to determine what support, if any, should be given to the winner of the competition for SMR developments, an agreement in principle has been reached to build four SMRs on Teesside at no cost to the public purse, by the American company Westinghouse Electric Company, and Community Nuclear Power. It at least appears—competition or no competition—that there may be circumstances in which, at no cost to the public purse, nuclear power in the shape of SMRs can come forward. That is another reason why the competition needs to go ahead as quickly as possible, to get what we are doing in the UK as up to speed as possible with what people are doing elsewhere in the world.
What the agreement that has been reached in Teesside currently lacks is a clear route forward about sites. That is a proper subject for another delayed action, which, as mentioned in the road map, is the updating of strategic planning statements concerning nuclear. The last such statement, a revised EN-6, was published and adopted in 2011, and it identified, as the 2009 document had done, a number of specific sites for gigawatt power stations. However, it runs only until 2025. Indeed, a number of those sites were initially earmarked for nuclear plants, but the consortia advancing them withdrew.
We are now in a different age. The priority now is surely to identify sites, or at least to put in place clear conditions under which SMRs in particular might go ahead. I see from the road map that an intention for the development of an updated EN-7 appears to be that it will establish clear criteria for such sites. That is of course delayed, as with so many things related to nuclear planning and action. It is not with us at the moment, but it should be. I hope the Minister will give us a firm indication of when it will be published and adopted by this House.
An area where we have had delays and prevarication in the past is nuclear fuels. I am pleased to see in the road map a firm commitment to support the development of new forms of nuclear fuel and support for the production of existing fuel, such as high-assay low-enriched uranium, which at present is available only from Russian sources. Securing those fuel developments for Springfields nuclear fuels and establishing the funding that will make it work is an important piece of work under way early in the path of the road map, and I see the Minister has already laid a revised designation for Springfields in respect of enabling new uranium conversion facilities to be developed. All of that is a good piece of work by the Minister, and he should be applauded for it.
On the subject of delays, one of the most egregious is the absence of any progress on the identification and establishment of a nuclear repository. In the words of the road map:
“A process is well underway to identify a suitable site in which to develop a GDF”—
a geological disposal facility—
“that has suitable geology and the support of a local community.”
Those words vary little in content from the original White Paper in 2008 that stated that such a process was to get under way.
Mark Tami
I have been to Finland and seen its waste repository. It is not rocket science—it is not that difficult. We have put this off for years and years. The argument always used against the industry is, “There is no answer to the waste.” Well, there is an answer, and it is straight- forward. We just need to make that decision.
Dr Whitehead
My right hon. Friend has more or less written the rest of my speech for me. He is right that it is not rocket science; it is nuclear science. And it is pretty straightforward, essentially.
By the way, the White Paper under the previous Labour Government said in 2008 that the process should get under way rapidly, with community consent, and that a geological disposal facility should follow shortly after. Nothing has happened since then, but it is vital, as we contemplate the kind of programme that we are envisaging for nuclear and the decommissioning of all but one of our current nuclear fleet, that a storage facility gets under way. We need rather more in the road map than the sparse words right now, or we at least need a renewed specific pathway for a disposal facility to be published. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he is positively inclined towards that idea and whether he appreciates the urgency of making progress on a secure geological disposal facility.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this important debate, and on the speed at which he was able to secure it, given that it was only a month and a half ago that I was standing at this Dispatch Box and publishing the nuclear road map. He is absolutely right to seize the opportunity presented in the civil nuclear road map, and I commend him for his consistent efforts on this agenda and for championing his constituency. I was grateful to visit Dungeness last year with my hon. Friend. I saw the strong local support for that site as a potential future location for a small modular reactor. I very much enjoyed my trip to the local pub and the fish and chips—should that be fission chips?—that we were served following our visit to the reactor.
The UK already delivers high-quality apprenticeships in the nuclear sector. We recognise the need to increase the number of apprentices to ensure that the nuclear sector can keep up with demand, without compromising the quality of training or career opportunities. The value of energy generation to communities around the country is an essential part of the discussion.
A month on from the publication of the civil nuclear road map, I am pleased to be discussing it here today. The Government are focused on creating a stable, secure and clean energy supply for the country. The publication of the road map sets out plans for the great nuclear revival of this country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who has been a consistent champion of this, pointed out, nuclear plays a key role in our drive towards net zero. That has been recognised not only by this country but at COP by 30 other countries around the world, who came together to pledge to increase their nuclear generating capacity by 30% so that we can take concrete action on the biggest challenge of our time, which we all agree is climate change.
Nuclear power generation is a low-carbon, proven technology that will play an important role in making our energy system more resilient and less polluting. We have set out this expansion with quantifiable aims. We want to achieve up to 24 GW of nuclear power generation by 2050, which is four times what we currently produce. That ambition will require us to deploy a range of technologies from large-scale gigawatt reactors to small modular reactors and, coming down the stream, advanced modular reactors. On the first of those technologies, I am pleased to say that we are making incredibly good progress. Since the subject was last raised in the House on 11 January, the Government have made available a further £1.3 billion for the construction of Sizewell C. That brings the total Government investment available for the project to £2.5 billion.
Beyond Sizewell, we have committed to a pragmatic approach to nuclear deployment. As set out in the road map, that means committing to explore a further large-scale nuclear project beyond Sizewell. [Interruption.] I will not give way. I will address the comments made in the debate further on in my speech. I am conscious that we have another debate to get to, and I do not want to take up any more time for that debate; we are already eating into it.
On SMRs, we have set up Great British Nuclear, an arm’s length body responsible for helping to deliver new nuclear projects. In 2023, GBN launched a technology selection process for SMRs—it has been referenced—with the aim of identifying the technologies best able to reach a project final investment decision in the next Parliament, potentially releasing billions of pounds of private and public investment. In October, Great British Nuclear announced the designs of six technology vendors it had selected to proceed to the next stage of the process. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that the next stage of the competitive selection process will be launched shortly. The ambition is to announce this year which of the six companies the Government will support.
Importantly, whatever the technology, the nuclear programme requires new sites to enable construction within the decade. The Government’s plans, published last January, set out how we will achieve the expansion in the coming years. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkstone and Hythe will know from the road map that, in order to reach our destination of up to 24 GW by 2050, we have proposed a new approach to siting nuclear power stations, which will empower developers to identify sustainable sites.
The current national policy statement for siting nuclear power stations deployable before the end of 2025 lists potential locations for nuclear sites. Our new national policy statement for beyond 2025 aims to enable developers to identify sites that best match their technology. To open up more siting opportunities and facilitate longer-term market development, an updated, robust site assessment criteria will ensure that only those sites that are suitable for a new nuclear programme progress through the planning system.
While I am afraid that we cannot today speculate on the location of these new nuclear sites, we will pave the way for new nuclear sites in the UK to be made possible by this new nuclear siting national policy statement and civil nuclear road map. I suggest to my hon. Friend and any others who are rightly looking to the job creation and economic benefits of new nuclear sites that my Department shares their eagerness to confirm these projects, and we will share news of them as our consultation progresses.
I know that red tape and over-cautious regulation have slowed the progress of many construction projects in this country. However, I urge that cautious planning and adherence to correct procedure are a necessity when, after all, we are here discussing nuclear power. This is a slow process, because it is a diligent one, and it should be a diligent one. I will not make any promises today about the location of new nuclear sites, but my hon. Friend and others can be certain that community engagement will be central to the development of any new sites, and my Department is working to deliver that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) talked about new technologies. In January, I launched the alternative routes to market for new nuclear projects consultation, which aims to explore what steps can be taken to enable different routes to market for advanced nuclear technology and the uses and potential benefits they can provide to the UK economy when they do not need the support of the British taxpayer. The consultation will end on 12 April, and we are seeking responses to support the development of policies that will allow the nuclear industry to thrive. Expanding our nuclear power generation will benefit every community in the country with clean, reliable power, but it is the communities that host these new nuclear sites that will see that benefit most directly.
The skilled workforces that exist around our existing nuclear sites will, I expect, be an important consideration for those looking to develop new nuclear reactors. We expect that the nuclear sector workforce in the UK will need to double in the next few decades in response to the challenge. We recognise that we cannot close the skills gap without urgent collaborative action. We have worked with the Ministry of Defence and will soon launch the nuclear skills taskforce, of which I am incredibly proud. It will set out the action needed to ensure that the UK’s nuclear sector will have sufficient and appropriate nuclear skills to deliver our civil and military nuclear ambitions.
Andrew Bowie
I will not, because I do not want to eat into the time for the next debate. The taskforce will set out our aims and ambition, and the work involves close co-ordination with industry, across civil and military, to turbocharge the work already happening to develop the skills we need. We look forward to seeing the taskforce’s final recommendations very soon.
Right hon. and hon. Members raised extensive points about the road map. I have been advised that we want to give time for the next debate, so I will not be able to address them all today. However, I promised the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) that I would come back to his points on Hinkley Point C and Sizewell. Hinkley Point C is not a Government project. EDF Energy is responsible for its delivery. Additional costs will not fall to the taxpayer, despite what hon. Members might read in the press.
Sizewell C will be a crucial part of the UK’s agenda for new nuclear power. As I said, we have made available a total of £2.5 billion to support the project’s development. Last year, the Government and Sizewell C started the process to bring in private equity, backed by our new regulated asset base model for nuclear, in which we have considerable confidence. The hon. Member claimed that the RAB would not deliver. It was established as an option for funding new projects, following recommendations by the National Audit Office. The most appropriate funding models will be determined by negotiations with project developers on a project-by-project basis. As I said, we have full confidence in that.
I will write to the other Members who took part in this debate to address their points, because important points were raised, but I do not want to eat any more into the time for the next debate. We have published three key documents, which 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 proposed policy for siting new nuclear power stations. The UK needs to increase the resilience of its energy supply while reducing its emissions. For that reason, nuclear power is a source of real optimism. The continued work of my Department and Great British Nuclear will ensure that the UK has a world-leading nuclear power industry. I am very glad to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe as we turn this plan into a reality.
Damian Collins
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and, as he alluded to in his remarks, for visiting both Dungeness power station and the Pilot Inn at Dungeness. Both were welcome visits for the local community. I thank all the Members who spoke in this debate, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the Chair of the Select Committee.
The issues on which the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and I are in lockstep are probably not numerous, but this is one of them. As the Minister just said at the Dispatch Box and as is in the road map document, we recognise that to achieve the Government’s aims, we need more nuclear sites than are currently in the planning framework. Those nuclear sites will probably be other nuclear sites that already have the technology and the connections but, for whatever reason, were not suitable in the 2011 list but will be in future. Moving forward, if the Government say, “We know we need extra sites”, it will be helpful to give some idea of where they might be.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the civil nuclear roadmap.
Heart and Circulatory Diseases: Premature Deaths
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered premature deaths from heart and circulatory diseases.
I start with something I never thought that I would stand here discussing. As I shared in Prime Minister’s questions a few weeks ago, at 47 I had a heart attack. It happened back in August last year, but I must admit that it took several months for me to feel comfortable talking about it more publicly—although I knew that I was on the path to full recovery, and I feel that I am now recovered. As I said in Prime Minister’s questions, I feel a bit thinner for it—that is the physical response. One thing that came through, beyond the fantastic support of the NHS, to which I will refer later, friends and family and my team, was the support of the British Heart Foundation. Its online resources, support and guidance were invaluable in helping me when I was on my own, to find a way through this, get on the path to recovery and understand the stories of others.
I hope the debate will not just share my story—this is not about me—but raise awareness of the early signs and symptoms and some areas of prevention, as well as raising with the Minister, on behalf of others who were perhaps not as fortunate as I was, some of the challenges to early identification of risks. I will aim to cover as much as I can, but I know that others will want to speak, so I will not hog the short time we have. I hope that even one person might come away from watching this debate— I am sure there are millions at home following this debate this afternoon—able to spot a sign for themselves or for a family member or friend, which might save or change their lives.
To start, let us talk about the symptoms. I appreciate that symptoms differ slightly for everybody, and the British Heart Foundation has excellent examples and guidance for what they might be. For me, it started with feeling a sort of numbness and tingling sensation in my left arm and an increasing tightness in my chest, which, as it grew, started to filter to the back of my body. It was not immediate. One often thinks of a heart attack as a cardiac arrest, which is where the heart literally stops and one needs a defibrillator or CPR, but a heart attack can feel more like a slow process that happens quite quickly, if that makes sense.
Even though many years ago, I worked on campaigns to talk about these symptoms with the British Heart Foundation as a client of mine, and even though I knew instinctively what was happening to me, as I started to get those symptoms, even I thought, “I don’t want to phone 999. I don’t want to waste their time.” I ended up calling 111, expecting to hear, “Don’t be silly; take a pill. Go to your GP tomorrow and they’ll get you sorted out.” But they did not say that. The message I had back immediately was that an ambulance was on its way, at which point, I thought, “This might be a bit serious”—but even then I was still in a little denial about the situation.
I will not tell the full story, but I was transferred very quickly to Watford General Hospital, where I was seen and given exemplary care. The East of England Ambulance Service was absolutely incredible with its speed and the compassion and support I was given—the same was true at Watford General, a hospital I love dearly. I was then transferred to Harefield Hospital, where I was again seen very quickly. During that process, I realised the enormity of the situation I was in and the potential that I could lose my life, although I was then unlikely to because I was in the right place at the right time.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of Harefield Hospital. My son has been at Harefield for four months after having a heart transplant just before Christmas; it has been a very traumatic time. I would like to place on record the incredible support and care the hospital provides. I also want to say that we think of heart attacks, heart failure and similar conditions as affecting people my age—maybe people a bit younger or a bit older—but heart failure and heart conditions can affect young people as well. We must not have lazy diagnoses where people think just because somebody is young, they cannot possibly have heart issues, cancer or other issues. As I said, I really want to put on record the great support that Harefield Hospital provides.
Dean Russell
May I send my best wishes to the right hon. Gentleman’s son? From my experience, his son is in absolutely the right place, and I hope he has a swift recovery. I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s comments—the staff at Harefield were exemplary at every stage of the process.
Again, I put on record—for my own benefit, rather selfishly—my gratitude to the East of England Ambulance Service, Watford General Hospital and Harefield Hospital, but also the cardiac rehabilitation teams. The experience of being in hospital and having a heart attack was a matter of days, but that of the rehabilitation, exercise programmes and diet changes—all the things that are so important—was a matter of months. I can talk about it not so much as having saved my life, but it has changed my life. I cannot say that I am pleased that it happened, but I am pleased that it happened the way it did, if that makes sense, in making a difference.
I recognise that my experience is not unique, however lucky I am in the experience I have had and the subsequent opportunity to use the platform of Parliament to raise awareness of these conditions and the work of the British Heart Foundation and the NHS. It just felt very apt to have this debate this month because it is World Heart Month. Back-Bench debates are an opportunity to have these conversations and to raise concerns.
Cardiovascular diseases include conditions that affect the heart and circulation, including high blood pressure, stroke and vascular dementia, which I will refer to collectively in the debate as CVD. Over the past six decades, huge strides have been made in improving outcomes for those affected by CVD, with the annual number of deaths falling by around half since the 1960s in part thanks to decades of medical and scientific breakthroughs. That is why research is just so essential.
Today, more than 7 million people are living with heart and circulatory diseases in the UK, and they cause more than a quarter of all UK deaths. In 2022 alone, over 39,000 people in England died prematurely of cardiovascular conditions. That is, on average, 750 people a week. Just to provide a sense of scale, that would fill the Chamber two times over. Despite the premature death rate for CVD continuing to fall by 11% between 2012 and 2019, sadly it remains one of the UK’s biggest killers. The British Heart Foundation is doing a lot of work to raise awareness of waiting lists going up for heart tests and treatment. We need to ensure that we tackle that head on. There is no room for manoeuvre on this. Let us keep moving forward to make a difference.
More analysis is needed. From lifesaving research by the British Heart Foundation, we know that the causes of premature deaths from CVD are multifaceted and complex. The NHS long-term care plan intends to look at many of those areas, but I call on the Government to be bold and consider co-ordinated action to address the issue in three ways. I urge them to prioritise heart care within the NHS to accelerate vital care; to ensure better protection from heart disease by addressing the drivers and underlying health conditions, such as obesity and smoking; and finally, to create a research and development ecosystem for breakthroughs, treatments and cures.
I welcome the significant work already under way through the Government’s major conditions strategy and the inclusion of cardiovascular disease in it. The interim report, published last summer by the Department of Health and Social Care, made clear the scale and urgency of the Government’s priority to address this issue. Urgency is absolutely key here. Around 80% of cases of CVD are attributed to modifiable risk factors such as high blood pressure, obesity, poor diet and smoking, making CVD largely preventable through a number of lifestyle choices.
Politically, I am not one who thinks that the state should intervene and stop people from being able to enjoy their lives, but I think education is key. Education can come through many different means, including engagement with the NHS and GPs providing advice. It is not about the state stopping people making lifestyle choices, but it is fair enough to let them know what those lifestyle choices might lead to, and what can make a big difference to them and their family.
Nearly two thirds of adults in the UK, around 64%, are overweight or living with obesity. Up to 8 million people have either undiagnosed or uncontrolled high blood pressure. From my own personal experience, I admit that I knew I was not going to be running in the Olympics any time soon—I cannot exactly describe myself as an Adonis—but while I knew I was slightly overweight, I thought I would be okay. I thought that these things do not happen to somebody at the age of 47. Like most of us, I thought these things happen to somebody else. That is the way our minds work. This was a wake-up call for me, and that is why I want to make a wake-up call to others from this wonderful platform of the House of Commons Chamber. Do not assume that it is all okay. Get checked out and make sure that you watch out for the signs.
I therefore welcome the Government’s ambition to halve childhood obesity by 2030, and to help adults reach a healthier weight through a range of preventive measures to empower people to take control of their own health. Of course, everyone has different ways of doing that. I will not share my own dietary habits, because I am sure that some dietician will watch this and tell me I have got it totally wrong, but I have lost about 2 stone in the past four or five months. I did not do it by fasting—I know the Prime Minister does his fast each week, so I will not comment on that—or by adopting a fad diet; I simply made some small changes in my lifestyle and the way I live my life.
Like many people, we as Members of Parliament work long hours. My father was a lorry driver, and I am proud of the long hours he worked and the work that he did to bring me up. Our job here is not particularly physical, but it does involve long hours and is quite sedentary at times, and the same probably applies to the jobs of a great many people throughout the UK. Being mindful of that, and going for a walk and getting a bit of exercise, can make a big difference.
The NHS long-term plan sets out the Government’s determination to prevent 150,000 heart attacks, strokes and dementia cases over the course of 10 years. I welcome the focus on early intervention to help people live longer, healthier lives, but we all know that smoking is still the single leading behavioural cause of preventable death in this country. I very much support the Government’s desire for a smoke-free generation by 2030, and I am glad they are pressing on with a tobacco and vapes Bill to ensure that children who are now 14 or younger—that is, anyone born on or after 1 April 2009—can never legally be sold tobacco products.
Addressing lifestyle concerns and identifying underlying conditions earlier could help to prevent tens of thousands of heart attacks and strokes, and could support the Government’s ambition to increase healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035, but I think it means more than that. To me, it means that a child will grow up seeing their father or their mother. It means that friends and families can see a loved one reach the age at which they can call that person a grandparent, or that person can see them graduate. This, for me, is not just about Government policy; it is about the impact on real people who can be helped to lead a positive life.
When we talk about heart attacks, heart disease and the other issues we are discussing today, we are of course talking about premature deaths, but for most people who are affected those conditions constitute a restriction on their lives, and I want to ensure that we improve that situation for everyone in the country. I am proud to say that the UK continues to lead the way in medical research, establishing innovative methods of early diagnosis and effective treatment.
As many Members will know, I campaigned vigorously with West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust to secure the necessary funding for the new hospital in Watford, and it was a proud and important moment when we did. One reason I supported that so strongly was the incredible work I saw being done at Watford General Hospital, especially in relation to the virtual hospital programme. It has led the way in showing that there are other ways of supporting people’s health, particularly at home, and adopting the idea of using technology and data to help improve people’s lifestyles. The beauty of the modern age is that many apps can give people guidance on their health. They have Apple watches or Fitbits or whatever else is out there; I do not want to go down the route of one particular brand. We are now able to track so much more of our health, but I think we need more education on what that data means. We can all see our heart rates, but what is the actual impact on people’s lives?
Virtual care is important in this regard, but—I will not go too far down this route, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think it is for a different debate—I have long argued for what I call data donation. At present someone who sadly loses their life may donate an organ, but if we could donate our lifestyle data throughout our lives, the NHS and other organisations could start asking themselves whether they could, for instance, cure cancer by using that data, which would be anonymised, with all the necessary checks and balances to ensure that it was done well.
I am conscious of the time, and I am sure that I am going over my allocated period, but I want to highlight the fact that despite all the developments, CVD continues to have an impact on the wider economy, costing an estimated £21 billion annually in England alone. As I say, behind every figure is a person or a family who have been deeply affected by these conditions. As part of this process, I was fortunate to work with the House of Commons Chamber engagement team, who reached out to constituents across the country to share their own experiences in preparation for this debate. I believe that the correspondence should be in the Library; if not, I will make sure that it is shared with colleagues and put online. One respondent really moved me. They said that their daughter
“has half a working heart; she’s had two open heart surgeries and will need another. If it hadn’t been detected early, she wouldn’t be with us today.”
That is a life, an ambition and a future that is still there because of the support that has been given.
I know that I am doing a bit of a plug for the British Heart Foundation today, but one of the other comments, which rings true with my experience, was that the
“British Heart Foundation has a brilliant website for facts, and the consultant team we are under at our local hospital are fantastic.”
There were many quotes from people sharing very similar stories. A common concern, though, was about aftercare following surgery or medical treatment and the effects that people’s conditions have had on them mentally and socially. From my own experience, I have to admit that I suddenly started to feel twinges all the time and think, “Is there something wrong with me? Is it happening again?”
My experience is that within two weeks of having a heart attack, I promised that I would go to a local event; I did not want to let people down. I remember going to it on a searing hot day. I was genuinely frightened about going out in the heat with people and not knowing whether my body would still work in the way I hoped it would. I am glad I did it, because once I had gone through the experience of being there and realising that I could still be me, I was able to overcome that and continue to work as safely and as best I could as I recovered.
However, not everybody gets that opportunity. When someone has had a physical illness, particularly when it affects the heart, it is easy for them to suddenly worry that they do not have control over themselves, and they do not know what might happen next. I must admit that there have been many times when something has twinged and I have thought, “Is this a heart attack again?” Thankfully, it has not been, but aftercare is absolutely essential. We can fix the body, but helping to support the mind through that psychological process is absolutely essential. I know that colleagues in the House will have far more powerful stories about their experiences than mine, and I look forward to hearing them later.
This is about multidisciplinary care that does not end when the patient leaves the hospital. It is about supporting their full recovery and helping them with some lifestyle changes. I have to admit that the cardiac rehabilitation team I worked with were phenomenal. When I was extremely concerned, they would put my mind at rest, which meant that I was better physically and mentally. I therefore ask the Minister whether consideration will be given to offering counselling services and mental health support to those affected by heart and circulatory conditions.
As I have said, heart and circulatory diseases cause a quarter of all deaths in England, amounting to over 140,000 each year, 480 a day or one every three minutes. Sadly, in the time that I have spoken today, five people will have lost their lives. I therefore call for urgent action to do more to protect our hearts. By prioritising the right action and supercharging the progress that has been made on addressing heart and circulatory diseases, we can improve the nation’s health, grow the economy and give people hope for a brighter, healthier future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It will be obvious to the House that we have very little time this afternoon, so I hope that Members will limit their remarks to around five minutes.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Five minutes?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Would the hon. Gentleman like to find some way to make the House sit longer?
Andrew Bridgen
No, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just rather surprised. We often have three hours for Backbench Business debates, but we have ended up with an hour.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but there is nothing I can do about it now. Don’t we all sometimes wish that we could turn back the clock? I do not have that power.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) for securing this important debate, and for sharing his personal experience of suffering a heart attack. I am delighted to see that he has made such a strong recovery that he can be here in the Chamber today. I am sure that many Members have been affected by cardiac disease, or know people close to them who have been deeply affected by this appalling and shocking killer.
The Library briefing pack for this debate contains a startling statistic. Almost casually, it mentions that cardiovascular deaths per 100,000 population have risen by 10% since 2019, after falling steadily for decades.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I have taken what he has just said to heart. I have done my best to squeeze out more time, and he can have around seven minutes.
Andrew Bridgen
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is a 40% increase. Ask and ye shall receive.
The previous steady reductions followed major improvements in public health policy, reductions in risk factors such as smoking, and the controlling of blood pressure, as well as improvements in medical care. Although I am grateful to the hon. Member for Watford for securing this debate, and to the other Members who will contribute, there is an elephant in the room—indeed, there are so few speakers that there is probably room for a herd of elephants. Why has there been a significant uptick in cardiac deaths in recent years? What novel intervention in public health has occurred since 2019?
Some might think that covid is the cause. Not so. The same uptick in cardiac deaths was observable in Australia and Singapore before those countries got covid but after they rolled out the experimental messenger ribonucleic acid injection. Ah, the jab! I can see some Members tutting and turning away. Everyone knows that MPs with a science degree are few and far between, and that some Members’ eyes glaze over when science is discussed. Well, I am one of those MPs fortunate enough to have a science degree. Another was Margaret Thatcher, who was rather prouder of being the first Prime Minister with a science degree than of being the first woman Prime Minister, and rightly so.
Some Members appear to have prejudged the issue. It is often said that it is easier to fool someone than to persuade them that they have been fooled. For posterity, we must remember that it was 11 years after the thalidomide scandal was exposed in 1961 before the word “thalidomide” was mentioned in the Chamber. I refuse to let this new mammoth medical scandal be ignored in the same way.
We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in decades—perhaps in living memory, and possibly ever. It is bigger than thalidomide and bigger than the Tuskegee untreated syphilis scandal, in which some black people were deliberately not treated to see what would happen to their bodies over time. It might be bigger than the Vioxx scandal, hitherto the grandaddy of medical scandals.
I can see some Members looking puzzled. Vioxx was a new drug invented by Merck as an alternative to aspirin—a mild painkiller. A researcher first highlighted an issue to Merck’s senior management in 1997, two years before the drug was approved. One in 115 people who took Vioxx suffered a heart attack. Merck’s profits from Vioxx comfortably exceeded the criminal fine, the compensation and the litigation costs after the drug was pulled. It was a good business decision for Merck. Not one pharma executive went to jail for skewing the trial results, for deceiving the regulators or for recklessly causing the deaths of 60,000 ordinary Americans for profit. It is always for profit—lives tragically cut short, families destroyed and children devastated. Imagine the incentive structure in an industry where profits like that can be made, and the corporate greed where there is full immunity from prosecution. In 1986, pharma companies got immunity in the USA for all vaccines. The number of vaccines administered to children in America has exploded since then.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the hon. Member share my hope that the Minister, in responding to the debate, will address the article in The Daily Sceptic on 20 February this year by Will Jones, headlined “Covid Vaccines Linked to Large Increase in Heart, Blood and Neurological Disorders, Major Study Finds”?
Andrew Bridgen
I hope that the Minister will address that, and of course this will go on. Cardiac deaths were already the biggest killer in our country, but we have a mysterious 10% increase. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like others in the Chamber, has witnessed the horrifying sight of super-fit athletes keeling over on pitches around the world. A mountain of peer-reviewed evidence is emerging and hypotheses are being proposed. Numerous cardiologists have concerns, but unfortunately, many experts do not feel able to speak out openly about their concerns because of the climate of fear, and the consequences of whistleblowing or speaking out against big pharma, which has so often been found to be not operating in the public interest, and causing harm. I am afraid that we will see much the same, following the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccines, as we saw with Vioxx and thalidomide, and in so many other cases.
The evidence is mounting up so rapidly, and the only people who cannot appreciate what is going on in this country are those who really do not want to see. The public will be extremely harsh on this Parliament and our response to the covid-19 pandemic, including the roll-out of the vaccines. We were going to stop vaccinating after the over-70s, but we then decided that vaccination would include the over-50s. We then decided it would be for everyone. Then this House took the appalling decision, unsupported by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, in September 2021 to vaccinate children who were at very little risk, if any, of covid, but who have been harmed seriously by the vaccines.
Why ever did we use a systemic vaccine for a mucosal respiratory virus? One expert said last year:
“it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines. This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines”
to work, when natural immunity does not give protection? And what is the name of this expert? Mr Anthony Fauci, the former head of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in America, who pushed the vaccines.
I wish I had more time, Madam Deputy Speaker; this is a huge issue and we need to debate it again. It is the biggest killer of our constituents, and our fear is that the rate of increase in cardiac deaths will not slow in the UK, or the rest of the world.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), as I often seem to in these debates, which often resemble Madame Tussauds: the same faces appear, time after time. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a reputation for brevity in my speeches, and I intend to support that reputation now.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on securing this important and rather timely debate, and I echo the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire in saying that we enjoy seeing him looking so fit and healthy after the trauma that he had. This is a really important matter, and he is right to raise it today. As I highlighted in last month’s Westminster Hall debate on excess death trends, a recent article in The Lancet found that although the causes of ongoing excess deaths in the UK
“are likely to be multiple”,
Office for National Statistics data showed some clear trends—in particular, the “largest relative excess deaths” since the pandemic occurred in young and middle-aged adults, with the number of cardiac deaths happening outside hospitals being the most elevated. In other words, young and previously healthy people are dying at home from cardiac-related events, and we do not know why.
These are not just numbers and statistics—these are real people, loved ones, often from younger age groups, who are dying before their time. It is urgent and our duty to get to the bottom of the situation sooner rather than later. As I am sure we are all aware, there are many theories circulating about the causes of these excess deaths. One is the possibility of a causal link between the population-wide use of covid-19 vaccines and the marked increase in cardiovascular-related critical events, including heart attacks and strokes, among otherwise apparently healthy people. We do not know if that is the cause or not, because the data is not being released. Until certain data sets are released, it is impossible to rule that theory in or out.
That is why I, along with cross-party colleagues, wrote yesterday to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; Professor Steven Riley, the director general for data at the UK Health Security Agency; and Dr Alison Cave, the chief safety officer at the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. We warn that by withholding official data, the Department, UKHSA and MHRA are helping fuel concerns and hesitancy about public health. We have asked that anonymised record-level official mortality data be released, alongside vaccination dates, doses and co-morbidities, without delay. We understand that the MHRA has collected and already shared this data with pharmaceutical companies to enable those companies to produce post-authorisation safety studies for their products, so I see no reason why it cannot also be shared with parliamentarians and the public right away. Will the Minister say whether that data has been shared with pharmaceutical companies? If so, why is not being shared with the rest of us?
As the Minister surely realises, repetitive generic assurances that the Government and the UKHSA take excess deaths “seriously” and monitor them “constantly”, and that the MHRA have
“systems in place to continually monitor the safety of our medicines”—[Official Report, 16 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 235WH.]
do not serve to reassure anybody at all. Likewise, the news from the Office for National Statistics this week that it has revised its excess deaths methodology, and that there are suddenly 20,000 fewer excess deaths last year, has done little to quell public concern. If anything, it has done the exact opposite: people cynically see it as a convenient sleight of hand.
As we say in our letter, if the Government and their agencies are not willing to share the data we have requested, will the Minister explain to us why not? We are all on the same side and want to look after people. We are all concerned to do the best we can for everybody, but until we have all the data, we just do not know what we do not know. If there is any potential that public health interventions, such as covid-19 vaccines, are causing harm and premature death to some, we must act on that without delay. If the evidence shows that that there is no issue, then it is in everybody’s interest for that reassurance to be in the public domain as quickly as possible.
Sir Christopher Chope
If that information was in the public domain, then the Prime Minister would have been able to answer the question that he was asked in the GB News interview the night before last.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is right. It is in everybody’s interest that the information be in the public domain, so that we can reassure people, or at least let them know. Frankly, there is never any harm in giving people information and letting them make their own mind up about what has happened.
Opinions need to be put to one side, and the data need to be examined in the cold, hard light of day. Otherwise, we will do harm to people, and we will do even more and irreparable damage to trust in public health policy. I hope that the Minister will provide some reassurance that the data will be forthcoming as soon as possible, and that the Government do not give the impression that there is something to hide.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) for setting the scene today. We have spoken many times on this issue. It is a real pleasure to see him back to health and strength, and working very effectively in this House.
The rates of premature death from heart and circulatory diseases do not make for easy reading. The British Heart Foundation has been clear about how stark the situation is. As the DUP’s health spokesperson, I try to involve myself in all health matters—whether they be in ministerial questions or in debates—in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall, because that is part of my duty.
The number of people dying before the age of 75 from heart and circulatory diseases has risen to the highest level in more than a decade. Waiting lists for heart operations and other heart procedures are nearly 100,000 higher than they were a year ago. Those figures are stark and worrying.
I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place. We all have great respect for her. Although we do not want to burden her with questions, we do need to ask ourselves why these figures are so high and what is being done to reduce them. Worryingly, there are more people over the age of 75 waiting over a year for treatment—the rate is 140 times higher than before the pandemic began.
Latest figures show that, in 2022, more than 39,000 people in England died prematurely of cardiovascular conditions, including heart attacks, coronary heart disease and stroke—an average of some 750 people each week. Again, worryingly, that is the highest total since 2008. What is being done to address those issues?
This backwards trend—because that is what it is—has been broadly mirrored in age-standardised premature death rates, which account for changes and differences in population sizes and demographics. Before 2012, the number and rate of deaths from these conditions under the age of 75 were falling, in part thanks to decades of medical and scientific breakthroughs.
But after nearly a decade of slowing progress, recent statistics show that the rate of premature deaths from cardiovascular disease has now increased in England for three years back to back. This is the first time that there has been a clear reversal in the trend for almost 60 years. Again, the question must be: what has brought that about and what has been done to stop it.
The British Heart Foundation has said:
“The reasons for the rise are multiple and complex. While increasing pressure on the NHS and the covid-19 pandemic have likely contributed in recent years, the warning signs have been present for over a decade.”
If those signs have been present for over a decade, the question we must all ask is: what steps have been taken to slow the trend that has been there for some time.
I know that there will be many in this Chamber with opinions as to the cause. I do not hold a medical degree. I am a very simple person, but I do have an interest in health and I do ask the questions. The fact is that the sharp rise needs to be better managed. I can quickly give some examples of what we are doing back home in Northern Ireland. We have a developing plan with the Irish Football Association that includes more defibrillators and CPR training, which is really important. Many people who are fit and healthy—the hon. Member for Watford referred to this—have had heart attacks on the football pitch. Those are things that we need to address. May I commend the Chest, Heart and Stroke charity back home for all that it does?
This month in Northern Ireland, 340 people will die from heart or circulatory disease, around 90 of whom will be younger than 75 years of age. Some 225,000 people are living with a heart or circulatory disease, 320 hospital admissions will be due to a heart attack, 130 people will die from coronary heart disease, and 13 babies will be diagnosed with a heart defect this year. Those are the figures for Northern Ireland. The statistics are shocking, especially given the small size of Northern Ireland. There are an estimated 225,000 people living with heart and circulatory diseases in Northern Ireland. An ageing and growing population and improved survival rates from heart and circulatory events could see these numbers rise still further. It is clear that this really is a ticking timebomb and therefore we do seek some help from the Minister here.
I can see the Minister formulating her response. Both she and I are glad to see that the Northern Ireland Assembly is up and running. As health is a devolved matter, may I ask her in a genuine fashion, as I always do, whether she can indicate what discussions will take place with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland.
We in Northern Ireland are in the situation in which every region of the UK finds itself: there is not enough funding, not enough staff, and not enough support. Across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we need to address the growing problem with solutions, which can only come about with reasonably paid staff and a better system. Let us exchange our thoughts and ideas, and move forward together towards a system where we can help each other. An overhaul of the system is needed, and we look to the Minister for a plan of action, beginning here in this place and extending through the NHS and across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
You told me to finish within a certain time, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have just done it.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on securing this debate on such an important and prevalent issue. He and I have a shared interest in health inequalities, largely due to our personal experiences. He and I joined the House at the same time. I remember sitting in this very Chamber for his maiden speech, in which he quoted Sir Elton John’s song “I’m Still Standing.” I am absolutely delighted that we are both still standing. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Just a few short months after my hon. Friend’s maiden speech—I will call him my hon. Friend— I was in rehab recovering from a stroke. “I’m Still Standing” was one of the songs that we ironically listened to while doing physio—a dark sense of humour can be a powerful tool in the face of adversity, but of course we need to equip people with more than just a sense of humour to get through these very difficult conditions.
This issue is one that my party and I are deeply concerned about, with nearly three in 10 Scots dying from heart and circulatory diseases, equating to about 50 people per day or 1,500 people per month. Preventing those deaths, and in particular premature deaths, is something that the Scottish Government are committed to. The hon. Member for Watford outlined the signs and symptoms of many heart and circulatory conditions. I commend him for shining a light on them. We cannot overestimate the impact that a debate like this will have. Support for the mind after a health trauma is necessary, as he also outlined. After my stroke, I did not realise that I needed help for my mental health until I reached a crisis point. Getting help was the best thing that I could have done for myself. That support needs to be there for everyone.
As we have heard, there are clear risk factors for developing cardiovascular diseases centring around people’s lifestyles. We can call them lifestyle choices, but the choices are often heavily influenced by inequality and poverty. We know that people in poverty have poorer health outcomes, and improving people’s ability to make healthier choices on diet, smoking and alcohol consumption are essential to change that. We know that sadly the prevalence rates for circulatory and cardiovascular diseases are significantly higher in the most deprived areas. We also know that poverty rates are higher for some minority ethnic groups, and therefore they are often disproportionally vulnerable to health inequalities.
That is why improving health and reducing health inequalities across Scotland are clear priorities for the Scottish Government, especially in the face of UK Government austerity measures. The British Heart Foundation says that there has been
“a lack of meaningful action”
from the British Government
“over the last 10 years to address many of the causes of heart disease and stroke, such as stubbornly high obesity rates”.
Obesity and unhealthy lifestyle choices are intrinsically linked to poverty. That is why the SNP’s action to mitigate the effects of this Tory Government’s cost of living crisis are so important to today’s debate.
Recent analysis from the British Heart Foundation shows that the number of people dying before the age of 75 in England from heart and circulatory diseases has risen to the highest level in over a decade. We know that 700,000 people in Scotland are living with circulatory diseases. We do not know how much that is affected by covid-19 or other factors, but it is clear that an increasingly unhealthy population plays a key role in these worrying statistics. This is why the SNP’s focus on tackling these inequalities and tackling poverty is such an important and proactive step in reducing these premature deaths.
The Scottish Government’s focus and commitment to tackling poverty and other risk factors relating to cardiovascular disease are despite this Tory Government’s austerity measures. The British Government’s austerity policies are harming the economies across these isles, driving more people into poverty and making our health outcomes worse. Health inequalities are rampant the length and breadth of these isles. I stand here as proof of that. I had cancer as a teenager and had a stroke in my mid-20s—an example of the health inequalities prevalent in the west of Scotland.
Economic austerity is to blame for the slowing progress in health outcomes over the past decade. The British Government would do well to cast their eyes up to Scotland and consider a focus on our wellbeing economy, with people at its heart, as we do. Funding—or, in this case, the lack of it—is a political choice. The UK has considerable wealth, so it is shameful that so many people are in poverty and that their health is suffering as a result. The levels of universal credit have been too low for too long. The SNP and the Scottish Government continue to call on the UK Government to introduce an essentials guarantee to ensure that social security benefits adequately cover the cost of essential goods and properly support our most vulnerable people. The Scottish Government have gone to great lengths to increase income for Scots by promoting fair work and improving the value of social security through bold measures such as the Scottish child payment and the real living wage.
I know that we are short of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I urge the Government, and whomever forms the next Government, to consider taking the Scottish Government’s approach to tackling health inequalities by reducing poverty and guaranteeing that people have the resources to make healthy lifestyle choices. It is abundantly clear that while Scotland is tied to this place, Westminster and the British Government hold the purse strings, and any action that the Scottish Government take can be outdone by austerity measures in this place. Only with the full powers of independence will we truly be able to tackle health inequalities in Scotland and reduce the number of premature deaths from cardiovascular disease.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) for securing it. I think we all agree that he made an excellent and heartfelt speech not just about his own experience, but about the effect on his family and his team. He thanked the British Heart Foundation, and I agree that the resources of such organisations are well received at such times, which can often be very lonely. We wish him and his family the best of health going forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who is no longer in his place, spoke about his experience as a family member of a young person who has suffered a heart condition, and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), highlighted her own experience. Cardio- vascular disease affects not only us, but our families too.
As has been said, every week in 2022 an average of 750 people died prematurely of cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and strokes. Every premature death is of course a tragedy, and our thoughts are with all affected families. NHS England has reported that cardiovascular disease is responsible for one in four premature deaths in the UK. As we have heard, the rate of premature deaths has risen for the past three years consecutively—that is something that we all wish to understand. Many of my constituents, and people across the country, are worried about the state of heart and circulatory disease services. Despite the best efforts of staff, there is a significant backlog in treatment, the number of people on waiting lists for cardiology services is rising, with a huge 189% increase in the past 10 years.
According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, waiting times for cardiology treatment have risen even more sharply than for elective waiting lists as a whole. That is deeply concerning, because long waits mean poorer outcomes for patients, often with devastating results. An estimated 7.6 million in the UK are currently living with heart or circulatory disease. It is vital that every one of those people receives effective and timely diagnosis, referral and treatment, yet under this Government the NHS has lurched from crisis to crisis, and far too many patients are not receiving that timely care.
Labour has an ambitious 10-year plan of reform and modernisation to speed up treatment, with 2 million more appointments a year. We want to return to the constitutional waiting-time targets within a Parliament. As our mission sets out, it is vital to restore the NHS as a world-leading health system—something that we have lost under this Government. The Government have promised to eradicate waits of over a year for elective care by 2025. It would be good if the Minister indicated whether they are on track to do just that.
Labour has a mission to reduce deaths from heart attacks and strokes by a quarter within 10 years, so that fewer lives are lost to the biggest killers. Under our “Fit for the Future” fund, we would double the number of scanners—speeding up heart and circulatory disease diagnosis—and ensure that patients receive the timely treatment that is so vital for managing those conditions. We would also incentivise continuity of care in general practice, which would improve care in our communities for people living with heart and circulatory disease. It would be helpful if the Minister explained why, in the past 14 years of Conservative Government, we have seen such paltry ambition on cardiovascular care and a decline in cardiovascular health. The Minister is probably going to talk about the major conditions strategy, which was announced 13 years into the Conservative party’s time in power, but when can we expect the full strategy to be published, and will it explore the reasons for the backward trend in cardiovascular disease that we are currently seeing? I agree with other hon. Members: we all need to understand the reasons for that.
One of the most concerning aspects of cardiovascular disease in this country is that many of its drivers are higher in areas of greater deprivation and, as we have heard, for black and minority ethnic groups. That is exacerbating health inequalities; we have heard from the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the levels in their communities. In 2022, those in the most deprived 10% of the population in England were more than twice as likely to die prematurely from circulatory diseases than those in the least deprived 10% of the population, something I see very much in my own constituency of Bristol South. That is utterly unacceptable across the United Kingdom in the 21st century, particularly given that cardiovascular disease is largely preventable.
Tackling the issues that impact cardiovascular health, from obesity to high blood pressure or smoking, is vital —not only to tackle CVD, but to improve population health overall. That is why we have to tackle social inequalities that influence health and focus more on prevention, improving capacity in local public health teams that do so much vital work to improve the health of their communities. Innovation will also be vital to centre prevention in our health service, and I would welcome an update from the Minister about the NHS digital health check trial in Cornwall. Given that results from that trial will inform the roll-out this spring, can the Minister indicate any challenges apparent in the trial? When can we expect the results to be published?
As we have heard, prevention starts long before the age of 40, when that health check takes place. That is why Labour will introduce a child health action plan that will put prevention at the top of the agenda, ensuring that the next generation can live healthier lives. There are also widespread concerns that the restructuring of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities could have a detrimental impact on health inequalities. It would be good to hear a reassurance from the Minister about how those concerns about health inequalities will be prioritised in the event of changes to that body.
Finally, research is crucial to preventing further premature deaths. That is why Labour’s regulatory innovation office would make Britain the best place in the world to innovate by speeding up decisions and providing a clear direction based on our modern industrial strategy, alongside a plan to make it easier for more patients to participate in clinical trials. That will deliver better treatment to patients. We owe that to all those families who have lost a loved one to premature death, as well as those who—we are pleased to see—are surviving and living well with this disease. We must improve outcomes; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on the major conditions strategy, but that strategy must be delivered in tandem with a plan to provide the NHS with the staff, technology and resources it needs to bring down waiting lists and improve patient care. I am pleased that a future Labour Government has a plan to do just that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), and say how pleased we all are to see him fighting fit and in his place? I also say to the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) that we wish his son absolutely all the best and a speedy return to full health, and to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan)—who has had so many health problems of her own—that we all wish her very well and a full recovery. Some very good contributions have been made to today’s debate. I would just like to mention a very, very dear friend of mine who died of a sudden cardiac arrest very unexpectedly aged 55. It was a tragedy for his young family, so I really do understand—thankfully not personally, but through very close friends—how terrible this is.
I will write to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about the statistics. I do not have any information today; I wanted to focus on the Government’s strategy for preventing cardiovascular disease, but I will write to them. As ever, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his thoughtful remarks, and say to him that I have already been in contact with the Minister in Northern Ireland about the smoking Bill. Meeting with him will be one of my early priorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford is a vocal supporter of the British Heart Foundation. On behalf of the Government, I thank the BHF for all the incredible work it has done throughout Heart Month, including introducing online CPR training that takes just 15 minutes to complete—15 minutes that could genuinely save a life. I also pay tribute to the many other charities that work tirelessly to support people at risk of, or living with, cardiovascular disease.
Over the last decade, the Government have taken significant action to prevent cardiovascular disease and its causes. Just over 10 years ago, we launched the NHS health check, which is our CVD prevention programme. Health checks play a key role in preventing heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and some cases of dementia and kidney disease. The numbers show that, through health checks, people have a lower likelihood of being admitted to hospital for CVD and type 2 diabetes, and for all causes of death one, three and five years after attending a check. So far, well over 10 million checks have been delivered, and data shows more people are receiving checks than before the pandemic. We are now investing £17 million in the creation of a digital NHS health check.
In fact, we are looking at every opportunity to prevent CVD throughout the course of a person’s life. Two years ago, the NHS published its CVD prevention recovery plan, setting out four high-impact areas for every part of the health service to focus on risk factor detection and management. This began by rolling out blood pressure checks in high street pharmacies and helping people measure blood pressure at home, and we are now helping thousands more people detect hypertension earlier. Our forthcoming major conditions strategy will focus on prevention throughout the life course, which is essential in creating a more sustainable NHS. It aims to improve care and health outcomes for those living with multiple conditions and an increasingly complex set of needs.
We are tackling salt, sugar and calories through the voluntary reduction and reformulation programme. Working with industry, we have already delivered reductions of up to 20% in some foods. The second pillar of our prevention plan is smoking cessation. I am proud to be part of a Government who will introduce the ground- breaking smokefree generation, so that children aged 15 and younger will never legally be sold cigarettes. This will be the most significant public health intervention in a generation.
I now turn to managing risk factors. Once we have diagnosed hypertension, it is vital that we properly manage it, and we are doing more than ever before. Among those under the age of 80 with GP-recorded hypertension, 170,000 more people had their condition managed to safe levels by March 2023 compared with the same month in 2020. The NHS has set hypertension management as a key priority, investing over £3 million to bring CVD leadership roles within every integrated care board.
We recognise that outcomes are often worse in different parts of the country, and understanding why variations occur is critical so that the NHS can take the right action. I support it in its launch of CVDPREVENT, a national primary care audit, which will provide data to highlight gaps in diagnosis, identify inequalities and find room for improvement. I am confident that the programme will help integrated care systems make real change in their areas.
A heart attack is a medical emergency, and recognising the symptoms can be a matter of life or death. People’s chances of surviving a heart attack are far greater if they seek care as soon as possible. In August last year, the NHS launched a lifesaving campaign, helping people to recognise the common signs of a heart attack that are often dismissed or ignored, and to seek help by calling 999. I absolutely applaud my hon. Friend for raising his specific symptoms in this Chamber so that others can understand more about what to look out for. Of those who reach hospital early to receive treatment, about nine in 10 survive a heart attack, compared with only seven in 10 of those who do not. That is why raising public awareness is so critical. To improve survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases, the Government have announced a new £1 million fund to expand defibrillator access in the community. We have already delivered over 700 defibrillators towards an estimated total of 1,000.
We are also taking huge strides in making our NHS simpler by providing for patients at home, because we know that patients prefer to avoid hospital if they can be safely supported in their own homes. The NHS programme “managing heart failure @home” is pioneering this approach, and addressing health inequalities as a key aim. Thanks to record funding, we are rolling out up to 160 community diagnostic centres, which will provide echocardiography services by March 2025, and I am pleased to update the House that 153 CDCs are live at this time.
Amy Callaghan
Will the Minister join me in congratulating East Dunbartonshire Council on its good work in getting so many community defibrillators for use across East Dunbartonshire ?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Absolutely. I am happy to do that, and I would encourage all local authorities across the country to make best use of the funds that are available to them.
Let me turn to mental health and counselling services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford discussed, surviving a heart attack can have significant psychological impacts on individuals and their families, and I am grateful to him for sharing his own experience so powerfully. Integrating NHS talking therapies with physical health services can provide better support to people with combined physical and mental health needs, including people with cardiovascular disease.
Mark Tami
The right hon. Lady is making an important point. This should not be a bolt-on. It should be part and parcel of the treatment. We tend to address the physical side of the illness, open the door and away we go, and we do not ask people about some of the issues that they are struggling to cope with.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As part of the NHS long-term plan, all integrated care boards are expected to expand services locally by commissioning NHS talking therapies services integrated into physical healthcare pathways. I encourage anyone experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder, even a long time after the event, to reach out to their GP or NHS talking therapies for support.
To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue. Across the House we all share the ambition to bring down premature deaths from heart and circulatory disease. Specifically, this Government aim to prevent 150,000 heart attacks, strokes and dementia cases in the next five years. Prevention is not only kinder but so much cheaper than cure.
Dean Russell
I thank the Minister for her response to the debate, and all the contributors, including the hon. Members for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), and the incredibly moving points raised by the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). I truly wish his son the best of health—he is in the right place in Harefield Hospital. I also remember the joy of seeing the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), my hon. Friend, when she returned. We were on the Health and Social Care Committee when we first joined Parliament, and it was a joy when she returned. I am pleased she is doing so well.
Several themes came out today, and one that several Members raised was about transparency and data. The more transparency we have in data, the easier it is to calm people’s concerns. The three outcomes are about protection, including through education, and ensuring that we protect our society and that people know the harm they might be doing to themselves. We must focus on that area, as well as on opportunities to break through with research. I thank the Minister for the work the Government are doing, and if anyone at home is worried, they should get checked. If they are concerned that they have symptoms, they should get them looked at. It is better to get rid of fears before the event than to wait for them to become a reality and have to deal with the outcomes of that. I thank all contributors, and I hope everybody has learned something from today’s debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered premature deaths from heart and circulatory diseases.
Face to Face Banking Services
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of my constituents in Hornsey and Wood Green, who are angry and disappointed that Barclays bank wishes to close its busy Crouch End branch, barely a year after it closed its Muswell Hill branch. Before that, it closed the Wood Green and Highgate village branches. It must be a world record for four branches of one bank to close in an area. It is deeply disappointing that a bank started off by Quakers in the 1690s has such a poor sense of how to serve its community.
Many of those who signed my petition are older residents. They told me that they feel
“left out and discriminated against”
because they are being pushed online when they want to talk to “people not machines”. A lot said how anxious they were about becoming victims of fraud and how to travel to the next bank would take a round trip of an hour on two buses.
Almost half of all banks across the country that were open in 2015 have closed. That is bad for customers, bad for businesses and bad for our dying high streets, and action needs to be taken.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to act to protect essential in-person banking services.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Hornsey and Wood Green,
Declares that the petitioners are extremely disappointed at the announcement of the closure of Halifax's Muswell Hill branch in November 2023, further notes that bank branches are the heart of communities, and are relied upon by local communities, especially old and disabled people, those who need access to cash and those without internet banking; further notes that they are also vital for local businesses.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to act to protect essential in-person banking services.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002857]
Mole Valley Local Plan
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I thank the Minister and her officials for coming, and I thank her in advance, because I am hoping for an excellent, useful response. I realise that I am picking on a specific planning case that is under an inspector’s review, so the Minister can only respond in the round and not to the specific case.
I came to London from an area of open green hills, bush, trees—the lot—from horizon to horizon, and arriving in east London was more than a shock. I then moved to Mole Valley, so I am particularly delighted that the voters of Mole Valley have returned me as their MP several times.
Mole Valley is south of London, bordering on the M25 with Epsom and Ewell, with Guildford to the west and Gatwick to the east, and it is halfway to Worthing going south. What distinguishes it from London is the green open spaces. There is the famous Box Hill, and farms, commons and parks, and they are all amalgamated together—glued together—and retained by the green-belt land. It is a lovely place to live. The residents live there because it has two small towns and many villages spread among the green.
The local planning council is Mole Valley District Council. It is liberal—no, wait a minute: it is controlled by the Liberals; there is nothing liberal about it at all. The last ratified local plan for Mole Valley was dated 2009. I understand that more than 90% of English local authorities have adopted and are up to date with their local plans. Liberal Mole Valley is among the errant 10% of local authorities, which leaves it vulnerable, as it is finding now, to developers.
In May 2019, the Liberals took control of Mole Valley District Council and with that the responsibility for producing the draft local plan. It was produced between May 2019 and February 2020 and passed for consultation by the council executive and the council without a vote. It contains 30 or more green-belt sites— I am told that; I have not counted them—and the inclusion of many, if not most of them was vehemently opposed by local residents. That was not just those next to the green-belt sites, but those within what New Zealanders would call “cooee”.
I recognise that the proportion of land protected from development in Mole Valley is considerable, and, relatively speaking, the quality of brownfield sites free for development is small in comparison, but it is not impossible to increase the number of dwellings on those brownfield sites. I know from my own time in inner London that with imagination and the new rules and regulations on building, it is possible to increase density and height and adapt those sites.
It has been claimed that the percentage of green-belt sites that the Liberal plan will remove from protected status is small. However, that is a bit like my saying to a cancer patient that the prospect of a long-term cure is 97%—it sounds great, unless they are in the 3%. That is what is happening with green-belt sites. The figures are small in percentage terms, but if they affect someone who chose to live there in part because of those green-belt sites, it is bad news.
The plan went to inspection, but, as last May’s local elections arrived, the Liberals asked the inspector to stall her inquiry, and she did. The Liberals announced on their election leaflets that they would remove the green-belt sites from the draft plan. They did not. Last month, at a full council meeting, the council faced a decision on three choices provided by its planning officers. The first was that the plan be withdrawn for a complete rethink. The second was to continue with the inquiry but withdraw the green-belt sites. The third was to continue with the planned inquiry with the 30 or more green-belt sites included, which the Liberals said they had redrawn but had not.
Just before the council met, the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, being aware that a restart is probably the worst option, wrote to the council to tell it that it had to keep the plan in the system; it could not withdraw it. The Liberal council, in a classic Liberal, duplicitous way, chose to proceed with the inquiry with the green-belt sites—which it said it had removed but had not—still in the plan.
The need for a clear plan is obvious: it would protect sites that are not appropriate for development, but also set out development sites that are considered suitable. The current situation with the Mole Valley plan has come back to bite the Liberals. I will give one example, but there are others. A site near Dorking called Sondes farm is a green-belt site that was put in the draft local plan by the Liberals for its green-belt protection to be removed. In spite of that, the Liberal council did an about-turn and refused a developer’s application for housing on the grounds that it was a green-belt site, ignoring the fact that it was going to withdraw that protection. That refusal was in line with what a large number of local people wanted to happen. They wished to support Sondes farm as a green-belt site. Perhaps they were unaware that the Liberals had in effect already given it away.
Not surprisingly, the developer, having faced a refusal, took its application to appeal and won, with the inspector pointing out that the site was down in the plan to be taken out of the green belt. Others in the portfolio will be in the same situation; one of them is not very far away from that position now.
My ask of the Minister is that she re-emphasises the importance to her, to Ministers and to the Government—certainly to me and most of my residents—of the protection offered by the green belt, that the removal of that protection from a site can happen only in exceptional circumstances, and that those circumstances do not include housing. This is a long-standing situation. It applied when I was a planning Minister, and I think it still applies now. It is not specific to Mole Valley—it applies across the country—and I cannot but emphasise how important it is for so many in Mole Valley and many other areas throughout the country that the strength of protection for the green belt is retained.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing this debate and on his eloquent speech. I would like to respond by commenting on the latest position of the emerging Mole Valley local plan, and by explaining why the Department has intervened.
On 25 January, the Secretary of State exercised his powers under section 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to direct the council not to take any step to withdraw the plan from examination. As my hon. Friend has alluded to, my ministerial role in the planning system dictates that I cannot go into the specifics of the local plan, which remains at the examination stage. However, I will try to deal with some of the general points and the reason why we have taken action.
My hon. Friend will know that Ministers have consistently set out the importance of having an up-to-date plan in place. As he correctly said, the Mole Valley local plan is from 2009—remarkably, it is over 14 years old. It should have been updated many years ago. As he rightly said, that puts the plan in the bottom 7% of plans in the country by age. That is clearly not acceptable.
The council submitted its emerging local plan for examination in February 2022, and the hearing sessions commenced in June that year. It is the role of the independently appointed inspectors to look at whether the plan is legally compliant before considering whether it is sound. For a plan to be found legally compliant, the local planning authority must demonstrate that all the procedural checks and balances had been followed. Effective co-operation early in the plan-making process is essential to ensure that the homes and infrastructure needed are planned for. Authorities are expected to collaborate with stakeholders to identify the relevant strategic matters to be addressed. For a plan to be considered sound, it should be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Ultimately, the inspectors may report that the plan is unsound and cannot be adopted by the local council—as my hon. Friend will understand, that is not for me to decide.
As I have said, Mole Valley has an old local plan, so having an effective and up-to-date plan in place is long overdue. Such a plan is essential to identifying the very latest development needed in any given area, deciding where it should go and dealing with planning applications. The plan is also the main vehicle for setting out the vision for Mole Valley and how to address housing needs, along with economic, social and environmental priorities. It is for the independent inspectors to consider the council’s planned strategy, but I know that Mole Valley’s emerging strategy has been not to fully meet its own housing needs. It is clear that Mole Valley has not been delivering homes—its delivery is within the bottom 10% nationally, as shown in the latest housing delivery test results. The council has indicated, as part of its examination documentation, that it had a shortfall of 1,164 dwellings over a five-year period, with only 2.9 years of supply. My hon. Friend will also know that housing affordability is a significant issue in Mole Valley. The council is clearly way, way behind, first on having a plan, and secondly on delivery of housing.
The inspectors had agreed to pause the examination between February and May 2023 to take account of the local election result. That pause was later extended to allow for publication of the updated national planning policy framework. That was a perfectly reasonable position to take. However, the transitional arrangements in the updated NPPF make it clear that the Mole Valley local plan will be examined using the pre-December 2023 NPPF—that is, the NPPF under which the draft local plan was developed.
My hon. Friend will know that our Government’s policy is clear: councils and their communities are best placed to take decisions on local planning matters, without unnecessary interference from central Government. However, when it becomes clear that a council is not acting in the best interests of its communities, it is only right that the Government consider whether it is appropriate to act. With that in mind, the Department became aware of an extraordinary council meeting arranged for 25 January, which included a motion to withdraw the local plan from examination.
It is not unusual for a council under a new administration to want to change direction on its local plan, but that is normally before a plan is formally submitted for examination. However, there was no change of administration at Mole Valley; a Liberal Democrat administration voted to submit the plan to examination, and a Liberal Democrat administration subsequently wanted to consider a motion to withdraw the plan. That was after the plan had reached an advanced stage in the process; the hearings had been completed and the main modifications were to be finalised. This is highly unusual.
The council had one of the oldest adopted local plans in the country. Withdrawing the plan at that stage would have meant starting the whole plan preparation process again. The Secretary of State quite rightly concluded that such an action would not be in the best interests of the people of Mole Valley and decided to intervene. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that further delay in a plan coming forward would not serve his constituents’ interests.
Sir Paul Beresford
I completely agree with the Minister, and with the reasons why the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety wrote to the council. The difficulty is that there were two choices left: one was to withdraw from the green belt; the other was to remain. The council’s choice was to retain the green-belt sites. The Minister said that the council will have to justify its decisions. As I see it, the council will have to justify why it has 30 or so sites—perhaps individually—in that plan in the green belt, in spite of the fact that the local population are vehemently against that.
Felicity Buchan
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot talk to the specifics of the plan—that is not my responsibility. However, I will talk generally about the Government’s philosophy on the green belt. Just to be clear, the process is that the local plan goes to examination by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Inspectorate comments on the plan. It then goes to consultation.
It is definitely not in the interests of my hon. Friend’s constituents for there to be further delay in the plan coming forward, as that may well mean that homes are built on a speculative basis, with no co-ordination and with limited buy-in from local people. Even the council has acknowledged that in the absence of an updated plan, with no prospect of a new plan coming forward for years, the district would be at risk of developments on green-belt sites getting planning permission because of the district’s poor housing delivery record.
I am pleased to hear that following the Secretary of State’s most timely direction, Mole Valley District Council has indicated its willingness to progress, and to then conclude its work at the examination. Its intention is to inform the inspectors that the council wishes to continue with the draft local plan, subject to the modifications identified by the inspectors.
I want to step away from the details of Mole Valley and the local plan, update the House, and clarify the Government’s position on green belt. Let me touch on what we are doing to not only protect but enhance our green belt. I am proud to say that our national planning policy delivers on the promises we made in the 2019 manifesto. The Government remain committed to protecting and enhancing the green belt. National planning policy includes strong protections to safeguard this important land for future generations, and this policy remains firmly in place. I should emphasise that national policy will continue to expect that green belt boundaries are altered only where exceptional circumstances can be fully evidenced and justified at examination of the revised plan. In order to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a local authority has to show that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified development needs. Green belt release is a last resort.
Sir Paul Beresford
In broad terms, is it not unacceptable to assume that an exceptional circumstance is the need to increase housing? It certainly was when I was in the Minister’s shoes. Is that still the case?
Felicity Buchan
The Government’s position is clear; let me restate it. To demonstrate exceptional circumstances, the local authority has to show that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified development needs. As I say, green belt release is definitely the last resort.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Treasury
(9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
Eighty-five per cent of the funds recovered from the loan charge so far—about £3.9 billion in total —have come from the employees, therefore those who were running those schemes, so the hon. Lady is mischaracterising where we have gone so far. There has been one criminal conviction so far; others are in place. I repeat what I said to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), earlier: if they were that concerned about ensuring we go after the wrongdoers, they would have voted with us last night in the Finance Bill.
[Official Report, 6 February 2024, Vol. 745, c. 117.]
Letter of correction from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) :
Errors have been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey).
The correct response should have been:
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
About 80% of the funds recovered so far from settlement of disguised remuneration schemes including the loan charge—about £3.9 billion in total—have come from the employees, therefore those who were running those schemes, so the hon. Lady is mischaracterising where we have gone so far. There has been one criminal conviction so far; others are in place. I repeat what I said to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), earlier: if they were that concerned about ensuring we go after the wrongdoers, they would have voted with us last night in the Finance Bill.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
BACKBENCH BUSINESS
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
Coastal Tourism and Hospitality: Fiscal Support
(9 months 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
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fiscal support for tourism and hospitality in coastal areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. Today I wish to highlight the vital role of hospitality in our coastal communities, such as my North Devon constituency, and the support that the sector needs and deserves. I thank UKHospitality for its ongoing work and support on this matter. I had the opportunity to bring Kate Nicholls, its chief executive officer, to North Devon last year to meet some of the fabulous hospitality businesses and hear their frustrations as well as their plans for the future. We visited businesses such as the Saunton Sands Hotel, the Carlton Hotel and the George & Dragon in Ilfracombe, and SQ Bar and Restaurant in Braunton.
Some of the challenges facing the sector are not always obvious, particularly in remote coastal locations. Hospitality venues extend far beyond just pubs, hotels and restaurants, and include holiday parks, music venues, bowling, children’s play centres, bars and clubs, which contribute so much to all our enjoyment of coastal areas and resorts as well as to the economy.
I have been lobbying Ministers for quite some time to continue to find solutions to ensure that this vital part of the economy of North Devon and so many other coastal areas continues to thrive. I thank this Minister—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston)—who I know is a champion for the sector, for his ongoing patience and engagement in listening to my concerns and those of my constituents.
My hon. Friend visited Ilfracombe back in 2021 in his previous role as Minister for tourism. We met several business owners and discussed business rates, VAT thresholds and Ilfracombe’s ambitions in hospitality. I am sure that he recalls the unanimous voice of Ilfracombe’s tourism sector calling for the Government to raise the £85,000 VAT threshold, which currently sees much of Ilfracombe, like so many coastal communities, close its doors when the businesses reach the threshold. When first elected, I naively thought that that was just seasonality, but as staycations came back into vogue post pandemic, we saw some businesses close in mid-August as the threshold was reached. Indeed, a local accountant told me just last weekend that he advises all his hospitality businesses to remain below the threshold. At a time when we are looking for our economy to grow, why do we have a threshold that creates a cliff edge that does the exact opposite for the hospitality sector?
North Devon alone is home to nearly 2,500 hospitality venues, employing more than 8,000 people and contributing more than £400 million to our local economy. The hospitality sector’s success is vital for economic prosperity and plays a crucial role in shaping the very essence of our community. Yet despite the resilience inherent in the sector, recent years have presented unprecedented challenges, particularly in our coastal towns. The impacts of the covid-19 pandemic, coupled with the energy crisis and a labour market grappling with record vacancy levels, have stifled growth and posed significant threats to the sustainability of hospitality businesses—but I also want to draw on the positives that have happened. With all the challenges presented, the Government supported the sector substantially during the pandemic, not least with the furlough scheme, which continued even if hospitality venues were shut.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. She is making a barnstorming speech about Devon, which may even make me traipse slightly further north in Devon to her constituency to help out her industry. As we know, the hospitality and tourism industry in Devon supports thousands of jobs. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, I want the Government to build on the record that she has been describing of support for the industry in Devon and the UK. The trade association UKHospitality—whose CEO, Kate Nicholls, my hon. Friend has already mentioned—has three asks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the upcoming Budget: first, implementing a 3% cap on the increase in the large property business rates multiplier; secondly, introducing a cut in the lower rate of employers’ national insurance contributions to 10%; and thirdly—this is a big one—permanently reducing the VAT rate for hospitality businesses to 12.5%. Does my hon. Friend agree that those measures would really help and provide a big boost for jobs and investment in her part of Devon and my part of Devon?
Selaine Saxby
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his contribution; it is as if we both speak to the same group! I agree entirely with his contribution, as I so often do. I am very keen that Devon hospitality businesses, right the way across and down the peninsula, can benefit, and that the Minister will hear our asks.
We cannot underestimate the pandemic’s impact on businesses. The hospitality sector came out of covid-19 heavily indebted. I hope that the financial sector can look at what more can be done to support hospitality businesses to repay their debts, which currently stand at £8 billion in bank debt and £2 billion in landlord debt. The pandemic harmed hospitality businesses and made their recovery much more difficult.
Although I warmly welcome the small business rate relief that was introduced in the autumn statement, which provided some support, up to two thirds of hospitality businesses find themselves excluded—not due to generating immense profits, but because they operate in larger premises in high-footfall areas. Consequently, the impending 6.7% rise in business rates and skyrocketing wage costs present a daunting prospect for the survival of many businesses.
While I applaud the Government’s commitment to creating a higher-wage economy, it is crucial to acknowledge the unique challenges faced by hospitality businesses, especially those based in coastal areas like my North Devon constituency, which are often small in scale, seasonal and working to tight margins. These businesses anticipate a 17% increase in staffing costs from April, with 98% of them expressing concern about how to manage the impact of the upcoming national living wage hike. Many of the businesses that should have benefited the most from the small business rate relief actually face wage rises in the hospitality sector that far exceed the business rate relief itself.
We are already seeing hospitality businesses contracting their hours and reducing the number of staff they employ or the hours that they work. Far too many of our pubs are now open at weekends only or cannot find chefs, so have some nights without food service, which reduces their profitability even further.
Although the national living wage hike was warmly welcomed by the hard-working teams who work across our hospitality businesses, it is a headache for business owners, who themselves frequently earn significantly less than the national living wage, due to the extensive hours they work and a reliance on their businesses’ ever- declining profitability to pay their wage. Far too many of our hospitality businesses face a crunch this April. Too many of the sums that we do up here rely on a 35-hour working week. Hospitality is a 24/7 business, and in remote coastal areas with low unemployment, such as my North Devon constituency, many members of staff are also much younger. The increase in the national living wage will hit those businesses particularly hard.
One key ask today is for a cut in the lower rate of employer national insurance contributions to 10% and consideration of increasing the threshold in order to share the burden of this policy between business and Government, but the biggest ask from my hospitality businesses across North Devon—I had the pleasure of chatting to many landlords in some of the fabulous pubs back home during the recess—is because their VAT burden is too high. In the hospitality sector, VAT is significantly higher than it is elsewhere in Europe, putting us at a competitive disadvantage. During covid, we saw huge success from the reduction in VAT for the hospitality sector. In that time, 70% of hospitality businesses benefiting from the VAT cut passed it on to consumers, in order to keep prices low. A hugely successful local pub shared its figures with me. With a turnover of just over £1 million, it is paying 25% in tax just in VAT and employment taxes. That is a quarter of a million pounds going to the Exchequer before payment of bills and wages, and payments to suppliers, are even considered.
Last year, we lost 3,000 hospitality venues in the UK, and I am concerned that if the Government do not take further action to share the burden of this tax cost, we may lose even more this year. Unfortunately, there is one recent case in my North Devon constituency; Broomhill Estate is closing due to VAT costs. I thank Alex Kleiner for all his work and for letting me know how much of an impact a reduction in VAT from 20% to 15% would have made to his business. I heard directly from Alex, a business owner, that there would have been three benefits: a reduction in absolute VAT; an impact on cashflow; and an uplift in footfall because of more attractive pricing, although that is harder to quantify. He said in
“4 out of the past 7 quarters 5% VAT reduction would have completely offset my electricity bill.”
Unfortunately, in this instance any changes to VAT will come too late for such an important landmark in North Devon.
Although I know that it is a big ask, I hope that the Treasury might again consider a reduction in the VAT rate for the hospitality and tourism sectors—to 12.5%—as that would help them to overcome the above inflation increases in tax and the national living wage, avoid further inflationary price spikes and unlock investment. The measure aligns with international standards, stimulating tourism and offering domestic tourists a more affordable alternative to travelling abroad. I am confident that not every publican and hotelier is wrong in telling me that this is the one measure that would help them the most. A cut—even a temporary one—would be a boost.
For so many coastal communities, their tourism industry has changed since the hotels were built in the Victorian era. Many have large properties that may not benefit from all-year-round occupation, particularly in those communities where swathes of the tourist attractions, shops and restaurants have closed for the winter because of the VAT threshold issue. Hospitality businesses rely on space to host people and therefore have larger premises in high-footfall areas. Businesses in the industry will often hit the upper rateable value band at a far lower turnover or profitability than others. The hospitality sector pays 2.5% of turnover on business rates, which is 10 times that of banks and insurers. I hope the Treasury is looking at the introduction of a cap on the increase in the large property business rates multiplier at 3% in England, aligning with the expected inflation rate in April. Additionally, I hope the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales pass on the benefits of that relief in full.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend, first, for securing the debate and secondly, for her compelling fiscal case for the reforms that, frankly, are essential. We have been here in recent weeks talking about the same thing. In addition to fiscal measures, does my hon. Friend agree that we need supply-side reforms for coastal communities? Many of our constituents in coastal communities feel isolated. She has spoken about labour market shortages. We need to make sure that we have public services, NHS doctors, education, employment and banking facilities in those communities that serve their purpose, make those places healthy and help them to thrive, therefore increasing the footfall for the hospitality trade as well as the employment market for hospitality.
Selaine Saxby
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend that there are many asks for our coastal communities; I have spared the Minister the rest of mine this afternoon. While I am here, however, it would be remiss of me not to mention alcohol duty. The freeze on that duty at the autumn statement was welcome, but it does not directly help our much-loved pubs, which have reported significant price increases from brewers and other producers despite the freeze. A reduction in VAT would leave the choice to pass on and/or reinvest in the hands of the retailer and not with the multinational brewery in the case of alcohol. I have continuously supported the Campaign for Real Ale’s campaign, as it would play a crucial role in stopping our many vibrant pubs and hospitality businesses going under. Whatever the scheme, a reduction bringing us in line with the clear majority of our European neighbours—permanently or even temporarily—would be a lifeline for our hospitality venues.
While talking about great pubs, I will take the opportunity to highlight The Bell Inn at Chittlehampton, as well as Chittlehampton Village Shop, which serves excellent tea and cake; both are finalists in the Countryside Alliance awards, and voting is now open for anyone who would like to help them along.
The potential of the hospitality sector to contribute to economic growth cannot be overstated. UKHospitality’s economic evidence submitted to the Treasury outlines the conditions required for growth, estimating the creation of 500,000 new jobs by 2029 and an annual growth rate of up to 6%. I hope the Treasury will carefully examine the evidence and arguments presented, recognising the immense potential that the hospitality and tourism sector holds for the UK. By supporting the sector, we not only ensure the prosperity of businesses but contribute to increased tax revenues that fund essential public services.
I am hugely reassured to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire here today, as he has been to see us and understands so much more about our tourism and hospitality sector, particularly in remote coastal locations such as my beautiful North Devon constituency. I hope that may influence some of those critical Budget decisions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for leading the debate. She is always very enthusiastic and zealous about her constituency. I always like to hear what other right hon. and hon. Members say about their constituencies, because I find it mirrors what I have to say about mine.
I am going to take a wee step down Strangford way, and talk about some of the good things we have back home. I also want to support the hon. Lady in what she put forward, because this issue is so important. She represents and clearly understands a coastal constituency, which she is so passionate about. It is fantastic to be here and support her, as all our constituencies have those similarities. In another debate, she mentioned the impact that the recent storms and weather have had on businesses in her constituency. I was there for that one as well, and that is certainly something that needs to be addressed.
We are here to discuss many things. We look to the Minister, as we always do. He is always receptive to our comments and has an ability to respond in such a way that we all feel encouraged. We will feel better encouraged, of course, if there is some help financially or some ideas at the end. I am sure the Minister will have those ideas; I have no doubt about that. I am also pleased to see the shadow Ministers for the SNP and the Labour party, the hon. Members for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) and for Ealing North (James Murray), in their places. They are both committed to making lives better and to ensuring that help for tourism and hospitality in coastal areas becomes a reality.
Why do I enjoy these debates? I enjoy them because, right away, there is a subject matter that I can relate to. The hon. Member for North Devon spoke very well about her constituency. These debates give me an opportunity to understand other areas, but also to show off the beauty of my constituency of Strangford. What is known as the Ards peninsula consists of numerous villages such as Ballywalter, Portavogie and Portaferry, which have stunning scenery. Strangford lough is an area of outstanding natural beauty and a Ramsar-designated area as well, so it is really important. I am privileged to live on the edge of that area.
There are many tourism attractions and hospitality businesses that are pivotal to the local economy and play a huge role for local visitors. I will try to do as the hon. Member for North Devon did. The businesses in my constituency are often family run, so when I speak about the individual businesses, I speak with the knowledge of having known them for many years. There is such a variety on offer. What makes Strangford so special is all those businesses that come together in the tourism and hospitality sector along the coastal areas.
We have numerous tourist attractions, such as the National Trust grounds at Mount Stewart, between Carrowdore, Greyabbey and Newtownards. Mount Stewart really is the jewel of the crown for Strangford, with well in excess of six-figure sums of people coming to visit at all times of year. During covid, those numbers did not drop very much. It has fabulous walks and hosts events such as jazz nights in the summer, not to mention the fact that it is a much-used location for weddings.
Another example of what we are doing is the land in Ballywalter that was transformed into a minigolf course as part of the farm diversification scheme. Jim Davidson, the guy I sat beside in primary school—that was not yesterday—is in farm diversification, and that is one of the things he has come up with. It is much loved and visited by families and couples from all over. It is has become a fun day for families whenever they are about. The sheer volume of hospitality that is offered is just incredible. You can probably guess, Mrs Cummins, that I am very enthusiastic and proud to tell others about it. I have told some Ministers here. The Minister in his place will no doubt be booking his trip to Strangford before the day is out, as a former Minister did. She came to visit my constituency and she enjoyed her time across the water.
Glastry Farm ice cream is another example of farm diversification. One of the dairy farmers in that area realised that there was potential for his ice cream. He has been developing that over the years and has done exceptionally well. Echlinville gin distillery is one of many gin and whiskey distilleries that we have across the constituency. The owners of Harrisons of Greyabbey are family friends and my next-door neighbours. It came out of nowhere and they have built it up into a restaurant, a café and a garden centre. The hospitality costs are part of the problem for them. They have a lovely, visual venue that looks right over Strangford lough, which is quite an attraction.
Local DUP councillor, David Kerr, started his own fruit and veg shop from his farm in Kircubbin; fantastic B&Bs in the village of Ballywalter, and a hotel in Portaferry, provide warm and homely accommodation for tourists; and the window of the very much sought after Orange Tree wedding venue—where I attended my niece’s wedding just last year—has a view of Strangford lough, so is coastal in every sense of the word. All the businesses I have mentioned, like those in the hon. Lady’s constituency, create jobs, wage packets in people’s pockets and opportunities for young people who want to have a part-time job or to start off somewhere. It is vital that the tourism and hospitality issue in coastal areas is addressed so that those jobs and opportunities can be retained. The list of what is on offer is truly endless.
As the hon. Member for North Devon said, exceptional circumstances, such as weather conditions, ultimately play a massive role in footfall at coastal areas. Especially after covid, we have witnessed many places shutting down as they cannot sustain the lack of business; it is just impossible for them to carry on. Furthermore, the rise in the cost of living has had a significant impact on businesses’ ability to pay their bills. I know that is true of the retail trade and those involved in hospitality.
Colin Neill is one of those guys who represents the industry; he is always vocal, factual and evidence-based, and he tells us about the pressures these businesses are under. Some smaller and medium businesses were being charged thousands of pounds for electricity and severely struggling to pay their gas and oil bills. This is ultimately not sustainable—it was not for some of them, and unfortunately they had to close or sell on to new management.
I replicate what the hon. Member for North Devon has said, and other Members will do likewise. Although we represent different parts of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we are probably seeing the same issue. When we look to the Minister for a response, we do so from the basis of facts on the ground and what people are telling us. There is certainly a call for Government to better support local businesses, especially in the coastal constituencies that we all represent.
Government incentives for more local businesses that want to choose to open are crucial to sustain the livelihoods of these areas. Over the last few years—the last two in particular—I have seen quite a few smaller hospitality businesses, shops and venues in my area close; it is important that we keep what we have and that those opportunities are in place. The Government must do more to support local businesses, especially through the Barnett consequentials and the block grant. That is my request to the Minister.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard from the Secretary of State this week. To be fair, I think he clearly understands that the Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland has not been okay for the last few years, and because of that the Government are committed to a change in the Barnett formula to something more along the lines of the Welsh model. That is where we think we should be, because it would reflect better our population growth—which has jumped up to 1.95 million, whereas it was approximately 1.75 million about 10 years ago—and the peculiarities of costs for Northern Ireland. I am very encouraged by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and by the Government’s dedication to making those changes. Although the Secretary of State had outlined a timescale, he did say in answer to my question in the Select Committee that the Government were looking very much at how they could make the process quicker. That would bring substantial moneys in and give equality to the Barnett consequential.
I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister would look at the matter and discuss it with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—there is a commitment and I think an agreement can be reached—to see whether any more can be done to support local businesses in coastal areas, including in my constituency, because they need help. I am very pleased, as I think most people are, to have the Northern Ireland Assembly back, because it ultimately ensures accountability in the process, but for us to do well and deliver for our constituents—as a very much integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—we need to have that Barnett consequential change, which will enable us to support our businesses across the whole of Northern Ireland.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing today’s debate.
It is important to acknowledge the Government’s work following covid-19 to support and rebuild our tourism and hospitality sector, with reductions in VAT and business rates, the job retention scheme, business grants, and support for coastal communities with the recent news that holiday lets will be controlled this summer through a registration scheme and a planning permission requirement. I am delighted that the Government have taken that step, which is something I have raised directly with Ministers, think-tanks and through the APPG for coastal communities.
Despite all that support, coastal communities have significant underfunding challenges. My beautiful constituency of Hastings and Rye is a tourist hub, in 1066 Country. Based on the most recent figures for 1066 Country, tourism supports more than 12,600 jobs locally, with an estimated turnover of £550 million per year. However, like many other coastal communities, there is a lack of specific and targeted fiscal support.
Tourism has long been overlooked as an industry. I am delighted that the Minister was previously a tourism Minister, so has a great understanding of the industry. It is often described as a Cinderella industry, but is vital to the UK’s economic growth. UK-wide, tourism is recognised as an important part of rural and coastal economies and has huge potential for growth, particularly in the more deprived rural areas and coastal towns and villages, where there is untapped potential to generate tourism-related economic growth and employment.
Essential infrastructure, such as roads, public spaces and facilities catering to tourists, often suffers from neglect due to insufficient financial support. It is imperative that the Government prioritise strategic investment. It is great to see levelling-up funding going into many coastal areas, with Hastings and Rother receiving in total £80 million over the next few years. The tourism sector cannot thrive in this country without sufficient fiscal support. By investing in the upkeep and promotion of coastal areas, often by providing seed funding to leverage in private-sector investment, the Government can ensure the long-term sustainability of both the tourism sector and the unique identity of these areas.
Many businesses have felt the effect of the national minimum wage increases. That could be mitigated by temporary cuts to the lower rate of employment national insurance contributions to 10%, and/or an increase to the lower threshold. Additionally, permanently reducing the rate of VAT to 12.5% for hospitality businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon said, would help them to recover and thrive without having to reduce employment or increase prices.
The Pragmatix report, “Communities on the Edge”, into which the APPG for coastal communities that I chair had significant input, made a number of recommendations to support the visitor economy, such as improving seasonal workers visa schemes for temporary hospitality workers and supporting the initiation of business mentorships for small coastal enterprises to share best practice and help with the digital transition. I encourage relevant Ministers to look at that report.
The hospitality and service industries sustained by the tourism sector are particularly crucial for the livelihoods of coastal residents. I thank all the hospitality and service workers and businesses in Hastings and Rye for their dedication and amazing hard work. Supporting tourism in coastal communities is not just an investment in the local economy: it is an investment in our residents. We have amazing hospitality businesses—I cannot go through them all because they are all so incredible. There are cafes, restaurants, pubs—so many things. I invite Members to come and see for themselves: Hastings and Rye is a fantastic place to visit.
Due to the seasonality of tourism in the UK, it is vital that the hospitality and tourism sector is properly supported through a replacement for the coastal communities fund for projects that specially tackled that issue. I emphasise that point: we need specific policy funding and a strategic plan for our coastal communities. Coastal communities need increased fiscal support, especially in the summer months, to combat the impact of seasonality, manage waste issues and over-congestion and provide a larger police presence due to antisocial behaviour in tourist hotspots such as Camber Sands, which on hot summer days might get 25,000 visitors coming at once. We therefore need a fairer funding formula for local authorities, the police and other public sector services. It is essential that we do not leave any of our coastal communities behind due to poor fiscal investment: we must prioritise them.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate. By accident or design, Members have spoken about a range of communities although there have been a number of common threads.
I first remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a partner in the firm that runs my family farm, which also includes holiday let accommodation. In many ways, that is a living example of the changes and opportunities that the visitor economy brings to communities such as mine in Orkney and Shetland, and doubtless to those in other coastal and island communities around the country.
Tourism is of enormous importance to communities such as ours. I listened with interest, as always, to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who described the ripple effect of dropping a stone in the water. The stone in this case is the visitor economy. The benefits come very obviously to those who operate the hotels, the bed and breakfasts and the self-catering accommodation, and they go out to those who are able to work part time as self-employed tour guides, for example, and those who have jobs servicing that accommodation—they go out and out. Tourism may be a useful add-on to a conventional business. The hon. Gentleman said that a number of farm businesses in rural and coastal communities have some sort of tourism add-on—perhaps seasonal. At the end of the day, it is what they can show to their accountant at the end of the year that matters.
The way in which our rural and island coastal communities have got up and done things for themselves is an inspiring story. The real beauty of it is that, by and large, these are the self-employed or small businesses—medium-sized enterprises at most—and the money they earn and pay out stays in the communities. It goes into local shops and post offices. It allows families to live in those areas, because their children can go to local schools. We can keep local doctors, services and banks; the story continues. There is no single silver bullet for these economies, but tourism is an important part that makes the whole thing more feasible.
There are a number of significant challenges. They are not, strictly speaking, fiscal, but they are significant, given the way that they hold back island communities. In Scotland, we have an ageing ferry fleet. For island communities, that has been problematic for the past few years, and sadly it is only getting worse. The availability of labour in the local community causes real difficulty, especially in a seasonal economy. People moving into work in island communities need accommodation at a time when people are coming to stay in the same accommodation, so housing availability in our island and coastal communities is a significant issue, and Government-led—public sector —provision could make a real difference to businesses’ ability to grow.
The regulatory burden unfortunately seems to get greater every year. In Scotland, we now have the short-term let licensing scheme. It will be interesting to contrast how that works with the way in which things are now being done south of the border through a planning mechanism. I have not yet seen figures for it, but my sense is that we may see, especially in the smaller outer isles in Orkney and Shetland, a lot of people walking away from the provision of bed and breakfasts or self- catering accommodation as a consequence of the licensing regime. It is expensive for people to comply with, especially if they are away from the centre of the population. Goodness knows it is difficult enough for someone operating a business in Kirkwall and Lerwick to get work done, but if they are operating in one of the outer isles—in Sanday, Stronsay or North Ronaldsay, or perhaps in Unst, Yell or Fetlar in Shetland—that becomes yet another extra burden and cost. The farther the accommodation is from the centre, inevitably the fewer weeks in the year it can be let and the fewer people coming to stay in the community. Again, at the end of the day, is it worth it? The balance is sadly tipping in the opposite direction, towards saying no.
Those are some of the challenges, but at the end of the day, these people are self-starting and entrepreneurial and do a lot to bring economic growth to their communities, and there are certain levers that the Treasury could use to help them grow their businesses. The difference between the fiscal levers we can pull and the other grant-aided incentives and opportunities is that fiscal levers give people more opportunity to decide what is best for them and their business, rather than having to design their business to conform with the various requirements of a grant application or discount scheme.
There is a real opportunity for the Government to add value and opportunity to tourism and visitor-economy businesses in our island and coastal communities. The single most important change I hear advocated by those businesses, time and again, is the one touched on by the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby)—the reduction in value added tax. It is rare in any sector that we hear such consistency in message. We have seen a small example of that already with the reduction to 5% during the covid pandemic. It would be interesting to know what analysis the Treasury has done of the tax take in that time—albeit everybody was operating in a much-reduced market.
I come back to my experience from my time in government, when we reduced the duty on spirits. We did so—for only the second time in history, I think—in the expectation of a significant cut in revenue. In fact it produced a significant increase in revenue to the Treasury. I cannot remember the exact figures of the tax take, but I think we expected a £600 million decrease and actually got a £800 million increase. That shows what is possible sometimes when we reduce the burden on industry and business and allow them the opportunity to use that extra cash to grow their business. I strongly suspect—indeed, significant research has been done on this by some of the big consultancies; Ernst and Young springs most readily to mind—that the same would be possible for the visitor economy in our island and coastal communities. That being the case, at a time when we want to grow the economy and are relying on that to spread the benefits of growth throughout the country instead of hoarding them here in London, surely that is something that must commend itself to the Government.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. Tourism around the British coast remains a vital component part of the UK economy. That is perhaps overlooked at times, and it is right that we are holding this debate in advance of the spring Budget statement at the beginning of March. At the end of March we have the start of the season, with the Easter weekend.
I shall start as other colleagues have, by providing an advertorial for the tourism and hospitality industry in the Lowestoft and Waveney area. Some might find that a bit of a joke or tedious, but it serves a very important purpose. We are showcasing the enormous range of leisure and tourism opportunities available on the coast of all four nations, as well as the beauty and diversity of the coastline. There is something for everyone to savour, as well as many job opportunities.
I return to Lowestoft and Waveney. In Lowestoft, to the north at Corton and to the south at Pakefield and Kessingland, there are a wide variety of beaches, including the gloriously sandy South beach in Lowestoft. We have two piers—the Claremont pier, which the Llewellyn family are restoring to its former glory, and the South pier, which is let for a peppercorn by Associated British Ports to a community interest company, which I chair. To the north and south of Lowestoft we have two of the biggest visitor attractions in East Anglia, the Pleasurewood Hills theme park and Africa Alive, which is run by the Zoological Society of East Anglia.
All along the coast are a variety of holiday parks run by family businesses and larger national companies. We are also the gateway, at Oulton broad and Beccles, to the—often overlooked by our noisy neighbours in Norfolk—Suffolk broads, which are surrounded by a stunning landscape that the Suffolk Wildlife Trust plays an increasingly important role in restoring at Carlton marshes, Oulton marshes and, as announced last week, Worlingham marshes. Finally, Hoseasons, which takes the strain for many of us out of organising and arranging our holidays, has been based in Oulton broad and Lowestoft for nearly 80 years. I hope that I have painted a picture highlighting the importance of coastal tourism in the Waveney area.
Covid hit local businesses hard, although the support that the Government provided was a lifeline for many. The pandemic, as we are hearing, unfortunately has a long, bitter tail, and for many the 2023 summer season was worse than that of 2022. Looking forward to the forthcoming season, many businesses’ confidence is low. High energy costs continue to have an impact. The response to those challenges by many businesses and operators is to cut their opening hours, delay investment and reduce staff.
One business has highlighted to me the negative impact—described by hon. Members around the Chamber —of the national minimum wage. That business does not begrudge paying the increase to its staff, but that presents challenges that cascade right through the business and ultimately leads to higher charges to customers, at a time when their wallets are under enormous strain.
A holiday park operator has brought to my attention the delays in obtaining planning permission for an upgrade and extension to its facilities, not in the Waveney area but elsewhere on the East Anglia coast. An application that should have taken eight weeks took one and a half years.
Leisure businesses in coastal areas including those of Suffolk are not asking for handouts, but they rightly seek a level playing field. To achieve that, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would consider the following fiscal measures—I am largely repeating others’ words, but in this place repetition plays a very important role indeed. First, as UKHospitality seeks, we must cap the increase to business rates for larger premises at 3%. Ultimately, we must have annual revaluations and drive the rate in the pound back down to the 30p to 35p level, which is what we had when business rates were introduced in the early ’90s. That said, in the short term, hospitality and leisure businesses, many of which are what I would describe as property-hungry but relatively low income-generating, should not have to pay onerously high business rates.
Secondly, to address the challenge of funding the increase in the national minimum wage, in his forthcoming Budget the Chancellor should cut to 10% the lower rate of employer national insurance contributions and increase the thresholds. The benefit of this policy, which in many ways is welcome, would thereby be shared not only with businesses, but with the Government. That is only equitable.
Thirdly, to ensure that planning applications of the type that I have mentioned are promptly dealt with and are not a brake on investment, the fair funding review of the local government funding settlement needs to be carried out as quickly as possible. That funding settlement is skewed against county and coastal councils.
I ask the Minister to act as a messenger—not Cupid, perhaps—to other Departments about other things that coastal businesses in coastal communities need not only to survive, but ultimately to thrive.
The first message is to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Along the Suffolk and Norfolk coast, we need urgent investment in coastal defences. Our glorious beaches are increasingly unsafe, and holiday park operators and other businesses will not invest in facilities if they are at increased risk of disappearing over a cliff or being washed away. There should also be national investment in the co-ordination and promotion of the King Charles III England coast path national trail.
The message to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is that VisitBritain and VisitEngland should provide parity of support for coastal and rural economies with what is given to London and other core cities.
The message to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is that we need to revive the coastal communities fund and separate the funding provided by the Crown Estate from the granting of licences for offshore wind farms. That money derives from our coastal waters. It should be used to address the many challenges that coastal communities face, rather than thinly dispersed across the whole country.
The final message goes back to DEFRA. Although progress is being made on improving the quality of bathing water around the coast, further pressure must be applied to the water companies to completely eliminate storm overflows as quickly as possible.
Coastal Britain is utterly unique. We must cherish it and ensure that the tourism and hospitality businesses operating there have every opportunity, first to survive and then to flourish and bring significant benefits to the people who live all around our coast.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this debate. It is always a pleasure to come to Westminster Hall and give the Scottish National party perspective.
The hospital sector across coastal and rural communities has weathered relentless storms of financial hardship over the past few years. Surely the UK Government must now extend a helping hand via Barnett to businesses across the hospitality sector, because it is so important to the long-term success of our rural communities and remote areas, and to halting the continued closure of hospitality venues to which we have all become accustomed throughout our constituencies.
From the economic fallout of Brexit to the devastating impact of the pandemic, compounded by energy price shocks and inflationary spikes, our pubs, restaurants and cafés have been fighting an uphill battle for their very survival. The multifaceted challenges that they are confronting have been unprecedented. As a result, between March 2020 and the end of 2022, a staggering 10% of UK hospitality businesses closed their doors permanently. In Scotland alone, more than 500 pubs and breweries closed in 2023, and the struggle persists for many more. Many of them cite rising energy costs: nine out of 10 hospitality businesses now face far higher energy and supplier costs.
The negative impacts of Brexit on rural and coastal communities are never hard to find these days. The compounding effects of border controls on fresh food and flowers to and from the European Union further exacerbate the situation, burdening Scottish hospitality with over £500 million in increased costs and delays annually. Inflation is undoubtedly a key factor in consumer choices. With the increased energy costs, the picture is bleak for many in the industry.
As representatives in this Chamber of many diverse and different communities, we all recognise the part that venues play in local areas. Pubs and cafés are essential social hubs that foster community cohesion and combat loneliness. They are places that connect our communities and bring people together to share life’s highs and lows. The Scottish hospitality sector is also a massive employer, accounting for 8% of all workforce jobs, employing more than 220,000 individuals and contributing £140 billion to the economy and £54 billion in tax receipts.
Another issue of great concern, particularly in Scotland, is depopulation in our rural and coastal communities. Experts tell us that it threatens their very existence. We know that the UK Government’s legal migration policy does nothing to draw people into our coastal or rural communities, because the median wage in a place like the Western Isles in Scotland is £24,000, but anybody looking to come into the UK will have to earn a lot more than that, which basically means that huge parts of Scotland will have no inward migration. That is a real concern for us, which the Scottish rural visa pilot scheme championed by the Scottish Government aims to address by attracting workers to key sectors such as hospitality.
Brexit-induced labour shortages persist, with 72% of hospitality businesses struggling to fill their vacancies. Across Scotland, the vast majority of people in the hospitality sector came from among our friends in the European Union. The UK Government’s reluctance to heed the calls for special visa arrangements exacerbates the issue and is imperilling the Scottish economy further. The SNP has consistently advocated for fiscal measures to be enacted to alleviate the strain on the sector. As we have heard today, VAT reductions, particularly for hospitality and tourism, could provide much-needed relief; I hope the Minister has heard that from all sides today. Additionally, slashing beer duties could stimulate job creation, benefiting businesses and individuals.
The Scottish Government have implemented measures such as the 100% relief for island hospitality businesses, but broader support is still very necessary. The small business bonus scheme and the generous rates relief exemplify the commitment to support businesses and communities across Scotland. The Conservatives’ proposed tax cuts for the wealthy diverge wildly from the public’s preference for prioritising public services, as a recent YouGov poll evidences.
We must ensure that the upcoming spring Budget allocates resources where they are needed most, supporting this vital sector and safeguarding our rural and coastal communities across Scotland. If the Government here in Westminster do not want to stand up for and stand with our hospitality industry, ensuring its resilience and longevity for generations to come, the very least they can do is give Scotland full fiscal powers so we can do the job that they are not doing.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate on fiscal support for the tourism and hospitality industries in coastal areas. I put it on the record that, like her, I have benefited greatly from my conversations with Kate Nicholls at UK Hospitality.
I am pleased to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. Hon. Members have spoken passionately about the importance of hospitality and tourism, the jobs they bring to local economies, the vitality they bring to our local areas and the enjoyment they bring to all our lives. As we have heard, the tourism and hospitality industries have been hit by a series of challenges, from covid to the cost of living crisis. The Opposition are clear that hospitality and tourism are vital to the UK economy and need a Government who are ready and able to help them thrive.
In 2019, the economic output of tourism-related industries was estimated at £134 billion, of which £74 billion was estimated to be generated directly by tourism. Those figures are respectively equivalent to 6.6% and 3.6% of the whole economy. Additionally, as I mentioned in a Westminster Hall debate a few weeks ago, on fiscal support for the hospitality sector hospitality provides 3% of the UK’s economic output, and billions in tax revenues for the Treasury.
Hospitality and tourism are important industries for communities across the country. As we have heard from the hon. Member for North Devon and others, they are especially critical to coastal areas. Coastal communities are particularly reliant on tourism and hospitality for employment and income. When the economy is not working as it should, those communities are more likely to suffer deprivation and unemployment. VisitBritain data shows that 10% of inbound tourists in 2019 visited England’s coasts and beaches, and those most likely to journey to the coast were on visits lasting a week or longer. That figure is higher in Wales, Scotland and the south-west of England. Such trips are vital to people’s livelihoods right across the UK.
In my west London constituency, we have no coasts that I can praise in this debate. But may I put it on record that when I occasionally leave Ealing North, I enjoy visiting coastal areas across the country, including Oban on the west coast of Scotland and Saltburn, Whitby and Staithes in North Yorkshire, and visiting my family on the south coast of England from Brighton to Fareham and Littlehampton?
Many hospitality and tourism businesses in coastal communities are finding it harder and harder to succeed, with high inflation, rising rents and the burden of business rates. At the same time, their customers find that they have less money to spend on enjoying what seaside hotels, pubs, cafés, restaurants and so on have to offer, as people have seen their wages flatlining while taxes and the cost of living climb relentlessly. Today’s debate is rightly an opportunity to recognise the central role of hospitality and tourism in British life, but it is also an opportunity to make it clear that those industries need a Government who will support them to thrive.
Labour will revitalise the hospitality and tourism industries. We will help coastal communities to get back on their feet after 14 years under the Conservatives. It is clear that the antiquated system of business rates is doing the industries no favours. As I set out in the debate on fiscal support for the hospitality sector a few weeks ago, hospitality and tourism businesses in coastal areas may have had hope when they heard the Government’s promise of a fundamental review of the business rates system in their 2019 manifesto. However, that review never materialised, and trade groups representing consumer-facing businesses have expressed their dismay at the Government’s inaction on that promise. In March last year, the Federation of Small Businesses responded to what the Government were doing on business rates by saying that
“the 2019 Manifesto commitment to hold a fundamental downward review of business rates has not happened…these changes do not amount to the fundamental overhaul the system needs, to reduce the chilling impact of a regressive tax that you pay before even earning a penny in turnover, let alone profit.”
We will not stand by while businesses struggle from year to year, facing uncertainty. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has set out, if Labour were in Government we would scrap and replace business rates, shifting the burden away from hospitality and retail businesses, which continue to shoulder a heavy burden compared with those operating primarily in the digital economy.
Our new system would incentivise investment, promote entrepreneurship and reward businesses that move into empty premises. It would help the hospitality and tourism industries once again to thrive. Our plan to revitalise Britain’s tourism and hospitality industries is clear, so in advance of the spring Budget, I would be grateful if the Minister explained what representations he or the Government have taken from businesses in coastal communities, and what measures they are considering offering to address the points that hon. Members have set out today.
I am sure that many people across coastal towns will be interested to hear the Minister’s response, but whatever he says, we know that last week’s news about the economy being in recession will further have added to the sense of gloom facing hospitality and tourism in coastal areas, and indeed businesses in every sector in every region and nation of the UK. That is why our plan to get the economy growing is so important, to make sure that the tourism and hospitality industries in our coastal communities can thrive once again.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
Let me join others in thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing it. As she referred to in her speech, she is indeed a persistent and persuasive advocate not only for her own constituents and constituency, but for the vital tourism, hospitality and leisure sector. I thank everybody for their contributions today; we have heard many good arguments, showing right across all four nations the passion, enthusiasm, empathy, love and support for this vital sector that employs so many of our constituents directly, and even more indirectly.
The Government are committed to promoting economic growth in all parts of the UK, and in order to do so we recognise the unique challenges faced by coastal communities, as raised by many Members today. We have supported coastal communities to level up through the dedicated funding under the coastal communities fund, while the levelling-up fund has provided more than £1 billion to projects in coastal areas. That was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and others. More than £400 million has been provided from the UK shared prosperity fund, which will go to lead local authorities within or serving coastal areas.
The long-term plan for towns also targets more than £1 billion of support for towns up and down the country, including coastal towns, each of which will get about £20 million over the next decade. This is built on the support offered through successful bids into town deals and the future high streets fund. It is important to mention that of the 101 towns receiving a town deal, 22 are coastal and are set to receive more than half a billion pounds alongside almost £150 million from the future high streets fund. Therefore, directly or indirectly, the tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors will rightly benefit from some of this additional investment. Every Member has outlined today how the sector makes such a significant contribution to the UK economy as a whole, and to coastal areas in particular.
Let us not forget that the sector particularly suffered from the pandemic and is still recovering. Since the start of the pandemic, we have provided more than £37 billion for the tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors in the form of grants, loans and tax breaks. I think the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned some of those loans that are still being repaid. She was right to point out that they are still a burden on many businesses, but she will be aware that we have introduced considerable flexibility in those loans, extending the time to pay some of them from six to 10 years, and other measures. We are aware of the challenges. There is still a lot of debt to be paid off by individual companies, but also by the nation as a whole, because about £350 billion of support in total was provided to support individuals and the economy during the pandemic. That needs to be paid off, and everybody is sensible and aware that that will not be easy. It is why tax levels are as they are at the moment.
Of course, over the 2021 spending review period, the Government also allocated over £100 million to support the British Tourist Authority, which of course supports VisitBritain and VisitEngland, whose important work was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous); he also raised the point about where they spend their money, which is something that my colleagues at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport maintain a focus on. I applaud the work done by those bodies and by VisitScotland, Visit Wales, and the equivalents for Ireland and Northern Ireland. They do incredibly valuable work and attract not only domestic visitors but visitors in their millions from around the world, who come and enjoy everything that we have to offer.
Many Members have mentioned business rates. I have been lobbied by the ever-busy Kate Nicholls from UKHospitality; it sounds like she has been around quite a lot recently—and rightly so, because she represents such an important sector and so many people across the country. We have heard what those people have had to say and many Members have today re-emphasised the points that the industry bodies are making; UKHospitality is one of many industry bodies that are incredibly powerful and persuasive.
In the autumn statement, we announced tax cuts for the sector worth about £4.3 billion over five years. As has been mentioned by several Members, we also extended the retail and hospitality leisure relief scheme on business rates to 75%, creating a tax cut worth almost £2.4 billion for about 230,000 retail hospitality and leisure properties, which of course helps our high streets and protects small shops, many of which are in our coastal communities.
Of course, that relief was not extended by our colleagues in Scotland, nor fully extended in Wales. I assure hon. Members that we keep an eye on what is happening in other parts of the country and we share ideas. The sector is not particularly party political, as I know from my tourism role; tourism Ministers and others meet regularly across the nations, and work together and share ideas. In these difficult financial times there is not always the money to go around to do all the things that we would like to do, but we prioritised retail, hospitality and leisure for that specific additional relief in England.
The UK Government also decided to freeze the small business multiplier for the fourth consecutive year in 2024-25. That will protect over 1 million ratepayers and, combined with small business rates relief, will protect 90% of properties from inflationary bill increases. It will have a significant impact. For example, the typical pub will receive £11,800 of RHL relief off their final business rates bill in 2024-25; and, combined with the frozen small business multiplier, will benefit from about £12,800 of support.
Many Members also mentioned the registration threshold, which we have also received quite a lot of lobbying on. Of course, the Government recognise that accounting for that threshold can be burdensome on small businesses. That is why the UK has the second highest VAT threshold, at £85,000, within the OECD—keeping the majority of UK businesses out of VAT all together. I recognise that views on the VAT registration threshold are divided and the case for change has been reviewed regularly over the years. There was a review just a few years ago. No clear option for reform emerged from that review, but, as with all tax policy, we will continue to keep this policy under review. I am afraid that that might be a point I make several times in my concluding comments.
Quite importantly, several Members also raised the issue of cutting national insurance. As part of our long-term plan for growth and to ensure that work pays, we have cut taxes for 29 million working people. From last month, 27 million employees have had their national insurance contributions, or NICs, cut from 12% to 10%. That means that the average worker on £35,400 will receive an annual tax cut of more than £450 a year. Of course, the self-employed will have a tax cut and that benefit will come in from April. That comes on top of the existing £5,000 employment allowance, which means that about 40% of all businesses—around 675,000 in total—have been taken out of paying employer NICs entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon and I have spoken about that on many occasions. I heard the many calls for further reform of and further movement on national insurance contributions, but in advance of a fiscal statement, I am afraid that the Chancellor would not be impressed if I announced policy today. Nevertheless, all these issues are being looked at.
Hon. Members mentioned a few other issues. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always makes important contributions, but from my multiple roles over many years, I know that the tourism, hospitality and leisure sector is a particular passion of his. I will finally take him up on his invitation to visit his constituency; my goal is to sort that out, so let’s talk dates very soon. As usual, he brought up something that other people do not. He reminded us that, although we can control certain things and pull certain levers, the all-important thing for the tourism, hospitality and leisure sector is the weather, which plays a vital role—sometimes boom or bust.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney pointed out the incredible diversity of offerings in the United Kingdom, so it is important to remember that at all times of year, in all weathers, there is something compelling to visit. We need to get that message across domestically and internationally through marketing.
The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned our heritage and the role played by the National Trust and many others in the ecosystem. I am more than happy to have conversations with other colleagues about his points about Barnett consequentials and the block grant, and I know he is having those conversations too. I will make sure they hear what he said today and his contributions in other areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye mentioned the importance of seasonality, which is related to the weather, and what we can do to reduce it. That is a particularly acute issue for the UK tourism industry, and it of course impacts productivity over the course of the year. She also mentioned planning policy and the important changes recently announced by DLUHC in response to its consultation with DCMS. The sector has been calling for a registration scheme for some time, and we hope it will have the desired impact.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) also talked about planning policy in different parts of the UK and about different regimes. He is an extremely knowledgeable advocate for the sector, and rightly pointed out that the multiplier impact is key. There is obviously a direct impact, but sometimes the indirect impacts are difficult to assess. He mentioned the VAT cut during the pandemic. We estimate that that cost the Treasury about £8 billion, but of course that was needed; it was a very difficult time. It was always intended to be temporary, although we are hearing many calls for a further reduction in VAT. That figure alone shows that it would not come without considerable cost, which needs to be factored in, but we recognise that there is a multiplier impact.
If we were to repeat that reduction, the cost would probably be £10 billion or £12 billion. Some are lobbying for a smaller rate cut to about 12.5%, which would have a smaller cost, but we are still talking about a loss of billions of pounds of revenue to the Treasury. As with all requests for a VAT cut, we need to know what the purpose is, what the impact will be and whether we can be confident that the lower prices will be passed on to the end consumer. That is usually the purpose of VAT cuts, in contrast with help with cash flow through other mechanisms such as business rates relief. The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to point out that, in this sector, pulling one lever can have a positive impact across a very wide area indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney was right to showcase his constituency and others, because we have so much to offer. He unsurprisingly had a very broad range of asks and requests, which I will pass on to the relevant Departments. I assure him that we do talk across Departments, so I have had conversations with colleagues about many of the points he raised and other issues, because no one Department has oversight or control over the sector. As we have found in this broad-ranging debate, many Ministers and many Departments have some control over certain levers, but we talk to each other.
My hon. Friend also mentioned Hoseasons in his constituency. I should declare that I have visited on many occasions, because it was a client of mine many years ago. As some may know, I worked in the sector before coming into Parliament. I always enjoyed my visits to Lowestoft and the area—it was always sunny.
I am coming to an end, Mrs Cummins; I know that the debate could go on for three hours, but I will ensure that we do not. I am in agreement with many of the points made by my SNP and Labour opposite numbers—the hon. Members for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) and for Ealing North (James Murray) respectively—because of the nature of the sector. In some other areas, I am in slight, respectful disagreement with them, but that should not detract from the fact that this sector has all-party support.
We may have differences of view on what levers to pull, but the sector has support across the whole House, so I conclude by saying that I very much appreciate all the contributions made today by right hon. and hon. Members—many substantial contributions, some compelling arguments and some very good ideas. In advance of a fiscal event, I cannot make any announcements or commitments, but I want to make it clear that we are always listening.
Selaine Saxby
Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for your chairmanship. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and the Minister for his response.
It is always my pleasure to be the one-woman tourist board for North Devon for the afternoon. On a slightly more serious note, part of the reason for the debate has been highlighted by so many other colleagues: coastal communities often hide severe deprivation behind the phenomenal tourist businesses that we are all talking about today. Unfortunately, Ilfracombe in my constituency is no exception to that rule. I take this opportunity to put in one final pitch to the Minister. Yes, we have levelled up across the country at large, but small coastal communities such as Ilfracombe, with a population of just 12,000, have missed out on multiple pots of money, and yet it is the third most deprived town in the country. There is more that we could do for these small areas, which is why this debate was so vital—tourism and hospitality is the No. 1 part of their economies. It is vital that we get that right for those communities. Meanwhile, I will continue to fight for more funding for coastal communities from other pots of money.
Again, I thank hon. Members. The draw of the sea and of the pub is now upon us.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered fiscal support for tourism and hospitality in coastal areas.
Written Statements
Serious Fraud Office: Contingencies Fund Advance
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
I would like to inform the House that a cash advance from the Contingencies Fund has been sought for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).
The advance is required to cover costs relating to the investigation and prosecution of very large cases pending parliamentary approval of the 2023-24 supplementary estimate. Part of the SFO’s supplementary estimate will seek an increase in both its resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and net cash requirement in relation to these cases.
This reflects funding arrangements agreed with HM Treasury, whereby through the supplementary estimates process the SFO can access the HM Treasury Reserve for the additional costs of cases that are individually over 4% of the SFO’s non-ringfenced resource DEL.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £22,253,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the SFO. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £22,253,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The advance will be repaid upon Royal Assent to the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.
[HCWS278]
Post Office: Proposed Legislation and Financial Redress
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
On 10 January, the Prime Minister and I announced a major step forward in response to the Horizon scandal. The Prime Minister confirmed that the Government will introduce new primary legislation to make sure that those convicted as a result of the Horizon scandal, which began in the 1990s, are swiftly exonerated and compensated. Our announcement attracted widespread support in both Houses of Parliament and beyond.
With a number of the cases over 20 years old, some of the victims have sadly passed away, and many others are in declining health or have lost faith in the system and do not wish to engage further with it.
The Government recognise the constitutional sensitivity and unprecedented nature of this legislation. The Government are clear that this legislation does not set a precedent for the future relationship between the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary. The judiciary and the courts have dealt swiftly with the cases before them, but the scale and circumstances of this prosecutorial misconduct demand an exceptional response. We are keen to ensure that the legislation achieves its goal of bringing prompt justice to all of those who were wrongfully convicted as a result of the scandal, followed by rapid financial redress.
Progress to date
Over the last 6 weeks, the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have been working at pace to determine the most effective approach to this unprecedented intervention, which will deliver long overdue justice to postmasters, respectful of the separation of powers and constitutional balance. This has included consultative engagement with relevant stakeholders across interested groups as well as parliamentarians, including the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees. In addition, detailed work has been undertaken to collect and analyse the available data from the Post Office, the criminal justice system and others to establish suitable criteria and understand the impacts of this intervention.
Scope of legislation
The legislation, which will be brought forward shortly, will quash all convictions which are identified as being in scope. That scope will be defined by a set of clear and objective criteria which will be set out in the legislation and will not require any element of discretion or subjective analysis in order to be applied. The legislation will prescribe criteria, each of which will need to have been met, to determine the convictions to be quashed.
The criteria will include:
Prosecutor(s): the legislation will specify who the prosecutor was in the relevant case. The Horizon inquiry has heard evidence of the egregious behaviour of the Post Office’s investigatory practices. It is therefore proportionate that the Government legislate to quash these prosecutions where the prosecutor is, in effect, discredited. In addition, two cases have been quashed by the Court of Appeal which were prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) but based on evidence provided by the Post Office. It is therefore reasonable to include CPS cases within the Bill’s scope. However, we will not include any convictions from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). No convictions prosecuted by DWP have been quashed. Due to the nature of these cases, most DWP convictions relied on physical evidence; and when Horizon data was used it was not relied on, this evidence was corroborative of, rather than essential to, the case. The existing and established Court of Appeal processes remain available to those cases.
Offence dates: a set timeframe will ensure convictions are only quashed where the offence took place during the period that the Horizon system (and its pilots) was in operation (with exact dates confirmed in due course).
Offence types: the legislation will specify which offences are in scope, ensuring these align with the offences known to have been prosecuted by the Post Office. This means that only relevant offences such as theft and false accounting will be in scope. Non-related offences such as offences against the person will be excluded.
The contractual or other relationship of the convicted individual to Post Office Ltd: only sub-postmasters or their employees/officers or family members, or direct employees of the Post Office will be within the defined class of convictions to be quashed.
Use of the Horizon system at the date of the offence: the convicted person will need to have been working (including working in a voluntary capacity) in a Post Office that was using the Horizon system software (including any relevant pilot schemes) at the time the behaviour constituting the offence occurred.
It is intended that the convictions in scope of this legislation will be quashed at the point of commencement.
Territorial Extent
At the time of the original announcement, it was stated that the Bill would legislate on an England and Wales only basis. Since then, we have been working closely with other jurisdictions on this important matter and wish to see equitable outcomes for postmasters delivered across the whole of the UK.
In Scotland and Northern Ireland, prosecutions in this matter were undertaken by the relevant authorities in those legal jurisdictions. The Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly have the responsibility of holding those systems to account. We believe victims in those jurisdictions are best served by local decisions tailored to the judicial systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland; as such, the UK parliamentary legislation will proceed on an England and Wales basis.
While it is for the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive to decide on, and progress, their own approaches to the quashing of convictions, we will work with them to ensure those are compatible with the UK compensation scheme, so that compensation can be paid to victims across the whole of the UK.
Financial Redress
As noted in my statement on 10 January, the legislation is likely to exonerate a number of people who were, in fact, guilty of a crime. The Government accept that this is a price worth paying in order to ensure that many innocent people are exonerated. The Government will seek to mitigate the risk that such people will receive financial redress when they have not been wronged. That mitigation will require, as a condition of access to financial redress, that the individual signs a statement to the effect that they did not commit the crime for which they were originally convicted. This and any other aspects of the process will be in line with best practice principles on fraud prevention. This statement will be part of their wider application for redress. Any person found to have signed such a statement falsely in order to gain compensation may be guilty of fraud. Along with other aspects of the financial redress arrangements, this will not need to be part of the legislation.
Outside the legislation, we shall provide a route to full, fair and rapid financial redress for quashed convictions. This will be paid on the same basis across the UK, regardless of where or how the conviction was quashed. Claimants receive an interim payment of £163,000 within 28 days of applying. They can then choose between an up-front settlement offer topping up their redress to £600,000, or having their financial redress considered on an individual basis. Their reasonable legal costs will be met.
The Government will continue to engage closely with relevant stakeholders as they continue to prepare the legislation for introduction to Parliament, with the aim of achieving Royal Assent as soon as possible before summer recess. As the quashing of convictions is processed, the resultant financial redress will be delivered as swiftly as possible.
[HCWS283]
Ukraine War: Trade and Business Support
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
This week marks the two-year anniversary of Russia’s unprovoked and illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The UK and its allies stand united with Ukraine in condemning the Russian Government’s reprehensible actions, which are an egregious violation of international law and the UN charter.
Daily, Ukrainians continue to defend themselves against Russian aggression, while also working to emerge from it as a strong, sovereign and free country.
Following the outbreak of the full-scale war, the UK has now wholly or partially sanctioned over 96% —£20 billion—of the goods traded with Russia. This includes every item Russia has been found using on the battlefield to date. We will continue to maintain pressure on the Russian regime to secure peace.
The UK will continue to support Ukraine to defend its sovereign territory through the training of its soldiers and the provision of military aid, but we are also laying the foundations for a private sector-led economic recovery with UK businesses at the forefront of reconstruction efforts.
The Government has enabled UK and Ukrainian companies to trade more easily.
Last year, we signed Ukraine’s first digital trade agreement, which supports Ukraine’s transition to a digitally-led post-conflict economy. To help unlock necessary private capital at scale to aid economic recovery, and as part of the UK’s commitment as hosts of the Ukraine recovery conference 2023, we spearheaded development of the London framework for war risk insurance and donated £20 million to the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency’s Ukraine trust fund, which supports trade finance and considers war-risk insurance for select real-sector projects.
Earlier this month, we put in place a world-leading extended tariff liberalisation for an additional five years on almost all goods, with eggs and poultry to be extended for two years, continuing to provide much needed economic support to Ukraine and its businesses.
We are connecting UK businesses with their Ukrainian counterparts to unlock new innovations and shared expertise.
The UK-Ukraine business bridge offers a platform through which UK businesses can connect with partners across the global private sector to engage with Ukraine’s repair, reconstruction and recovery opportunities. This includes supporting businesses to attend international conferences and events such as ReBuild Ukraine, providing a platform to champion and promote UK private sector expertise. The UK-Ukraine TechBridge, formally launched last month, will nurture tech talent and promote skills development in a priority sector for both our nations.
The Government are advocating for the interests of UK businesses.
The UK-Ukraine infrastructure taskforce, co-chaired with the Government of Ukraine, offers a strategic dialogue to agree where and how UK companies can best support critical infrastructure projects.
Ukraine must be able to defend itself and to support this we are deepening our defence-industrial relationship, using commercial and strategic partnerships between UK and Ukrainian companies to support the recovery of Ukraine’s industrial base.
As the Prime Minister made clear in his most recent visit to Ukraine, the United Kingdom will continue to do everything in its power to support Ukraine’s fight against this brutal invasion, for as long as is needed. A more prosperous Ukraine is one that can best safeguard its own citizens. And a more secure Ukraine supports wider UK and global security.
[HCWS282]
Energy Charter Treaty: UK Withdrawal
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
The Government have today announced that the UK is withdrawing from the energy charter treaty (ECT).
The statement follows the Government’s announcement on 1 September 2023 that the UK was reviewing its treaty membership in the event that the modernised treaty was not adopted by November 2023. The modernised treaty was not adopted, and the review has now concluded. It has carefully considered the views of stakeholders in business, civil society and Parliament following extensive engagement.
The energy charter treaty was signed in 1994 to promote international cooperation in the energy sector in eastern Europe and central Asia following the break-up of the Soviet Union, primarily to facilitate investment in fossil fuels. However, the failure of the modernisation process means the treaty is no longer fit for purpose. The treaty means British taxpayers could bear unfair financial risk as the Government implement the necessary policies to secure the UK’s energy supplies and decarbonise.
The UK has been a strong advocate for modernising the treaty to better align it with modern energy priorities, international treaty practice and commitments on climate change. However, over a year after contracting parties reached an agreement in principle on modernisation, following two years of negotiations, there is still no clear route for adopting the modernised treaty. I am clear that the UK cannot remain in an unmodernised treaty that does not align with our unwavering commitment to energy security and net zero.
I am proud of the UK’s strong and stable investment climate. Twenty-three billion pounds were invested in UK low-carbon sectors in 2022 alone, and the review into the UK’s ECT membership particularly considered investor and business interests. Business groups supported withdrawal over remaining in the unmodernised treaty, and the UK will now join Italy, France, Germany, Poland, Luxembourg, Spain, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Denmark, and Portugal in leaving the treaty. Alternative protections for investment and trade in the energy sector will remain with all but four out of 48 of the treaty’s existing signatories. Following withdrawal, the UK will remain an attractive destination for investment in the energy sector due to its favourable environment and strong rule of law.
The UK will now initiate the process to withdraw from the energy charter treaty. The UK is required to give a one-year notification of withdrawal, removing treaty protections for new investments made after this period.
[HCWS279]
UK Sanctions Strategy
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Today, HM Government are publishing their first sanctions strategy.
The world is more complex and more dangerous. It is marked by hostile states, terrorist organisations, cyber-threats, criminal gangs, and a whole range of challenges to our interests and values.
Sanctions are an important tool we have to respond. In recent years, the UK has built formidable sanctions capability and transformed its use of sanctions as an instrument of foreign and security policy. Working alongside our partners and allies, our carefully deployed sanctions are tackling malign activity and making a difference—from disrupting Russia’s war machine to confronting human rights abuses and violations in Iran.
Our new sanctions strategy sets out our approach and priorities since the passage of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It covers our objectives; the responsible design and targeting of sanctions; and how we collaborate across Government and with international partners and the private sector to maximise impact. It emphasises our renewed push to bear down on efforts to get around our sanctions and the further investment made in strengthening sanctions implementation and enforcement. It underlines that the UK remains fully committed to working with allies to pursue all lawful routes through which Russian assets can be used to support Ukraine.
Sanctions remain a mainstay of our response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We are publishing the strategy as we prepare to mark two years since that terrible and illegal step and as we demonstrate further the UK’s unwavering support for Ukraine. This includes today’s announcement of a package of over 50 designations targeting the Russian military-industrial complex and Russia’s major revenue-generating industries, including energy and metals.
And following the tragic news of Alexei Navalny’s death, the House will have seen our announcement of the targeted designation of six individuals heading up the penal colony where Alexei Navalny suffered such brutal mistreatment by the Russian authorities.
Sadly our sanctions remain all too necessary in other parts of the world. We have used sanctions in support of regional stability in the middle east and the Red sea by targeting Hamas leaders and financiers, key Houthi figures involved in attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and extremist settlers in the west bank. We have also used our sanctions this year to target malign cyber-actors, entities propping up the brutal Myanmar military regime three years after the coup, and those undermining peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
We will also be publishing a post-legislative scrutiny memorandum for the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 in early March. The memorandum provides a summary and a preliminary assessment of the provisions and implementation of the Act, including the legislative amendments that have come before this House to strengthen our approach.
I thank the House for the continued support and engagement to ensure our sanctions are as effective as possible in advancing global peace and security and protecting the UK.
A copy of the strategy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS281]
Baby Loss Certificates
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I wish to inform the House that the new baby loss certificate service has launched today.
As the House will be aware, the Government published the independent “Pregnancy Loss Review” in July 2023, alongside our response. The review examined the impact on families of not being able to formally register a baby or pregnancy loss before 24 weeks’ gestation.
In an interim report provided to me in 2022, the review recommended that the Government introduce a voluntary scheme to enable parents who have experienced a pre-24 weeks baby or pregnancy loss to record and receive a certificate to provide recognition of their loss. The recording and issuing of a certificate to bereaved parents who want one will provide comfort and support by validating their loss. I subsequently committed to introduce a certificate of baby loss in the women’s health strategy for England—July 2022.
Either parent is entitled to a certificate of baby loss if they have experienced a loss under 24 weeks’ gestation, are at least 16 years of age, and at least one parent was living in England at the time of the loss.
I am pleased that we are able to offer this on a retrospective basis to those who have already experienced a baby loss. Initially, this will be available to those who have experienced a loss since 1 September 2018. This will be continually assessed, and we will extend eligibility as soon as we can.
Delivering this important service highlights our continued commitment to delivering on the women’s health strategy and is an important step forward in supporting parents to provide recognition of a life lost.
[HCWS277]
Local Government Stewardship Update
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
All hon. Members will recognise the critical role local councils play in providing essential statutory services to their residents and being accountable to the communities they serve. Where councils do not meet the high standards that we set for local government, it is right that the Government intervene in order to protect the interests of residents. Today I am informing the House of a best value inspection of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, confirming the final decision to appoint commissioners to Nottingham City Council and providing an update on the existing statutory interventions in Slough Borough Council and Birmingham City Council.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
It is a matter of public record that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets was subject to statutory intervention under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 between December 2014 and September 2018. This followed an inspection by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and an inspection report published in November 2014, which identified best value failure, particularly in relation to grant making, property disposal and publicity spending. As the then Secretary of State, my noble friend Lord Pickles, noted when initiating that intervention on 4 November 2014:
“The abuse of taxpayers’ money and the culture of cronyism reflects a partisan community politics that seeks to trade favours and spread division on the rates. Such behaviour is to the detriment of integration and community cohesion in Tower Hamlets and in our capital city.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 666.]
It is also a matter of public record that Mayor Rahman and his agent, who was also the cabinet member for resources, were found to have been guilty of election offences by an election court in 2015 and were banned from standing for elected office for five years, and that the conduct of making grants amounted to the corrupt practice of bribery under section 113 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
Commissioners were withdrawn and functions returned in March 2017 on the condition that the council continued to achieve against its best value plans and report regularly to the Secretary of State on its ongoing compliance with the best value duty. In June 2018 a Local Government Association (LGA) corporate peer review concluded the authority was now “on a positive trajectory” but that to continue to improve, it must
“be forward looking and learn the lessons of the past”.
Following that peer review and recognising the role of the then Mayor and chief executive in providing leadership to drive change, Ministers took the decision to end the intervention in September 2018.
It is clear to me that the council has made significant progress in the past years to improve governance and assurance processes. A recent corporate peer challenge by the LGA highlighted a range of areas in which the council does very well. These include strong relationships with statutory partners and that the council knows its places well. However, some recent changes have the potential to undermine the improvements that allowed the previous intervention to end. These changes include significant churn at the senior management level, which has resulted in a number of interims in the senior management of the council; the use of policy advisers and expansion of the mayoral office, which has reportedly resulted in the creation of a “two council culture”; the review of the constitution; changes to the grant regime, given the election court judgment of 23 April 2015 and the improvements put in place by commissioners previously; weaknesses in the scrutiny function; the decision to bring some services in house and the need to realise substantive savings in the short term. While the Mayor has a clear democratic mandate, and change to the way the council is organised to deliver priorities is not itself a cause for concern, given the history of the council, changes made to arrangements that were necessary to ensure compliance with the best value duty could mean that compliance is now at risk.
To support the council to continue to make arrangements to secure improvement in its governance arrangements and other areas linked to the past intervention, I am clear that the Government require direct independent assurance that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets is compliant with its best value duty. Therefore, I am today informing the House that the Secretary of State has exercised the powers granted to him by Parliament under section 10 of the 1999 Act, to appoint Kim Bromley-Derry CBE DL as lead inspector and Suki Binjal, Sir John Jenkins and Philip Simpkins as assistant inspectors to carry out an inspection of the council’s compliance with its best value duty.
The inspection will occur in relation to specified functions where we have concerns. This includes the council’s functions under part 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the strength of associated audit and scrutiny arrangements, with particular attention to potential changes to constitutional arrangements, budgetary proposals and medium-term financial planning, the appointment of senior management posts, the use of policy advisers, the expansion of the mayoral office, the policy and practice of grant making, functions that relate to the appointment and removal of an electoral registration officer and returning officer, the funding of electoral registration and local elections work, the use of resources for elections and the maintenance of the independence of the returning officer, and the arrangements to bring services in house, such as Tower Hamlets Homes and leisure services. Given that our concerns also relate to wider decision-making functions, and whether expectations for effective and convenient local government are being met, the inspection will also consider decision-making in relation to those functions, encompassing leadership, governance, organisational culture, use of resources and impact on service delivery.
The lead inspector has been asked to report findings by 31 May 2024, or such later date as may be agreed.
Once the inspection is complete, we will carefully consider the inspection report. If it shows that the council is in breach of its best value duty, we will then consider whether or not to exercise powers under section 15 of the 1999 Act.
This action is not undertaken lightly, and my Department is committed to providing the council with whatever support it may need to support compliance with its best value duty. I will update the House in due course.
Nottingham City Council
On 13 December 2023, I announced to the House that the Secretary of State was “minded to” appoint commissioners to take over certain functions at Nottingham City Council. Commissioners would replace the existing improvement and assurance board, chaired by Sir Tony Redmond, with immediate effect. I also announced that the commissioner team, if appointed, would consist of three appointments: a lead commissioner, a commissioner for finance, and a commissioner for transformation.
These proposals followed the evidence provided in Nottingham City Council improvement and assurance board’s latest reports, also published on 13 December, which included the board’s assessment that the council is still not acting at the required pace to make the necessary improvements; and the council issuing, on 29 November 2023, a section 114 notice due to an inability to balance the budget for 2023-24. The Secretary of State concluded that the council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty. He was minded to escalate the current intervention arrangements in order to secure compliance with that duty and to ensure that the necessary improvements are made at pace for the benefit of the local community.
I invited representations by 2 January 2024 on the intervention package proposed in December from the council, and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Nottingham. The Secretary of State and I have now received the representations on his proposals, which we have considered carefully.
We received a total of 70 representations, including from the authority, the Nottingham Labour group, 16 Labour councillors, local MPs, 35 from members of the public, four local businesses, two community leaders, Unison and eight partner organisations.
The representations presented a mixture of support and opposition for the proposals to appoint commissioners. The representation from the council made clear its preference for retaining the improvement and assurance board, but stated that it will co-operate with commissioners if appointed and noted the proposed commissioner team. It requested that any decision to appoint commissioners is taken expeditiously and that a smooth transition is ensured.
Having considered carefully all of the representations received, and all other developments since the “minded to” decision, the Secretary of State and I are satisfied that no further issues have been raised which were not known at the time we made the “minded to” decision and that no change is warranted to the position outlined in that “minded to” decision. The Secretary of State is satisfied that Nottingham City Council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty, and that the necessary improvements are still not being made quickly enough. I am today confirming that commissioners have been appointed to Nottingham City Council and new directions have been issued.
The Secretary of State, as proposed in December, has decided to appoint three commissioners: a lead commissioner, a commissioner for finance, and a commissioner for transformation. This team structure reflects the most pressing priorities at the council as highlighted in the improvement and assurance board’s latest reports, namely weaknesses in finance and transformation, along with an underlying culture of poor governance. The Secretary of State is today appointing individuals to the roles of lead commissioner and commissioner for finance. The chosen commissioners have a proven record of leadership, finance, transformation and strong governance, together with the specific expertise relevant to their functions. We will appoint a commissioner for transformation in due course.
Tony McArdle OBE (lead commissioner) has extensive experience in local government and is the former chief executive of Lincolnshire County Council, and Wellingborough Council. Tony has experience in multiple interventions and best value roles, including as current chair of the London Borough of Croydon improvement and assurance panel, former lead commissioner at Northamptonshire County Council, and best value inspector at Thurrock Council.
Margaret Lee (commissioner for finance) previously worked at Essex County Council where she held the posts of section 151 officer and executive director for corporate and customer services for 13 years. Margaret also has experience of interventions and best value roles, including as former finance commissioner at Slough Borough Council, finance lead on the London Borough of Croydon improvement and assurance panel, and best value inspector at Thurrock Council.
The commissioners have been appointed for two years, or such earlier or later time as the Secretary of State determines. The Secretary of State is clear that the directions should operate for as long, and only as long, and only in the form, as necessary. The Secretary of State and I wish to again place on record the instrumental role the improvement and assurance board, under Sir Tony Redmond’s leadership, has played in Nottingham City Council’s improvement journey to date. Indeed, the current situation would be even more challenging without their dedication and sustained efforts over the past few years. Commissioners are today replacing the board with immediate effect. The Secretary of State and I are clear that we expect a managed transition from the improvement and assurance board to the commissioners and that momentum is not lost, particularly over the critical budget setting period for 2024-25. We are supportive of the commissioners drawing on reasonable support to facilitate this transition, including from the former board members, if they wish and in the terms they deem reasonable.
The commissioners will be asked to provide their first report within the next six months. Further reports will be provided every six months, or as agreed with the commissioners.
As with other interventions led by my Department, the council will be directed to meet the costs of the commissioners, along with such reasonable amenities and services and administrative support as the commissioners may reasonably require. The fees paid to individuals are published in appointment letters which are available separately on gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise that is being brought, and the scale of the challenge in councils requiring statutory intervention.
Slough Borough Council
Slough Borough Council has been in intervention, with commissioners appointed, since 1 December 2021, after an external assurance review found the council had failed to meet its best value duty. Following the commissioners’ first report on 9 June 2022 the intervention was expanded on 1 September 2022. The intervention is due to end on 30 November 2024, though we have always been clear that the Secretary of State may decide to extend directions beyond this date, or that it may be appropriate to return functions before this time.
When I last updated the House on 14 September 2023 on the commissioners’ third report, it was clear that while progress was being made and there was cautious optimism that the council was moving in the right direction, there were still significant challenges. It was vital that the council accelerated the pace of improvement to make substantial changes in the months ahead.
I am sorry to report that while the fourth report submitted to the Secretary of State on 17 January 2024 does record continued progress in some areas, including the political leadership, children’s social care and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), procurement and contract management, the pace of improvement has been insufficient and inconsistent given the stage of the intervention, and there is still a lot to do before the council will meet its best value duty.
It is of concern that the council has not accelerated the pace of improvement, especially on tackling organisational transformation and developing a future operating model, and continued financial instability remains a concern. Commissioners are now of the opinion the Government need to consider the nature of the intervention beyond the current timelines. I have today written to commissioners to request a further assessment of progress in April 2024 to allow the Secretary of State and I to decide whether further intervention is required beyond November 2024. That report will need to cover:
An assessment of continued best value failure including progress against each of the directions and against the best value themes published for consultation by DLUHC last summer;
A view on timeframes needed for the authority to deliver its best value duty;
Whether the current directions are sufficient and necessary for the authority to meet its best value duty.
In the immediate term, it is essential that the council demonstrates fresh resolve in implementing the changes required to deliver a sustainable council that the residents of Slough deserve.
I will update the House on further progress with the intervention and next steps at that time.
Birmingham City Council
The Government intervened in Birmingham City Council in October 2023, and in January the commissioners wrote to the Secretary of State to set out their initial findings and progress of the intervention. I am today publishing that letter. The financial challenges facing the council are acute and, while it is encouraging that commissioners have made early progress, the situation is worse than they had initially expected. It is vital that the council continues to listen to, and work with, commissioners to ensure their savings plans are delivered to achieve a balanced budget for 2024-25 and beyond. The financial implications of the failed implementation of the Oracle system and the potential equal pay liability also remain a significant challenge. Commissioners have my full support in taking whatever steps are necessary to drive the required improvements. I expect to see demonstrable progress from the council in the commissioners’ first full report, which is due in the spring, and I will update the House on further progress with the intervention and next steps at that time.
Conclusion
I want to acknowledge in today’s announcement the work of the dedicated staff who deliver the important services of councils on which local residents depend. I also want to thank the commissioners for all they do. I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the appointment letters for the Tower Hamlets inspectors, the appointment letters for the Nottingham City Council commissioners together with the directions and accompanying explanatory memorandum, and the report and letter I have referred to, which are also being published on www.gov.uk today.
[HCWS280]
Intelligence and Security Committee International Partnerships Report: Government Response
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
On 5 December 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament published its report entitled “International Partnerships”.
The UK’s international intelligence alliances are fundamental to the work of the Government and we are grateful to the Committee for devoting time and attention to this subject. Today, the Government are publishing our response to this report.
Copies of the Government response have been laid before both Houses.
[HCWS284]
UK-Related Domain Name Registries Consultation: Policy Response
(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
In July 2023, the Government launched a consultation in relation to internet domain name registries and domain name abuse. This consultation asked for views on the Government’s proposals for regulations defining prescribed practices and requirements, which are to be introduced following sections 19 to 21 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 coming into force. Specifically, the consultation asked for views from the relevant parties on the draft list of misuses and unfair uses of domain names in scope, and proposed principles which will underpin the prescribed dispute resolution procedure.
It is important we undertake this work to ensure that the UK will continue to meet international best practice on governance of country code top level domains in line with our key global trading partners and our future global trading commitments.
As outlined in a previous statement of 20 July 2023, the DEA 2010 sets out the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology’s powers of intervention in the event that any UK-related domain name registry fails to address serious, relevant abuses of their domain names, posing significant risk to the UK electronic communications networks and its users.
We received 39 responses to the consultation, which closed in August 2023. In November 2023, the Government published a summary of the responses received and have since been analysing the responses, consulting with technical and industry experts to develop our policy response.
We have today published the Government policy response to the consultation. A copy of both this document and the summary of responses will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
We will now set out in secondary legislation the list of misuses and unfair uses of domain names that registries in scope must take action to mitigate and deal with, alongside the registry’s arrangements for dealing with complaints in connection with the domain names in scope. This will provide additional certainty for UK users that appropriate procedures will continue to be in place to help address abuse of UK-related domain names.
[HCWS276]
House of Lords
Schools: Gender-questioning Children
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fox of Buckley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are planning to issue further guidance to ensure that schools support gender-questioning children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, following calls from schools, teachers and parents to support schools and colleges in relation to children who are questioning their gender, on 19 December 2023 we published draft guidance for consultation. The consultation will close on 12 March. Relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance is also under review, and we will launch a consultation shortly. As part of this, we are looking to strengthen the guidance to schools on how to teach this sensitive topic.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for her reply and the department for the clear guidance on working with gender-questioning children. Parents really were so relieved to hear that they should be fully involved if their own children decide they want to change gender, and it is so useful to have clarity that schools should not automatically socially transition pupils and that teachers and children should not be compelled to use opposite-sex pronouns. However, does the Minister find it troubling that, since publication, a variety of lobby groups and commercial providers are targeting school SLTs, advising them to ignore and even resist the guidance? Can the Minister assure us that the DfE will counter misinformation circulated by the likes of Mermaids, Just Like Us, Stonewall, The Key and even trade unions that wrongfully alleges the guidance is in breach of equality law, discriminatory and transphobic? Will she condemn attempts to scare teaching staff by suggesting that following the guidance puts them at risk of action by regulators and litigators?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Schools are expected to consider all the guidance from the department, and this is no exception: we would expect them to follow the final published guidance. As the noble Baroness says, the anecdotes we hear are that the guidance is already having an impact on parents, who feel able to ask schools to account for their decisions. Once the guidance is published, if individuals are worried, they should talk to their school about it. I looked at some of the campaigns being run and some of the templates that charities have published. Personally, I share the noble Baroness’s concern that they are quite oppositional in tone and are pitting parents against schools, which the guidance explicitly tries to avoid.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, my understanding is that the existing review is still out for consultation, so the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, might be jumping the gun a bit by asking whether the Government plan a further review. All her concerns are, of course, noted. While we are waiting, I ask the Minister: were children and young people consulted in the creation of the guidelines that are out for consultation now?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The department typically works through a range of stakeholder groups, including those that represent the voice of children. There have been direct conversations with children on these issues.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that schools must strongly discourage school-age children from taking any steps towards gender transition until their late 20s, by which time the decision-making part of their brain—the prefrontal cortex—will be fully developed?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The guidance is very clear that each case should be taken individually. The safety and well-being of children must always be our primary concern, which is why that is at the heart of the guidance. Some of the medical steps to which the noble Baroness refers are implicit in that safety and well-being focus.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, Labour welcomes the consultation on the guidance. It is clear that schools want greater clarity on how to approach what is, as the Minister said, often a sensitive and difficult issue. As someone who has two honorary nieces who are trans, I find that the tone of the debate often ignores the fact that this is about individuals and how we treat them. It is hard to ignore the fact that transphobia was an aggravating factor in the horrific murder of Brianna Ghey. I am confident from her response so far that the Minister agrees, but can she confirm that the guidance will ensure that dignity and respect are at its heart?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness will have seen from the guidance the principles that underpin it. It is absolutely clear that schools and colleges should be respectful and tolerant places where bullying is never tolerated.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the need of parents to safeguard and guide their children, as provided for in instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, will be preserved, and that compliance with the guidance should be made statutory? Finally, can she assure the House that the operation of and compliance with the guidance will be subject to Ofsted inspection?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a number of points. Schools already have very clear statutory duties in relation to safeguarding. Although, going back to the initial Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, this is non-statutory guidance, all our non-statutory guidance seeks to support schools in their statutory obligations, where the safety and well-being of the child are paramount.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister join me in condemning Mermaids’ practice of going into primary school reception classes and suggesting to four year-olds—including my own granddaughter, in a rural Suffolk primary school—that if they wish to, they can change their gender at any stage? This is inappropriate for four year-olds.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. Again, the guidance is clear that schools should not agree to support any degree of social transition for a primary school child unless it is explicitly required to safeguard and promote their welfare.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the approach of my noble friend on the Front Bench, and I have some sympathy with the Government. In 2000, when we issued the first ever Sex and Relationship Education Guidance, it caused all kinds of division. I hope the Minister agrees—and this applies to politics more broadly— that we must try to come to a consensus and find agreement, rather than following the terrible current trend of looking at what divides us.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, following on from the observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, does my noble friend agree that for 90% of children suffering from gender dysphoria, it passes once they mature, and that maturation comes in their very early 20s?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The honest answer to my noble friend is that there is still insufficient evidence to make such a definitive statement. My right honourable friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, in her letter to the Women and Equalities Select Committee, wrote that
“studies have found a link between gender non-conformity in childhood and someone later coming out as gay”,
and certainly that
“A young person and their family may notice that they are gender non-conforming earlier than they are aware of their developing sexual orientation. If gender non-conformity is misinterpreted as evidence of being transgender … the child may not have had a chance to identify, come to terms with or explore a same-sex orientation”.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, if, as the Minister has accepted and as has been expounded by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, a forceful lobbying campaign by groups is anticipated, why have the Government decided to make this guidance non-statutory? Surely, if the Government anticipate widespread resistance to it, at least from these lobbying groups, the answer would be to make the guidance statutory.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand the noble Lord’s point, but our expectation is that schools, as I said in my response to the noble Baroness, will comply with the guidance. The guidance is very clear, so parents and teachers can take confidence. Obviously, the point of the consultation is to give all parties a voice, but we will make sure that our statutory safeguarding guidance is completely aligned with this non-statutory guidance.
Peatlands
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in restoring peatlands, and by what date they expect all degraded peatlands to be restored.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in farming and land management, as set out in the register, and draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that I have been involved in numerous peatland restoration projects. The Government have made good progress in restoring our peatlands; we have accelerated the rate of peatland restoration in England through the Nature for Climate Fund, launched in 2020. Through this fund, we have so far provided £35 million for peatland restoration projects, financially committing us to restoring approximately 27,000 hectares of peatland. This represents significant progress against our ambitious commitment, made in the net-zero strategy, to restore 280,000 hectares of peatland by 2050.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. We all know that well-managed peatlands can sequester carbon and mitigate flood risks, but about 80% of UK peatlands are in a degraded condition, and we are still selling it for horticultural use. Can the Minister go a little further and tell the House when the threshold of 35,000 hectares, which the Government committed to restore by 2025, will be restored—he already mentioned 27,000—and what the plan is for the remaining 245,000 hectares they committed to restore through the net-zero strategy by 2050?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the important issue of peatland restoration. We are making good progress to deliver the commitments to restore the 35,000 hectares of peatlands by 2025. She alluded to the fact that we are aiming for about 27,000 at the moment. It is fair to say that we are slightly behind the target, but also that there have been some good reasons for that—namely the pandemic, which slowed everybody up, but also that it is quite difficult to plan and organise these things. They tend to be back-loaded rather than front-loaded in their completion. Since making that commitment, restoration activity has been delivered through our agri-environment schemes, and most significantly through the Nature for Climate Fund, as I said. This fund has already financially committed the Government to restoring the 27,000 hectares of peatland, and 11,000 hectares of that have already been delivered. We are also fully committed to restoring the 240,000 hectares of remaining peatland by 2050.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, given the role that peatlands play in flood defences, as the noble Baroness said, will the Minister pay tribute to all those involved in the Slowing the Flow pilot scheme in Pickering? Will he ensure that more private sector funding, either from water companies or others, can also be factored in to speed up the programme to which he refers?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point on the involvement of private companies. It is one of the Government’s aims to involve them more and get a bigger response from them shortly.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have raised this with my noble friend before. Wildfires are one of the greatest dangers to our peatlands. They get very much worse when heather is allowed to grow out and become hard and woody. Then, during a drought you can have a fire that lasts for six weeks with endless fire engines being deployed and the peat still burning underneath, as happened on Saddleworth Moor. Does he not recognise that this is one of the greatest dangers to our peatlands?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My noble friend makes another very good point on the use of a range of different measures for protecting our uplands from wildfire. We have in our armoury, if you like, the ability to cut heather, and we still allow people to burn heather in certain areas and, in particular, to use that as a defence against wildfire.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ritchie referred to the use of peat in horticulture. Will the Minister remind the House what the Government have done and what they will do in the future to reduce to zero the use of peat in horticulture, both domestically and commercially?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, we need to give the horticultural industry some time to adapt. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are committed to banning peat in horticulture. The reason we have not got there yet is primarily down to parliamentary time. I hope that we will be able to address that issue very shortly.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, 95% of respondents to the Government’s 2022 consultation supported a legal ban on retail sales. Retailers, including B&Q, Tesco, the Co-op, the Royal Horticultural Society and Dobbies, have ended the sale of peat in bags of growing media. The horticultural industry requires clarity. When will it get it?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
As I said in answer to the previous question, the Government are committed to this ban, and it will be in place by 2030.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, over the past few years, we have seen a shocking rise in wildfires, many of which destroy peatlands. With the El Niño effect, we are expecting even more this summer. What are the Government doing to prevent wildfires to avoid further destruction of our precious peatlands?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to a range of activities to prevent wildfire. I discussed two of those just now: cutting heather and burning heather. We also have the fire service on standby and are in constant communication with the fire service across the country to address wildfire issues.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, peat has been an important domestic fuel in the Highlands for centuries. Is the Minister aware that bags of peat are still freely available in Scottish shops to burn on open fires? This seems inconsistent with our other policy objectives with regard to the conservation of peat.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. I am sure that he is aware that peatland matters in Scotland are a devolved issue. I understand that, for historic reasons, there is an inclination towards peat. I hope, as I am sure he does, that it is on the decline.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Is the Minister aware that it takes millennia for peat bogs to form? Do the Government have any idea of the ratio between the so-called restored peat bogs and those that are still being disrupted?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I am entirely aware of the amount of time it takes to create peat. I spent a great deal of time doing peatland restoration work.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the Science and Technology Committee, which I chaired at the time, produced a report on nature-based solutions to climate change. One of the things it recommended, because of confusion related to both woodland and peatland codes, was that the Government should have a strategy for land use. Subsequently, an ad hoc committee of the House of Lords recommended that a land use commission should be set up. The Government were resistant to both these recommendations of two independent House of Lords committees. Can the Minister suggest what the Government intend to do about a land use strategy?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The Government have every intention of publishing their land use strategy shortly.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I did not intend to intervene but in view of the answers I am bound to ask the Minister whether, in a consensual and non-divisive way, he would mind approaching the Duke of Rutland to ask him not to continue burn-off in the south Pennines, which is clearly damaging not just the peat bogs but the general environment, including the atmosphere in my city of Sheffield?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I am not aware of the specific details that the noble Lord has raised. I commit to finding out about them. Perhaps I can drop him a letter on that subject.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, planting conifers on deep peat is probably one of the biggest reasons for peat’s degradation; I think about 20% of peat degradation is caused by that. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no more planting of conifers on deep peat and that, where it has happened in the past, when those trees are felled they will not be replaced?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right on his statistics and the danger that conifers pose to peat. I do not have the details available here now, but I commit to write to him on that subject.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that one of mitigations is that the fire service would be on standby. I have always thought that the nature of the fire service is that it is always on standby. What assessment have the Government done in the light of my noble friend’s Question to ensure that the fire service resources are going to be adequate, given the increasing likelihood of wildfires of various sorts, the El Niño effect and, of course, climate change?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his interesting question. The Government have taken a number of initiatives in preventing wildfire, and that is the start point from which we work. We are in communication with the fire service on a permanent basis relating to this. Obviously, when the risk is elevated, we are in constant communication with it to make sure that it is available for that activity.
NHS: Dementia Commission Report
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask His Majesty’s Government what actions they are taking in response to the NHS Innovation and Life Sciences Commission’s Dementia Commission: 2023 Report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con) (Con)
We welcome the Dementia Commission: 2023 Report and are taking steps to address each of the recommendations. The Government remain committed to improving dementia diagnosis rates and providing high-quality care and support following a diagnosis. The Government have committed to double funding for dementia research to £160 million per year by the end of 2024-25. We welcome all research that will help us to improve how we diagnose and care for people with living with dementia.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the commission’s wide-ranging and comprehensive report is very welcome, but it heavily reinforces the urgent need for radical change in the way we diagnose, treat and care for dementia patients and support their families and carers. To ensure timely, speeded-up diagnosis, the training of primary care practitioners in dementia-specific symptoms and diagnostic methods is crucial. What steps are the Government taking to strengthen general practice and community pharmacy in this regard so that individuals with dementia can receive appropriate care and support as early as possible?
Lord Markham
I thank the noble Baroness for this Question. As ever, I have found that one of the real strengths of being in this position is that the questioning here makes me explore an area. This has been another area which I have enjoyed and found fascinating. Early detection is absolutely key, and what I have been learning from that is that, yes, we need to arm primary care staff and a potentially vital front line in terms of primary care staff are opticians, because retinal scans are a really good way to early diagnose. Apparently, people more than ever will have a frequent eye check. I have pulled together a panel to understand this more, and I invite the noble Baroness and others so that we can look at the latest research and really understand this more.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the additional sums of money that the Government are putting into this service, which is very important, but, as the Minister will be aware, and as he indicated in his response to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, around 36% of those with this condition are undiagnosed, and that rises to around 50% in some authorities. The Minister will be aware that some exciting new drugs are coming on to the market that help to delay the onset of this terrible condition. What are the Government doing to raise awareness so that there is early diagnosis and those with the condition can access those services much sooner?
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend, who is absolutely right. This is where things such as the Barbara Windsor Dementia Mission have been successful in raising awareness, as she states. The challenge in all this, as I have learned, is that because it is such a slow-moving disease it is difficult to see how it progresses. Apparently, it has one of the lowest failure rates in terms of drugs because it is really hard to monitor the progress behind it. That is why work is being done, such as retina scans, where you can measure data objectively. There is real hope in all this, and it means that we need to make all primary care workers aware of the situation.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the commission recommends the creation of dynamic care records for dementia patients and their carers. We know from experience that information projects such as this work best when they have a clear owner who wakes up every morning worrying about delivering them. Who in the NHS owns the delivery of dynamic care records for dementia patients? If that person turns out not to exist when he goes to look for them, would he consider appointing someone?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, that is a very good point. For me, as I have looked into this, the reason for assembling the panel that we can all interrogate is that we have the value of different noble Lords in this House who can add those points to it. What the noble Lord said sounds sensible. The honest answer is that I do not know whether there is such a person today, but let us use this as an opportunity to find out, because I think there should be.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, there are several important points in development that should allow us to better manage people with dementia. The first is early diagnosis, as has been mentioned, but we need greater input into research in developing biomarkers that detect early development of the disease. Having done so, we then need drugs that will be effective in early phases of the disease—so-called disease-modifying treatments. Some of those have recently been given accelerated approval in the United States and Japan, but they are very expensive drugs. As we discussed last week, one of the drugs for small-cell lung cancer failed at the final endpoint, so we have to be guarded. For instance, the drug lecanemab, which has been approved, would use up half the pharmaceutical costs of all the 27 countries of Europe. These two things are important, and I hope that the forum that is developing will address those issues of research.
Lord Markham (Con)
As ever, my colleague the noble Lord is correct. The blood biomarkers are central to this. We have set up the NIHR biomarker challenge to try to understand those, and my understanding is that a Swedish blood test is quite promising. NICE is bound to approve the two early-stage drugs that the noble Lord mentioned over the summer, in July and September, but then we need to look at scale-up issues. Often, we are talking about having to deliver them through drips, which means a whole workforce scale-up. So there are a lot of issues around this that the noble Lord rightly brings up, and I hope the panel can discuss them further.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister about the role of music therapy in helping dementia patients. It is well known that when someone listens to music, sometimes it takes them back to a place and time immediately. There has been research on the role of music therapy. I quickly skim-read the report but did not see music therapy mentioned in any way or in detail. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister can correct me, but could he also tell me about the role that music therapy can play?
Lord Markham (Con)
My noble friend is correct; I did not see reference in my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy’s report to music therapy either. I am familiar with some of the principles behind it. My personal experience myself with the elderly dementia patient that I cared for was that bringing my five year-old son along took them out of their position and made them care for that child and forget about their own situation. Those sorts of therapies—and music is similar—have a vital role that we will look into further as part of this plan.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Alzheimer’s Society has a good report out called Dementia: What Every Commissioner Needs to Know, about Alzheimer’s care. What is the Government’s view on ensuring that ICBs across the country have a minimum standard of commissioning levels for people with dementia?
Lord Markham (Con)
We have set out a dementia good care planning guide to exactly those commissioners because, as ever, we need uniformity in these areas. Part of the strength of ICBs is that they have freedom to deliver local services, but we have to make sure that they are always achieving at least the minimum levels that the noble Lord referred to. That is what the guidelines are about, and we are setting monitoring against that to make sure that they are delivering on it.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I have two questions. First, I understand that NICE will review rather than approve the drugs in question. Secondly, it appears that they extend life but that the end of life is still very similar, so what do the Government intend to do to ensure that carers have sufficient respite and that there is a standard ratio of Admiral nurses to support families, certainly for the next decade until science gives us the answer?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct that the science is unfortunately not there yet. That is why we are investing £160 million a year in research, because more needs to be done. In the meantime, and I suspect for ever, we will need to make sure that support networks are around this space, and the voluntary care sector, for want of a better phrase, is a vital part of that. We are making moves towards it; we are giving respite care and making some payments. I freely admit that there is more we could be doing in this space, but we have done quite a bit as well.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, my husband, having had two strokes, was part of a project called OPTIMA, so he left his brain to that project. When the report was sent to me, OPTIMA assured me that my husband had had vascular dementia, not Alzheimer’s.
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, everything that can add to our knowledge has to be a good thing.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, with an ageing population it is inevitable that this illness is going to increase in prevalence across the population. Do the Government have any intention of building into their strategy for caring for dementia the support, perhaps in the workplace, that might be needed, particularly for older women, who tend to be predominantly carers, maybe via insurance in the workplace for respite and for carer’s leave, in order to ensure that this is not such a strain on both the families and the public purse?
Lord Markham (Con)
There is recognition in all these things that the workplace has a role here. I have looked at treatments and outcomes in the G7 countries, and Japan is often a good example of having care in the workplace, as my noble friend is aware. As so often, it is about making people realise that this is everyone’s problem to deal with. I will do more work to understand what we are doing to arm employers for that, and I will come back to my noble friend.
Ministry of Defence: Diversity, Equality and Inclusion
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Bellingham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the Ministry of Defence’s policies on diversity, equality and inclusion.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a serving Army reservist. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has ordered a review of all equality, diversity and inclusivity policies to ensure that all those who are willing and able to serve our nation can do so freely in an environment that is welcoming to all, with no policy distracting from or hindering defence’s priority of defending our nation and being able to fight our enemies in a more dangerous age.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Has he seen the Army Race Action Plan and the Army’s policy guidance on inclusive behaviour? Does it make sense, at a time of unprecedented overstretch and undermanning, for the military to have 250 full-time diversity officers? Surely, they should be redeployed out of these non-jobs to the front line. Can he also confirm that demands by the Army’s race plan to dumb down Remembrance Sunday by removing the Christianity element will be firmly rejected?
If the people who author these reports—I hope that they will be called in by the Secretary of State and informed that their naivety is doing great damage—want to learn about diversity, they should go to the Memorial Gates on Constitution Hill, which commemorate the tens of thousands of Commonwealth soldiers who gave their lives for our freedom. They came from every race, creed, colour and religion.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question. He is absolutely right. From trailblazers such as Walter Tull to the Rajputana Rifles, the Gurkhas, Commonwealth personnel and our British Overseas Territory regiments, the British Army has a long and proud history of diversity and inclusivity.
On my noble friend’s specific question about full-time staff, the figure I have is that it is closer to 40 than 240. They do important work improving the experiences of service personnel by driving changes to uniform, body armour, health policies and, more broadly, by tackling unacceptable behaviour.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the truth of the matter is that ethnic minorities are woefully underrepresented in our Armed Forces. I find it difficult not to conclude that this recent confected outrage, catalysed by a conveniently leaked document from the MoD seen only by the Sunday Telegraph, created a welcome opportunity for another declaration against wokery—a war against wokery. We should not allow this to distract us in the context of the welcome review of policy relating to diversity, equality and inclusion. We should concentrate on the inclusivity part of this strongly and try to solve the problem of the underrepresentation, and not concentrate on sending out messages to voters.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the key element here is inclusivity. We are striving to do better in every aspect of our leadership, which includes reflecting the diverse nation we serve. This is not about wokefulness but about reflecting the ethnic, religious and cognitive diversity of our nation.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, as a former Defence Minister—I have no desire to distress my noble friend Lord Bellingham—part of my tenure involved being responsible for these issues. Does the Minister agree that the crux of the matter is broadening the entire pool of talent, wherever it may come from, across the entire MoD—civilian and military—and that we should celebrate the positive progress achieved that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Browne?
From my experience, the progress in relation to women has been manifest in the impressive Women in Defence network—not a group to tangle with. We have had the emergence of the first female rear admiral, the first female deputy chief of the general staff, and the trailblazing precedent set by the RAF in 2019 in appointing Britain’s first ever female three-star officer, Air Marshal Sue Gray. What is not to like?
Lord Harlech (Con)
First, I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work as the Lords Minister for Defence and the incredible effort she put in to championing women in defence. I agree with everything that she said. Defence is a modern and inclusive employer, with people at its core. It offers supportive policies that enable everyone, irrespective of background, to have a rewarding and varied career.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, what progress has been made on the 67 recommendations of the Haythornthwaite review of Armed Forces incentivisation, published last June? Has the first stage of establishing momentum been achieved? In particular, has the review contributed in any way to improvements in retention and recruiting?
Lord Harlech (Con)
In response to the noble and gallant Lord’s question, the Government will publish a full formal response to the Haythornthwaite review this year. From addressing key skills challenges, to zig-zag careers where people can leave and join the Armed Forces, to reviews of pay, progression and targeted recruitment engagement with younger generations, the implementation of the review is an absolute priority for defence. I reassure the House that all three services continue to meet their front-line operational commitments.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the purpose of such policies and posts is to ensure that everybody recruited to the services can excel in the job that they are appointed to do? That has often not been the case in past decades, particularly for the LGBT community. When will the forces, specifically the RAF, update the medical basis on which they make decisions about the fitness of people with HIV to serve in different roles in the forces?
Lord Harlech (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a valid question, and it would be right to write to her with an exact reply on the HIV question, which I do not have an answer for.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I remind the House of my registered interests. Two weeks ago, the Prospect trade union published a damning survey of its female members who work in defence, in which 60% of respondents reported experiencing sexual harassment in the last year. Some 75% said they had witnessed or experienced sexual harassment in the last month. Hansard has reported many warm words from Ministers in both Houses about a zero-tolerance approach. But the reality for women in defence seems completely at odds with these statements, and we need to fix it. It is time for a dedicated sexual harassment policy within the MoD. Can the Minister tell us when we might see one?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I reaffirm to the House that unacceptable sexual behaviour is not tolerated in defence. We reinforced that position with the introduction of a number of new policies in July 2022. These make it clear that, where allegations are made, victims will be supported, complaints will be investigated, and offenders will be discharged. Appropriate advice and support are available to any serviceperson who wants to make a complaint or allegation of criminal behaviour. This includes access to welfare services, chaplains and assisting officers. The Defence Serious Crime Unit provides improved victim support through a new victim and witness care unit.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I should probably declare an interest as an Army pensioner—I know I look too young. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State agree that the purpose of the Armed Forces is to defend this nation, its people and its interests. That is what they are there for. Of course, discrimination and so on should be condemned. However, I am very worried by this Army Race Action Plan, which aims to reduce the security requirements for people we admit into the Armed Forces. This undermines our security, apart from anything else.
I do not know General Nesmith—I am sure she is a very good person—but we must take this and hit it on the head and understand what the Armed Forces are for. Will my noble friend go back to the MoD, talk to civilians and soldiers and say, “We are here to defend the nation properly and well, without discrimination, but we are here to defend the nation”?
Lord Harlech (Con)
I absolutely agree that our priority is protecting the national security of the United Kingdom and ensuring the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces. I am proud that my battalion—my company—is a reflection of the city in which we serve. I have served alongside people of all ethnicities and backgrounds and that is a compliment to the diverse, inclusive organisation that the Army is. I reassure my noble friend that there has been no lack of fitness training and bayonet training—all that goes with being an infantry soldier—as a result of the Army improving its inclusivity.
Poverty Reduction
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bird
That this House takes note of the case for aligning poverty reduction policy-making across Government.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, for me, this is probably one of the most important debates that I could ever be involved in, and I am glad we have managed to get time for it. This is largely because, in my opinion, poverty is the background to everything, from racism all the way through to inequality. Our prisons are full of people who never got a fair crack of the whip at birth—and I am one of them. I come from a London Irish racist, small-minded and self-harming working class in Notting Hill; I have spoken about that on many occasions.
Growing up in poverty, with self-harming, drink, violence, wife-beating and all that, what I found so interesting was that I never met an adult in that world that I came into. All I met was self-defeat and people who were harmed by poverty so abjectly that, in some ways, they could never translate themselves into being fully human. They could never savour the advantages, as I later did when I became a posh boy because every time I got arrested, I learned things in the prison system—so, by the time I was 18, I was the posh guy that noble Lords see before them. Those people never went to the National Gallery. They never knew the difference between the trecento, the quattrocento and the cinquecento—neither do some people here. The point is that they were never allowed to be fully human.
We have to embrace that. When we embrace it, we have to realise that if we seriously want to do something about it, we need to look at the way we handle poverty in government, in local authorities, in charitable work, in our thinking and in how we respond to the needs of others. The traditional way of responding to the needs of others is to feel sorry for them—to pity them, to feel guilty and that what you really need to do is give the poor more. I came into the House of Lords and was immediately overrun by people wanting me to participate in some projects that were about giving the poor more. I said, “I’m sorry. I’m here to dismantle poverty and turn the tap off. I’m not here to deal with the everyday crisis of poverty, because I have to stand above it”. Somebody has to stand above it and try to bring all the efforts together so that poverty does not continue.
Giving the poor more has been going on for thousands of years. You can go back to the Greek philosophers: people established their humanity by giving the poor more. Every religion always wants to give the poor more. When I worked in America, I was astonished at the amount of schoolchildren I knew or met who would put food into a charity dumpster so that they could give the poor more. I did not see people make much effort to say, “Hang on—what are we doing here? Are we decreasing poverty or are we responding only to the everydayness—the precious thing?”.
I am an emergencist. I started the Big Issue 32 years ago to respond to the crisis of poverty, because I was appalled at the way that people saw homeless people on the streets of London, and then on the streets of cities throughout the UK, Europe, Asia, North America and South America, so I got involved then in giving the poor more. After 10 years of that, I was interviewed by the Times, which said, “Johnny Bird, what have you been doing for the last 10 years? You’ve been doing this, but what are you going to do for the next 10 or 20 years?” I said, “Well, for the last 10 years, I’ve been mending broken clocks. For the next 10 or 20 years, I’m going to try and prevent the clocks breaking”.
I created a methodology which I called PECC: prevention, emergency, coping and cure. What it threw up to me was that, in the intervention of state Governments and charities—and personal intervention from the public—80% of all the poverty money was spent on emergency and coping, with very little spent on prevention and cure. Each Government who came through—at the age of 78, I have been through many—always said that they put the fight to defeat poverty right at the top. Yet not one of them stopped and asked, “How do we reconfigure our governance? How do we reconfigure what we’re doing so that we can do a better job and turn the tap off, rather than using a tablespoon to take the water out of the bath?”. Everybody is at it, as was I for the first 10 years of my life as the Big Issue proprietor.
When I came into the House of Lords, I said that I came here to dismantle poverty. To do that is incredibly difficult when every government department that has anything to do with social justice or social opportunity always has a number of initiatives. Whenever a Government say to me that they have an initiative, I think “It’s a cover-up”—I am not speaking against the current Government, because I have been dealing with this for 30 years—because they do a little initiative, learn something from it and then put it aside. In fact, someone should do a history of government initiatives because it would find that they have tried every damn thing. The latest one is levelling up. I do not know why they do not call it “Get rid of poverty” or something like that.
I came in, I am sorry to say, to revolutionise the House of Lords and the Government, but not to pull them apart and get upset about who is here or there. I came in to concentrate on how to get the convergence of efforts so that when we use “emergency” we do so efficiently and deeply, and bring about changes. There are people in this House and the other place who have done enormously rich and deep things for people in need. But how do you take that as part of a social apparatus and put prevention in front of it? How do you put cure at the end of it?
Forty per cent of all money spent by His Majesty’s Government is spent on poverty. I am sorry—I repeat these things often, and people say to me, “You told us that the last time”, but I am going to tell you it the next time as well. Forty per cent of the money spent by government is spent on poverty—yet, if you look at the intervention of this Government, the last Government and presumably the next Government, there will be a bit here, a bit there, and a bit here and a bit there. There is no convergence; there is no joining together the strengths that we need to defeat poverty. According to the BMA, 50% of the people who present themselves with cardiac arrests are people suffering from food poverty. The emergency work that we need to do is to respond to the emergency and, at the same time, make sure that we are not increasing it by allowing people to slip into poverty.
I have a Bill going through the House that will go nowhere—absolutely nowhere. No one is interested in it. Whenever I talk to a politician of whatever party, or to the aspirant ones who stop me in Portcullis House and talk to me kindly about what they are going to do when they get in office—I presume it was not your lot, because you are already there—they say that they are going to do all sorts of wonderful things about poverty. But if they use the same mechanisms and devices that are being used at the moment, they will not be going anywhere.
Before Tony Blair came in, I remember having discussions with him, and I thought he was one of the most impressive personal managers that I had ever met. He made me feel really important, and he told me all the wonderful things he was going to do. I am not slagging him off—this is not a party-political thing. He was going to do big things about getting rid of homelessness. What he did was to open the gates of the Treasury to lots of homeless organisations, which went from this size to that size. People built lots more temporary accommodation—hostels and all sorts of things like that—and they thought it was a wonderful thing. But, unfortunately, it was still about “them” and “us”, meaning “us” who run the system and “them” who receive our beneficence. That is one of the major problems that we need to deal with.
My Bill calls for the creation of a ministry for poverty prevention. Why does it do that? It does so because, if poverty eats into the aspirations and ambitions of virtually every government department, how can the NHS really deliver, and how can schools really deliver, when about 30% of their budget is spent on dealing with the problems of poverty that are vectored into the classroom? What can the Ministry of Justice do, other than tread water and make sure that somebody does not escape, kill themselves or kill a guard? Why do we create these ministries and then deprive them of the opportunity of supplying change, justice and social justice, because poverty eats away at and destroys their work?
In my opinion, we need a Ministry of Justice prevention. I have spoken to lots of people, and they say, “Well, we could all do with a ministry—you could have a ministry for everything”. But the thing about poverty is that it gets into our pores and, in my opinion, it makes us lost and, to some extent, dishonest. We think that, if we can just give a handout to someone, we have changed things and done our bit. Thank you very much—God bless you all.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, follow that! I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for the opportunity not just to debate this important issue but also to say thank you to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for his tireless championing of the interests of children in poverty and also refugees and asylum seekers. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to work with him, and he will be sorely missed.
I shall focus my remarks mainly on child poverty and the need for a cross-government child poverty strategy, not least because children are disproportionately at risk of poverty. As the Association of Directors of Children’s Services reminded us this week:
“Sadly, children’s needs, their rights and outcomes have not been prioritised in recent years”.
No doubt the Minister will trot out the usual cherry-picked statistics on so-called absolute poverty, despite the promise of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when leader of the Conservative Party, that the party
“recognises, will measure and will act on relative poverty”.
I shall spare noble Lords the trading of statistics, but we cannot ignore the growing evidence of the intensification of poverty, serious hardship and indeed, as documented by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, destitution.
Last month, the Prime Minister in a radio interview said that he was sad to hear of families in poverty who reportedly were having to water down baby formula, and that he was committed to sitting down with those involved, if he were written to. Well, he would have to sit down with an awful lot of people, if he were to meet all those who are unable to afford life’s basics today. What is needed is systemic change, not individual sympathy—and that brings me to today’s Motion.
In 2010, the political parties came together to support the introduction of the Child Poverty Act, which required central, devolved and local government to produce child poverty strategies, building on the progress made on reducing child poverty over much of the previous decade. Despite that all-party support, the Act was watered down and then effectively abolished in 2016—though, thanks to the stalwart work of the right reverend Prelate, the duty to continue the measurement and publication of key poverty indicators was retained. But the upshot was that, as the Social Mobility Commission pointed out in 2021, England is now
“the only nation in the UK without a strategy to address child poverty”.
When challenged on the lack of a child poverty strategy, Ministers tend to recite a litany of various inadequate measures, but a list of measures does not constitute a strategy, with clear targets and reporting requirements. In contrast, my party has committed itself in its final National Policy Forum document, agreed by conference, to
“a bold and ambitious strategy to tackle child poverty”,
which will be cross-government and place a
“responsibility of all government departments to tackle the fundamental drivers of poverty”.
I just hope that this commitment will be set out clearly in our manifesto.
Decisions made by almost every government department have implications for children and others in poverty. For example, the Department for Education cannot ignore the impact of poverty, whether it be childcare policies, the costs of education, including school meals, the need to poverty-proof schools and, most fundamentally, the impact of poverty on the ability to learn, and its role in continued inequality of educational opportunities and outcomes.
Home Office rules have a direct impact on poverty among refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, and this is the subject of a current joint inquiry by the APPGs on Migration and on Poverty, which I co-chair. Fuel poverty is the responsibility of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; the transition to net zero has to take account of the needs of those living in poverty as, otherwise, new research suggests that they could face what the authors call “transition poverty”.
Before I turn to the Minister’s own area of responsibility, I ask him what cross-government machinery exists to consider the impact of policies on poverty. What discussions does he have with colleagues in other departments to encourage them to think about the poverty implications of their work? The DWP’s work of course remains central to any poverty reduction strategy. At present, it seems as if its anti-poverty policy begins and ends with getting more people into paid work, regardless of the quality of the jobs on offer. I do not dispute that paid work is important and reduces the risk of poverty, but it is no panacea—witness the fact that the majority of children in poverty have at least one parent in work. Indeed, according to Action for Children, around 300,000 families with children are in poverty despite each parent being in full-time work. Much more needs to be done to break down the barriers faced, in particular by those with caring responsibilities.
Punitive sanctions have been shown to be counterproductive, pushing people into low-quality and insecure work, according to the Work Foundation and others. The evidence suggests that those struggling to get by on inadequate benefits do not make effective jobseekers, as poverty reduces psychological bandwidth and job-seeking itself can cost money.
I will say more about the inadequacy of the social security benefits that we expect our fellow citizens to survive on in next week’s uprating debate, but I make just two points now. First, in a briefing paper for the Financial Fairness Trust, my former colleague Professor Donald Hirsch concludes:
“The level of working age benefits in the UK today is denying claimants access to the most fundamental material resources needed to function day to day and have healthy lives”.
Secondly, a report from CPAG, of which I am honorary president, argues that the first step in tackling child poverty has to be the abolition of policies that are increasing it. This includes scrapping the benefit cap and the two-child limit—here, again, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate’s indefatigable opposition to the latter; I suspect that the Minister might breathe a sigh of relief not to hear more from him about its iniquities. Underlying both points are the series of cuts made to social security since 2010. Given that many of those affected were already in poverty, we may have seen the impact less in the numbers in poverty and more in its growing depth.
A cross-government strategy must also include local government. Key here is the future of the household support fund. In his Answer to my recent Oral Question, the Minister referred to councils’ continued ability
“to use funding … to provide local welfare assistance”,—[Official Report, 30/1/24; col. 1106.]
which replaced the national Social Fund. But when I followed up with a Written Question about how many English local authorities do not run such a scheme, he responded that the Government do not have “robust data”. Why do they not? According to End Furniture Poverty, 37 authorities have closed their scheme, which means that if the household support fund is abolished as feared, there will be nothing other than charity for people in need to turn to. To their credit, a number of local authorities have developed anti-poverty strategies despite their financial pressures, but it is clear from research by Greater Manchester Poverty Action that they are hampered by the absence of a UK government strategy and by national policies that have compounded poverty.
As made clear so graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, policy-making must aim to prevent poverty rather than simply reduce it after the event. I see that as one of the principles that should inform any anti-poverty strategy. Other principles include: the need to provide genuine financial security; attention to diversity, including the particular needs of racialised minorities, disabled people and women; recognition that poverty is experienced not just as a disadvantaged and insecure economic condition but as a corrosive and shameful social relation, which means that policies and their application must be dignity-promoting rather than, as is too often the case, shame-inducing; and, related to this, the involvement of people with experience of poverty, including children, in the development of anti-poverty policies—here we can learn from Scotland.
There is growing recognition of the value of the expertise of experience thanks to projects such as Changing Realities. Its recent briefing began and ended by quoting Erik, a single disabled parent. He argues:
“It is NOW that changes must be made in order for a fairer society where we can all have a reasonable standard of living, bring up our families to have the best possible start in life that is achievable”,
but, he says:
“I am starting to lose hope that anything will change for low-income families”.
Whatever Benches we sit on, we have a duty to offer people like Erik some cause for hope. He is right that change must happen now. Indeed, as public attitudes towards action against poverty appear to have softened in recent years, what better time to offer a vision of a good society in which a cross-government anti-poverty strategy has to play a central part?
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on securing this debate, although I do not necessarily agree with all his views. I also take this opportunity to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—Bishop Paul, as we know him—for his significant contributions to the work of this House, particularly in the area of children. I also add how much we look forward to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford’s maiden speech in this debate.
Poverty, whether relative or absolute, is difficult to understand fully unless it has been personally experienced. It means, among other things: never going to the movies; shopping only for the cheapest basics; no holidays; not being able to afford a warm winter coat or new shoes; no birthday parties for children as they cannot afford to take a present; not being able to afford bus fares; living in constant fear of the fridge breaking down; and, at the poorest end, hunger, cold and periods of destitution for those households. The consequences of such deprivation are, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, deep and long lasting for children, who continue throughout their lives to underperform in all development measures. Poverty affects life chances from day one.
This is a bleak picture, yet official statistics reveal that 11 million people in the UK—17%—are relatively poor and a shocking 13% live in absolute poverty. This, as we have heard, is the worst level in Europe. It is unacceptable, but is likely to get worse as the cost of living crisis continues. As of July 2023, 6.1 million people were claiming universal credit. Additional support includes energy discounts, extra pension payments and free prescriptions. It is not as if the Government are unaware or unwilling to acknowledge widespread poverty or to act to limit it. To my mind, the somewhat courageous levelling-up programme, with its four admirable missions, is one example—but it is not working. Poverty rates have not changed significantly since 2010-11.
Much is known about the causes of absolute poverty; indeed, a great deal is now known about how best to alleviate it. The following factors, for example, increase vulnerability: the two-child limit on income-related benefit, the cap on benefits, debt reductions from benefits and the five-week wait for the first payment. If you have no money and have exhausted all family and other networks for temporary financial help, five weeks is a very long time both for adults and, most especially, for young children. Overall, basic benefit rates are simply inadequate to temper the effects of the current recession.
Large numbers of households continue to fall into the gaps—gaps created in part by the plurality of government departments mandated to carry out anti-poverty programmes. Today, according to my count, there are at least eight different government departments with a particular responsibility to administer benefit programmes, from child tax credit to income support. Experience suggests that these departments too often fail to communicate and co-ordinate programmes. Most important of all is the failure to design and adhere to a comprehensive child poverty strategy that should run through all social welfare thinking and planning.
Such a programme would build on a basic acceptance that more money is necessary to underpin child benefit and make it universal, to raise the minimum wage, expand free school meals and support quality childcare costs. The key elements of a universal strategy across a broad range of policy areas, with key targets, timelines and regular reporting, need clear leadership and infrastructure. It is also essential that affected families, including children, are involved in policy development in this area and to make it as central to planning as climate change is, or is about to become.
In an average class of 30 children, nine will be living in poverty. It is a political choice whether we can, in all conscience, continue to live with this statistic.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his timely debate and his relentless and indefatigable championing of this issue. I declare my interests, most particularly as president of the British Chambers of Commerce and chancellor of the Open University.
I will make three brief points. The first is about business and its role in helping with this issue. I have been travelling around the country as president of the British Chambers of Commerce. I am not going to share my travel diary, but I have most recently been in Preston, Coventry, Doncaster, Poole and Glasgow, and, with the British Chambers of Commerce, I have launched bits of work that look at how we can rejuvenate our economy over the next decade—a kind of playbook for whatever shade of Government we find ourselves with later in the year. The most recent work we did was about the future of the local economy, and I will emphasise how important it feels to make sure that we do not only join up policy across central government but that we link that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned, with local government and its fundamental role in helping drive local economies that we know are so essential in providing high-quality work and fuelling the economy to enable any of the choices that we are talking about in this debate.
When the British Chambers has been doing this work, we have been trying to reinforce three key planks: we need high-quality local leadership around these issues to make sure that local economies and communities have got the best possible talent around them; we need better collaboration with business at a local level to ensure that we have got, not just the acceptable jobs or jobs that are paying, but jobs that provide the quality that my noble friend Lady D’Souza was talking about; and we need to make sure that we have enough devolution and power locally to enable these communities to build resilience.
There are examples, and I can think of many British Chambers members that are doing interesting projects to help from different angles to build that local resilience, which will help local poverty and local issues. In Old Trafford, Trafford Council is working with a company called Bruntwood; they are doing a huge redevelopment of 24,000 square feet in the area that is generating green pathways, new transport links and big infrastructure investment. But it has taken a lot of work to get to that point with that triumvirate of different groups working together and I believe deeply that we will not help with working on the prevent part of the PECC framework created by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, if we do not think about how to drive that business-led change at a local level and open up collaboration.
As I said, there are examples. There is the one in Trafford and, last week, Aviva launched a project with the British Chambers that looks at local planners, to help build high-quality jobs at a very specific level; we are really trying to find diverse people to train and become local planners. These will be high-quality jobs offered in communities that did not have those opportunities before; just 100 jobs to start with, but we hope to build and scale that over time. So the first point is that it is really important to emphasise that local co-ordination; as if the challenge of central government was not big enough, we must not forget local council integration as well.
The second point—and this is where I fear I will become a bit like the noble Lord, Lord Bird—is around digitisation. I have stood here many times and sometimes I feel like I am talking into a void. It is unacceptable that we think that 95% connectivity in this country is okay: it is not. We will never be able to connect communities that are completely outside the normal ways that we operate if we do not have the infrastructure, skills and digital ability to connect them. It is not just a question of alleviating poverty: it is a question of social justice.
Last week, I talked in a debate with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and her Communications and Digital Committee, on a very good report about digital exclusion, but I fear the Minister’s responses did not please many on the committee and they certainly did not please me either, unfortunately. I ask with respect how the Government are thinking about the connections between digital disconnection and exclusion, because we know that of the 2.5 million people who do not use the internet, at least 60% to 70% of them fall into the lowest socioeconomic groups. We also know that you are unable to look for work if you are not looking online; 90% of jobs are advertised only online, so you are caught in a horrible nexus. Digitisation is such an important plank of how we will address the P part of the PECC from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. Local issues and digitisation are fundamental to helping us address poverty in this country.
I will offer one moment of hope before I sit down. If I have achieved anything, I think that one of the small things that I have contributed is building GOV.UK and the government digital service. I mention that partly because it is directly related to access to information and how people can find some of the services for them, but, more importantly, because it is sometimes possible to join up government and policy. When I think back to that project from 2010 to 2015, I ask, what made it marginally successful? There were three things. The first is prime ministerial support; I cannot overemphasise how important it is that a priority comes from the top. That speaks to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Bird; we hear language, but I am not clear that it has ever been a key priority for the Prime Minister to put poverty at the heart of an action plan.
The second is political support and leadership in the Civil Service and in the department. That project was being driven by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, and we also had Civil Service leaders driving it; that took a huge amount of work and more entrepreneurial effort than I have ever had to deploy, but it is possible to join it up.
Finally, we had a clear focus and some measurements and actions at the end of it. That project was flawed, and I do not remind people of it to sound successful or blow my own trumpet—quite the opposite. But it is possible to join up policy and it needed those three things. I leave the Minister with those three things, and I would be interested in his reflections on all of them: local government and its leadership and its ability to join up with central government on these issues; digitisation and not accepting that 95% is good enough, because it is not; and, finally, how we can take those lessons from some of the successful projects in government.
The Lord Bishop of Durham (Valedictory Speech)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing this debate on an issue of such importance and for the way that he introduced it. Also, because I have spoken on this issue repeatedly throughout my past 10 years as a Member of this House, it thus seems a fitting debate for my valedictory speech. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for speaking straight after me. We have worked together on poverty in the north-east. I also look forward to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford’s maiden speech.
During my maiden speech, I spoke of the high levels of poverty in my region of the north-east. Sadly, poverty, particularly child poverty, remains as significant an issue today as it was 10 years ago. Only last week, the North East Child Poverty Commission released its blueprint for tackling child poverty, featuring the latest poverty stats from 2021 to 2022, along with those recorded in 2014-15—the very year I entered this House. They reveal that, in 2021-22, there were around 134,000 children living in poverty in the North East Mayoral Combined Authority—an increase of over 7% since 2014-15.
But poverty is not just about numbers. Behind each statistic are the lives of children and the impact on them is all-encompassing. Poverty means going without the basic essentials. It means not being able to concentrate in school due to an empty stomach and not getting adequate nutrition; a packet of apples costs five times the amount of a packet of biscuits. Poverty means missed opportunities. It denies the chance to develop new skills through extra-curricular activities. Poverty means growing up too soon. It means dealing with stresses and anxieties with which no child should ever be burdened. It impacts the present and its effects last a lifetime.
More fundamentally, I care about poverty because God cares about it. God is:
“Father of the fatherless and protector of widows … he leads out the prisoners to prosperity”.
God calls on leaders and Governments to
“Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute”;
to
“Rescue the weak and the needy”,
not leave them there. God gives us a vision of a world where we
“let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream”.
This sets our poverty in the broader context of world poverty. While tackling our own, we must maintain our commitment to the world’s poorest. We need overseas development aid to be returned to 0.7% now.
During my time in this House, the Government’s approach to poverty reduction has been promoting work as a route out of poverty. Given that the proportion of children from working families living in poverty in the north-east has risen from 56% to 67% over the last seven years, it is clear that work alone is not enough. Low pay and insecure work continue to prevent families being lifted out of poverty. Work is a successful route out of poverty only if it pays a real living wage, as well as providing secure hours and working practices. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for her good examples, but they must be good examples for work to work. What steps will the Government take to further improve the national living wage to be at the real living wage level?
Viewing paid work as the sole route out of poverty fails to recognise the invaluable unpaid work that so many contribute. Raising children is the most important role that any parent ever undertakes. Its importance outweighs that of any paid employment and must be acknowledged by the whole of society as such. Further examples of critical unpaid work include running food banks, caring for those in need and running local sports and creative arts clubs. These are all vital to our society yet receive little recognition for their contribution. We need a different way of thinking, where those contributing critical unpaid work are valued in society and no longer faced with financial hardship as a consequence. Can the Minister say whether there is any major work on re-evaluating the great contribution made by volunteer carers and full-time parents and the wider contribution of unpaid work?
To align poverty reduction policy-making, we also need to remove the policies that continue to push more children into poverty. I highlight the two-child limit, which currently affects 1.5 million children. Its removal would lift 250,000 children out of poverty straightaway. On social security benefit levels, we need the essentials guarantee proposed by the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Will His Majesty’s Government support this? There is no single, simple solution to poverty reduction. It is a complex issue and there is not one switch to flick to solve it, but neither will anything change if we optimistically sit back and simply hope that the situation will improve.
As we have heard, England currently has no child poverty strategy and there is no UK-wide one. We have no targets or coherent cross-departmental collaboration. I thank each Minister with whom I have constructively engaged over the years, and those from the opposition Benches. I thank in particular the present Minister, who has been wonderful to work with. My individual meetings with the DfE, DWP, DLUHC, the Home Office, DHSC and the Treasury have shown that knowledge and insight from each department is essential, yet they have also demonstrated the need for a more collaborative approach. There is still far too much silo thinking.
Of equal importance are the clear insights that local government brings from its day-to-day experience of poverty in its communities. There are also those from schools, colleges, charities and faith communities who deal with poverty every day. Small and medium-sized businesses create the essential jobs that help people out of poverty, and chambers of commerce have a very important role. They have insights into the reasons for poverty in specific local settings. Most essential is the voice of those who live with poverty themselves. We need a vision for reducing poverty and a strategy that engages all these actors. Decisions by the Treasury, too often made on short-term rather than long-term economic analysis, regularly fly in the face of the evidence presented by other government departments and those who work on a local level. There must be a fundamental shift in our national thinking. Poverty is complex. It requires not only focusing on income levels but a holistic, preventive approach. Stronger communities, better mental and physical health and improved family relationships all contribute to poverty reduction.
That is the serious bit. As I draw to a close, I thank those who have assisted me throughout my time serving in this House: the wonderful doorkeepers; the staff who serve us in hospitality; the security team; the amazing teams in the clerks’, Black Rod’s and the Lord Speaker’s offices; and all those who serve in Whips’ offices and Bill teams. They are superb. I am also deeply grateful to the Church of England’s very small parliamentary office team, Richard Chapman and Simon Stanley; the public affairs team of the Church of England; and each of my three RAMP assistants and seven parliamentary assistants and researchers from the brilliant Buxton scheme. Without them, I could never have taken part in the life of this House in the way that they have enabled me to do. I shall miss this place and the brilliant work it does in scrutinising, revising and seeking to hold the Government to account. Had there been a different flavour of Government while I was on these Benches, I promise I would have behaved in exactly the same way towards them.
Poverty is a scourge. It needs to be confronted head-on as a national emergency. Jesus warned us not to harm children. He also made it clear that all of us have to enter God’s way of living by placing a child in our midst and learning from their trust and humility. We need a clearer vision for children and for how we confront all poverty, one with determination that requires us all to work together. Only then will we see poverty be reduced. Only then will we ensure that no child in this country grows up without the basic essentials and finally end child poverty.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate, who is leaving not only this House but his job as Bishop of Durham. I value both aspects of his ministry. Today, he has again shown that he does not shy away from speaking truth to power. That is one of the things we really value him for. His work in the north-east has been tireless, tackling all of us on what we are doing about the most vulnerable, particularly children, and his work in the House on the impact of legislation has been outstanding.
The right reverend Prelate has referred to the two-child rule in universal credit. His work, attention to detail and recognition from his ministry of the challenges for families, and his determination not to let go of issues simply because they are not the issue of the day, have been a real lesson to all of us. The role of Bishops in this House is never one that lacks controversy, but he has conducted himself in an important way throughout, drawing from his faith and from his pastoral activity the lessons that we need to listen to and learn from—as he has demonstrated this morning.
I also have particular reasons to be grateful for his pastoral work. He of course lives in the traditional seat of the Bishop of Durham, Bishop Auckland. When his schedule allows, he worships at the Anglican-Methodist Church in Bishop Auckland, on Woodhouse Close Estate. He and his wife have been very active there; of course, there are members of my family who have been active in that almost since it began. The support of Bishop Paul and his wife for my sister-in-law and her family during my brother’s illness, and subsequent death last year, will never be forgotten by us. We all wish you, Bishop Paul—I am not supposed to use that language in here, but I am going to today—the very best in your retirement. You should know that you go having served this House well, but also the people of Durham and the most vulnerable in our society. Thank you.
I now turn to the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, a very important debate about poverty. As Bishop Paul has said, he and I have worked together on the North East Child Poverty Commission, whose report was published last Friday. If the Minister has not seen it, I will happily send him a copy. The commission was established to look at what had happened with our ridiculous rise in child poverty since 2014, which is bigger and deeper than anywhere else in the country.
The person running the commission and several others had thousands of conversations, roundtables and so on to hear what people had to say about poverty in the north-east. The Government’s figures show that 27% of the north-east’s children are living in material deprivation, the highest in the UK. Some 69% of north-east children are living in families with zero or little savings to shield them from economic shocks—again, the highest in the UK. Almost one in five—18%—of children in the north-east are living in families that are food insecure. Again, that is the highest in the UK.
One thing we found in our conversations that is particularly relevant to this debate is that there is a clear evidence base on the links between low income, food insecurity and inequalities for children. The report of the Child of the North All-Party Group says that:
“Research shows that children experience a range of immediate, as well as long-term and life-changing harms from a poor diet and broader experiences of food insecurity, including: lower life-expectancy, weakened immunity, poorer mental health and emotional wellbeing, poorer physical health across a range of health outcomes (including general health ratings, more emergency visits, asthma)”,
diabetes, and so on, and
“poorer educational outcomes (including lower reading and maths scores, more days absent from school)”,
and so on.
In those conversations we also discovered—or had reaffirmed—the vast amount of time, energy, capacity and resources that organisations are having to spend on dealing with the impacts of poverty. It was clear from all of our discussions that there is a vast amount of valuable time, energy, capacity and resource in our region focused every day on dealing with the impacts of poverty and hardship on a growing number of children, young people and families. This includes by organisations specifically set up to do so, like food banks, baby banks, and so on, but also those whose work is being exacerbated and made much more difficult by the impacts of life on a very low income, including social workers, health services, voluntary and community groups and local authorities, as well as some businesses. There are also those whose ability to focus on their core business is being undermined or made more challenging by poverty, such as schools, colleges, youth provision, sports groups and so on.
Beyond the immeasurable costs for individuals, we are therefore talking about a failure for whole rafts of our community and society. It is not just that it affects the individuals—we have heard enough, I hope, to make all of us ashamed about that—but it is those wider issues. It is apparent that the scale of hardship in our region is being masked because much of this work is being undertaken by individual organisations, on their own initiative, using their own increasingly limited budgets, all of which are acutely aware of the resource and capacity they are now allocating to addressing this issue. We talked to schools who are having to wash uniforms at the weekend, because families have no facilities to do so. We talked to schools who are having to give additional support because families do not have heating or food for their children. Schools are doing this from their resource and that is not why they get their money.
If this does not say that poverty affects the economy of a whole region, I do not know what does. That is essentially what today’s debate is about. The economy of our country is diminished and is not growing, largely because—in my view—of the rise of poverty and inequality. Unless we address those, we will not get the growth and development that we need in our private or public sectors. That is the challenge that I am afraid the Minister faces, and that I suspect other Ministers after the election will face. This is the worst crisis that I have known in my political career, and I hope that the Government understand and recognise that they need to take action now.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of Barnardo’s. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for bringing this important subject before the House and pay tribute to him for all he has done to bring hope to those in our society who most need it. With the Big Issue, he has shown and continues to show what can be done through charity and philanthropy to turn lives around. Indeed, there is such an important role in our country for charity, philanthropy, volunteerism and what the Foreign Secretary once dubbed the “big society”.
Important and cherished as that is, it does not take away the responsibility of government to address poverty directly, to ensure that government policy minimises unnecessary hardships and to look out for those who are unable to look after themselves. Child poverty is an entrenched problem in the UK, with more than one in four children living in poverty. Barnardo’s recently looked at one aspect of child poverty—bed poverty—and found that there are over 680,000 families in the UK with children who have had to share a bed because their family cannot afford another one. Crisis requests to local authorities for help with children’s beds and bedding have more than quadrupled in the last four years. What more does it take to shake us into realising that we must align and strengthen efforts to tackle poverty?
Let us be clear: when we talk about child poverty, we are talking about family poverty. Families, often with both parents working hard and doing all they can, are unable to provide adequately for their children. The red flag that Barnardo’s has raised is the imminent ending of the household support fund. That fund, provided by central government and renewed from year to year, is administered by local authorities. It has been a lifeline to those facing hardship, providing practical help and access to essentials.
Some 62% of funding for local welfare currently comes from the household support fund; yet, as matters stand, it will come to an end in only 39 days—at the end of March—at a time when the pressures on households who find themselves in poverty are greater, not less. Earlier this month, Barnardo’s and 120 other organisations warned the Chancellor of the devastating consequences for families if the fund is not extended beyond March. More broadly, local crisis support is a vital part of our social security system, providing timely support to those facing acute hardship.
A long-term strategy that connects the dots is desperately needed, with funding to match. Short-term rounds of funding have led councils to close their schemes and let staff go, only to reopen them at short notice. Many local authorities have closed their schemes entirely. Barnardo’s is calling for a three-year funding settlement for crisis support to embed efficiency in local welfare.
In closing, I return to the immediate issue of the household support fund, which must be an urgent priority for the Government. Can the Minister assure the House that this essential support will not be withdrawn at this critical time, and that this lifeline for households will be maintained to allow the most urgent manifestations of child poverty to be addressed?
The Lord Bishop of Hereford (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I begin by recording my grateful thanks for the welcome and encouragement I have received since my introduction to your Lordships’ House. I am especially grateful for the forbearance of the staff as they have helped me navigate the labyrinthine corridors of this place, and to my colleagues for their patience in introducing me to the various procedures and protocols that govern our business.
I became the Bishop of Hereford in early 2020, just before the start of the first lockdown. The diocese of Hereford celebrates the 1,350th anniversary of its foundation in 2026—we are a diocese that predates the foundation of England. Indeed, the earliest timbers in the episcopal residence were acorns in the year 910. I have both worthy and ignoble predecessors in this role. I have already done better than four of them, who never actually came to the diocese at all. I hope not to emulate one of my Saxon predecessors, who, angered by the burning of the cathedral by the Welsh in 1055, took up arms with some of the canons and died in battle as a result. I also hope to avoid the fate of the cousin of the bishop who was murdered in the garden in 1256 on the coat-tails of his cousin’s unpopularity.
Hereford is the smallest and most rural diocese in England. We comprise the counties of Herefordshire and the southern half of Shropshire, one parish in Worcestershire and 14 in Wales. Sustaining a diocesan infrastructure with such a small base presents its challenges. For every 800 people who live here, we have one church building, and three-quarters of them are grade 1 listed.
I am grateful to be the Bishop of Hereford, not least because of my agricultural interests. My first degree was in agriculture and forest sciences, followed by a master’s in soil and water engineering. Prior to ordination, I spent a number of happy years as an agronomist, advising farming clients in the south of England. I also married into a farming family, so the success of the agricultural sector and the health of the rural economy is a particular interest. I am probably the only Bishop on this Bench who can tell you both how to grow an excellent wheat crop and how to build a ventilated improved pit latrine.
It is therefore a privilege that I should make my maiden speech in this debate sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Bird. It is also an honour to speak in the same debate as my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham, who has been a tireless campaigner for the economically disadvantaged across our country. Rural poverty is often hidden and can be affected by a wide variety of policy areas. It can also be concealed by statistics. Average income figures for the county of Herefordshire are unremarkable; however, they conceal a huge gulf between the wealthiest and the rest. Recent statistics show that 60% of the population were earning £1,000 a month or less. One-third of 18 year-olds leave the county never to return. There are few opportunities for a well-paid career locally.
It is said that Herefordshire is the poor man’s Cotswolds. I hope that is a model of development we will avoid. The depopulation of rural communities, to be replaced by large numbers of second homes, is not the way to create a thriving countryside. A report from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, published in November 2023, highlighted what it rightly describes as a
“chronic shortage of genuinely affordable housing”
and noted the impact this has on social housing waiting lists and the ability of people to stay in their own communities—the challenge here of maintaining the social fabric of our rural communities is acute.
The disparity between rural house prices and rural wages means that the pressure on these communities is particularly severe. This is a classic example of the importance of coherence in government policy, and recent government announcements in this area are most welcome. An unregulated housing market leads, especially in attractive rural areas, to a growth in second homes, Airbnbs and holiday lets, and the pricing of local people out of the market. Such rural depopulation impoverishes community life; we cannot think of poverty simply in financial terms.
The agricultural sector in my diocese is innovative and pioneering, and is one of our largest employers, both directly and in its support industries. However, smaller farmers are struggling. The transition from basic farm payment support to environmental land management schemes post Brexit, while welcome in many of its aims, has not been seamless. The gap in funding, particularly that which occurred at the transition last summer, added to the stress. Access to these schemes is more difficult for tenant and upland farms in particular. Suicides in the farming community in my area approach one per month despite the best efforts of local charities such as We are Farming Minds. This regular tragedy reminds us of the importance of personal welfare, which includes the certainty we all need in order to plan for the future. It is essential for farmers, and essential for the rest of us as they seek to run viable and profitable businesses which produce food for all of us. This is a public good.
Competitiveness must be a level playing field. For example, the UK-Australia free trade deal, the first agreed under the UK’s independent trade policy, opens up UK agricultural markets for Australian produce, regardless of whether or not it is produced to the same standards that are required by law of UK farmers. Henry Dimbleby, who led the Government’s national food strategy, said that a failure to adopt a “core standards” approach to animal welfare and the environment in our pursuit of free trade deals risks
“exporting the cruelty and the carbon emissions abroad”.
I urge the Government to be mindful of these risks in future trade deals.
I hope I may have opportunity to speak in debates on these issues in the future. Poverty is an issue that affects all communities, but in rural areas it runs the risk of being neglected in policy because of a smaller, more dispersed population. I look forward to being a voice in your Lordships’ House for the people of the diocese of Hereford and the thriving of our rural communities.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords it is a very great pleasure to follow the excellent maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, which demonstrates clearly his commitment to rural communities.
In fact, Hereford’s history with royalty goes back centuries. To go back in time, St Ethelbert, King of East Anglia, was murdered there by King Offa of Mercia—but I am glad there is now peace with the Welsh, and we welcome the right reverend Prelate’s input into Wales. He has important roles with our royalty. He took part in the Coronation, escorting Queen Camilla. He is head of the King’s Ecclesiastical Household and organises the royal chaplains in his role as the Clerk of the Closet. He has many interests, which include hedgehog preservation—which I am sure we all welcome—but the one that worries me is that he likes riding motorbikes. I have already spoken to him about that in my role as a doctor.
The right reverend Prelate’s background in technology and science and his long rural career are clearly bringing great insights into the problems affecting our rural communities, and we all look forward to hearing more from him.
I am glad the right reverend Prelate referred to some of his predecessors. In the 13th century, Bishop Thomas Cantilupe was excommunicated but died in Rome. His heart and bones were brought back to England, where the bones started to shed blood, and many miracles followed. The royal connection continued, as in 1349 King Edward III found himself cured on his way to the ceremony in which Thomas Cantilupe was decreed a saint.
The Mappa Mundi is of course well known. That great map of the world shows in one corner a little city sitting on the stumpy River Wye. Hereford is at once on the edge of the world and at the very heart of it, and now there sits our Bishop. As custodian of this treasure, the right reverend Prelate is working to regenerate our rural communities with clear passion. We cannot attribute to him that hurricanes hardly ever happen in Hereford, but we look forward to his further major contributions.
I turn to today’s debate, for which we must all thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his tireless work to advocate for those who cannot speak for themselves—all those who try but are not heard. I tried to map which departments should be involved in this issue. After all, we have the Prime Minister’s Office and 24 ministerial departments, and 20 non-ministerial government departments. They work with 423 government agencies and other public bodies, 11 high-profile groups and 19 public corporations, quite apart from the devolved Administrations. Going through that list was a discipline in itself, as for each, one could identify how they could influence poverty reduction.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bird, told us clearly, it is all too easy to think in terms of money, but we must not forget poverty of opportunity, poverty of aspiration and emotional poverty, all of which have profound negative outcomes in terms of life chances and life expectancy. In the missions on levelling up we heard about health and well-being, housing and crime. Crime erodes social capital, discourages investment and job creation, and increases levels of anxiety and fear within a population, who then feel insecure and easily become entrenched in poverty. Crime particularly undermines the prospects for young people. It works against the aspirations that our education system tries to instil.
I had the privilege of being a member of the Times Health Commission, which took evidence widely. We heard that people in the poorest areas are dying earlier but they are also living a greater share of their lives in ill health, often unable to work. The impact of income on health is stark: the poorest women are unhealthy for more than a third of their lives, compared with 18% for the richest, and children born into the poorest fifth of families in the UK are nearly 13 times more likely to experience poor health and educational outcomes by age 17 than the richest quintile.
Sadly, this bears out nationally. Dr Julian Tudor-Hart’s inverse care law is the principle that the availability of good medical or social care tends to vary inversely with the need of the population served. That is a key issue in the debates about health inequality, and particularly in relation to prevention of ill health. Public health measures are particularly important because, to quote Sir John Bell, who instigated UK Biobank, the origins of illness begin decades before the majority of illnesses become evident.
Less than 20% of our health is determined by medical interventions; the vast majority is driven by wider social factors, including diet, smoking, housing, alcohol, air quality, education, poverty overall and working conditions. I remind the House that Bevan had been responsible for housing as well as health when he founded the NHS. As he wrote,
“financial anxiety in time of sickness is a serious hindrance to recovery, apart from its unnecessary cruelty”.
People’s homes, their jobs and communities influence health; hence, you need a whole-system approach for a healthier, more prosperous Britain. Town plans determine housing, open spaces, transport infrastructure—all are important.
The influence of work security was clearly demonstrated by my friend and colleague Dr Norman Beale, a GP in Calne, Wiltshire. He studied the local population around the time of the complete closure of the Harris pork pie factory. As a local GP, with the nearest hospital 17 miles away, his practice was the first port of call for Harris employees and their families. Not surprisingly, he found a significant increase in morbidity in the workers made redundant when the factory closed, and a significant morbidity in their families.
A very important and unforeseen finding was that two years before closure, when it became apparent that the economic futures of the workers and their families were not secure, there was a higher morbidity. It began then. This has implications for the Department for Work and Pensions. The threat of redundancy is a stress equal to, if not greater than, the actual event. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham explained in his outstanding speech, extrapolation of Beale’s findings implies an increase in workload and cost for the National Health Service that is directly attributable to job insecurity and unemployment. That is a situation now facing our population in Port Talbot, south Wales.
Perhaps in line with my noble friend Lord Bird’s philosophy, we recently debated the Online Safety Act. I congratulate the Government on taking this forward, as there is now much to do to make the internet safer, protecting children and adults from online harms that lead to dangerous behaviours, suicide and self-harm, gambling and violence, and into poverty.
Professor Sir Michael Marmot’s extensive work on poverty has shown the devastating impact of poverty on life expectancy. For example, the gap between Stockton-on-Tees and Kensington and Chelsea exceeds 16 years—but there is hope. This has inspired some cities, such as Coventry, to become “Marmot cities” and actively tackle the multiple factors that lead to deprivation by engaging all departments across the different official and voluntary sector bodies, from local authorities to health service agencies. They are beginning to show improved outcomes. It is slow but it is reversing a trend.
We must not have poverty of ambition to improve the resilience of our population through a better start in life in physical and mental health. Our ambition must be to improve work and living conditions. We need the ambition to level up across all parts of policy and to climb out of the post-pandemic trough in which we now find ourselves.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, as the last speaker from the Back Benches, I will concentrate very much on my work on poverty. I was born in a poor country and have worked professionally as an economist on poverty for much of my career; I will not go into the details of my writing.
There is obviously a very complicated set of conditions, circumstances and consequences of poverty. Poverty is a global problem. A sociology scholar, Peter Townsend, wrote a very good book, Poverty in the United Kingdom, a fat book published by Penguin in the 1970s. He had an interesting idea. He conducted a survey asking people what sort of foods they ate: “Did you have roast beef for Sunday lunch”, things like that. People asked why he was doing it. He said, “You’re poor if you don’t feel part of the community where you live”. Something about having normal foods and things like that is very important. He conducted a very large survey with more than 2,000 observations and tried to establish that when you think about poverty, you think of people and whether they feel part of the community. It was very interesting.
A famous economist, Amartya Sen, has done a lot of work on poverty. He said, “You’re poor if you cannot develop all the potentialities that you have”. For example, it is not good enough to say that we all need a certain kind of income. If I am disabled or cannot walk, I need extra facilities and extra income to be able to do what you do. We have to think of the variety of circumstances that prevent people doing what they should be able to do.
I am going to say something fairly controversial. There is one answer. People do not like it but I have to say it. It is the only satisfactory answer that I know, and it is to have a basic income or a citizen’s income. I have been advocating that, in one way or another, for 30 or 40 years now. The idea is that just as we all have the right to vote, we should have a right to income. Some areas, such as Alaska, and some countries have implemented a basic income plan. The idea is that every adult who is eligible to vote should have a certain basic weekly or monthly income. Of course, this is a very controversial issue. People say, “Why should you pay people for not working? If they get money for not working, they will never work again and that is terrible”.
As the right reverend Prelate said, a lot of us do unpaid work, especially women. One way to think of poverty is that, at various stages of their lives, women have circumstances that force them into poverty, or at least into low-income jobs. Suppose we implement a policy I proposed in my recent book, The Poverty of Political Economy. We pay every woman who is on the electoral register £100 per weekend. I am being moderate because I do not want to frighten the horses too much. That is £5,000 per year. Let us say that there are 30 million women voters. I am making all this up, but I do not think it is impossible to finance that sort of thing. If we do that, one thing is quite certain regarding things such as child poverty, lack of heating in the house or lack of food. If the woman in the family gets an income supplement, she is going to spend it on the family as well as herself, on things such as household expenditure and heating. This has been shown in some countries that have tried it.
I know people say that income is not enough, but if you want a single policy, let us try it and let us make it universal. Rather than saying, “Let me first identify who is poor and give it only to them”, give it to everybody. Then, if you want to allow the people who are rich not to have it, they can either give it up, use it as part of a tax payment or whatever. Make it completely universal.
If you make it universal, many of the problems that families have from poverty would be tackled. Obviously, there will be problems of what to do for poor single men or elderly people, but we have pensions for the elderly. If we find that there are people who would not be helped because they are not in any of these categories, that is all right.
I am not the only person who advocates this. James Meade, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Cambridge, was another, as was a man whose name I am trying to remember—the FT’s economics correspondent, whose first name was Sam—
Lord Desai (CB)
Yes, it was Sam Brittan. Sam Brittan, James Meade and I were the three people advocating a basic income back in the 1960s and 1970s. This is not a new idea; there is a whole volume called the Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income, in which I have a contribution. The whole idea of a basic income is the most convincing way I have seen to tackle poverty.
There was a social justice commission appointed by John Smith, when he was leader of the Labour Party. I submitted evidence to it, but it came to nothing because he passed away.
I do not have any more time, but the whole idea of a basic income, paid to women on the electoral register, is something that we should explore seriously to see whether it works.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am quite overwhelmed by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and his very inspirational speech, and I thank him. Poverty is not a subject on which I normally speak, so this has been a real eye-opener for me and I have learned a lot. I also welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. His exposition of rural poverty bodes very well for the contribution that he will make to this House. I also bid farewell to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and thank him for all the work that he has done in this House.
I looked up definitions of poverty to try to make sure that I knew what I would be talking about. We all have an idea of what we think poverty is, and the government measures of poverty fall into several categories, but they seem to be a relative low income and an absolute low income, and they are all linked to the median income of people in our society. It rankles me that anyone can be defined by their poverty. I thought the concept from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was very interesting, although I know that it is much more complicated than any of us wants to go into today, but it was a useful thing to say that, above this income, you cannot be defined by your poverty.
A wider definition, which I like, is from the European Commission:
“People are said to be living in poverty if their income and resources are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living considered acceptable in the society in which they live”.
I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, would heartily agree with that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, would also be involved—I cannot refer to her without saying Martha; it is weird. She spoke very coherently and passionately about the importance of communication: if you do not have access to broadband or a mobile phone, that is very significant. How can you then participate in a world that is ruled by these communications? Most people in Britain would consider these to be essentials above the poverty line, and I totally agree.
As well as relatively low and absolutely low income, there is another category that has been discussed today, and that is destitution. It is defined by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as when people have been unable to afford two or more of the following essentials, in the past month: shelter, food, heating, lighting, clothing and footwear, basic toiletries or a net income after housing of less than £95 a week.
We have heard plenty of horror stories about the number of working poor and children in poverty. The only good-news story is that the least likely demographic to be in poverty is now pensioners, who were once the most likely. That just goes to show what government policy can achieve, given the will.
Sadly, the divide between the haves and the have-nots is getting wider, not narrower. We are in a vicious downward spiral. To transform it to a virtuous upward spiral, we need investment in the most important assets for any Government to have—their human resources. We have heard plenty of excellent suggestions in this debate, as well as stark reminders of the consequences of not implementing them.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests five key ways that the UK could tackle poverty. These are: to boost incomes and reduce costs by ending the poverty premium; to reboot universal credit to ensure that work pays and provide a stronger safety net for those people who are just about managing but are tipped over into poverty by events as simple as a broken boiler; to improve educational attainment and double investment in basic skills to ensure that 5 million more adults are literate and have basic maths skills; to overhaul the childcare system, giving children a better start in life and making work pay for their parents; to back employers and, following the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, focus on investment in the long term and not the short term.
There is also the issue of decent and affordable housing, and I would focus on health as well. My noble friend did so with great explanation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Desai. If you are sitting on a 7.5 million-long patient waiting list for treatment, how can you focus on anything else? The downward spiral in our nation will not stop until we do these kinds of things.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has calculated that the total cost of poverty is approximately £78 billion a year—about £1 in every £5 that we spend on social services. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, has a different figure, but it depends on what you add in. It is certainly one of the most important, damaging areas that we need to consider. There is an equation of investment to reward which multiplies the benefits to society exponentially, the longer that it is applied. It is so short-sighted not to invest in our people.
The downward spiral we are in today does not even take account of the social costs, which the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says are causing “widespread damage to society” and are a source of
“collective shame, social tension and anxiety”.
I do not know about noble Lords, but I do not want to live in a world like this. Unless we value our people and give them the resources and opportunities they need to be productive and to realise their potential, we are all impoverished, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said.
I feel that shame, in response to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bird—at how little I and so many of us in this House prioritise this issue. If we can put more emphasis on it, we can do it. We have done it with pensioners; they are not poor any more. But there are many different groups that we, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, have talked about. We need to work together, and I hope that this will kick-start something. We can do so much better in looking after our people, so that we live in a happier society that we can all appreciate and enjoy.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing this very important debate, for the truly magnificent work he has done over many years to alleviate poverty and homelessness, and for being a real champion of independence and dignity as that work was carried out. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham on his marvellous valedictory speech, on all the work he has done on child poverty and refugees, and on his passionate advocacy for those on the margins. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. I am a Hertfordshire girl, and the two are always getting mixed up with each other, but I know the difference. We very much look forward to working with him—and, I hope, helping him avoid the fate of some of his more unfortunate predecessors.
Last night, I attended my last full council meeting at Stevenage after 27 years as a councillor, and I will continue to serve the last of my 17 years as a county councillor until May 2025. This is relevant to this debate because, every day on the front line, councillors see the dreadful impact of entrenched poverty. My county council division, Bedwell, contains one of the most deprived wards in the country. The inequalities there get lost because of our being situated in the middle of relatively wealthy Hertfordshire, an issue the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to. But the inequalities are stark. People living in Bedwell will live seven years fewer than those in other parts of my town, and 12 years fewer than those in St Albans, which is 12 miles away. Their educational attainment will be significantly lower, and we are already seeing further dips in key stage 1 and 2 results following the pandemic. Levels of economic activity are hampered by poor physical and mental health. While those lucky enough to be in social housing fare a bit better, poor, inadequate, expensive and insecure housing in the private sector creates a multitude of issues. Almost worse than all of this is the dreadful impact poverty has on the life chances, confidence and aspirations of people who live in such difficult circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to this.
J.K. Rowling once said:
“Poverty entails fear, and stress, and sometimes depression; it means a thousand petty humiliations and hardships.”
There can be no worse indictment of the record of the last 14 years than that levels of poverty have got worse. More people are suffering those thousand petty humiliations and hardships. Worse still, more children are living in very deep poverty or worse, and 1 million children are living in destitution, as reported in the excellent Joseph Rowntree Trust report on poverty in 2024. There are 3.8 million people, including those 1 million children, living in destitution in the UK in 2024. They cannot afford to meet their most basic physical needs—to stay warm, dry, clean and fed. This figure has doubled since 2017. It is utterly shameful.
There is a disproportionate impact on families with more than three children, lone-parent families, families with younger children and some ethnic minority groups. Shockingly, some 50% of people in Pakistani or Bangladeshi households live in poverty, compared with 19% of people of white ethnicity. The high cost of living with a disability, whether poor physical or mental health, means that the poverty rate for these groups is 12% higher than for those who are not disabled. Those who take on unpaid carer responsibilities, who we should recognise as heroes for the saving they bring to the public purse, instead face increased poverty and an average financial pay penalty of £414 a month.
The petty humiliations and hardships are bad enough: children not able to go on school trips, wear proper school uniform, have shoes that fit them or sleep in their own beds with proper bedding; and managing without adequate sanitary protection. My own one was not being able to take part in cooking lessons at school because I was not allowed to take the ingredients on the list for what we had to make. I will never forget the story of the 10-year-old who was a promising opera singer. She and her mum lived in one room, and she did her homework sitting on her mum’s bed. In 10 years, she had never had a bed to herself. When you live like that, you cannot take friends home. It eats away at your self-confidence. It batters your aspirations for the future.
The key causes of such poverty are well documented, if perhaps not so well understood. The title of the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, points to one of the key reasons why it has seemed much harder than it should be to work across government to resolve some of these generational, underlying issues.
I was astonished to discover when I first came to your Lordships’ House that the broad sweep of work that we do in local government is just not replicated by the work of DLUHC here. As the convenors of coalitions across business and the public and voluntary sectors, leaders of councils draw together many different strands to effect the change they want to see achieve outcomes for their areas. They also have key responsibilities for adult social care and children’s services, tackling climate change, driving economic development, and transport infrastructure, which in government sit in entirely different departments. These differences were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox.
We know what would make a difference to tackling poverty, and I have no doubt that the levelling-up agenda was intended to address it, but without fundamental reform at government level, it is difficult to see how it will succeed. It was disappointing—not to say incomprehensible—that the Government refused to include tackling child poverty as one of the key levelling-up missions, in spite of the powerful case made by my noble friend Lady Lister and other noble Lords. That is why my party is proposing a mission-led Government which will see the structures determined by the outcomes, not the other way round, and a radical child poverty strategy.
It has been tragic to see the steps taken over the last 14 years that have exacerbated the situation. There is the hollowing out of the fantastically progressive Sure Start programme, the introduction of the two-child rule for benefits, the failure to address the economic activity needs of people with disabilities and poor mental health, the lack of an industrial strategy to deliver the skills we need, and the virtual abandonment of unpaid carers. It is shocking that we now have more food banks in our country than police stations. The imminent removal of the household support fund will make all of this worse.
This failure is particularly highlighted by the situation in housing, where we currently have over a million people on waiting lists, only 8,396 new social homes built last year and newly homeless families outnumbering newly built social homes by six to one. A decent, secure, affordable home is the absolute foundation stone for tackling all the other underlying causes of poverty. I grew up in a council house myself, so I speak from experience here. At a recent event in your Lordships’ House, the story of a family from one of our rural areas—they had been forced away from the area their family had lived in for generations, lived in inadequate accommodation for years and were then given the keys to their new social rented home in their own village—demonstrated yet again that housing matters.
We need to pull together the threads of tackling poverty across government. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, does not like politicians very much, but politics, like marriage, is a triumph of hope over experience. My party has a plan to tackle the causes of economic inactivity: our New Deal for Working People, childcare support through breakfast clubs in every primary school, targeted support for the over-50s and those who have left the labour market, overhauling the skills system so everyone has a chance to carve out a career and breaking down the barriers for disabled people at work, growing the economy so that we put money back into people’s pockets and make work pay, and delivering a bold new cross-government child poverty strategy.
To give people an affordable home, we need to get Britain building homes of all tenures, but particularly social homes. Labour is committed to that. We will make sure there are proper targets for delivery for every area based on housing need and bring forward new “new towns”.
Running our NHS into the ground has seen waiting lists for mental and physical health soar. We need to improve access to those healthcare systems to get people back into work. Carers UK estimates that 1.2 million carers live in poverty, so Labour will reform the NHS and ensure that both paid and unpaid carers are valued and supported. Nearly one in five pensioners—almost 2 million—now lives in poverty. The Government have failed on the uptake of help for poorer pensioners. I will take the opportunity to mention the WASPI generation, who were not adequately informed of the pension-age changes which left their financial and career planning in tatters as seven years were added to their pensionable age when they had planned to retire at 60.
Today’s debate has brought into sharp focus the scale of the challenge. But we must be in no doubt: we should measure our success as a country by the way we deliver for our most vulnerable. Surely, as a minimum, we want to see the levels of poverty and destitution we have heard about today eradicated. For me, that is the minimum we would expect of levelling up.
We should commit to a mission of tackling poverty across government, lifting the stress, anxiety and depression it causes, and removing the thousands of petty humiliations and hardships it causes. Leaving people in poverty and blaming them for their circumstances—something that is sadly endemic in the UK—can deprive the whole country of the talents, skills and potential those people have. We know it needs to be done, so even if it takes a general election to deliver that change, can we please get on with it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to close this important debate. It has allowed us to discuss many issues and challenges relating to poverty, with a focus on cross-government efforts to find a solution.
I will start by thanking all noble Lords for their valuable contributions today—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who has tirelessly championed vulnerable and homeless people over many years, for initiating this debate. I will say a little more because noble Lords should be in no doubt that I was very moved by his impassioned speech. He spoke about giving the poor more, mentioning it many times, and how this was not necessarily the way forward. He also spoke with great conviction about PECC—prevention, emergency, coping and cure. I listened carefully to his remarks. I am afraid that I may use the word “initiative” in some of my remarks, and I await the spears that will be thrown at me without, I have to say, any particular shield.
I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for her long service in local government. It is appropriate to acknowledge the time she spent in local government. She now gives us the benefit of her knowledge and skills in this House, and we are all the better for that.
I have listened with great interest to many ideas promulgated today, particularly about a co-ordinated approach to tackling poverty. I would like to reassure noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that we indeed have a co-ordinated approach. I will set out our stall in terms of what the Government have been doing. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, is right; we need to work together. That is extremely important.
I also acknowledge the outstanding maiden speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. I am glad, as has been said by others, that he has survived so far, given the past experiences—some rather gruesome—of his predecessors. It is especially helpful and important to have a representative from his Benches for rural issues, which is not to say that there are not other right reverend Prelates who cover rural issues. He has clearly made it his business to become steeped in many local issues in Hereford, and that bodes well, because I can tell that his style is to focus on detail, with cogent argument. The House is all the better for his presence here, and I await his further contributions—with some trepidation, if I happen to be at the Dispatch Box.
I fully recognise that poverty is a hugely complex subject and that many people who experience it often face a range of barriers that can make it difficult for them to move on with their lives. As the noble Lord, Lord Bird, acknowledged, it is incredibly difficult. I also recognise that tackling these complex underlying challenges cannot be done in isolation. This Government have a range of programmes that work across departmental boundaries to help people to address the challenges they face, so that they can take their first steps towards employment and better outcomes for themselves and their families.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is right that it is also about dignity and promoting and upholding the dignity of those who are suffering in poverty and destitution, without patronisation, if I can put it in that way.
I want at this point to acknowledge the valedictory speech of my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. We all wish him well for his retirement, and I personally thank him for his commitment and for raising many important issues during his time in the House. I have to say that I have appreciated his frankness in speaking truth to power—as the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, said, not about him but in other respects—and for his friendship. As many Peers have mentioned, the right reverend Prelate has consistently raised important matters relating to poverty, and this debate is certainly no different. I will be addressing many of the points he has raised, including raising the national living wage, reappraising of the value of unpaid work, the two-child limit, which is an old favourite that I shall be covering, the essentials guarantee, too much silo thinking and the need for a shift in national thinking, which was a big comment that he made. We will miss him and, if I may say so, he leaves certain important matters, including questions, ringing in my ears, and I will not forget that.
I shall set out some specific examples in a moment, but I want to start by reminding noble Lords of the significant support provided by my department to those on the lowest incomes. Before I get into detail on that, coming back to some questions that have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in terms of a poverty strategy, while there is no written strategy, we have been clear in our approach, which I will outline throughout my speech, and I hope that she will acknowledge this, focusing on both our welfare offer and our efforts to get people into sustainable employment and progress. There is more than that. She will expect these lines to be “trotted out”, as she put it, but I hope she does not think that way too much.
The noble Baroness asked an important question about poverty measurement. She might like to know that my department is developing so-called below average resources—BAR—statistics to provide a new, additional measure of poverty based on the approach proposed by the Social Metrics Commission, led by my noble friend Lady Stroud. The new BAR approach seeks to provide a more expansive view of available resources, both savings and inescapable costs, than the income measurement adopted under the DWP’s households below average income statistics. In developing this additional poverty measure, the DWP is working closely with stakeholders, including the SMC, other government departments and subject matter experts on this important point.
A strong welfare system is at the heart of ensuring support for those who need it, and our commitment to maintaining a strong safety net is reflected in the £276 billion that we expect to spend through the welfare system in Great Britain this financial year. Having uprated in line with inflation this financial year, we have announced a further increase of 6.7% in working age benefits for 2024-25, subject to parliamentary approval. The basic and new state pensions will be uprated by 8.5%, in line with earnings, as part of the ongoing triple lock.
We are also providing cost of living support worth £104 billion over the period 2022-23 to 2024-25. This is a cross-cutting package of support built on what we learned during the Covid-19 pandemic about supporting those most in need during challenging times. In particular, my department has worked closely with HMRC, HM Treasury and the devolved Administrations to deliver cost of living payments of up to £900 to more than 8 million households across the UK on eligible, means-tested benefits this financial year. I am pleased to say that DWP and HMRC delivered the third means-tested cost of living payment of £299 to most eligible households between 6 February and 22 February 2024.
We have not been delivering this support alone. My department has worked closely with local government—to be helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and perhaps also to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox—to deliver the household support fund. One hundred and fifty-three local authorities across England have used this funding to provide a variety of support to households to help with their essential costs. I am aware that there remains considerable interest across both Houses in the future of this fund. As with any issue, the Government continue to keep these matters under review in the usual way. As the House knows only too well, the current scheme continues to run until the end of March.
From April, we are increasing the national living wage for people aged 21 and over by 9.8% to £11.44, representing an increase of more than £1,800 to the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked about low pay, particularly with regard to insecure work. I have already mentioned the national living wage, but this record cash increase of £1.20 per hour means we will hit the target for the national living wage to equal two-thirds of median earnings for those aged 21 and over in 2024. This will bring an end to the low hourly rate for this particular cohort. The new in-work progression offer is now live across all jobcentres in Great Britain and we estimate that 1.2 million low-paid claimants are eligible for work coach support to help them to increase their earnings. Progression leads are working with key partners, including local government employers and skills providers, to identify and develop local progression opportunities.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford raised the importance of housing. As he will know, the Government are supporting people in paying their rent and will invest £1.2 billion on increasing the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile of local market rents. That will ensure that 1.6 million private renters in receipt of housing benefit or universal credit gain on average around £800 per year in additional help towards their rental costs in 2024-25. I believe that is a significant investment, worth about £7 billion over five years.
I said earlier that we do not work in isolation, and many of the complex issues faced by vulnerable people cannot be tackled through the welfare system alone. My department continues to work in partnership with other parts of central and local government to deliver the support that people need. Alongside the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, we are committed to working with local authorities to tackle homelessness and end rough sleeping for good—which we must do, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who is so steeped in this subject. I am proud of the progress that has been made in recent years and the continued work to meet all the commitments outlined in the cross-government rough sleeping strategy but, as I will be told by the noble Lord, there is much more to do, and I can see it myself when walking through the streets.
I turn to the important theme that was raised today of families and children. The Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department for Education are working together to deliver the Supporting Families programme. Between April 2015 and December 2023, the programme funded local authorities to help more than 612,000 families make sustained improvements in relation to the often complex problems that led to them joining the programme in the first place. A network of 300 specialised work coaches, the Supporting Families employment advisers, support the programme by providing employment support for families that are experiencing multiple disadvantages.
The departments also work together to deliver a range of support to help ensure that children thrive, which is another key theme that has come up today. The pupil premium will ensure that targeted funding continues to help schools to support disadvantaged five to 16 year-old pupils and to close attainment caps.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the importance of child poverty in an important part of her speech. I hope I can reassure her that we are taking this seriously and working across government on a range of matters to reduce child poverty. She shakes her head, so I clearly have more work to do.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham also raised the importance of child poverty and talked about the two-child policy. He asked again why the Government do not do the right thing and abolish it. We believe that families on benefits should face the same financial choices when deciding to grow their family as those supporting themselves solely through work. He will know only too well, and he has heard these lines from me before, that on 9 July the Supreme Court handed down the judicial review judgment on the two-child policy. The court found the policy lawful and not in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, no doubt we will continue to debate this matter.
In addition, there is collaboration between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education to provide support to families through Healthy Start, the nursery milk scheme and the school fruit and vegetables scheme, which together help more than 3 million children. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the Government have extended the free school meals eligibility several times, as she will probably know, and to more groups of children than any other Government over the past half a century.
The issue of child poverty was raised also by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, focusing on poverty in the north-east and with particular reference to the North East Child Poverty Commission, and I listened carefully to what she said. There are some figures that I could bring out, but the most recent data shows that the proportion of children in the north-east in absolute poverty after housing costs fell by seven percentage points in the three years to 2021-22, compared with the three years up to 2009-10. Having said all that, we understand that many families are still struggling—I am the first to say that—and this is work in progress. That is why some help has been given through the comprehensive cost of living support.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Armstrong, addressed the pupil premium. I emphasise, in response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, that the funding is on top of the £1 billion of recovery premium funding provided in the 2022-23 and 2023-24 academic years, following over £300 million delivered in 2021-22.
On our approach to poverty, while it is absolutely right that we maintain a strong welfare safety net for those in need—I emphasise that—particularly during challenging economic times, we have always believed that, for those who can, the best way to help people to improve their financial circumstances is through work. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and I alluded to this earlier, mentioned prevention and cure. That is an answer, but not the only answer. We believe that prevention and cure are possible through getting people into work and I hope he will agree with that, although, as I say, it may not provide all the answers.
Our approach is based on the clear evidence around the important role that work, especially full-time work, can play in lifting people out of poverty. This is why, with over 900,000 vacancies across the UK, our focus is firmly on helping people take their first steps into work and to progress towards financial independence. We want everyone who can to be able to find a job and to progress and thrive in work, whoever they are and wherever they live. To ensure that support meets the needs of people across the country, my department offers a national programme of welfare and employment support, delivered through the Jobcentre Plus network across Great Britain.
My department also has local teams that specialise in working in partnership with local government and other local stakeholders, including businesses and communities—to be helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox—to understand each area’s needs. This place-based approach is crucial in helping to address the disparities that exist between regions and underlines our commitment to spreading opportunity and unleashing potential across the UK.
Of course, we recognise the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the link between health and work. That includes mental health conditions, which she particularly focused on. The joint DWP/DHSC Work and Health Unit was set up in 2015 in recognition of the significant link between work and health and to reflect the shared agenda of boosting employment opportunities for disabled people and people with health conditions.
I want to cover some of the questions raised; I hope I can cover them in the remaining time. Notably, these questions were from the noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Loomba, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. This goes back to strategy. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bird, was probably asking the Government for a ministry of poverty, not a Ministry of Justice. I may be wrong in interpreting what he was trying to say. I hope I have shown in my speech that we saw during the pandemic the Department for Work and Pensions consistently working well across government to support the most vulnerable households.
There is a lot of work going on across government and I believe that there is joined-up thinking. In addition to Ministers meeting counterparts in other departments, officials work regularly with colleagues across government to better understand the multidimensional nature of poverty and to craft effective policy. This includes a cross-government senior officials’ group on poverty, as well as bilateral meetings and meetings with external anti-poverty stakeholders.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, asked about the five-week wait. It is not possible to award a universal credit payment as soon as a claim is made, as the assessment period must run its course before the award of UC can be calculated. This process ensures that claimants are paid their correct entitlement, based on verified information and actual earnings, and prevents significant overpayments from occurring.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, made an important point about digital exclusion particularly affecting lower-income households. I reassure her that we are aware of this. She is right and she is a great champion in this area. The costs of being connected online can be a barrier for low-income households. The DWP has worked with DCMS and Ofcom to influence broadband providers to support extending eligibility for new broadband social tariffs to low-income households. As a result, some broadband providers have made their new social tariffs available to all UC claimants and claimants of other means-tested benefits. The DWP has worked with Ofcom to promote awareness of these social tariffs to DWP stakeholders and work coaches throughout our Jobcentre Plus network, who can then signpost claimants to apply for broadband social tariffs.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of chambers of commerce, and I listened carefully to what she said. I think my speech set out, as I said earlier, some emphasis on the close cross-government working with local authorities. I agree that it is vital that local authorities also work collectively to build local leadership, and I will certainly take her remarks back.
The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spoke about funding for local government. I reassure them that the Government have announced additional measures for local authorities in England, worth £600 million—the noble Baroness will know that.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke about mental health. I alluded to that earlier, but we recognise the challenges of those in poverty, which is why we are investing an additional £2.3 billion a year in mental health services.
I should draw my remarks to a close. There are a couple of questions, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who made interesting points about a universal basic income. I will write to the noble Lord on his interesting idea, which is not new to me. I will expand upon it and perhaps give him a full answer.
I reassure the House that Ministers continue to work across and beyond departmental boundaries to ensure that we take a co-ordinated approach to supporting vulnerable and low-income households. We look forward to working with all noble Lords across the House to continue to support those in need. This is a very important subject, and I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for once again raising it. It certainly is important for the Government.
Lord Bird (CB)
I thank the Minister very much. I thoroughly enjoyed the whole of that debate, which was wonderful. I shall gather it all together, read it and distribute it to my friends and people who I work with, because it covered everything, including the kitchen sink.
I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. I am surprised he did not report on the fact that, every year, hundreds and hundreds of people go to Hereford, to a little vipassana silent retreat. I was there for 10 days over the new year break and had a wonderful time in the countryside of Hereford—it is a great pleasure to go there. I have been there four times, and the only reason I can carry on in life is that I can go somewhere and be quiet for that time.
The figures I came up with on the cost of poverty are very much based on what I have been told: that 50% of the time that the NHS spends on health, for instance, is spent on trying to make the poorest among us as healthy as possible. Some 34% of the money that goes into our classrooms is spent on the damage of poverty that is brought there, and that 90% of our Ministry of Justice’s bill, and all bills for crime, are to do with poverty. If you had a ministry of poverty and could co-ordinate and bring everything together, you might be able to close down half of the NHS. You might also be able to close down the Ministry of Justice—or just call it the “Ministry of Middle-Class Justice”, for all the middle-class people who are increasingly doing wrong.
I thank all noble Lords for doing this. I was with a group last night who said to me, “The idea of creating a ministry of poverty prevention sounds very Orwellian”. I reminded these people that in 1948, when we created the National Health Service, it was described even in those early days as Orwellian. I would love everybody to look at the invention that I am hoping will happen in my lifetime: an NHS, but called a “MoP”. Let us mop up poverty and get rid of it. Let us apply everything to get rid of it, and use MoP to do it, because I cannot see it happening unless we converge all the energies that the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Burt, the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, and everybody else has talked about today. God bless and thank you.
Royal Assent
Thursday 22nd February 2024
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2024 View all Finance Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 5 February 2024 - (5 Feb 2024)
Inter Faith Network
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend Felicity Buchan to an Urgent Question in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“May I thank the right honourable gentleman for raising the issue of the Inter Faith Network? I am grateful for all his work as chair of the All-party Group on Faith and Society and as a long-standing advocate for dialogue across faiths.
As my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government said during an Adjournment debate on this on 10 January, we know full well the role that faith communities play in our society. We are extremely supportive of efforts by faith groups and others to bring together people of different faiths and beliefs.
The Secretary of State wrote to the co-chairs of the Inter Faith Network on 19 January this year to inform them that he was minded to withdraw the offer of funding for the 2023-24 financial year. This was because of the appointment of a member of the Muslim Council of Britain to the board of trustees of the IFN. As the House will be aware, successive Governments have had a long-standing policy of non-engagement with the MCB. The appointment of an MCB member to the core governance structure of a government-funded organisation therefore poses a reputational risk to the Government.
The Secretary of State invited the IFN to make representations on this matter, which it subsequently did. The Secretary of State carefully considered the points raised by the IFN before concluding that its points were outweighed by the need to maintain the Government’s policy of non-engagement with the MCB, and the risk of compromising the credibility and effectiveness of that policy. Inter-faith work is valuable, but that does not require us to use taxpayers’ money in a way that legitimises the influence of organisations such as the MCB.
The department regularly reminds our partners, including the IFN, of the importance of developing sustainable funding arrangements rather than relying on taxpayers’ money, which can never be guaranteed. The potential closure of the organisation is therefore a matter for the IFN, as an independent charity, and not the Government. The Government are and continue to be fully supportive of developing and maintaining strong relationships across faiths and beliefs”.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. Our country is strengthened by the richness and diversity of the faith traditions here, but the Government have a responsibility to help to facilitate positive relationships between different faith communities—all the more so in these difficult times.
We have now had some explanation of what has gone on here, but there are outstanding questions. First, funding for the current financial year was offered to the IFN last July, so can the Minister explain when the decision was taken to withdraw it and, crucially, whether the charity was told before the work being funded during this year had been undertaken? Secondly, have the Government made plans to make up for this loss of capacity by supporting other work facilitating relationships between faith communities?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I can assure the noble Baroness that we have kept the IFN informed of every move that we have made on its funding issues, and it has had the chance to discuss them with us. As for other funding, I absolutely agree with her that work facilitated and supported by government is really important for inter-faith work. I personally go and see a lot of inter-faith work going on, and we are still supporting more than 800,000 a year in organisations—people such as Near Neighbours and others that are doing this important work in our communities.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, whichever way you look at this, the optics are not good. It was news to me that the Government do not engage with the Muslim Council of Britain. Our group met its new, and first female, secretary-general only a few weeks ago. I have two questions for the Minister. First, this has been a long-standing non-relationship, promoted quite a few years ago; is it not time that the Government reviewed this non-relationship with the Muslim Council of Britain, particularly in the light of the current situation and the fact that it works with over 500 organisations to promote knowledge and understanding of the Muslim faith and counter islamophobia? Secondly, will the Government review this decision? It is petty, wrong-headed and counterproductive. It does not put the Government in a good light—but it could if the Government were prepared to review it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is not just this Government; successive Governments of different colours have had a long-standing policy of non-engagement with the MCB. British Muslims are a crucial part of Britain’s history and our way of life in Britain today. Each and every Muslim in every community in every corner of the United Kingdom should know that their religion will never act as a barrier to achieving their ambitions. The Government recognise the discrimination and intolerance faced by British Muslims, particularly at this time. We will not tolerate anti-Muslim hatred in any form and will seek to stamp it our wherever it occurs. This does not mean, however, that the Government have to use public funds to support the influence of organisations such as the MCB. We have no plans to review this decision.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I speak as a founder member of the Inter Faith Network back in the 1980s, when it was very difficult to get people of different religions into the same room to talk to each other. That initiative owed much to Brian Pearce, a former civil servant. The Inter Faith Network has done some remarkably good work, particularly in the celebration of the millennium and getting religion in the census. There has been a difficulty in this country in that there is a sort of rule that people cannot talk about religion—people from different religions would come together and talk about anything but the commonalities and differences in their religions. There has been movement in the direction of actually discussing the importance of commonalities and building on them. It is sad that this closure is happening at this time, especially as the reason given is that the board contains a member of the Muslim Council of Britain. It is not a proscribed organisation, and it is better to have people with different views talking together to move the country forward in respect for one another.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we have safe places where people of all faiths can discuss the issues surrounding faith and their relationships and to get together in communities. I thank him for his work, including in the early days of the Inter Faith Network. It was funded by the department from 2007 and we have given it £4 million since then. We have always said to it, however—as we say to any organisation that we fund—that it has to diversify its funding streams in order to become sustainable. No organisation can be reliant for ever on government funding, because we just do not know what is going to happen. I cannot reiterate the views of the Government again.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the work of the Inter Faith Network. As has been stated, surely the optics of this are not good. I would like to ask the Minister how far non-engagement extends, because surely, in our society, we want to encourage dialogue, even with those organisations that may express some views with which we disagree. To not be willing to engage at all with an organisation that has not been proscribed goes against all the efforts being made to bring our society together—it seems very strange.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not particularly think it is strange. It is a long-standing decision not to engage with the MCB. The Government are doing what successive Governments have done. The person was on the council as a member, but it was when they became a trustee that things became more difficult for the Government.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Since it has been a long-standing arrangement that the Muslim Council of Britain should not be regarded as an organisation that the Government talk to, would the Government now be prepared to review that?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I cannot say. Reviews like that are carried out by the Home Office. I will certainly take that back and ask the question but, as far as I know, there are no plans to look at it again.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Does the Minister think that the Government’s action in this case is proportionate, given the huge importance in our society of interfaith dialogue and the fact that one person seems to be spoiling the show? Surely the Secretary of State would have a broader vision than that.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Secretary of State carefully considered the implications of this and of ceasing the funding, including the potential impact on the Inter Faith Network itself and interfaith relations in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord is absolutely right: interfaith work is valuable, but there are very many more positive examples of thriving initiatives across the country that bring people together. That does not require us to use taxpayers’ money in a way that legitimises the influence of organisations such as the MCB.
Water and Sewage Companies: Directors’ Remuneration
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for reforming remuneration of the directors of water and sewage companies operating in England.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate. Privatisation of water in England has not yielded the promised benefits to the people, but directors of these companies are highly rewarded for inflicting at least five major harms to customers, the environment, taxpayers and society generally. First, in pursuit of private profits, more than 1 trillion litres of water are lost to leaks from crumbling infrastructure each year. Secondly, tons of sewage are dumped in rivers and seas, threatening human health, marine life and biodiversity; only 14% of rivers in England have a good ecological status, and no rivers have a good chemical status. Thirdly, customer bills in England have risen in real terms without commensurate increase in quality of service. Fourthly, investment in infrastructure has been very low. Fifthly, companies are habitual tax avoiders. In the words of a man called Michael Gove, who gave a speech on 1 March 2018:
“Last year Anglian, Southern and Thames paid no corporation tax. Indeed Thames has paid no corporation tax for a decade. Ten years of shareholders getting millions, the chief executive getting hundreds of thousands, and the public purse getting nothing”.
Little has changed since 2018. It is more of the same. England’s nine major water and sewage companies are more than 90% owned by overseas investors scattered across China, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Caymans, Qatar, the UAE and elsewhere. They have little or no physical contact with polluted rivers and crumbling infrastructure and have done absolutely nothing to curb undeserved executive pay. Their main concerns are returns and dividends. Since privatisation, around £75 billion has been paid in dividends, funded by debt and squeezes on investment.
Puny fines have not curbed the lust for bigger profits, pay packets and bonuses. Since 2010, Anglian Water has been sanctioned 74 times and fined £6.2 million. Thames Water has been sanctioned 98 times and fined £175 million. Yorkshire Water has been sanctioned 94 times and fined £109 million. Severn Trent has been sanctioned 82 times and fined £8 million. United Utilities has been sanctioned 215 times and fined £6.6 million. Despite these offences, the directors are rewarded and their pay packets keep getting bigger. According to data published by the Liberal Democrats—I must give credit where it is due—in 2021, 2022 and 2023 executives of water companies in England collected remuneration of £70 million, including nearly £41 million in bonuses. Why are these bonuses paid? Is it not the duty of directors to provide clean water, plug leaks, ensure water security and the proper disposal of wastewater, and renew infrastructure? If it is, there is no case whatever for giving them bonuses.
People are concerned about undeserved rewards at water companies, so the Government periodically soothe public anxieties with promised reforms. For example, on 1 March 2018 the then Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, lamented excessive executive pay at water companies, but absolutely nothing changed. On 3 July 2018, in a paper titled Consultation on Revised Board Leadership, Transparency and Governance Principles, Ofwat promised greater transparency over executive pay, but it remains elusive. In June 2023, Ofwat said that it would review bonus payments, and it repeated that on 8 November, but nothing changed.
On 11 February 2024, the Government announced they are considering banning bonuses for directors
“if a company has committed serious criminal breaches … That could include successful prosecution for a Category 1 or 2 pollution incident—such as causing significant pollution at a bathing site or conservation area—or where a company has been found guilty of serious management failings”.
Those words are quite interesting. Words such as “could” are vague—not “will” or “must”—and the emphasis is on multiple breaches and failings. How many do there need to be before the Government think that something needs to be done? Ripping off customers and taxpayers is simply not considered a failing in the Government’s thinking, although most people absolutely are concerned about it. I am sure the Minister will tell us more about it.
What if pollution is deadly but not criminal as defined by law? After all, the Government have authorised these companies to continue polluting rivers until 2050. I hope the Minister will tell us why, after 14 years of doing nothing, the Government are now making some vague gestures in the year of a general election.
Ofwat, which has presided over degradation, is somehow now expected to enforce curbs on bonuses. Ofwat is a failed and conflicted regulator. Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who previously worked at Ofwat. In a letter to the Ofwat CEO, dated 21 February 2024, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee expressed strong concerns that Ofwat cannot exercise its full range of powers as they are now, because that might affect the stability of the sector and upset water companies. How do the Government expect it to deal with bonuses and executive pay? I hope the Minister will expand on that.
The Government have done nothing to create pressure points for honest, ethical practices by addressing the shortcomings of the shareholder-centric model of corporate governance, enhancing democracy or empowering long-suffering stakeholders in water companies. I will sketch out what I think needs to be done.
Whether water is owned privately or through a not-for-profit company, we need durable reforms grounded in democracy and public accountability. First, remuneration contracts of water company directors should be publicly available so that everyone has a clear idea of what they are getting. The sanitised snippets in the annual accounts—which I have read—are very economical with information and rarely mention that chauffeur-driven cars and private school and medical fees also form part of executive pay packages. There is complete silence on these things. I have this from an insider, by the way.
Secondly, all customers should be empowered to vote on executive remuneration policy and amounts. A 51% vote should be needed to approve directors’ basic pay. If directors have polluted rivers, did not plug leaks, did not invest adequately or exploited customers, it is extremely unlikely that they will get their pay. Customers will simply not reward them for it. This is a powerful pressure point for securing socially responsible practices.
In addition, if bonuses are to be awarded for what I call extraordinary performance, there needs to be extraordinary approval for those bonuses. That would mean that at least 90% of customers must approve the bonus. This is a fairly common standard for approving bonuses in places such as Sweden. They are not simply handed out willy-nilly because somebody thinks they deserve it.
I am sure the Minister will oppose my suggestions—I am quite prepared for that—but for the last 35 years, Ofwat and Governments have failed to tackle the scandal of excessive pay for the poor performance of water companies. We need to empower and trust the people. If the Minister disagrees with empowering people, I hope he will tell the House why people cannot be trusted but some administrator at Ofwat can be, even though it has failed ever since privatisation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I start with my declaration of interests, as on the register. I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Water Group. Last year, I undertook to chair a study organised by CIWEM, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, into bioresources strategy. For a number of years, I worked with the water regulator for Scotland, the Water Industry Commission.
At the outset, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on securing this debate, and on his forensic examination of the subject. I, for one, think that privatisation has been a success. We can always improve upon it, and that is the purpose of today’s debate. It has delivered benefits, but there is always cause to look at the regulation.
I applaud the Government for the action they have taken on holding directors to account, particularly the instruction they have given to Ofwat and the work Ofwat has done on executive pay. It has been very clear that companies need to demonstrate that performance-related executive renumeration is linked to performance for customers and the environment. In June last year, Ofwat confirmed that, where companies do not so demonstrate that executive pay is linked to performance, it will stop companies recovering the cost of bonuses from customers. So, one of the points the noble Lord raised has already been addressed by both the Government and Ofwat. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister about what further action is envisaged.
Water companies have a public role to play in other areas, such as flood defences, particularly by working with farmers and others. I will spend some time outlining how that work could be done. If we are to follow through the thrust of the title of this debate and link renumeration to performance, I hope that my noble friend the Minister and his department will look at the corollary of that: giving water companies the tools to do the job. The Government promised in this place and the other place that Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 will be implemented, as it has been implemented in Wales. Will my noble friend tell us today, or in writing after the debate, what the programme is for that?
It is extremely important that we stop the automatic right to connect, whereby water companies are expected to connect pipes from three, four or five-bedroom homes to antiquated Victorian pipes that simply cannot take the amount of wastewater and sewage coming out of new-build houses. The Government must insist on mandatory SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—for all new builds, and I hope they will also commit to an ambitious programme of retrofitting sustainable drains to existing developments. Obviously, that raises the difficult question of who will maintain the SUDS, and I can well imagine that that might be the cause of the delay we are suffering in implementing Schedule 3. If my noble friend could report back on that, that would be immensely helpful.
The Government also need to attack the vexatious problem of building on inappropriate places such as flood plains. Building on flood plains is increasingly having the undesirable effect of mixing sewage with floodwater in combined sewers, which then pollutes existing developments. That has very negative public health consequences, causing people living there to leave. Will the Government also look carefully at making national highway authorities, not local authorities, responsible for water run-off from the major highways, which mixes with the combined sewers and is an additional source of flooding?
Will the Government also look favourably on rewarding farmers for storing water on flood land? According to the NFU, over half the best, most fertile farmland in Britain is flood plains. The farming community and landowners are performing a public good by preventing communities downstream flooding. However, there is great uncertainty as to how farmers can benefit from public funds. The NFU is seeking urgent clarification from Defra as to who will be eligible to apply for both the flood recovery framework and the farming recovery fund, and what level of damages can be recovered. Equally, there should be a simple recognition of the public good that farmers deliver in that regard.
I am very keen on and excited by the prospect of introducing more private sector funding from both farmers and water companies. Will my noble friend the Minister and his department look at that? That could include a whole-catchment area approach, and more Slowing the Flow schemes such as those successfully implemented in Pickering, protecting downstream communities from flooding.
I welcome the level of investment announced in the five-year business plan that Ofwat has yet to approve. It will factor in £96 billion in the next investment period, 2025-30, of which £11 billion will be allocated to reduce overflow spills. That is very welcome indeed.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sikka for securing this debate and for his powerful speech, the majority of which I support. Like him, I will make a suggestion, and will add to his contribution—although I suspect that it will not find any great favour with the government spokesperson.
The background to this is that about three weeks ago, our shadow Minister for Defra, Mr Steve Reed MP, came to speak at the Labour Peers group weekly meeting about his Defra brief. As your Lordships might have expected, he talked about the long-standing problems so fully catalogued by my noble friend Lord Sikka: the difficulties faced by not just the Labour Party or other individual parties but the country, due to the water industry’s performance failure. He described issues on which he felt that Labour will have to take firm action. Contrary to the view of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, there is now a feeling within the country that we need to move away from such privatisations, which are not delivering in the way people thought they would.
I suggested to our shadow Minister that if he was looking to get better performance from the water companies—indeed, there has also been a failing on the part of the regulator—we might look to make changes. A novel way might be for the Labour Party to dust down the programme it ran when it first came to power: public/private partnerships. I speak with some experience in this area; I was appointed government director of the public/private partnership that was established for the National Air Traffic Services. As I saw it, the failing there was too much emphasis on the public side, with government representatives, and not enough involvement of the wider interests that constitute the public interest.
I suggested to the shadow Minister that we explore revamping the public/private partnership concept, and that we look in particular at the public side. Yes, the Government would have a part to play, but we should also involve local authorities and charities. Indeed, we might even contemplate floating shares, so that members of the public with a particular interest, especially those in rural areas, could buy into the public element. We would then end up with 51% owned by the public, constituted in the way I have just described, and a minority shareholding remaining with the existing private owners.
If a privatised company is not performing particularly well—there is certainly one such in this area—it should be told that unless it can improve, meet the legal requirements and act in a much more socially responsible way, it will be faced with a public/private partnership takeover. In this way, we would get better performance from that company, push up overall performance and, in turn, have an impact on the other privatised water companies. However, if they do not respond, we should, in turn, extend PPPs throughout the industry. Indeed, the concept could be applied way beyond just the water industry. Other industries have been privatised, and the performance of some of the companies is pretty abysmal and way below what the public would expect.
The Minister’s response will not, I expect, be of great favour. I am not sure what my Front Bench will say, but I have already run it by our shadow Treasury Minister. I hope that when we write our manifestos, there is a very firm view expressed by the prospective Labour Government about what we need to do within the water industry and that some of it is very much along the lines of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to make a brief contribution to this debate. I congratulate my noble friend on securing it and on how he introduced it. It is very well timed. This is an election year and this is an issue that is not going away. The problems have not yet been solved and a change of government is likely to bring a welcome and overdue change of policy. To go to the heart of what I want to say, the country has reached the end of its patience with the current situation. Sewage continues to pollute our rivers and coastlines, and those in charge—the directors of water and sewage companies, mentioned in the title of today’s debate—continue to be paid handsomely and, in too many cases, continue to receive bonus payments which seem absurdly large and utterly unjustified in view of the failures over which they preside. Since 2019, about £26 million has been spent in bonuses.
I have two straightforward observations. First, water is essential to life and access to clean and safe water is a basic human right. Therefore, those engaged in companies that provide water and sewage services are engaged in a business unlike any other. I personally do not support a privatised water system, but that is not the subject of today’s debate. Secondly, not a single member of this House on any side wants sewage to be spilt, but it is still happening. We know that sewage discharges mostly occur during heavy rain, when sewer capacity is overwhelmed. Sewage releases are often the result of geography and water company infrastructure, but have the water companies been doing enough about it? In my view, they have not.
I am sure that the Minister will reply referring to the improvements being made, the role of Ofwat being beefed up, that there is consultation going on and so on, which is all very well, but that is not enough, When William Blake wrote his poem about England’s green and pleasant land, even his vivid imagination could not comprehend the capacity of modern water companies to degrade our landscape. What we are talking about here is neither green nor pleasant.
Shortly after I arrived in the House, having been elected, I found myself listening to debates on the Environment Bill. I remember in particular the amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, which sought
“progressive reductions in the harm caused by discharges of untreated sewage”.
I thought to myself, “What a modest amendment”, but I remember the outcry because of the Government’s opposition to it. As the House will recall, fearful of being defeated, the Government introduced their own amendment, which they claimed would satisfy public opinion and the noble Duke’s original intentions. However, the Government’s version was weaker. First, it was confined to storm overflows and not the sewerage system as a whole. Secondly, there was no specific duty on Ofwat or the Environment Agency to ensure compliance. Thirdly, it referred to adverse impacts rather than reductions in harm, which gives water companies plenty of wiggle room to keep polluting, which is exactly what has happened.
I can give an example too; I hope that the House will not mind. I found this on the website of a Government Back-Bencher whom I have never met. She says that
“a number of constituents have raised the issue of sewage being dumped in our waters. Along with others, I am horrified by the images from across Teignbridge showing this taking place and I believe we are all in agreement that steps need to be taken to resolve this troubling issue”.
Well, your Lordships may have read in the Times on Monday that nearly 39,000 sewage spills have been recorded in marginal constituencies held by the Conservative Party in 2022—more than the marginal constituencies of MPs from any other political party. That will concentrate the mind. The Times concluded that 56% of people would consider raw sewage discharges when they vote in the next election. No wonder this is likely to be an election issue. There are plenty of examples.
In 2020, I believe there were more than 400,000 raw sewage dumps into England’s rivers and seas or more than 3 million hours of spillages. In one incident, in June 2022, raw sewage spilled into Windermere lake for three hours. In 2020, Severn Trent was fined £2 million by Cannock magistrates for illegally spilling more than 260 million litres of raw sewage into the River Trent. Finally—I think I am right about this—in the High Weald of Sussex, Surrey and Kent, almost 27 hours of sewage releases took place in a single year. If we cannot protect the vital ecosystems of our areas of outstanding natural beauty, we are failing badly. I could go on, but I will not. The bad news is that they still continue.
Who is responsible for not having a proper system of planning—who, if not the directors of water companies? People increasingly feel that there is something really wrong in a system that does not apportion any meaningful responsibility for what is happening on those who are legally most responsible. In short, is it not time to get tougher with the role of directors of water and sewage companies? I think the answer is yes, and this debate is well-timed to put the directors of water companies on notice.
The next Labour Government should, and I think will, take decisive action to expand the regulatory powers of Ofwat to ensure that directors of water companies that fail to meet high environmental standards on sewage pollution will not profit from breaking the law. How can anyone seriously argue that they should benefit by doing so?
I am sure that the Minister will tell the House about the action being taken and improvements being made. The House of Lords Library briefing helpfully tells us a bit more about that, but I would like the Minister to confirm that the proposed bonus ban will cover directors and board members. Finally, can he say when the proposed changes will come into effect? I am sure that the Government are as aware as anyone of the political sensitivity of the issue; the Government have been behind public opinion on this, and we will know soon enough whether the electorate decides to place its faith in a future Labour Government to tackle these issues.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to be able to make a brief contribution in the gap. All the contributions have confirmed the relevance and timeliness of my noble friend’s debate, and I congratulate him. I want to reiterate the urgent need for action. Our sewage crisis has become a scandal: negligence, complacency and paying dividends to shareholders, rather than investing in infrastructure, have allowed our rivers, lakes and the seas around our coastal areas to become open sewers. My party is determined that evidence of continued sewage pollution should lead to a criminal offence.
Tuesday’s Channel 4 documentary on the subject alerted the whole country to the repugnant truth that deliberate discharging of raw sewage has been allowed to continue, and has even been encouraged, while 10 water bosses last year received bonuses totalling £2.5 million. I welcome the recent announcement in the other place that water bosses are set to be banned from receiving bonuses if the company has committed serious criminal breaches. As my party has said, it is high time that we made the polluter, not the public, pay.
Instead of asking customers to pay more for their water during a cost of living crisis, we should compel water bosses to count the cost. Senior executives should face personal criminal liability for extreme and persistent law-breaking. Furthermore, my party wants to introduce automatic fines for illegal discharges of a size that water bosses cannot ignore. I would like to see Ofwat have the power to force all companies to monitor every single water outlet.
After years of appalling spills—although I take issue with the word, as it somehow implies accidental leakages—firmer action is desperately overdue. Ofwat announced measures to ban future bonuses for bosses of companies that were found to have harmed the environment last year. Given that Ofwat is still to consult on whether the plan would actually go ahead, can the Minister assure us that the Government’s recently announced proposals will be enough to clean up our polluted waters? What steps will they be taking to reduce reliance on water companies’ self-monitoring?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on his excellent introduction to this extremely important subject. England’s water system is at breaking point. Water companies are responsible for one of the worst environmental crises in the UK: the illegal dumping of sewage into rivers, lakes and coastlines through storm overflows.
The scale of the sewage crisis afflicting our rivers and coastal waters is staggering to comprehend. In 2021, the water companies were responsible for 368,966 spills, during which raw sewage and untreated wastewater were pumped into aquatic environments for a total of 2,650,290 hours. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has given some excellent statistics on this.
England is home to 85% of the earth’s chalk streams—rare and precious habitats that the Government and water companies should recognise that they have a particular duty to protect, instead of allowing them to be devastated by raw sewage overflows. If my colleague Lord Chidgey were still with us, he would have something to say about this.
The Conservatives have done nothing to stop water companies polluting our rivers with sewage. They have consistently voted against tougher action to stop illegal sewage overflows, while the water regulator, Ofwat, has said that only six of the 11 sewerage companies met their sewage overflow targets. This is unacceptable.
Of the 827 illegal dumps of sewage in 2021 and 2022, only 16 resulted in prosecution. This means that this Government have effectively decriminalised the dumping of sewage in our rivers, lakes and coastal waterways. It is sadly now true that it is cheaper for water companies to pay the fine for this illegal activity than for them to invest in the infrastructure to future-proof and clean up our waterways. The cost of fines is written into their business plans.
Since privatisation, £65.9 billion has been paid out in water company dividends. There was a 20% increase in executive pay last year, and Britain’s privatised water and sewerage companies paid £1.4 billion in dividends in 2022, up from £540 million the previous year. This was despite rising household bills and a wave of public outcry over sewage leaks.
This has gone on long enough. Water companies must be brought to account for their actions. The Government must ensure that water companies invest their profits now, not by 2050. That is too far away. We need to ensure that the water in our lakes, rivers and seas is not filled with sewage. Discharging raw sewage is a risk to environmental health, public health, animal welfare and our economy. It should not continue.
British people are fed up with their beaches being closed due to sewage while water company executives are making millions and holidaying abroad. The Liberal Democrats continue to call for the Government to instigate a sewage tax. This would be a 16% tax on pre-tax profits, providing a £340 million fund to clear up the rivers that have been damaged and to fix the sewerage system. This would be in addition to the current 19% rate of corporation tax.
With only 14% of English rivers in a good ecological state, reforming water and sewerage companies is essential. We on these Benches support a public benefit company model for water companies, so that particular economic and environmental policy objectives must be considered explicitly in the running of the companies. While sewage is pumped into our waterways and our water infrastructure is leaky and outdated, water firms are handing out large profits to overseas investors and bonuses to their CEOs. The British taxpayer deserves better.
It is time for water company reform. Ofwat and the water companies should set minimum criteria for the value, scope and eligibility criteria for social tariff schemes across the country. Water companies should put a share of their own profits into social tariffs. They should be encouraged to work more collaboratively to raise awareness of priority services, as well as being more proactive in identifying customers in need of temporary support.
This is an emotive subject, but one that has to be tackled. I look forward to the Minister’s positive response.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Sikka for bringing this important debate to your Lordships’ House today.
I wanted first to comment on the figures he gave on the sheer number of times that water companies have been sanctioned, because those figures are simply appalling. They also clearly demonstrate that, to date, fines have not been acting as a deterrent or changing the behaviour of the water companies in the way that sewage has been dumped into our waterways. As my noble friend Lady Warwick said, we need to have fines and penalties that cannot be ignored in the way they have been to date.
As my noble friend Lord Sikka rightly asks, what have the bonuses been paid for? I hope we will hear some clarification from the Minister around recent government announcements on bonus payments and also how the remit of powers that Ofwat has will be able to curb these excesses. I know the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned the directive that has been given to Ofwat regarding this. While we clearly welcome that, it is also important to understand how this will practically operate within the existing priorities that the regulator has. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about the amounts being paid in dividends; how will this actually work in practice, and are the Government intending to review it after a certain amount of time to make sure it is actually making a difference?
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, also asked some important questions around the environment, flooding and the impacts of our continued planning policies on long-term flooding. This is not just about now; it is also about the future. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to that.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe talked about the meeting that Labour Peers had with a shadow Secretary of State from the other place and why strong action needs to be taken regarding the water industry and its regulations. I listened very carefully to my noble friend—and I am sure that our shadow Minister in the other place listened very carefully when he spoke to him at that meeting—to the suggestions that he has and how we can improve the current situation.
Let us have a look at what we actually proposed, and also at why our proposals are so urgently needed. For a start, as my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, the country has simply run out of patience on this matter. As he also said, a Labour Government will take decisive action on this matter. To briefly look at our proposals, we have carried out some analysis that shows that water company bosses have awarded themselves over £25 million in bonuses and incentives since the last election, despite repeatedly breaking the law with illegal sewage discharges. The analysis also found that nine water chief executives were paid a staggering £10 million in bonuses, £14 million in incentives—we have had a lot of talk about bonuses; we must not forget about incentives—and over £600,000 in further benefits since 2019, at the same time as customer bills were planned to go up by an extra £156 a year to plug the financial gap. As other noble Lords have said, it is not the customer who should be paying for this failure.
We believe that the water regulator should be given new powers to ban the payment of bonuses. Again, we welcome the Government finally deciding to adopt our plan on this. By expanding Ofwat’s regulatory powers, water companies that fail to meet environmental standards on sewage pollution will face tough sanctions to ensure that they cannot profit from this. When I met with the head of Ofwat some time ago, there was some concern about responsibility between Ofwat and the Environment Agency; it is really important that everyone is clear about who has responsibility for enforcing these things.
Other things we want to plan are to end self-monitoring—this has been mentioned—and to force all companies to monitor every single water outlet, so that sewage dumping can longer be covered up. It is important that all those monitoring stations are actually working, because that has also been a problem in the past.
We also feel that water bosses should face personal criminal liability if this persistent law-breaking is extreme and continues time and again, and if the fines and other sanctions are not making any difference. A BBC “Panorama” investigation found evidence of a water company covering up illegal sewage discharges, making sewage pollution disappear from its official figures. This is really not acceptable. It is important that we bring in more sanctions than the Government are currently proposing. It is time for the polluter to pay, not the public. Will the Minister encourage his Government to go further and back Labour’s whole plan to clean up our rivers and ensure that executives responsible for repeated illegal sewage dumping face criminal charges?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on securing this important debate and sharing his extensive views on the subject, and thank other noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to today’s discussion. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the progress we have made to improve the water environment and our reforms to the remuneration of company executives.
This Government have been leading the way on delivering clean water for customers and the environment. Our plan for water sets us on a holistic path to deliver more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement of our water system. Through this, we will transform our management of the water system, delivering cleaner water for nature and people and securing a plentiful water supply for the future. We have set out significant funding to support this work. Our plan for water committed £2.2 billion of new, accelerated investment directed into vital infrastructure to improve water quality and secure future supplies, including £1.7 billion funding to tackle storm overflows. In September 2023 we also published our expanded storm overflows plan, which set stringent targets to reduce the use of storm overflows. This plan will lead to the toughest-ever crackdown on sewage spills. In answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, the Government have increased the number of storm overflows monitored to 100% since the end of last year. Furthermore, this plan will also drive the largest infrastructure programme in water company history: £60 billion of capital investment over the next 25 years.
It is important to put this investment into context. Since privatisation, we have unlocked more than £215 billion of investment in the water sector in England alone to deliver services for customers and the environment. Privatisation has delivered a range of benefits, including high-quality drinking water, leakage being reduced by around a third and 90% of our bathing waters in England currently being classed as good or excellent. In addition, since 2010 water bills have fallen by 1% on average per year while companies have been investing around £5 billion annually over the same period. Looking forward to the future, the next water company investment cycle will include the biggest environmental improvement programme since privatisation. Water companies’ business plans show a planned £96 billion of investment between 2025 and 2030.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised customers funding investment. The Government have been very clear that customers will not be paying for water companies’ mistakes. However, new infrastructure will need to be paid for, and while water companies can attract private investment, this will also need to come from customers’ bills. Ofwat assesses any increase in customers’ bills to ensure that they are fair and proportionate. We recognise that a balance must be struck here between ensuring that we prioritise spending on infrastructure to reduce environmental harm and securing supplies for the future without unduly hitting customers with bill increases.
I turn now to address the main point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. We are taking clear and decisive action to ensure that no one profits from illegal behaviour and that water company executives take personal responsibility for serious breaches and damaging the environment. On 12 February my right honourable friend the Environment Secretary announced that the independent regulator, Ofwat, will consult on preventing the executives of water companies receiving bonuses if their company has committed a serious criminal breach. That could include, as the noble Lord said, successful prosecution for a category 1 or 2 pollution incident, such as causing significant pollution at a bathing site or conservation area, or where a company has been found guilty of a serious management failing.
Subject to consultation, we expect the ban to apply to all executive board members and chief executives. In answer to the question from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, it will come into effect later this year. This builds on Ofwat’s announcement last year that it will tighten restrictions on bonuses using new powers given to the regulator through the Environment Act. It is important to make clear that this new announcement sits among a strong and ambitious long-term strategy to tackle pollution, clean up British waters and ensure a plentiful supply for the future. For instance, in March 2023 Ofwat announced new measures enabling it to take enforcement action against water companies.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I have been slightly provoked by his talk of a long-term ambition and a vision of 25 years. Does he accept that it was 1991—I am sorry to be a nerd about this—when the relevant EU directive was passed, under a Tory Government, and it should have been implemented by 1998? We are already 25 years after that but now he is giving us another 25-year horizon, so it will have been half a century before the discharge of sewage is cleaned up.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Perhaps I might write to her on that subject, given that she did not contribute to the debate earlier.
Additionally, on 21 February we announced that inspections of water company assets by the Environment Agency would more than quadruple in order to strengthen our oversight of water companies and better hold them to account. That is not all. We have legislated to introduce unlimited penalties on water companies that breach their environmental permits and to expand the range of offences to which they can be applied. That can include criminal prosecutions, for which there can be unlimited fines.
Following the publication of its performance report in November 2023, Ofwat published the financial penalties and payments for all water companies. This required 13 companies to return £193 million to customers for underperformance in 2022-23, with money rightly being returned to customers through bills in the year 2024-25. We make no apology for setting high standards for the water sector or for our tough expectations of what companies have to deliver. That is why, in addition to returning money to customers, Ofwat and the Environment Agency will not hesitate to use the powers that the Government have given them to enforce the law and hold them to account.
I turn to various questions raised by noble Lords. If I miss any questions or run out of time, I will write to individual noble Lords and send a copy to the Library. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked whether the Government will give customers the opportunity to vote each year on executive pay. Remuneration committees for each water company independently determine the appropriate level of remuneration for their water company executives. Ofwat expects water companies to take into account the legitimate concerns of stakeholders when making decisions on the application of remuneration policies.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and others raised the issue of sewage spills and correctly pointed out that no one wants to see this happen. Significant progress has been made. The noble Viscount asked how the Government and regulators will hold water companies to account. The Environment Agency and Ofwat have recently launched the largest ever criminal and civil investigations into water companies’ sewage discharges, and into over 2,200 treatment works, following new data coming to light as a result of increased monitoring.
The Government are working with the Environment Agency to hold the water industry to account. Where water and sewerage companies are found to be breaking the law, we will hold them to account through enforcement. The Environment Agency can now use new powers to impose unlimited penalties for a wider range of offences following the Government’s changes to broaden the scope of the existing civil sanctions regime and remove the previous cap on penalties.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised the issue of the automatic right to connect to the sewerage system in Schedule 3 and Schedule 10. In April 2023, the Government published the Plan for Water. This plan included the requirement for standardising sustainable drainage systems in new developments in 2024. Subject to final decisions on the scope, threshold and process, we expect to commence consultation on this by spring 2024 and aim to have finalised the implementation pathway by the end of 2024. Schedule 3 would make the right to connect surplus water run-off to public sewers conditional upon the drainage system being approved as capable of managing it. The noble Baroness also raised issues around building on floodplains, water run-off, Schedule 10 and storing water. Perhaps I might write to her on those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked whether the Government have confidence in Ofwat. We are confident the industry regulators are using their powers to hold water companies to account, and we will continue to work with them and drive improvements that benefit customers and the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, gave an admirable list of the fines that Ofwat have recently handed out.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of foreign ownership. Ofwat, as the independent regulator, protects the interests of consumers by making sure that water companies carry out their statutory functions and are financially resilient, as well as holding them to account on overall performance and delivery of essential services. These same standards and licence conditions apply across all water companies, regardless of whether they are owned by foreign or domestic investors.
As I come to the end of my remarks, I want to be absolutely clear that profit should never come at the cost of pollution. As I have set out, this Government are going further and faster than any before to protect and enhance the health of our rivers and seas. We are holding water companies to account on a scale never seen before. This new action proposed by Ofwat will help us go even further to ensure that no one profits from illegal behaviour and that water company executives take full responsibility. I therefore assure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to addressing the issues causing pollution in our waterways and we will continue to strive for a healthy and thriving water environment.
Pupil Mental Health, Well-being and Development
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
That this House takes note of the role of schools in caring for the mental health and well-being of pupils, and assisting in their development as community and family members.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Library for the excellent briefing setting out the problem. A standout statistic in that briefing about the truly terrible state of the mental health of school pupils was that in November 2023 NHS Digital estimated that 20% of eight to 16 year-olds had a probable mental health disorder.
I thank the significant number of NGOs and campaign groups that sent briefings for the debate. I pick out particularly Square Peg, an organisation established by and for those with lived experience of school attendance difficulties. It works in partnership with Not Fine in School. Its existence since 2018 demonstrates how the issue we are discussing pre-dates the Covid pandemic, while acknowledging that it has undoubtedly magnified issues for pupils, parents and schools. Absence rates were rising by 15% to 20% per annum pre pandemic, while exclusion and suspension rates, off-rolling and de-registrations were also increasing.
I thank very much the noble Lords who signed up for this last item of business on a Thursday. This is an acknowledgement of the concern about this issue and the desire to examine not just treatment but causes. I look forward to all noble Lords’ contributions.
The origins of this debate lie in alarm following the report, in November 2023, by the Children’s Commissioner for England. The report found that pupil absence had become endemic at key stage 4, with over one-third of pupils either persistently or severely absent for at least one year. But from both the largest parties in our politics, discussion and debate about those figures has, I am afraid, focused on what is wrong with pupils or parents. The Government have launched a national communications campaign called Moments Matter, Attendance Counts, which targets parents and carers, trying to get through to them the importance of attendance for attainment, well-being and development.
That seems to ignore the fact that a survey by the youth mental health charity stem4 found that 28% of 12 to 18 year-olds had not attended school over the last year due to anxiety about the experience of attendance. Experts comment that many of them are unable to cope with the school experience, and the “prosecuting parents” report reflects that threatening legal action against parents, as often happens, is both pointless and damaging. But, all too often, that continues to be the response. What does it do to a parent-child relationship if the parent or carer is being pressured by the Government to force the child to go to school, even when school is making the child ill? The top Labour response was that it would legislate for a compulsory national register of home-schooled children, who are not, of course, the source of the attendance issue.
Rather than focusing on pupils or parents, the Green Party and I want to focus on what is happening in our schools. What are they doing to push away pupils—particularly, but far from only, those from disadvantaged backgrounds and with special educational needs, disabilities and chronic illnesses, including long Covid—and discourage their attendance? Why are they failing to be attracted to school?
There is a whole other issue about the rising levels of poverty and child poverty, which were addressed in the powerful earlier debate today. That is obviously a major contributor. Our society is dysfunctional and is failing many, particularly the young. But I will keep the focus today within schools. There is also a big issue of underfunding, but I will not focus on that today because it descends so easily into a pointless duel of statistics.
I stress that I am not blaming hard-working heads, teachers and other staff, who operate within a system forced on them, one that has been ideologically driven, over the course of Governments of different hues, to focus on discipline, rigid frameworks, teaching to the test, regimented and tightly controlled behaviour, and so-called preparation for work. Of course, I have to mention dealing with the impacts of austerity, which saw the most deprived one-fifth of secondary schools’ spending per pupil fall by 12% in real terms between 2010 and 2021. As a former school governor, I saw the pressure that heads and teachers were under to conform, to test and to push square pegs into round holes.
The spread of multi-academy trust schools, independent of local democratic control—with schools not infrequently forced, rather than choosing, to join—has been associated with models of rigid discipline and heavy penalties for the slightest infraction: not having a pen, speaking in a corridor or having the wrong hairdo. A former teacher described it as “institutional bullying”. These schools are concentrated in more economically deprived, often so-called levelling-up, areas. A mother shared with me on social media her child’s response to the suggestion that school was preparing them for society. The child said, “But the only place in society that is like school is a prison”. Out of the mouths of babes come some terribly clear truths.
One of the things that I want to reflect on goes back in history, and how little schools have changed in the past century. If you set aside the technology of whiteboards and personal tablets then the structure, system and perceived purpose of schools is essentially unchanged. The subjects taught and favoured, the external exams and classes, with dozens of pupils of the same age all proceeding together, the idea that this is to prepare pupils for the workplace and the focus on discipline, uniform and conformity—all this would be entirely familiar to a Victorian student, and to what use is the technology put? In initiating discussions about this debate, I learned that in many schools an app records a pupil’s demerits—how many black marks they have earned that day—which are also conveyed electronically to parents, to show how much time pupils are supposed to spend in detention. What does it do to your mental health to know that when your phone vibrates, you have another black mark, another perceived failure, another punishment?
The Autistic Girls Network shared with me research from 2023, showing that 94% of school attendance cases were underpinned by significant emotional distress. Some 92% of those children were neurodivergent and 83% were autistic. However, as the network pointed out, 80% of autistic girls remain unrecognised at the age of 18, so the numbers will be even higher than that. There is no doubt that children with special educational needs and disabilities are being severely failed by the current system. That issue, I am pleased to say, is often raised in your Lordships’ House, and I am confident when I look at the speakers’ list that others in this debate will focus on it. I shall focus on the fact that many pupils, particularly those who start with advantages in family background, health and well-being, may survive the experience of school—they may not show up in the absence statistics or with mental health states sufficient to appear in the medical figures—but we should want and expect much more from schools than being something to survive and endure.
I focus on the rise in discipline, rules and controls over every aspect of pupils’ bodies within the school gates, but there is also the question of what has disappeared from schools, particularly over recent years. I discussed this debate with Rick Page, ex-head teacher of Wordsworth Primary School in Southampton, a large inner-city school of 630 children. Over a number of years, when he was head, he developed a five-strand creative child programme; a music department that sent an orchestra to play at the Royal Albert Hall with the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra; a sports coach team with an office on site and an extensive curriculum, plus after-school and holiday clubs; an environmental studies and forest schoolteacher, teaching in a nature zone; a dance teacher for tackling ballet and to lead the Rock Challenge; and an arts focus, which included a talented artists scheme with a neighbouring public school, the King Edward VI School. Mr Page told me that attendance, attitude and behaviour were all improved by fostering a real connection with children’s lives and the local community. Since he retired, continual real-terms budget cuts and the straitjacket of conformity imposed on schools by Ofsted have seen many significant parts of that lost. That is one school example, but the reality of many.
I want to introduce a final theme: the content of education offered in schools, which, as I said earlier, has changed little since Victorian times. This comment was inspired by hearing Nehaal Bajwa, the vice-president for liberation and equality at the National Union of Students, speaking last night and reflecting on how the system provides education throughout in how our economy, society and environment are broken, but fails to provide solutions on how to fix it. We really ought to think about how we provide pupils with the ability to deal with the many challenges that they face in our society—challenges that our generation has bequeathed to them. I would add that we have schools that are preparing pupils to be cogs in the existing economic system, a fate against which many pupils are rebelling. There is an idea that education is for exams and jobs, when it needs to be a complete preparation for life in a fast-changing world, living as citizens, neighbours and family and household members, and as consumers in and contributors to society in multiple ways.
How will we tackle the climate emergency and nature crisis, the poverty and inequality of the world and the geopolitical turmoil? The climate strikers showed us that school pupils are fully engaged with those things, but how are schools helping them to do that? What I heard from being out with and talking to those climate strikers was that they felt that schools were failing them. Indeed, a number said to me that they had teachers ask them to explain the climate emergency, because the teachers themselves did not feel that they had the framework to understand it.
What does the rigid behavioural indoctrination prepare pupils for? Perhaps behaving with the efficiency of a robot in an Amazon warehouse, or following the script in a call centre. WB Yeats said that education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. Yet, all too often, what we have in the current system is filling school pupils with anxiety and fear; with test answers and rigid routines, rather than a love of learning and the capacity to discover and innovate; with the problems of the adult world, but not the sense that they can take control and join with others to solve them.
I like to provide solutions, so I will finish with a final stream of thought that may be the most radical part of this speech. How do we fix all this? One part of my answer is that it starts with democracy. We need to restore democratic control over schools and remove the dead centralising hand of Westminster; more than that, we need to make schools more democratic. Psychologists tell us that to be empowered and be in control of your own life and your own body is crucial to well-being. It is a central part of good mental health. That is as true for children as it is for adults.
So, what do we need? We are talking about health and well-being, helping pupils to step out into a difficult world with so many challenges, equipped to live good, healthy, productive lives. We need schools that are more democratic and more compassionate, caring and forgiving. If a child forgot a pen or did not get exactly the right uniform on that morning, how much should that child pay for that? What is the cost of penalising that child heavily? They need to be more accepting of difference, more embedded in and reflective of their communities, not reflective of the will of Westminster. They need to be far richer in art, culture, physical activity and play. That is the sort of schools that we need to care for the mental health and well-being of our future generations, to send them out into the world for a healthy, fulfilling and productive life.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, all of us today appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, managed to achieve this debate, which we all welcome hugely; I thank her. I do not consider anything that we talk about today to be party politics; it is much more important than that. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, has spent years, indeed decades, debating how we can hasten the methods for helping this group of people. I must also say that I have been helped for this debate by Professor Vivian Hill of University College London, who is the past chair of the British Psychological Society’s Division of Educational and Child Psychology. We worked together for many years because my grandson is autistic, although that is not the only reason; it was much wider than just my grandson.
While schools can, and do, play a significant role in supporting the mental health and well-being of all their pupils, head teachers have a significant role in delivering the culture and ethos of their schools. They face a significant increase in the number of pupils requiring support, and they can face significant challenges when working with pupils with more severe and complex needs, in particular those with special educational needs, including autism and dyslexia. To support these pupils and their families, they would require access to more specialist professional support services, such as educational psychologists and child and adolescent mental health services, although this support is increasingly rare.
I will elaborate on the nature of the challenge. There is a great deal of evidence on increasing mental health needs in children and young people. NHS data from 2021 suggests that the rates of probable mental disorders have increased since 2017, reporting an increase from 11.6% in 2017 to 17.4% in 2021, which reflects a change from one in nine to one in six children aged six to 16, and the data indicates a similar increase in 17 to 19 year-olds. The Children’s Society Good Childhood Report 2022 indicates that, in the past three years, the likelihood of young people having a mental health problem has increased by some 50%, suggesting that five children in a classroom of 30 are now likely to have mental health problems. Access to overstretched specialist services such as child and adolescent mental health teams is extremely problematical, with 34% of those pupils referred to NHS services not accepted into treatment or placed on waiting lists of one to three years. We know that in the region of 50% of mental health problems start by age 14, and early proactive and preventive support is critical and may significantly reduce longer-term needs for the individual and longer-term costs for society; it is a problem that cannot be ignored.
The limited access to specialist support or professional guidance for schools and families leaves them struggling to manage complex mental health needs that require the knowledge and skills of specialist support services, and by this, I mean educational psychologists and CAMHS. There are huge variations in access to this type of support in different parts of the country and some areas have little or no access to these services. The money the DfE is investing in the new training contract for educational psychologists is very welcome. However, the numbers who are to be trained are critically short of meeting the current and future demands.
The recent Department for Education report on the EP workforce in 2023 revealed: 88% of local authorities reporting difficulties in recruiting educational psychologists; one-third of local authorities reporting difficulties with the retention of educational psychologists; and 96% of the local authorities reporting recruitment and/or retention issues stated that these difficulties have critically affected young people reaching their full potential. This month, the recent comments from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman have noted with consternation that the foreseeable educational psychology workforce capacity issues have been decades in the making and the impact that has had on young people’s timely access to education, health and care needs assessments, as well as early intervention and preventive work, puts many of these children and young people, their schools and families at risk of avoidable poor outcomes.
In summary, if schools are to care adequately for the mental health and well-being of all their pupils, in particular those with SEN, they will require access to specialist support from educational psychologists and better access to CAMHS. Access to these services will help schools respond to and meet these needs and help prevent pupils’ needs escalating, at great detriment to the child and their family and at huge cost to society. My noble friend the Minister has over many years devoted a great deal of her time to addressing and hastening change. I know that she cares most deeply for these very special people, many of whom contribute so much to the arts, sciences and original thinking.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the opportunity to have a debate on this important area. We are at the start of a very long journey in trying to find the appropriate answers.
I am not as pessimistic as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the state of schools. I often find them happy places. Not all is well and things could be better, but there are not 24,000 miserable institutions throughout the country. For many of our children, school is the only place where their well-being is protected; they are emotionally stronger, more stable and happier because they go to school every day. However, I absolutely accept that that is not true for everyone, and every child matters. We must do as much as we can to support those children who are falling off the edge.
I wondered why I never discussed issues such as this during my 18 years of teaching. There are probably two reasons why it was not on our agenda way back then. First, we are now more aware that children can have mental health problems and medical science means that we have done more to diagnose them. Secondly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that the pressure has increased, and we need to look at that. The question is whether the schools are the cause of that deterioration of well-being and whether they are equipped to support children when the pressures come from outside. How much is it the schools’ fault and how much can they do to help when pressure comes from elsewhere?
I believe that children should be encouraged to do well in examinations. I am glad that I got mine. They gave me my life chances and every statistic shows that children who do not do so have worse opportunities. I have never apologised for any teacher or politician whose policies intend to narrow that divide between children who succeed in exams at school and those who do not. However, it is legitimate to ask what the cost of that has been in the way that we structure our schools. That is what I want to concentrate on. There has been a cost and we can do something about it, but we need to be honest and open and think very carefully.
The problem is not the higher expectations for all children to do well in their exams but the levers we use to try to bring that about. We have undoubtedly made these exams so high-pressured and high-risk that they create an environment in schools, from the head to the teachers to the parents and then trickling down to the children, whereby if you do not succeed, you are in trouble and a failure. That is a problem.
I always remember a young child who had not done as well in their exams as they thought they would saying to me, “Estelle, does that mean that I’m not any good and won’t be able to get a job?” It was very difficult in that moment to say, “Of course you can, everyone fails and you learn from it”, because the whole pressure prior to that had been to say, “If you don’t work hard, you won’t get a job, and success is doing A, B or C”. Those messages we give children are really important. You need your exams and should do as well as you can, but it is not the end of the world and you are not a worse person if you do not do as well as you might.
The second issue on which I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is that there is no doubt that two things have happened. Things that can aid well-being—art, creativity, sport, time to think and space to talk, time to build good relationships—have been squeezed out of schools. Even where they have not, teachers do not think they are valued. Both those things are a huge problem. There are teachers who are trying to do those things; I see so much wonderful creativity in the arts in schools. You scratch your head and think, “I thought all of that was gone”. It is not valued, and because people think that government and others do not value it, that becomes a problem. There is more to be done, but I would not want to go back to the glory days when the division between the successes and failures was very much based on sex discrimination and social class discrimination.
Schools themselves can support children who may have mental health issues arising from pressures outside school, such as social media, drugs, fragmented communities, or families who do not have the skills to help them. Schools are absolutely key in this. They are the places where most children go and where trust is greatest—probably after child medical services.
We also need to address whether schools have the workforce to deliver on that task. There is so much more that could be done. If you look at the staffing of any school, you will probably find that almost all—but not all—the staff are employed to bring about academic progress and success. We need a better balance and skillset within schools. I would like to visit schools and find that, in addition to teachers whose job it is to get children through exams, there are also people with the time to talk about spiritual things, for example, to work magic, to take the kids out. We need people with skills and qualifications in mental health—not necessarily highly qualified psychologists, but people whose job it is to do early intervention and give early support for young children.
That is where the problem lies. Years and years ago, schools were part of their communities. All families, especially in village communities, sent their children to their local school, which often neighboured the church. It was a tight community where everyone knew what was going on. Whatever you think about it, parental choice and a move to doing better means that this community built around a school has broken down. However, it does not mean that we cannot use the school as a base and a community for the people it serves. It just means that we need to do it in a very different way.
I finish by acknowledging the work the Government have done on mental health support teams. They have not done anywhere near enough on the curriculum—PSHE and citizenship, for example—but that is for another day. I like the mental health support teams, and I declare an interest, in that I am involved with the Birmingham Education Partnership, which is in charge of managing and promoting some of these. However, I worry that they might be seen as a substitute for people who have slogged for years to gain well-earned qualifications. Progress really is too slow. We are covering only 35% of pupils, six years after the start of the initiative. It needs to be done better and faster. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us when this might be rolled out nationally.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing this important debate before the House, and those who are speaking today.
Improving the mental health and well-being of our children in school is one of the most important issues, and all of us must work on it together. In the early years, a good experience of education and the ability to learn, grow and develop in a safe and secure environment are essential to success in future life. Our children need to be resilient. Good mental health is a prerequisite to learning, as it is to good attendance at school. An ill child is no more capable of learning than a cheese grater is of being a glass of water. Our schools must be warm, welcoming, adaptable and inclusive spaces. Schools are ideal settings for providing our children with mental health support.
In a previous debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, put it very well:
“Thinking about a child’s school environment, we need to develop a culture of nurture as the foundation for learning”.—[Official Report, 23/11/23; col. 837.]
We need proper funding and resources and a whole-school approach. First and foremost, we must deal with the immediate crisis.
I held my own debate in November on the current state of mental health support for children and young people in England. I declared my personal interest as a parent of a child who has gone through long periods of poor mental health, saying that it was one of the most challenging periods of my life and that no parent ever wants to see their child unable to keep themselves safe. My knowledge and experience in these matters is as a parent.
The scale of the mental health problem is huge; it disproportionately affects those in poverty and is made worse by the lack of resources available to resolve it. The most recent key findings from the NHS digital survey show that one in five of our young people aged eight to 25 had a probable mental health disorder. Rates remain at elevated levels following the pandemic, and among 17 to 25 year-olds, rates were twice as high for young women as they were for young men. We are treating double the number than before the pandemic of children and young people with eating disorders who need urgent care. We have huge waits for services, with treatment for even immediate and urgent cases often, in effect, being denied. We face a children’s and young person’s mental health emergency, and we must all work together to end the wait. The House spoke clearly with one urgent voice on the issues, and I think it will do so again today.
I have called on the Government to accelerate the rollout of mental health support hubs to all schools and colleges nationwide. That is the quickest and most effective form of help. I asked the Government to commit to bringing forward their target of 50% access by 2024-25 and making it 100%. Munira Wilson in the other place has introduced a Private Member’s Bill on this issue, and I am delighted that my party has put forward proposals for dedicated mental health professionals in all state-funded schools and to pay for that through a trebling of the digital services tax. Place2Be has calculated that every £1 invested in primary schools-based mental health provision will generate £8 in economic and social benefits.
The response from the Minister at the time of my last debate was positive; however, since then, nothing has happened. I kindly ask her why there has been no movement from the Government on these issues? The urgency and need is clear and the cost is not great, so are there practical problems with accelerating the policy? Is it about not being able to find and train staff in time, or are there other practical matters?
I will briefly say a few words about long-term persistent absence. When my child was ill, she was off school for prolonged periods and had a very poor attendance record during others. I know what it is like, and just how challenging it can be, when your child is not well enough keep themselves safe, let alone attend school. I know the struggle of trying to get them out of bed every morning. I also understand how we got in this position: Covid caused an explosion in mental health issues, and we need to understand better why that was. It shows that our children are lacking the resilience they so desperately need.
As a result of the increase in poor mental health and the lack of available treatment, absence rates invariably rose, and the Government and schools, rightly, wanted to bring those back down. However, my personal perception is that they went too far. Fining parents should be an absolute last resort. The parent of any child who is waiting for treatment for mental health issues or is unable to get a diagnosis for autism or other special needs should not face those fines. There needs to be far more co-operation between schools and parents in trying to get children who are suffering back to school. The Children’s Commissioner has also pointed out this problem, calling it
“the issue of our time”.
Like me, she is calling for the Government to accelerate the rollout of mental health hubs.
Although the causes of persistent absence from school are complex, one key factor is the lack of mental health support and I would like to ask the Minister about the connection with the numbers of children who have been waiting over a month for CAMHS. Do the Government keep statistics, cross-referencing them for children who are waiting for treatment against children who are also long-term persistently absent from school? It is important that the Government cross-reference those two groups so they can better understand whether a denial of treatment for mental ill-health is one of the key drivers of long-term persistent absence from school.
Finally, I call on the Government again to please take more urgent action on these matters. I recognise the progress made and the actions taken, but more needs to be done urgently to protect our children and young people.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for focusing her seemingly inexhaustible energies on this important topic. It is a complex topic that invites multiple approaches. I intend to focus narrowly on one area, and, given that intended focus, I must start by declaring my interests as noted in the register. Of particular relevance to this debate is my role as chair of an expert advisory panel convened by government to offer non-binding advice to the DCMS and DfE on the development of their plan for cultural education.
My own education was far from usual in that I entered professional training at the age of 11 as a student at the Royal Ballet School. I will always count myself fortunate to have been educated in a place where there was never any sense that art was an extra, a “nice to have”, or peripheral to the main purpose. Art and arts-based approaches were integrated throughout a broad-based education that would equip us with a set of skills as important in life as they are in dance: curiosity, courage, perseverance, confidence, teamwork, personal responsibility and a creative hinterland on which to draw. Over the years, my increasing awareness of just how effectively that arts-enriched education prepared me for life beyond the stage has inspired an ongoing quest to better understand the role of the arts, culture and creativity in personal and social development, educational attainment, and health and well-being.
It is a field of research that has blossomed over recent decades. In 2016, the AHRC published a landmark report, Understanding the Value of Arts & Culture, which analysed, among other things, how arts engagement contributes to community cohesion, civic engagement and educational attainment. Three years later, the World Health Organization published the largest report to date on the underlying evidence base for the contribution of arts and culture to health and well-being. Of particular relevance to this debate is that the report found strong evidence of a positive correlation between arts engagement and the social determinants of health, child development and healthy behaviours.
Alongside evidence that childhood engagement in arts activities can predict academic performance across the school years, the report’s authors also found that it promotes pro-social classroom and playground behaviour, enhances emotional competence and reduces bullying. The behavioural benefits are shown to extend to groups with diverse needs. Children from less advantaged backgrounds, those with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties and those with physical or learning disabilities experienced reductions in anxiety, depression or aggression, with associated improvements in self-esteem, confidence, communication and personal empowerment. The authors also report a sizeable literature on the arts’ role in building social and community capital, fostering co-operation across different cultures, reducing prejudice, enhancing social consciousness and increasing civic behaviours such as voting and volunteering.
Dr Daisy Fancourt, one of the authors of the report, has worked forensically over many years to investigate the ways in which these outcomes occur: how the component elements of arts activities trigger psychological, physiological, social and behavioural responses that are themselves causally linked with positive health and well-being outcomes. In addressing the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has introduced today, it is worth considering each of these in turn.
Fancourt’s work points to how the aesthetic and emotional components of art provide opportunities for understanding and exploring emotions. They allow opportunities for emotional regulation and stress reduction, and all these are key to how we manage mental health. The cognitive stimulation in art supports learning and skills development, which is beneficial in itself but is also interrelated with mental illnesses such as depression. Group interactions through arts activities improve social capital and reduce prejudice and discrimination between different groups. The physicality of arts activities reduces sedentary behaviours, improving fitness, flexibility and bone health and linking to reductions in depression. This is what the research tells us.
Schools taking part in the Artsmark programme show us what this looks like in action. Artsmark offers schools a framework and support to embed creativity across the curriculum, addressing school improvement priorities, and 89% of Artsmark schools report improvements in pupils’ well-being and resilience. They point to positive impacts on mental health, enhanced intercultural understanding and stronger connections forged between staff, pupils, families and local communities. Schools also report improvements in punctuality, student engagement and attendance, underlining the important point noted earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about creating environments that encourage children and their parents to engage with school.
Partnership working is key to success and, in the best-case scenarios, a network of commissioners, providers and agencies across education, culture, voluntary and faith sectors, as well as local authorities, work together to provide children with rich, culturally diverse and locally connected arts opportunities. I urge the Minister to follow the progress of Culture Start, a three-year city-based cross-sector partnership launching this year in Sunderland, which will span social housing and the voluntary, cultural and youth sectors, as well as education, to provide young people with cultural experiences that help to mitigate some of the impacts of growing up in poverty.
Research and lived experience demonstrate how arts activities and experiences can support schools in caring for the mental health and well-being of children and in fostering family and community connections. The evidence is clear, the outcomes evident. There are, of course, other routes for children to access arts activities, at home and in the community, but if we want all children to enjoy the developmental, educational and social benefits associated with arts engagement, school—a universal experience—is surely the best route to ensuring universal access.
I know that, in responding, the Minister will reiterate her commitment to ensuring that all children have access to these opportunities through education. I will finish by welcoming that commitment in advance.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I extend my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for initiating this vital debate, and declare my interests as a parent of home-educated and state-educated children and as a board member of an organisation committed to providing private education.
We are at a critical juncture, where the mental health challenges facing our youth have intensified—notably since the pandemic, as others have pointed out. Just this month, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that there had been a 53% increase in the number of children in mental health crisis over the last four years. This situation is exacerbated by a schooling environment in which most GCSEs are now tested in exams only. This, coupled with limited resources, has severely hampered schools’ ability to support effectively those with neurodiversity and SEND, as well as other pupils struggling generally with mental health challenges.
It is heartening to see the Government’s introduction of mental health support teams and the provision of funding for training leads. This is a commendable step towards embedding mental health support within our educational framework. However, the reach of these initiatives needs expansion, given that eventually it will still only be available to half of all schools, and all schools are still limited in the degree that they can help children with particularly acute needs. It is essential that this support becomes a staple across all schools, ensuring that no child is left without the necessary mental health resources that they need at whatever intensity of need they have. I of course pay tribute to the many schools and teachers who do such a great job in spite of all this, helping where they can.
I will now focus my remarks on the school pathways for parents and children dealing with mental health episodes which, from those I have spoken to and interacted with, are too often confusing, complex and traumatic. This comes on top of the high levels of stress families feel because of the issues they have to deal with and, sometimes, the bullying that accompanies them. The pathways need clarification and simplification; they need to become more collaborative rather than confrontational, offering support rather than exacerbating stress and anxiety.
Too often, parents find that the imperative schools have to keep children in school and perform in and for exams, and to manage limited resources and attention to get the bulk of their pupils moving forwards, conflicts with the individualised and tailored attention and support needed by pupils facing mental health challenges. In a number of cases, parents decide to remove their children from a school environment which is not sufficiently supportive, which the child refuses to go to or in which they face bullying.
At this point, the parents face a number of hurdles: attempts can often be made to keep the child in school attendance, even if it might not be in the child’s best interests or aid their well-being, so that the school, trust and local authority can maintain their targets, sometimes with the threat of prosecution or fines. The family can often feel mistreated, like criminals.
I find that, in such scenarios, many families currently see home education as their only escape from such a system that does not adequately cater to their needs. It seems to them the only legal way to move forwards without harassment, short of moving house to another locality. This choice, often made in desperation, should prompt us to reflect on how we can make even more of our schools more neuro-inclusive and supportive environments, rather than ones that have to enforce rules that may not apply or be particularly helpful in such circumstances.
I am also saddened that, rather than dealing with the causes of such absences and the growth of home education as a result of this crisis, the Government and other stakeholders are considering implementing registers for out-of-school children. This would add further stress to families who have chosen to go down that route. It would be wiser to sort out the lack of support and empathy when families have to endure mental health and special needs challenges in schools, signpost multiple paths including, but not just, home education to provide temporary respite and formulate a plan, which may or may not involve the former school, and provide advice, support and training if home education is the chosen path, rather than to create a situation where those who have taken their children out of school are automatically assumed to be criminal or are suspected of neglect or any number of crimes. For many, their only desire is ultimately to see their child well, succeed and be restored.
In closing, I will pose a number of critical questions to the Minister. First, will there be an investigation into the reliance on home education as the only legitimate escape route for parents seeking to protect their children from a system that can sometimes feel to them adversarial, and work done to clarify the pathways out of an unsustainable school environment, so that they are more supportive and do not suspect the parents or child as a first resort?
Secondly, in light of the recent trends in school attendance and the unique challenges post Covid—they look like a result of Covid at the moment, given that attendance is now rising again—is there a plan for an emergency support package specifically targeted at the student cohorts most affected from 2020 onwards?
Thirdly, what support is planned for these children and families with mental health challenges and additional needs who are out of formal school contexts, given that they sometimes need help, either when they are being home-educated or are in an in-between situation, at home or in another non-school context? Will funding be released for families to access trained support from either local authorities or trusted charities without being pursued for absences in those situations?
Our commitment to the mental health and well-being of our pupils is a testament to our dedication to their future and the future of our society. Let us ensure that our actions reflect this commitment by fostering an environment where every child facing mental health challenges feels supported, understood and valued, whether formally in school or not.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I join colleagues in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for securing this debate. It is important and helpful to discuss these matters.
Earlier this month, many organisations sought to raise the profile of children’s mental health during Children’s Mental Health Week. The charity Place2Be took the theme “My Voice Matters” and used the opportunity to urge the Government to give children and young people the support, tools and confidence that they need—confidence to be proud of themselves but, more, confidence to believe in themselves. I have always thought that believing in oneself is the beginning of self-confidence. I have known cases where a lack of confidence among young schoolchildren in particular has been put down to shyness. It is thought of simply as something that will pass in time, but it often hides other problems. In quite a few cases, the underlying problem, left unrecognised, can lead to many crises in later life.
This is why mental health support should start early on in a child’s life, at school. For so many children, school is the first time in their lives that they have been apart from the home and family environment, and the first time that they have spent a whole day with other children and adults who they do not know. A quarter of a million children in the UK are believed to have mental health problems. We face a major challenge in ensuring that they receive the support needed to enjoy the quality of life that those of us in this Chamber would take for granted.
Many are denied help by a National Health Service that is struggling to manage surging caseloads against a backdrop of a crisis in child mental health. Some health trusts in our country are failing to offer treatment to up to 60% of those referred by GPs. Health service figures released last November show that one in five children and young people in England have a probable mental health condition. Surely the time to begin supporting these young people is when they begin at school.
Let me take one area of concern: speech and language. I have some experience with families with children whose lack of speech is a cause for concern. The charity Speech and Language UK tells me that a child with speech and language problems is twice as likely as their peers to have mental health problems. Why is this? Well, its research shows that there may be anxiety or frustration caused by not understanding what people are saying or not being understood themselves. That can sometimes be the case with children with autism—as I know as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society, together with my noble friend Lady Browning. They may struggle socially at nursery and consequently have low self-esteem. They may have difficulty with thinking things through and working out what might happen and do not understand the consequences and implications of their actions. They might feel socially isolated because of their poor communication skills. Their difficulties with language and communication might not have been recognised, so they may not be getting the help and support that they need.
The best thing we can do to help is to make sure that these problems are recognised early and that the proper help is in place. That means that teachers and early years practitioners should receive training on how to help a child develop their talking and understanding of words—this is pretty basic. This will also help identify a child who is struggling. They should also know where to refer them for further support and diagnosis. It is no good discovering something and not knowing how to get it treated and supported. Schools need to be able to measure and track children’s talking and understanding of words in the same way that we do with literacy and numeracy. We need a free tool that can be used at the start of key stages 1 and 2 by class teachers so that they can spot a child who is struggling. Currently, schools must pay to do this.
Teachers need to know what is available to help children with speech and language challenges. We need guidance about what evidence-based tools and interventions work best and which might be most appropriate in each school. There also needs to be better recognition by child and adolescent mental health services of the high proportion of children with mental health problems who have speech and language challenges. Staff need to be trained on how to help children struggling with their mental health and find out what works best for them.
My noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke about mental health support teams. The Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, has called for every school to have a mental health team in place by 2025. Perhaps in responding, the Minister might be able to tell us whether the Government are working towards that and agree with it.
I appreciate that I have covered a fair number of points here, and I will be more than content if the Minister, having had time to reflect, would like to write to me. I end by asking her whether she might also consider meeting Speech and Language UK, the charity that I have spoken about. Together, they might help us find some of the solutions to the problems that we are facing.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for sponsoring this debate on a matter of great importance for the future life of our nation, and for the challenging sensitivity to the issues that she laid out for us in her introduction.
Church of England schools now educate just over 1 million children—around 20% of the country’s education provision. The Church’s current Vision for Education, published in 2016, is for an education system that promotes
“life in all its fullness”,
a phrase used by Jesus Christ in St John’s Gospel, and invites a wholistic approach to education, considering the material, cultural, social and spiritual dimensions of human existence and the wisdom with which we use the gifts God has given us.
In the diocese of Chichester, where I serve, our schools serve the many coastal towns of Sussex, with their distinctive blend of tourism and deep deprivation, as well as extensive rural areas, where small village schools play a vital role in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, identified. We in Chichester will not be alone in forging partnerships in our Church schools with NHS mental health support teams. I pay tribute to their importance. It has enabled us to develop home-school-church networks, building vital work where the life of school and the life of home interact. It also makes it possible to find better ways to support children who suffer with their mental health.
This NHS partnership has also opened up another partnership through a diocesan multi-academy trust that is working with the University of Sussex to assess the impact of the Covid pandemic. Among the things emerging from that are questions about the impact that working from home might be having on children’s attendance at school. It also looks at the impact of social media, which expanded for many children during lockdown, and asks questions about the extent to which cell phone use, for example, now might need to be more carefully restricted in schools.
I will also refer to the independent education sector, which is well represented in Sussex. It faces many of the same challenges among the pupil body but often with greater resources for meeting them. I wish to draw attention to just one aspect of this, since it indicates, as has been stated, a loss from the maintained sector: the need for arts provision, especially music, as a non-word-based medium that makes articulation of their deepest feelings much easier for children who might struggle with words. This can be especially true for pupils who experience the trauma of violence and abuse, as it can be for neurodiverse pupils, those with learning difficulties, or those for whom English is not their first language. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, outlined these important points in greater detail in her comments.
This is something that Brighton College has developed remarkably well. It has used it as a way to welcome Ukrainian refugees into its life and to forge a strong partnership with schools in the East End of London. The model speaks to us about something that has been done and shown to be of enormous value, which surely also belongs to the right of all children as part of their school experience, especially those children with special needs.
Reference to the importance of wider influences that contribute to the educational life of young people is also evident in a recent study undertaken by the University of Leeds, which indicates that when fathers engage in
“multiple types of structured activities several times a week”,
it
“helps to enrich a child’s cognitive and language development”.
This raises important questions about the role of fathers in parenting, and about their absence—physically, emotionally, economically—and the subconscious impact it might have on their children. From a government perspective, might this suggest that it would be worth giving attention to the gender balance of the teaching profession and encouraging an increase in male teachers, especially in the primary school sector?
These observations indicate the intensity of the context in which education is delivered by a remarkably dedicated profession of teachers and classroom assistants, who face complex human needs that have to be addressed before other aspects of learning can take place. Sustaining that profession, with adequate resources through the recruitment of people of high calibre, remuneration that is commensurate with the skills we expect of them, and public recognition of their important work, is surely one of the best contributions the Government can make to the mental, intellectual and spiritual well-being of our children and young people in their schools.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I join the chorus of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling this debate; I pay tribute to her boundless energy. I would love to have the opportunity to show her around the school where I teach as well, because we have a very high standard of discipline and I did not recognise the institutional bullying that seems to go on. On that point, I must as ever declare my interest as a secondary school teacher in a state school in London. It is always an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, with his very thoughtful ideas.
There is no point in talking about the role of schools if children are not in schools. Some 1.8 million children are persistently absent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, said. For a lot, that is the only place where their well-being is protected, and it is so important that we get them in there.
The Royal College of GPs advises that
“mild or moderate anxiety, whilst sometimes difficult emotions, can be a normal part of growing up for many children and young people”.
We need to get them back. Mild anxiety becomes anxiety. Nobody wants to go to school on a Monday morning. That leads to bigger things. I would be very interested to hear what the Government are doing, rather than being fairly punitive with parents and schools, about engaging students and getting them back in.
Anybody is better off in a school. School is where you can triage students; they can be sent towards CAMHS or MHSTs, whether or not they have been previously diagnosed. These all need to be funded properly. I have talked before about the playground; teachers are very good at spotting things, whether that is bullying or changes in behaviour. Again, they can triage and get the professionals in.
Children are social animals. They need school, which is where they build up all these techniques to get them through life. We need them back. SEN needs to be dealt with; again, that is dealt with at school. In a bedroom, it is very difficult to spot a symptom.
There are also external influences we need to look at. The very good charity Tom’s Trust provides mental health, well-being and psychological support for 536 children with brain tumours and their families—about 1,600 people. Children at school might have a very sick sibling; it might be invisible. I declare an interest in that the founder of Tom’s Trust, Debs Mitchell, is a great friend of mine.
We underestimate all this, but schools can obviously do more as well. The curriculum needs to change; how many times have I stood up and said this in my short career here? The House of Lords Education for 11-16 Year Olds Committee published its final report in December 2023, with many excellent recommendations, pretty much all of which the Government have just rejected. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, the chairman of the committee, said in yesterday’s Times that:
“This government’s attempt to recreate a 1950s curriculum is of little help to many disadvantaged schoolchildren”.
As many people here have said, we need more fun in schools. We need schools to be places where children want to go and teachers want to teach. We blame the Victorians for a lot of things—this beautiful building is not one of them—but we have this Victorian idea that education should be a grind; that medicine should taste horrible; that food is just to sustain you. School should be fun.
I will talk about something that I know the Minister will approve of—sport. Nobody has talked about sport. We need two hours-plus of team games for every student every week. There is nothing like getting muddy, bloody and possibly violent to make you feel better.
I adore swimming. Obviously, it is a difficult one. I defy anybody to get into a pond, swim in cold water and remember the problem they went in with in the first place. We have all talked about singing. What could be better than a load of students in a room singing together? The wonderful charity Young Enterprise has a series of lessons aimed specifically at mental health and money management called “Money on my Mind”, which should be on the curriculum.
The school where I teach has reduced the number of GCSEs so that students can take subjects such as art without having to take an exam at the end or do coursework. They can do it just for fun, which gives them more headspace. However, to do that we need teachers who are confident and rested and feel valued. If their mental health is good, they are confident and happy, and that goes through all their relationships. We all know what happens to relationships if you are tired and stressed.
We need a confidence reset for children. Dame Rachel de Souza was quoted. I quote from her foreword to The Big Answer:
“If adults are to learn one thing from this report, it should be as follows. This is not a ‘snowflake generation.’ It is a heroic generation”.
We need them to know that.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on securing this debate. We have had a number of debates on children’s mental health in recent times, and the role of school always features, but today’s debate challenges us to think about the wider role of schools in relation to children’s well-being and confronts the perennial question of the purpose of education. Is it simply about academic attainment and preparation for the world of work? Is it also about preparing young people more widely for adulthood, including how they fulfil their potential in all spheres of life, become full citizens in our society and build healthy relationships? Is it also about providing the skills to build their personal resilience and emotional well-being to help deal with the knocks that life inevitably brings?
The answer, of course, is a combination of those things, but not everyone will agree on the precise mix. It might be trite to say that growing up in the modern world feels more complicated, with a whole new range of pitfalls to navigate, but I think it is true. It is clear that young people face increasing pressures from the academic environment, the growing influence of social media and the online world, and the lasting impact of the pandemic. I was struck by some research conducted for the Mental Health Foundation which found that the advent of technology, while offering unprecedented connectivity, also introduces new stressors, as individuals battle with the constant pressure to meet online standards and portray an idealised version of their lives.
It is worth reminding ourselves that The Good Childhood Report 2023, which has already been referred to, focused on children and young people’s experiences of school. Frankly, it did not make for comfortable reading, with more children and young people unhappy with school than with the other nine aspects of life they were asked about. Primary and secondary schools have an important role to play and have great potential to be a protective factor for mental health, but sadly that is not how too many young people feel about school. In a recent survey by Young Minds of more than 14,000 young people, only 3% said educational settings were a positive influence on their mental health, while 59% said that school or college had affected them negatively in some way. What is going on?
As we have heard already today, many schools have become heavily focused on exam results, and pressure to do well in exams can be overwhelming for some young people. Fundamentally, I believe that a whole-school approach is needed which creates a school culture and environment that has well-being at the core, where mental health and well-being are promoted and protected and which includes all pupils, students, teachers and staff members. In my experience, this happens only when the leadership of the school is actively engaged in and championing this work. It means ensuring that every adult who interacts with a child has the knowledge, understanding and wherewithal to support the child. Of course, parents and carers play a key role in teaching children and young people how to understand and manage their feelings as they grow up, and I would like to see more support in this area.
We know that staff in school are often the first point of contact for a young person struggling with their mental health; hence, they need to be provided with knowledge and understanding around behaviour and mental health and how to identify when a child is struggling. An independent study from NatCen on adolescent mental health and educational attainment observed a strong association between mental health difficulties between the ages of 11 and 14 and later academic attainment at age 16. The study found that children experiencing poor mental health are three times less likely than their peers to pass five GSCEs. I am sure that most schools understand this link, but it seems crucial that mental health issues are not viewed as yet another problem issue that they are forced to deal with. It is about creating the very foundations for learning and academic success.
Furthermore, exclusion from school is strongly related to poor mental health in children and young people, so we should be concerned that the rates of exclusion from school have increased in the last five years. I was interested to read in a recent study that, on average, children who had experienced at least one fixed-period exclusion in the year before attending counselling lost significantly fewer school sessions to exclusion in the year when they had counselling. That was from Place2Be, a charity that operates in many schools, providing drop-in sessions, family work and one-to-one counselling for those with more complex issues. Its analysis of pupils receiving counselling indicates that consistently poor mental health over time was associated with higher levels of persistent absence, which we heard about earlier, whereas improving or consistently good mental health was often associated with lower levels of persistent absence. Its findings also suggest that strengthening children’s engagement with and enjoyment of school over time was associated with reduced persistent absence. The same can be said about bullying but I do not have time to go into that now.
Preventing mental health problems arising in the first place is key. When support is available in schools in a non-stigmatising format, young people benefit. Young people themselves have talked about the need for safe spaces at school and safe conversations. By intervening early, building resilience and nurturing a positive understanding of emotions and well-being, we can ensure that young people learn lifelong skills so that their problems do not grow with them. That can be done through whole-class work, lessons and the curriculum. Critically, it needs to start at primary school age, to which we do not give enough attention.
Finally, I turn to mental health support teams. We have heard quite a bit about them and I have always supported them but, alongside many others, I have argued that the rollout should have proceeded at a much faster pace. As we have heard, on the current plans there is funding to achieve only 50% coverage of schools by 2025, leaving over half of schools, particularly primary schools, uncovered, and pupils without the support they need. To be clear, MHSTs are a welcome and important part of the jigsaw of mental health support, but they go only so far.
I will have a lot more to say on the subject next Friday at the Second Reading of my Private Member’s Bill, particularly my concern about children urgently needing mental health support who meet neither the mental health support teams’ “mild to moderate” criteria nor the criteria of specialist CAMHS support, with its very high access thresholds and extremely long waiting lists. Noble Lords should watch this space.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling this important debate.
We have been presented with some alarming statistics. One in five eight to 16 year-olds has a probable mental disorder. There has been a 53% increase in the number of children in mental health crisis over the past four years. We understand that the Government want to establish mental health support teams, which will undoubtedly help, but I suggest that prevention is better than cure. It should be possible to prevent manifold mental health problems among our schoolchildren before they become major issues. The foundation of that well-being is based on the four pillars of the school education system, in this order of priority: food education, physical education, financial education and academic education.
I have intentionally left academic education as the last pillar because being academically capable does not necessarily mean that you will be happy and make a success of your life. However, being well educated on key life decisions involving food choice, physical health and financial matters will incrementally increase your chances of a fulfilling life.
I am sure that many noble Lords are familiar with the phrase “gut instinct”. The gut is our second brain. It uses the same chemicals and cells as our main brain. Food changes our mind and our mental health; there is a direct correlation between a healthy diet and cognitive learning. Food education should therefore be the cornerstone pillar of a decent school programme to promote good mental health.
The beauty of this is that we already have a strategy in place which works. Charities such as Chefs in Schools have a mission to transform school food and food education and are training kitchen teams to serve fine school lunches. The benefits to schools are wide-ranging. The charity states that
“research shows great school food makes obesity fall, while health, wellbeing and attainment increase”.
This is a tried and tested opportunity that is there for the taking by the schools; all they need to do is reach out. For the benefit of the register, I should say that I have no association with this charity, but my beliefs and its aims are aligned.
When it comes to physical education, Sport England’s latest survey estimated that only 47% of children and young people were meeting the Chief Medical Officer’s guidelines of taking part in sport and physical activity for an average of 60 minutes or more every day. Sport and physical activity can change children’s lives. It improves cognitive abilities, boosts concentration and improves classroom conduct and behaviour—not to mention physical and mental health, which in turn encourages their development as community and family members. Physical exercise should be the second pillar of their education.
Schools must involve parents and the community in this journey. They need to understand the benefits of physical exercise if they are to enforce home rules on limiting screen time and taking exercise outside, as well as doing more physical exercise at school. Teacher training is key. We have to help the teachers themselves learn how to best promote an active lifestyle, make physical education engaging and how to combine learning with physical activity.
Children can benefit from physical exercise even before their first class of the day. The central target in the Government’s second cycling and walking investment strategy is that half of urban journeys should be walked or cycled by 2030. Cycling to school is a fantastic way for children to exercise and contribute to those required 60 minutes per day. It can be a community event involving both parents and classmates.
The third pillar is financial education. In a recent survey, 47% of children from low-income families said that they worry about their family’s finances, which is adding to their stress levels and in turn presenting itself through challenging behaviours at home and at school. Financial insecurity leads to anxiety, stress and depression but financial education at an early age will help to mitigate these risks.
I believe the recently issued guidance on mobile phones in schools, which backs headteachers in prohibiting the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, can play a key part in caring for the mental health and well-being of schoolchildren. The school environment should be a place for the learning of the four pillars, as I have outlined, and for face-to-face social interaction—not mobile to mobile.
I therefore ask the Minister what the Government are doing to educate both children and schoolteachers on how to cook, how to eat well and how to make healthy food choices. What can the Government do to work with charities such as Chefs in Schools?
On physical education, what are the Government doing to involve parents and the community in journeys? What teacher training is taking place? Will the Government commit to revisiting the decision to cut funding for walking and cycling schemes as part of the cycling and walking investment strategy? With financial education, how will the Government make this a cornerstone of a school education?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her stimulating and challenging speech introducing this interesting debate. I also thank the House Library and the several organisations that have provided most helpful briefings, all pointing, regrettably, to the increasing mental problems among children and young people. I will not repeat the catalogue of problems that many others have covered.
I was going to say that one issue that had not been covered—although the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, now has—relates to diet and its impact on children’s and young people’s mental well-being. I am sure the Minister is not surprised that I am raising this again. The significant issue, on which action still needs to be taken, is the quality of school meals. My concern, and that of many others, is that one of the factors that greatly influences the conduct of children is sugar and the high incidence of it now. In particular, in the view of many people, there is an overly high incidence of sugar in school meals, which is why some of us have been pressing, for quite some time, for the long-overdue review of the regulations relating to school meals to be undertaken. The last time I raised this, the Minister said she would take it back to her department, and I am sure she has done that. As she returns today from her department, I wonder whether she is bringing some good news for us: that we will get a review—the last one took place in 2014—under way in 2024.
If the Minister is not in a position to do that, I can tell her that the new special Select Committee that has been established in the House to look at diet and obesity met this morning for the fourth time, to hear Henry Dimbleby give evidence. He of course was the former UK government tsar at Defra, brought in by the Government to help them with their problems with diet, farming-related issues, food generally and obesity. He resigned, somewhat disgusted with the Government’s unwillingness to implement a number of the recommendations that he has been pressing. Some of those related to children, school meals and the growth of obesity among children.
It is not only child obesity that is worrying us now. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned—the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has spoken frequently on this—we now see an increasing number of children with mental health problems relating to eating disorders. There is considerable growth in that area, which is of big concern and needs addressing. What is causing the growth in mental health problems? Do we have more nowadays than previously? That is debatable.
The causes—there are a variety—are debatable too but, without a doubt, many of us would agree that social media had quite a significant impact. This relates back to food, body image, appearance, bullying and how younger people relate to each other on social media, which is leading to mental health problems. I believe that, behind an awful lot of the mental health problems that we encounter with children, there is a fear of what they are encountering in life—and a fear of climate change, which is growing and worrying children. We have to do all we can to try to address that.
There is a poverty of food in many areas in the country, but I believe too that we have a poverty of spirit. This goes back to resilience and self-reliance, but it is an important factor that we have to see whether we are doing enough in schools to develop that self-reliance. I was very heartened to hear of the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, described that she is undertaking, and we look forward to the results of the experimentation that is taking place in the north-east. I hope that it is successful.
To move away from that issue, I quickly recall that the noble Lord, Lord Layard, helped Tony Blair and helped significantly with regard to mental health by persuading the Government to introduce talking therapies. Some 22,000 people are now employed on that for adults. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, has done some recent work on addiction, and maybe he should do some work with children, too. We should look to see whether we can have a greater expansion at school levels. I leave it now to my good friend and colleague to speak with more authority about mental health than I can.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on an excellent opening speech. I agree that our schools could do much more to prepare pupils for the challenges of today.
I declare my interest as founder and chair of a small mental health charity, Books Beyond Words, which I shall mention briefly later. Before I became a Member of your Lordships’ House, I was a clinical academic psychiatrist, specialising in child and adolescent mental health as well as in learning disabilities. As a community psychiatrist, I regularly went into schools—usually special schools—to consult teachers and think with them about the needs of their children. I agree that prevention is better than waiting for a crisis.
Like other noble Lords, I have had briefings from a number of mental health charities working in schools to improve children’s mental health, including Young Minds and Speech and Language UK. The briefings highlight that more than one-third of children and young people with mental health needs also have special educational needs, including speech and language difficulties.
This week is Emotional Health Week, promoted by the Centre for Emotional Health. Yesterday, its focus was on child development. Research clearly shows the impact that our relationships and emotional health in childhood—particularly in early childhood, but throughout the school years as well—will have on our future life chances. Last week the centre, in partnership with Demos, launched a paper called Strong Foundations: Why Everyone Needs Good Emotional Health - and How to Achieve It. It made several recommendations, including that the Department for Education should develop evidence-based guidance for schools and colleges on how best to implement learning about emotional health—in other words, what I call emotional literacy. This report included a recognition of how picture books can support social and emotional learning for children.
This resonates with me, as the founder and chair of Books Beyond Words. The charity works with artists to create stories in pictures about the everyday challenges that children face. Recently, the charity has been working in a pilot group of schools to see how word-free books can support the emotional well-being of primary school children as well as young people with special educational needs and improve teacher confidence in talking about common mental health challenges. An independent evaluation found a strong causal link between the creative reading of word-free stories, usually in small groups, and pupil progress towards improved emotional well-being, stronger peer relationships and an ability to express a range of feelings. Being able to recognise and express our feelings, such as anxiety, frustration and stress, can reduce the distressed or challenging behaviour that sometimes leads to the school exclusions highlighted by Young Minds. Exclusions are not the answer. Children with poor emotional health find it difficult to learn and are reluctant to go to school.
Using pictures rather than words helps children of all ages and abilities to engage with the topic and to express themselves. They can identify their feelings, discuss coping strategies and be empowered to speak up for themselves. After just one term of using word-free books once a week, 95% of pupils made progress towards being able to express and recognise a range of emotions. Case studies showed that attendance improved, and they had better than expected achievements in tests—all evidence of the importance of good emotional health.
I suggest that schools have a crucial role in fostering a nurturing environment and moving away from a punitive culture. Children need to feel comfortable and safe at school. School targets need to be more holistic. Ignoring well-being does not lead to overall better outcomes. Schools need to adopt a whole-school approach to mental health and well-being, which aims to promote mental well-being and to intervene early when common mental conditions present, such as depression, anxiety and self-harm. A whole-school approach to mental health and well-being is a cohesive and collaborative action in and by a school community, strategically constructed with the school leadership—that is really important; school leadership has to be on board. There also needs to be an ethos that promotes respect and diversity. The curriculum and teaching should help children and young people to develop their resilience and support their social and emotional learning.
We know that childhood is a period of extraordinary potential. Get it right, and we are investing in the whole of society. We know that adverse childhood experiences are key predictors of poor physical and mental health and well-being throughout a person’s life. We know that prevention is better than cure. I consider that a child’s emotional well-being and mental health cannot be considered in isolation from their school environment and the culture within that school.
There is burnout among some school staff, recruitment and retention issues and school staff reporting that they feel unequipped to manage the mental health needs of their pupils. There are high levels of persistent absence, and we know that young people who are absent from school are more likely to have a mental disorder; a punitive approach is therefore rarely the answer to poor school attendance.
Let me tell your Lordships about Sarah. She started to struggle with her mental health when she started secondary school. She was involved in a car accident over the summer holidays and became increasingly anxious about leaving her home. She had already been finding school difficult and started missing days at school. When she did manage to get to school, she was told off by teachers for her poor attendance, which made it more difficult to attend. Nobody asked her why it was so difficult to go to school. Her anxiety got worse, as did her attendance. Then her parents were asked to pay fines because of her poor attendance. She has now been out of school for a year and remains on a waiting list for CAMHS.
What are the solutions? I do not really have time to talk about them, but I agree that schools need to be more fun. They also need to be more real, addressing the things that really matter to children and young people.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the gap. I had put this debate in my diary but failed to put down my name to speak—a schoolboy error for which I deserve extensive detention. I declare my interest as an adviser to Common Sense Media, a US not-for-profit that focuses on protecting kids from the harms of the internet. I am also a trustee of its UK charity.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on calling this excellent debate. I agreed with a huge amount of what she said. There was a tantalising moment when she said that the classroom remains a Victorian construct; I could not agree with her more—in fact, it is a line that I trot out regularly at the kind of London dinner parties that Liz Truss has taken randomly to be so disparaging about. I find it astonishing—this is not to be rude in any shape or form our educators and teachers—that the classroom structure has not moved on for 150 years. There is a great debate to be had in this Chamber at another time, calling on the huge expertise that exists here, about how we reconstruct education; the purpose of the classroom; the use of technology, paradoxically, to provide personalised curriculums to allow children to proceed at their own pace; and the role of exams. I am prepared to be as radical as possible; I for one would, for example, abolish school uniform. But that is a whole other debate.
I want to focus, in the short time I have, on two brief issues. First, I heard my noble friend Lord Effingham mention the mobile phone at the end of his speech: social media is the great issue that our children now face inside and outside school; it is the biggest impact on children’s well-being and mental health in the last 10 years. A lot of it can be for the good, but we know that children—girls far more than boys—are bombarded with content, some of it inappropriate, and text messages, and this brings the opportunity for bullying. Common Sense Media, for example, provides a digital curriculum; we have constructed a partnership with the NSPCC to promote that in schools. It is about educating parents, but it is also about helping children become savvy digital citizens, and, above all, helping teachers, who are behind the curve, and their own pupils, on the use of technology. This is an absolutely vital issue and should be front and centre of our thinking.
The second issue I want to concentrate on, which was so ably covered in detail by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who knows so much about this subject, is the role of the arts and creativity in our schools and education. I stand guilty as charged, as the Arts Minister who could not save some of the creative programmes that were set up by the previous Labour Government; they were the most vulnerable when it came to having to reduce our budget. But one scheme I was able to save, by working with the Department for Education on music education, was the astonishing In Harmony scheme, which is one of the most emotional things I have ever been to. It is exactly what noble Lords are talking about; it is not about learning music, it is about learning confidence. It was about kids aged nine and 10 educating their own parents about what they were learning and gaining enormous confidence from performing like that.
I applaud the Government in focusing on the rigour of reading and maths, and I accept that Nick Gibb can be proud that we are moving up the league tables in how well our kids are now reading and doing in maths. Those are the building blocks of education and success in life, but creativity is also a fantastic way of building confidence and academic rigour, and, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, it is a space to think. Above all, it is a route for kids who are not suited necessarily to the academic path to find a way forward. I was always a great sceptic about free school meals, and I have done a complete volte-face on that as well because, if you have kids in school from age five to 18, feeding them well and properly must be a no-brainer. Then there is sport as well. My message is that it is called the soft stuff but it is unbelievably important.
Lord Storey (LD)
I too want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for securing this important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, will be pleased to know that Everton ward, one of the most deprived communities in Liverpool, is celebrating 10 years of In Harmony—I have been invited—and it has been life-changing for some of those young people.
I am changing what I was going to say. For starters, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, ought to have been a primary teacher—no two ways about it. It is only nine or 10 years ago that I was the head of a three form-entry primary school in a place called Knowsley, outside Liverpool, with 500 pupils from one of the most deprived communities in the country. We had 96% attendance, the children wanted to come to school, and they were enthusiastic. We had science trails with parents, technology days, and all the children, from year 3 to year 6, went away to the Isle of Wight for either a weekend or a full week. Parents did all sorts of things for the school, and raised huge amounts of money. I look back and ask: what, sadly, went wrong?
By the way, this school had three Ofsted inspections, and we were a good school for all three of them. The results were above the national average; this is not me boasting—it was due to the teachers and pupils of that school. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, that we did not get an Artsmark—but we did get a gold Artsmark. One of my very average teachers was doing a literacy lesson when the Artsmark inspector came, so I was thinking, “Oh no”, but then she came back and told me it was the best lesson she had ever seen—that the teacher had done the literacy lesson with percussion instruments. I thought, “Wow, I’ve underestimated him”. He was brilliant and rose to the occasion. With all that enthusiasm, the pupils wanted to learn and come into school; 97% of our pupils went to the local secondary school and the links were fantastic. It was not just my school—the five other primary schools and the Church of England primary school all worked together and the local authority gave us support when we were in difficulty. We supported each other. I do not know why we have lost all that.
Several noble Lords have talked about the alarming mental health statistics for our children and young people. Two sets of statistics have not been mentioned. First, terribly sadly, the numbers of young people taking their own lives, the numbers of young people self-harming and the numbers of young people with eating disorders are all increasing every year. Secondly—of all the statistics we have mentioned, this really concerns me—10% of children aged five to 16 are clinically diagnosed as having mental health problems, but 70% of them had not had appropriate interventions at a sufficiently early age. Had we intervened as early as we could have done and had the support mechanisms there, we might have prevented some of the problems we face further down the line. It is a bit like the discussions we used to have about special educational needs; if we can diagnose autism or dyslexia at an early stage then we can intervene and do something about it, and the same should be true of mental health.
I am sure the Minister will tell us about the resources the Government are spending on mental health, which are to be welcomed and applauded, but we face a mental health emergency and there is a huge hole in the current provision. Last year, fewer than half—44%—of the 1.5 million children who needed additional support had not received a CAMHS appointment. A report conducted last year by the Children’s Commissioner found that the average waiting time in England between referral and the start of treatment is the highest it has been for two years. Some 35% of those classified as having high psychological distress say that they have not received the support they sought and Barnardo’s points out that children with moderate mental health issues are falling through the gaps, as they are considered too acute for intervention from mental health services but do not meet the threshold for CAMHS, as my noble friend Lady Tyler said.
Schools have been helping children and young people with mental health problems through online tutoring, particularly those with special educational needs, some of those in alternative provision and those who are home-educated. That scheme will come to an end this summer, with its £200 million not going back into education but being returned to the Treasury. That is a lost opportunity. I know that the tutoring programme was brought in during Covid, but it was immensely successful and has helped huge numbers of children, particularly those in deprived communities. Will the Minister look at how we can keep that programme? It is no answer to say that it can be provided from the pupil premium; that is already overstretched and in many schools some of that money is used for mental health support.
What should we do in this mental health emergency? My noble friend Lord Russell told the House what we would do: we would put a statutory duty on every state-funded school to make provision for an education mental health practitioner or a school counsellor. A mental health practitioner means a person with a graduate- or postgraduate-level qualification accredited by Health Education England. For schools with 100 or fewer pupils, the duty may be satisfied by a collaborative provision between schools.
We also need urgent financing, training and provision for CAMHS staff, and indeed for school support, whether it comes from the school psychological service or from speech therapists. Children with speech and language challenges are twice as likely to have difficulties with mental health.
I am sure that many colleagues will have received numerous briefings from charities and professional bodies, and I thank them. I was particularly taken with the Mental Health Foundation, which had a very pupil-focused approach, with clear, school-based actions: school anti-bullying programmes; the whole-school approach that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned; targeted programmes; implementation of a trauma-informed approach; supporting the most minoritised and marginalised pupils; looking at comparable studies in other countries; and learning from the experiences of young people themselves. There was the remarkable quote from one young person:
“Despite the profound impact on individuals and communities, mental health remains largely undervalued and shrouded in silence”.
I end with a comment the Minister made in response to the Select Committee report on the 11-16 curriculum. As was pointed out, sadly, all those recommendations were rejected by the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said:
“Exams are a great leveller, whatever a pupil’s origin or level of disadvantage”.
Exams may or may not be a great leveller, but they are also very stressful. We have more tests and more exams for our children and young people than any other country in the world. Perhaps our target-driven schools need to be more focused on a child-centred approach, which would certainly help with mental health issues.
I end by repeating the quote from that young person:
“Despite the profound impact on individuals and communities, mental health remains largely undervalued and shrouded in silence”.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a truly interesting and varied debate. I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on securing it. There can be nothing more important in a child’s development than ensuring that they have good mental and physical health, not least in what many noble Lords have noted is a complex and often confusing world.
Children need a healthy, caring, constructive, lively and varied school environment, of the type to which the noble Baroness referred in her opening remarks. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, good mental health is a prerequisite for learning. My noble friend Lord Touhig powerfully articulated the need for children to have the confidence to succeed.
I also agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lady Morris that academic education and mental health and well-being should not be seen as being in competition with each other. I am very much in the camp which believes that schools should prepare children for life and work, and liked how my noble friend Lady Morris articulated how this might be balanced in relation to exams, and how people view exam success and failure.
I do not, however, think that this excludes fun or creativity. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, on the need for creative arts to be a key part of school life and the lives of students. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester also spoke powerfully to this point, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on the work of the charity, Books Beyond Words.
My noble friend Lady Blake did not speak in this debate, but I understand she did great work as leader of Leeds City Council in ensuring that all children had access to learning a musical instrument. This is the type of thing that can enrich children’s lives and make school life much more rewarding.
I found the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on physical activity and food very compelling. Clearly, the quality of food in school is an issue that my noble friend Lord Brooke has campaigned on with vigour, not least on sugar, and will continue to do so.
From what we have heard today, none of us can be in any doubt that we have a huge mental health crisis among children and young people. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also made clear, schools have a very distinct role in identifying and triaging issues. Schools and teachers do incredible work in a difficult environment. Schools sometimes struggle to meet the needs of their students, and teachers do not always have the support they need, or the time or expertise to identify and deal with student mental health issues. CAMHS cannot deal with the scale of the demand, with unacceptable delays for treatment that risk an individual’s mental health issues escalating.
I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, about the focus on fun. I think that we all now want to visit his school, so he should expect a queue for us to do that.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
He does not have to become a primary school teacher; he can carry on as he is.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the need for a whole-school approach, as did others, but what we really need is an understanding of how we get a better whole-system approach—I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. Surely, that is what is needed to address the issue. There is a clear need for the Government to drive forward and work much more on a cross-departmental basis. The NHS, individual schools, charities and local authorities cannot solve the child mental health crisis alone. The noble Lord, Lord Wei, discussed the need for school pathways to be made clearer and simpler for parents and children, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reflection on his point about the correlation with decisions that parents might make on home schooling.
I will give a personal view of an amazing meeting I had this week with a fabulous group of students from the Ark King Solomon Academy near Edgware Road. It was a reminder of how a good school can provide a truly nurturing environment. The students spoke to me about the mental health provision in their school with their vice-principal and the charity Place2Be, whose services the young people had accessed. They told me that Covid had led to isolation, that they needed more clubs and activity to improve their well-being, and that PHSE could do so much more than it does currently to help young people understand their mental health and how to deal with any issues they might face. They also said that their parents often did not know how to help, so the parents also needed additional support to help deal with the issue.
The provision that the students had accessed had given them a sense of belonging and a trusted space. But they said that there was a need for more provision, so that students did not have to wait to access services. The students were hugely articulate in how they spoke about their experience and the need for young people to build resilience. I have no doubt that their school and their parents are incredibly proud of them. After they met me, they went to No. 10 to deliver a letter to the Prime Minister; I would be very grateful if the Minister could ensure that it reaches the right person for a response.
We cannot talk about the role of schools in mental health without discussing the wider context. The scale of the problem was mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, who noted that the rise means that, on average, five children in a class of 30 are likely to have mental health issues. He also noted the recruitment crisis in specialists.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked what was probably the most valid question of the whole debate: what is going on? In 2022, 1.4 million children were referred to CAMHS, with 270,000 children waiting longer than three months to begin treatment. The Local Government Association has found that at least one in six children and young people aged seven to 16 has a probable mental health disorder, which increases to one in four for young people aged 17 to 19. The Children’s Commissioner, who has been quoted several times, has raised particular concerns around older teenage girls; she found in her report last year that nearly two in five of 16 to 17 year-old girls were unhappy with their mental health. Things going wrong— such as when children and young people do not get support in a timely way—can lead to forced hospitalisation. In the worst cases, unresolved mental health issues lead to self-harm and attempted or successful suicide, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, highlighted in his remarks.
Children living in poverty, where parents separate or have a financial crisis, or children whose own parents have poor mental health or poor health, are even more likely to have poor mental health themselves. As my noble friend Lord Touhig said, children with speech and language difficulties are twice as likely to have a mental health issue than their peers—the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, also highlighted this point. This is also the case for children and young people with a wide range of other special needs, physical illness or disabilities.
Can the Minister say what the government view is on how provision is currently tailored towards the needs of different groups of children, and what more can be done to ensure that children and young adults get access in a timely way? To tackle an issue of this scale, you surely need a thorough understanding of what needs to be addressed—and with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I do not think that policy should be made routinely at London dinner parties.
Can the Minister clarify whether the Government intend to start to routinely collect statistics on mental health provision in schools, including the type of provision and therapy provided? As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, this should include a cross-referencing of this with other data, including absenteeism. If not, can the Minister tell the House when the Government at the very least intend to carry out a new survey, given that it is almost a decade since the last one found that only 62% of schools offered counselling services? However, I understand that that figure has risen. Can the Minister provide information on how many schools now have counselling services? Are the Government, like Labour, committed to specialist mental health support for children and young people in every school? Furthermore, can the Government provide a demographic breakdown of the number of children accessing mental health services in schools and through CAMHS?
Finally, I acknowledge that I am clear that the Government know that there is a problem. However, I do not feel that they have yet managed to introduce a comprehensive solution—the proposed ban on phones in schools is evidence of this. Many noble Lords referenced social media and phones. However, many schools have introduced this, and head teachers have noted that they cannot control their use out of school. Having heard today’s debate, what more is the Minister able to commit to the Government doing to address this epidemic of mental health issues in children and young people, both in and out of school, to ensure that our young people get the support they need to thrive both socially and academically through their childhoods to successful adult lives?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on securing this important debate and thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I feel a long letter coming on, so I will do my best to cover the points raised, but I feel pretty confident that I will not get through all of them.
I felt very uncomfortable and was trying not to be defensive while listening to the opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the other speeches. What I heard from your Lordships today is what I often hear going around the country, which is that “My school, my children’s school, my grandchildren’s school and the school I teach in are fantastic” but “the system is broken”. “The system” is made up of all those brilliant schools, with brilliant teachers and a heroic generation of children, and I think at our peril do we have such a negative tone about our education system and our schools, which are doing an amazing job all around the country.
There are many reasons why they are doing so well, but I will pick just on a few. The first is that this country has been the first to really be led by the evidence of what works—not what we think or feel might work but what the evidence actually shows works in the country. All of us in this House know that it is a great deal easier to write policy than it is to implement it well, and the focus that has been placed on what actually works in practice is absolutely critical. I encourage your Lordships to look at the difference in what is happening in our schools in England and those in Scotland and in Wales, and I think my case rests.
We used evidence in relation to curriculum and extracurricular activities, and in relation to pedagogy and behaviour. For those noble Lords who question the importance of attainment, that in itself is an incredibly important protective factor for our children’s mental health. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about a sense of music and other cultural activities having been lost in our schools. As your Lordships know—I mention it often at the Dispatch Box, because it is true—every week I visit schools and I see what is happening on the ground.
The noble Baroness talked about schools being forced into trusts. The schools that go into trusts because they are sponsored schools have failed the community of children that they are serving and, for whatever reasons, therefore need support. I am well aware that parents, children and staff are frequently concerned at the time of transfer, but they should visit those schools a year later. I went to a school in Liverpool and a year to the day since they had been sponsored, I said to the children, “Tell me what it was like a year ago. What’s the difference?” A child said to me, “You wouldn’t have felt safe in the corridor, Miss”. Our children need to feel safe, not only in the corridor. She also talked about what mountains she was going to climb, metaphorically, so it was not just about corridors.
I want to pick up on the sense of this very critical and forbidding tone that your Lordships suggest that schools apparently use in communicating with parents and children. Again, I absolutely understand that there are times when enforcement is important, but everything we are doing and everything that I see in schools starts with support and encouragement to work out where a child will thrive and flourish, and what their individual strengths are that can be built on. I sense that the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, had the same sense when she met the children from the Ark school the other day. I will do my very best to ensure that they get a speedy response to their letter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, talked about attendance. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for underlining how attendance is so important for the safety of our children. I urge those noble Lords who are worried about the policy in relation to fines: look at the guidance that we have produced for schools and its emphasis on support. I urge them to talk to schools. Their concern, when I talk to them, is about inconsistency in the implementation of fines for non-attendance rather than the policy itself.
I absolutely agree that mild anxiety becomes much greater anxiety for the majority of children if they miss significant amounts of school, so we are working incredibly hard on attendance. For the most vulnerable children, we have extended our attendance mental programme and we will have 32 attendance hubs, meaning that 2,000 schools will be helped to tackle persistent absence with that peer-to-peer support. We are also doing a great deal of work analysing the data around attendance. As I said in response to a Question earlier this week, we are seeing green shoots in relation to attendance this term, particularly in primary but also in year 7 in secondary.
I always enjoy listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and her reflections on education. We need to focus on what schools can do and not ask them to do things they cannot do. The noble Baroness talked about giving confidence back to children, but we also need to make sure that teachers and school leaders feel confident in their approach.
I turn to some of the wider issues in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, anticipated well that I would acknowledge that there has been a worrying rise in mental health issues that need specialist support. Of course, teachers and school staff are not mental health specialists. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the rollout of mental health support teams. We are extending those teams to an estimated 44% of pupils and learners by the end of this financial year and to at least 50% by the end of March 2025. To address the noble Earl’s question, our original plans have been accelerated, but these are genuinely new and additional staff, so it takes time to recruit and train them, but we see this as an absolute priority.
This debate shows how crucial it is that we support schools. We also recognise that they have a real role in creating a safe, calm and supportive environment for pupils, where they want to attend and where they are able to learn and flourish. That is particularly important for the most vulnerable children. Here I acknowledge the remarks of the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Hollins, whom I thank for all the work she does, particularly in relation to children with learning difficulties.
Our schools’ role in promoting this environment and offering a rich and varied experience that encourages the creativity that your Lordships talked about, the activity and development, through a broad and balanced curriculum, and a high-quality enrichment offer, is incredibly important. Schools are and should be places where children can experience joy—it does not say “fun” in my speech, but I agree about fun—find good and respectful communities, and have experiences that build their resilience and sense of well-being.
The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, asked how we can flex that to make sure that it always reflects particular needs and individual pupils. That is rooted in having a culture that watches out for every child, every day, and makes sure that the relationships that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about are in place, so that children feel able to come forward and talk and teachers can spot their needs.
Good behaviour is critical to ensuring a safe environment that children will feel happy to go to. That is why the Government have put such emphasis on high expectations of behaviour. Many of your Lordships quoted the Children’s Commissioner and I know from speaking to her that it is particularly children with special educational needs and disabilities or children who are vulnerable who need to feel safe in school. They thrive when they feel safe in school. School leaders with whom I have talked emphasise that it is not just in lessons but, crucially, in unstructured time—when the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is standing by the edge of the playground, spotting stuff—when children need to feel safe and need to know absolutely what the expectations are of their behaviour.
Also, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, children need to feel that they have a part in this and a sense of agency. The noble Lord referred to the work of Place2Be, which I know well and admire even more. That sense of pupil leadership councils and so on contributing to the culture of a school, particularly around behaviour, is extremely important. We have set those things out in our behaviour guidance; established behaviour hubs, which are supporting 750 schools; and introduced a behaviour and culture national professional qualification for teachers.
A number of your Lordships, including my noble friends Lord Sterling and Lord Wei, spoke about children with special educational needs. They are right that we absolutely need to emphasise earlier identification. We are working to reduce the adversarial nature of the system and are putting in support for school staff, integrating in the initial teacher training and the early careers framework a much greater focus on special educational needs and disabilities in teacher training. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, spoke about speech and language, which is an important area of focus and obviously one of the priority areas for the practice guidance in the SEND improvement plan. I would be delighted to meet with Speech and Language UK.
My noble friend Lord Sterling and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, among others, spoke about access to CAMHS. The young people’s mental health workforce has increased by 46% since the NHS long-term plan started in 2019, but I absolutely accept your Lordships’ reflections, and the feedback I get when I talk to schools, that that may have increased but schools still feel that it is a very hard service to access.
I turn to enrichment. The department is committed to ensuring that young people have access to great extracurricular opportunities. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about the importance of partnerships. She will know that we are testing ways to increase local co-ordination of enrichment activities across schools through our enrichment partnerships pilot, which is a giant project between the Department for Education and DCMS. That is in addition to our work with DCMS to make sure that children get the most from the national youth guarantee, which supports children to have access to regular out-of-school activities. In particular, we are working together to offer the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award to all mainstream secondary schools in England by 2025, which perhaps offers some of the blood, sweat and tears that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, referred to—hopefully no violence, though.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester spoke about the importance of cultural education, as did my noble friend Lord Vaizey. That is obviously part of a rich school experience, including wider arts, music and creative subjects. That is why we are investing £115 million in cultural education up to 2025.
Turning to sport, I absolutely hear the importance that my noble friend Lord Effingham and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, place on sport. We are going to publish non-statutory guidance this spring, illustrating how schools will be able to provide two hours of PE and equal access. As someone who swam in very cold water this morning and tries to every morning, I totally agree with the noble Lord about the impact on one’s mood. It is hard to get out of cold water without feeling better—unless you stay in too long, of course, but that is for another debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, raised the importance of school food, as did my noble friend Lord Effingham. I offer the noble Lord a meeting outside the Chamber to update him on some of the work the department is doing on this. We now include cooking and nutrition as part of the national curriculum in design and technology, and it is mandatory in key stages 1 to 3. A new GCSE in food preparation and nutrition was introduced in 2016.
My noble friend Lord Wei asked what we are doing to support home education. We remain committed to introducing statutory local authority registers for children not in school, and a duty for local authorities to provide support for home-educating parents. I absolutely recognise some of the issues he raised relating to children with special educational needs and disabilities.
I will also just mention, in honour of her green genes, that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, knows, we are doing a great deal in schools with our climate change and sustainability strategy, which sets out a number of initiatives from early years, through school and into college that are designed to get children into nature and inspire them by spending time in nature, giving them the tools to plan and develop climate action plans for their school and their community, and then act on them. We really believe that that connection with nature is so important to their mental health.
I think your Lordships will have felt quite how strongly I feel about how much our schools are doing to support our children and their mental health. As your Lordships’ speeches underlined, no single thing will address this problem. There is no silver bullet, but that combination of engaging curricular and extracurricular activities and making sure that we protect avenues for student voice and agency will all contribute, combined with having specialist well-being and mental health support. That needs to be underpinned by a firm and supportive behaviour policy where children feel safe and thrive, and where teachers feel fulfilled.
The bit I really do agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is on Yeats and lighting the fire. We do that through those things and through the relationships that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, alluded to, but unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I think that is exactly what our schools are doing.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has taken part in what has been a rich and deeply informative debate—I might even say your Lordships’ House at its best. I think I have a couple of minutes, so I want to respond and highlight some things that particularly deserve to be highlighted.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on his courage in raising the issue of child suicide. It is very difficult to talk about and very disturbing, but it is important that it was raised in the debate. I thank him for that.
Slightly more lightly, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey: no detention, I do not think. I am delighted to hear from the Benches opposite such a radical idea of how we need to get away from Victorian schooling.
I want particularly to address the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, to accept his invitation—I believe I should be at the front of the queue, given it is clearly a long one—and perhaps to apologise. Maybe my speech did not make it clear enough that I was talking about what is happening in a significant number of schools but by no means all of them, and about the direction of policy and ideology that is being pushed towards schools. I mention, for example, Space Studio West London, which I visited with Learn with the Lords. It struck me, from my two-hour visit, as a very inclusive, welcoming and caring school that has really strong approaches. I have no doubt that they exist, but I feel that they are having to run against the tide, rather than being supported in the way that they should be.
I will now pick up some points from the Minister. She said that the department is operating on the basis of evidence of what works. But today, when we are talking about mental health, the figures cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about children’s experience of schools and how they feel about them were deeply shocking. That is evidence and it really needs to be taken into account.
On schools being forced into trusts, Ofsted is a whole other debate. Very importantly, after what the Minister said about the tone of dealing with parents, we heard testimony from all around your Lordships’ House, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Wei. He said there needs to be an approach of collaboration rather than confrontation, and that targets for school attendance often mean being pushed to not act in children’s best interests. Those important testimonies from experience really need to be listened to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, joined the right reverend Prelate and others in talking about the importance of the arts and music. The noble Baroness gave her classic virtuoso performance; I particularly liked the reference to how that is related to civic behaviours —voting and volunteering et cetera, and the relationship of that to cultural education. On food—one of my favourite things—we did not actually get the word microbiome in there, but I thank all noble Lords who brought that up. It is a crucial issue.
I want to finish by referencing two speeches. The first is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. It was an important and obviously very well-informed speech. The word I kept hearing again and again was “pressure”—the pressure coming from exams. I think that feeling has been reflected right around your Lordships’ House; that is how schools are suffering. There is also the way in which schools are not embedded in communities in the same way they used to be, while having to compete against each other. I think the noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about co-operation and the importance of schools working as a network—not being set against each other in league tables, but working together.
Finally, I go to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who of course brings no party axe to grind to your Lordships’ House; she brings absolutely expert experience. She summed up a lot of the debate, from all sides of the House, in saying that children need to feel safe in school, that ignoring well-being does not lead to better outcomes and that we need to address the things that really matter. That is the message to finish this debate with; it really needs to be listened to by all sides of your Lordships’ House.