House of Commons
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s proceedings, I should like to express my sadness on behalf of the House at the death of two former Members.
Ronnie Campbell served as Member for Blyth Valley from 1987 to 2019. He was a kind and generous man, well liked in all parts of the House, and a powerful advocate for his constituents and his principles.
There is also the tragic news of the death of Lord Cormack, who was a Member of this House for 40 years, from 1970 to 2010. He was an eminent historian of Parliament, as well as editor and then president of The House magazine.
They were two very different characters who were united by a strong duty to their constituents and a firm commitment to their principles. They each made their mark on this House in their own way and we will miss them very much. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with their families and friends.
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
Energy prices are now at their lowest level for two years, with a typical bill set to drop by £238 by April. Our cost of living package totals over £104 billion, or £3,700 per household on average, over 2022 to 2025. We are supporting those most in need, with millions of vulnerable households receiving up to £900 in cost of living payments.
Chris Stephens
Some of us believe in preventative spending. A House of Commons Library briefing last year estimated that the annual cost to the national health service of treating illnesses associated with living in cold or damp housing is £1.4 billion. When wider societal costs are considered, that figure rises to £15.4 billion. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the introduction of a social energy tariff would cost less than £15.4 billion?
Claire Coutinho
A social tariff means lots of things to different people, but we are supporting vulnerable people with the cost of their energy bills. We supported them last winter, paying on average a half of everybody’s energy bills, and we have made additional payments of £900 to support people. Since 2010, we have increased the proportion of homes that are energy-efficient and insulated to 50%, up from 14%.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
On energy tariffs, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the merits of providing residents who are local to energy and nuclear plants with discounts on their energy bills?
Claire Coutinho
I thank my hon. Friend for her doughty campaigning for nuclear—she is our very own atomic kitten. We are very positive about nuclear and have set out plans for the largest expansion of nuclear for 70 years. Overall that will be a good thing for people’s energy bills and the energy security of this country.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
Fuel poverty is a devolved matter. The latest figures, published on 15 February 2024, showed that 3.17 million households were in fuel poverty in 2023. The Government continue to deliver financial support to low-income homes and vulnerable households through the warm home discount scheme and cost of living payments.
Kate Hollern
As I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker, the cost of living crisis is far from over for constituents in our area. The Government’s latest energy efficiency policy, the Great British insulation scheme, was supposed to insulate 100,000 homes a year, but so far just 3,000 families have been helped in eight months, including only 35 homes in Lancashire and just six in Blackburn. Will the Minister explain why currently it will take 60 years to meet their three-year target?
Amanda Solloway
Energy efficiency is incredibly important to this Government and we have many schemes available. The Great British insulation scheme alone has committed £592 million.
Paul Blomfield
I hear what the Minister says about the Great British insulation scheme. It comes after the green deal and the green homes grant, but frankly it looks like another failure. There are 1.4 million people living in South Yorkshire, but just 137 of their homes have been upgraded under the GBIS. My constituents want their bills cut, emissions reduced and their homes insulated, but Government incompetence is standing in the way. When will the Minister get a grip?
Amanda Solloway
We are spending £6 billion in this Parliament and a further £6 billion up to 2028 to make buildings, including private rented properties, cleaner and warmer. That is in addition to the estimated £5 billion that will be delivered for ECO4—the energy company obligation—and the Great British insulation scheme up to March 2026.
Marion Fellows
Over the past two years, my constituents in Motherwell and Wishaw, as well as the disability groups that I engage with, have told me harrowing tales of dire fuel poverty and energy debt, while the energy giants post record profits. Even with the new price cap, National Energy Action estimates that there will be 6 million UK households in fuel poverty, with energy debt sitting at £6 billion. After April, the only support available will be the £150 warm home discount, which has barely been increased in a decade. When will the Government take meaningful action and finally consult on an energy social tariff?
Amanda Solloway
Last winter, this Government delivered £40 billion for households and businesses. We also have the warm home discount, the winter fuel payment and the disability cost of living payment. We are committed to ensuring that affordability is top of our list in relation to energy security.
Liz Twist
We have had 14 years of fiasco after fiasco with energy saving schemes from this Government. Frankly, my constituents are fed up with it. In Gateshead, just seven homes have been upgraded under the Government’s latest energy efficiency scheme. Can the Minister say why this is such a disaster and why progress is so slow?
Amanda Solloway
We continue to drive energy efficiency improvements for lower-income and fuel-poor households, through schemes including the energy company obligation, the social housing decarbonisation scheme and the homes upgrade grant.
Afzal Khan
A recent report from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit exposes the Government’s record on insulation and says that the Government’s false claims about their success mostly involved taking credit for schemes that were a legacy of the last Labour Government. A record low of around 80,000 measures were installed in total under the Government’s programmes in 2022. Is not the truth that this Government are failing millions of people in fuel poverty?
Amanda Solloway
This Government have provided unprecedented support for people in this country. I have regular meetings with stakeholders, charities and different organisations. Undoubtedly, we are making sure that people have support through, as I have mentioned, the warm home discount, the energy price cap and lots of other payments, such as the cost of living payment of £900 per annum.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Talking of fuel poverty, the boiler tax results in consumers paying an extra £150 when they purchase a new boiler. Does the Minister agree that it is now time to ditch these unworkable and unaffordable net zero policies and let the British people decide how to heat their homes and what cars to drive so that they can keep more of their own money?
Amanda Solloway
No decision has yet been taken on that, but we have a commitment to ensure that we get the very best deal for all our constituents.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
A year ago, the then Energy Secretary said that if suppliers had wrongly installed prepayment meters in any home, they would have to recompense their customers for the way they had behaved. One year later, can the Minister tell the House how many individuals who had a prepayment meter wrongly installed have had compensation, how many are yet to receive it and, of those still waiting, when they will get the compensation?
Amanda Solloway
One thing on which we can all agree across the House is that it was absolutely abhorrent that people had prepayment meters forced on them. We are working our way through the compensation, but I can assure Members that we are doing everything we can to ensure that, when prepayment meters are installed, we are doing exactly the right thing to make sure that everybody is kept safe.
Kerry McCarthy
I asked the Minister three questions but did not get an answer to any of them. Perhaps she can put the figures in the House of Commons Library, because she clearly does not have a clue what they are.
More than 3 million households are in debt to their energy suppliers and almost 10 million households are living in cold, damp and poorly insulated homes. The Great British insulation scheme is proving to be a great Tory insulation fiasco. Will the Minister tell me why the insulation scheme is proving to be such a disaster?
Amanda Solloway
We have taken great steps to support people. For example, last winter we gave unprecedented support to households and businesses. Of course, debt is a major concern, and I have regular meetings with stakeholders to ensure that we are doing the very best not only to get people out of debt, but to prevent them getting into debt in the first place.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The civil nuclear road map reconfirmed the Government’s ambition to deploy up to 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050. It sets out plans to make investment decisions about 3 GW to 7 GW every five years between 2030 and 2044.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for his answer. New nuclear holds the key not only to ensuring energy security but to creating thousands of high-skilled, well-paid jobs in the areas where it is located, but too often the planning process can take years, even on sites where there is long-established nuclear use. Has he discussed with ministerial colleagues what can be done to shorten that process significantly?
Andrew Bowie
I can confirm that I have had those conversations, and the Government are exploring the potential for reducing regulatory burdens for the consenting and licensing of new nuclear power stations without impacting safety, security or environmental protections. We are also looking to introduce a range of other streamlining measures, including the action plan for reform, which sets out reforms to the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.
Trudy Harrison
Will the Minister confirm that Nuclear Decommissioning Authority-owned land adjacent to Sellafield will be made available for new nuclear? More specifically, will enough land be made available to accommodate two 470 MW Rolls-Royce power stations and their ancillary buildings and spaces?
Andrew Bowie
I can confirm that Moorside is indeed a candidate for new nuclear, and it is one of a number of potential sites for hosting civil nuclear projects. Great British Nuclear is currently running a competitive process to select those small modular reactor technologies best able to facilitate operational projects in the 2030s. That said, the project needs to run its course, and I know my hon. Friend will understand that no decision on sites has yet been made.
Karl MᶜCartney
The UK’s first nuclear fusion power plant is due to be built a short 45-minute drive from Lincoln. It will increase energy generation and hopefully limit the amount of agricultural land being used to house solar farms. Will my hon. Friend update the House on the role that institutions such as the University of Lincoln will have in providing research and training for these types of power plants and their associated advanced jobs of the future?
Andrew Bowie
It is indeed a very exciting time for fusion in this country. Our Fusion Futures programme will provide up to £55 million over five years to train more than 2,200 people, helping meet the demands of our growing fusion sector. That will expand our existing fusion training programmes through work with universities such as the University of Lincoln, colleges and employers, and provide a pipeline of highly skilled scientists, engineers and technicians at all career levels, from apprentice to post-doctoral fellow.
Siobhan Baillie
Berkeley has secured incredibly exciting investment in nuclear innovation with a consortium involving Rolls-Royce and the University of Bristol. A low-carbon energy park with international status at Berkeley and Oldbury, next door, go hand in hand as the Severn Edge project. The Government have a good opportunity to meet their energy security ambitions and lead the way. Will my hon. Friend provide assurances that he will work with Western Gateway on Severn Edge? I heard him say that the competition has to run its course, but will the course be run ahead of the summer recess?
Andrew Bowie
My hon. Friend is tempting me. Oldbury is a candidate for new nuclear, and one of a number of potential sites that could host civil nuclear projects. It is exciting and encouraging to see the number of sites and projects coming forward for investment. As I said, the competition has to run its course, and no decision on sites has been made, but it is very encouraging to see such interest across the country in our great nuclear future.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Nuclear power plants come with a huge up-front capital cost. Even small modular reactors have a considerable price tag, so it is important that the Government get their procurement right for once. Does the Minister agree that SMRs offer possibilities for economies of scale? A large number could be commissioned at once, giving potential savings to the taxpayer while delivering reliable baseload supply to the national grid.
Andrew Bowie
Yes, of course I agree. That is one of the huge benefits, along with many others, of small modular reactors, which is why we are running our down selection programme, and supporting exports from this country to across the world so that other countries can join us on our nuclear journey, investing in small modular, advanced modular and gigawatt-scale projects over the next few years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The delivery of nuclear power stations for Northern Ireland is something that I would welcome, but other parties in Northern Ireland might have concerns about it. The one thing that we in Northern Ireland can all agree on is that, as part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we must be part of the manufacturing base and procurement process. Can the Minister confirm that the people of Northern Ireland will have that opportunity?
Andrew Bowie
Not only can I confirm that, but I put on record my support to all the companies in Northern Ireland that are already integral to the supply chain for our nuclear sector. Our nuclear revival not only will deliver a more secure, robust and clean energy baseload, but has the potential to create thousands of new manufacturing and supply chain jobs across the country, and I want that to impact positively on every corner of our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Contrary to propaganda from the Conservative side, the last Labour Government handed over a detailed nuclear development plan that ran up to 2025, with 10 sites identified for nuclear development, early discussions with nuclear developers, and a plan for a deep and secure nuclear repository. Since then, over 14 years, not one electron of new nuclear power has been produced, Hinkley C is now at risk of further delays and no progress at all has been made on the establishment of a secure storage site for nuclear waste. What assurances can the Minister give that lessons have been learned from that frankly fairly lamentable stewardship of the previous plan, and that the latest plan is set up to deliver?
Andrew Bowie
I have never been accused of propagandising before. It is a matter of pride on the Conservative Benches that every single nuclear project that has ever been completed in this country has been completed under a Conservative Government—it does not look as though that is likely to change any time soon, despite the protestations and near-Damascene conversion of Labour Front Benchers on nuclear over the past few years. We are carrying on with our nuclear revival; we have set out our nuclear road map; and we are encouraging, enthusing and investing in our civil nuclear sector. I am very excited about the progress that we have made and what will take place in the sector over the next few years.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The planning policy priority is the effective use of land by directing solar projects to locate on previously developed low-grade land, and it is designed to avoid, mitigate and, where necessary, compensate for impacts on the best agricultural land.
Greg Smith
The Prime Minister was very clear that vast swathes of agricultural land would not be lost to solar on his watch, yet I am seeing thousands of acres across my constituency being built out or proposed for solar—from Kimble Wick to Dinton, Ford to Beachampton, and more—including the latest 2,100 acre abomination in the Claydons known as Rosefield. Good agricultural land that regularly produces wheat harvests of 10 tonnes per hectare, for example, is often falsely graded as 3b because the readings are taken from the headland, not the field. When will my hon. Friend ensure that energy policy does not trump food security, and stop the mass proliferation of agricultural land being used for inefficient solar?
Andrew Bowie
I understand the concern and frustration of my hon. Friend and his constituents. That particular project is at the pre-application planning stage. The application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate between January and March 2025. However, as I know he understands, owing to the quasi-judicial role of Ministers in determining applications, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any specific matters in relation to that project, but I can reassure him that all applications are judged on their individual merits, and I encourage him and all his affected constituents to engage with the planning process at every stage as it continues.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
With all due respect to Conservative Members, who always represent the farming industry, as do we in the Liberal Democrats, farmers are not stupid. They will not take high-quality agricultural land out of production, and that is not happening, so I really worry about the argument being made here. We are far behind our renewable targets for solar, so what incentive can the Government provide to get more, not less, UK solar off the ground?
Andrew Bowie
I can reassure the hon. Lady that the solar taskforce will publish its recommendations imminently, and we have an ambitious target of deploying 70 GW of solar across the UK by 2035.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Residents in Staffordshire Moorlands are very concerned about a number of planning applications for solar farms and battery storage plants on farmland. They have a number of questions, so can my hon. Friend ensure that small district councils have the appropriate expertise to look at those applications? Can he make sure that proximity to the national grid is taken into consideration, and that when there are a number of applications relating to adjoining pieces of land, those applications are considered as a whole, rather than looked at individually?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and reassure her that we take all those concerns incredibly seriously. I am very happy to meet her and any other Member of Parliament who has concerns about the plans being put forward in their constituency. As I have said, it is really important that everybody—from Members of Parliament through to those in the community who are affected by or have concerns about plans—can engage with the planning process at every stage. We will do what we can to address those concerns while meeting our ambitious target of deploying 70 GW of solar by 2035.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I am delighted to see you in your place, Mr Speaker. Some people have short memories.
Bearing in mind the difficulties that farmers are facing, particularly those with rocky or infertile land, will the Minister have discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to ensure that some of that land is used in ways that maximise the benefit to the farming community, as well as contributing to net zero?
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I can assure him that we are already engaging with the National Farmers Union; indeed, it has been working with the solar taskforce to enable us to work with farmers and understand their concerns. I am very happy to meet farming representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom to determine how we can best support them and reach our net zero objectives by the date we have set ourselves.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
One of the arguments put forward for a large solar farm on agricultural land in my constituency is that there are limited points of interconnection with the national grid for large solar farm developers wishing to contract with it. Could my hon. Friend the Minister advise me on whether that is the case, and if it is, could he follow up on that, and advise all Members of Parliament on where those limitations exist?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Obviously, I do not know the detail of the case he raised, but I am very happy to meet him following questions to look at it in more detail. Despite what I said about the quasi-judicial role of Ministers in planning applications, it is really important that all concerns are addressed and looked at, and that the planning application system is thorough, robust and transparent.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
On land use for food production and achieving net zero, has the Minister done an impact assessment of the rising carbon emissions from the UK Government carrying on with their agricultural policy, which is reducing incentives for farmers to produce food? As a consequence, we will import more food. As things stand, we produce only 60% of the food we eat; importing more and more food will surely increase carbon emissions. Has the Minister looked into that, and done an impact assessment of it?
Andrew Bowie
At the National Farmers Union conference just last week, the Prime Minister reiterated this Government’s commitment to supporting British farmers in their primary role of delivering food for the nation. It would be good to see the Liberal Democrats give their support to British farmers in so forceful a manner. We are absolutely determined to do what we can to support British farmers in continuing to deliver that food—and, indeed, to support the technologies that we need to reach our net zero commitments, which I am led to believe the Liberal Democrats still support.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
The setting of tariffs, including standing charges, in the non-domestic market is a commercial matter for suppliers. The Secretary of State and I have met suppliers and Ofgem multiple times over the past year to urge them to support businesses and keep bills down, and Ofgem has recently called for input and views on standing charges.
Grahame Morris
Mr Speaker, I associate myself with your earlier remarks about the sad passing of my dear friend Ronnie Campbell, and indeed Lord Cormack.
For months now, East Durham Trust in my constituency has been in dispute with its supplier, TotalEnergies, after TotalEnergies raised its standing charge from 40p a day to £20 a day—an increase of over 4,000%. Remarkably, after making complaints to the Department, Ofgem, Northern Powergrid and TotalEnergies, I found out just yesterday that TotalEnergies has agreed to remotely reconfigure the meter in question. Can the Minister explain why energy companies and distributors do not seek to address customer issues sooner, and does she agree that we have a failing regulator and an energy system that seeks to maximise profits?
Amanda Solloway
I am pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the situation has been resolved, and I suggest that exactly the right recourse is to contact the relevant parties. We are now launching the ability of the ombudsman to help small businesses as well, which reassures me that such cases will be seen to more quickly and resolved sooner.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
In the UK, electricity standing charges will balloon by 12%, meaning that people in Scotland who were paying £90 a year in 2021-22 will soon need to find £216 a year—a 138% increase under this Tory Government. That removes the incentive to curb excessive use, and presents a disincentive to economise on energy usage. If costs and charges were redistributed to the unit price, consumers would be empowered to pursue reduced usage, knowing that that would translate into lower bills. What assessment has the Minister made of the savings that would be made, in terms of both carbon emissions and the need for vast pieces of new energy infrastructure, if the standing charges were rolled into unit prices?
Amanda Solloway
Standing charges, as I mentioned, are a matter for Ofgem. However, Ofgem has listened to public sentiment, and it has recently launched a call for input on standing charges. My understanding is that to date, it has had over 40,000 responses. The call for input closed on 19 January, and Ofgem’s paper aims to ensure a greater understanding of how standing charges are applied to energy bills and what alternatives should be considered.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
The UK has already made tremendous progress in securing investment in green technologies; recent figures indicate that there was £60 billion of investment in the UK in 2023, meaning that since 2010, the UK has had £300 billion of public and private investment in low-carbon sectors. Since I took office in September, we have put in place new policies and signed deals with different countries, and the investment has continued to flow, with plans for around £24 billion of new investment in low-carbon sectors announced by the private sector.
Andrew Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Harmony Energy based in Knaresborough opened Europe’s largest battery farm in Yorkshire in 2022. It has raised the issue of connectivity challenges being a blockage to investment, so I welcome the connections action plan, which aims to cut connection times by up to 90%. Battery farms are critical for energy retention and storage, and are particularly helpful for renewables, so may I ask my right hon. Friend for an update on how the plan is being implemented?
Claire Coutinho
We have set out the most radical reforms to the grid since the 1950s. As the action plan sets out, we are taking action with Ofgem and network companies to accelerate those really important network connections. Network companies are offering earlier connection to battery storage and generation projects. For example, 10 GW of battery storage projects are already being offered connection dates to the transmission network that are on average four years earlier than was originally agreed.
Jack Brereton
The UK’s ceramics sector has invested heavily in energy efficiency technologies, and it is committed to going further, but many of the alternative green technologies are not yet viable, and there are serious risks that too stringent net zero targets will result in carbon leakage, and in offshoring an industry and skilled jobs to countries that have a far worse environmental record. Will my right hon. Friend look seriously at exempting the ceramics sector from the emissions trading scheme, to give the sector the breathing space that it needs to invest?
Claire Coutinho
I commend my hon. Friend’s unwavering commitment to advocating for the ceramics sector in his constituency. The UK Government remain steadfast in safeguarding sectors deemed at risk of carbon leakage, and I strongly encourage the ceramics sector in his constituency to actively participate in the consultation on free allocation policy, which is open.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
A new report from the Green Finance Institute and the Institute for Public Policy Research notes that a lack of public investment and strategy is holding back progress on unlocking private investment, and that the chopping and changing of policy pathways has damaged investor confidence. The Secretary of State likes to say that she has a clear strategy, so will she tell investors what it is? Will she call on the Chancellor to deliver the scale of public investment that we so urgently need to restore investor confidence and lift the UK off the bottom of the G7 league table for private investment, where we currently languish?
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Lady for that question, but I am surprised that she did not welcome the recent news that the UK was the first country in the G20 to halve its emissions since the 1990s, as I know that subject is dear to her heart. As I have said, in 2023, the UK saw around £60 billion of low-carbon private and public investment. We got that extraordinary success by encouraging private investment. Whether through the contracts for difference scheme, our new policies on capital allowances, or the effect of the green industries growth accelerator on the supply chain, the UK is doing everything it can to attract investment, and that is exactly why we have made those achievements.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Last week, the Scottish Government announced £24.5 million of public investment in a new cable factory, which will attract a further £350 million of inward investment. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to increase private investment is for the Government to increase public investment, to signal that the UK is open to green investment? Should not the UK Government therefore invest at least £28 billion a year, so that we can maximise private investment, and so that economic growth from the green transition is also maximised?
Claire Coutinho
As I said, our record on net zero investment is incredibly strong. In fact, I believe the CBI had a report out this morning showing that our net zero sectors have been growing by 9% in the last year. We have set out plans for further investment, whether that is in grid connections, supply chain investment through our Gigafund, or reforming capital allowance. All those things, and not public sector investment alone, attract private investment to this country.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
This Government are locked in a doom loop of inertia, and everyone is talking about it. Just this week, the National Infrastructure Commission said that the Government are taking too long, need to move faster, and that greater urgency is required. The CBI report that the Secretary of State mentioned says that
“strong future growth from green businesses is being put at risk”.
Labour’s national wealth fund will crowd in private investment and create thousands of good jobs for plumbers, engineers, electricians and welders. Is blowing our advantage and losing the race for the industries of the future part of the Government’s plan, or do they just not have one?
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Lady for having the chutzpah to attempt that question. If she would like to talk about uncertainty on investment plans, she need only look at those on the Benches behind her, who have performed the most extraordinary flip-flop on that. We have delivered the second highest cumulative amount of recorded low-carbon investment across Europe over the past five years.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
The Advertising Standards Authority is responsible for regulating advertising in the UK across traditional forms of media, and it takes environmental issues seriously. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to approach the ASA directly with that request, as it operates independently of Government.
Mr Sheerman
Thank you for waking me up, Mr Speaker. The Adfree Cities campaign is very significant. Most of us have seen flashing coloured screens proliferate in our towns and cities, and much more densely in other countries, such as France and Germany. Not only do these screens use a lot of energy and electricity, but they are very invasive of people’s dwellings. Can we be very careful about the proliferation of those screens?
Graham Stuart
As I said, the ASA would be the key people to go to. Companies in the sector are, and should be, mindful of their net zero obligations. They are looking into making commitments to source all their electricity from renewable sources, which is a solid thing to do, as well as using digital technologies to minimise energy usage. The Net Zero Council is producing road maps for all industry sectors across the economy, to encourage businesses to do everything they can to minimise their environmental impact.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
Last week, we launched a consultation, closing on 12 March, on requiring petrol stations to report a change in price within 30 minutes. Pumpwatch will enable drivers to make informed decisions on where to buy fuel and will reignite competition.
Theo Clarke
I thank the Minister for her answer, but my constituents in Stafford remain concerned about the price of fuel, particularly given the pressures on their household budgets. I welcome the fact that the price of a tank of fuel is lower than it was when prices were at their peak, but what is she doing to ensure that my constituents get the best price for their fuel?
Amanda Solloway
We are committed to making sure that consumers get a fair deal. That is why fuel retailers must remain transparent and not overcharge drivers. The Pumpwatch consultation will require all petrol stations to report prices within 30 minutes of their changing. That will enable tech companies to develop new ways for UK drivers to search for the cheapest fuel.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
In rural communities across Devon, people feel the pressure of high fuel costs. The cost of fuel in towns such as Honiton is almost 20p a litre higher than at petrol stations just 30 miles away. What steps will the Government take to ensure fairness, and to introduce rural fuel duty relief of the sort that we already have in some parts of north Devon?
Amanda Solloway
Pumpwatch will help with those things, but it is unacceptable for any fuel retailer to overcharge drivers. That is why the Secretary of State held a roundtable in December with fuel retailers to make it clear that we expect them to pass on savings to consumers when prices fall.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for her committed work to support her constituents living in rural areas. We have a proud record of energy efficiency. We are encouraging, rather than forcing, people to make the right choices, and we pushed back the ban on gas boilers while increasing the boiler upgrade scheme to £7,500, which is one of the most generous grants in Europe.
Helen Morgan
There are 1,858 listed properties in North Shropshire, according to the Listed Property Owners Club, and 24 conservation areas across our historical market towns and villages. That means that there is a large number of buildings that owners find it difficult to upgrade to make them energy-efficient. What conversations has the Minister had with her colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on enabling people to bring those homes into the 21st century and make them energy-efficient?
Amanda Solloway
The hon. Member makes a good point. We have those consultations across Departments, and local authorities in rural areas in England are eligible for grants. I can give my assurance that we have those cross-government meetings.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Many off-grid homes across Cornwall cannot convert to energy-efficient heating schemes without incurring huge costs. One option for them is to use hydro-treated vegetable oil. Can the Minister lay out what plans the Government have to support those using renewable liquid heating fuels, and will she back the campaign by our excellent candidate for Camborne and Redruth, Connor Donnithorne, to axe the tax on HVOs?
Amanda Solloway
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. We have begun developing a consultation on the role of renewable liquid fuels in heat. We expect Department for Energy Security and Net Zero Ministers to receive detailed information on the shape of the consultation in the coming weeks, and aim to publish in the summer of 2024.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
The Government plan to publish the second consultation imminently. It will set out a clear direction on how the GB electricity market arrangements will evolve to keep electricity bills as low as possible for consumers of all types.
Andrew Selous
There are two questions that my constituents ask me most frequently: when will we see cheaper electricity from renewables, and when people in areas such as mine, which host a lot of renewable production, benefit from cheaper prices, as a result of hosting that infrastructure?
Graham Stuart
The Government are moving on from our appalling inheritance in 2010 of less than 7% of our electricity coming from renewables, with that figure today up to well over 40%. Every day we add to that, we displace gas and other fossil fuels and lower bills for people, and we plan to keep that going. We already have solar, onshore wind and other developers providing benefits to consumers, and we will come forward with plans for those hosting—
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
People who are considering changing their boiler struggle to find accurate information about the benefits and the costs. Will the Minister consider issuing new guidance that makes clear both the costs and the benefits of switching to a heat pump?
Graham Stuart
It can be a complex matter. That is why the Government have committed to looking at rebalancing the system costs across electricity and gas, as well as to ensure that people can benefit, as I do, from a heat pump, which provides a warm home and low bills.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
Ofgem’s new price cap means that from April, the average bill is set to drop by £238. This shows that our plan is working: we have halved inflation and energy prices are at their lowest level in two years. Alongside that, we have taken the number of homes that are well insulated up from 14% in 2010 to 50% now. We have recently set out plans to help more customers access smarter energy tariffs, which could save them up to £900 a year.
Alyn Smith
I am grateful for the answer, but one thing my constituents in Stirling do not understand is electricity standing charges. As we have heard, according to Ofgem’s figures, they have rocketed by 138% from £90.84 in 2021-22 to £216.23 in 2023-24. Ofgem has issued a call for evidence, which is to be welcomed, but Ofgem is clearly not fit for purpose on this. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is high time the UK Government stepped in?
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Gentleman is right that Ofgem regulates standing charges and has issued a call for evidence. I think about 40,000 people have given input, and we look forward to seeing the results. However, if he was really worried about the cost of living for families in the country, the SNP would not have taken taxes in Scotland to the highest level in the UK.
Elliot Colburn
The fall in the energy price cap is certainly welcomed by Carshalton and Wallington residents, as is the support for households, but many small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency are still struggling to absorb higher costs. Will the Secretary of State outline in a bit more detail the support that those businesses can access to help with energy bills?
Claire Coutinho
I thank my hon. Friend for recently welcoming me to Carshalton and Wallington. Wholesale energy prices have fallen significantly since last winter, but we are committed to supporting businesses with their energy bills. Last winter alone, we delivered about £7.4 billion to support businesses, covering nearly half of many businesses’ wholesale energy costs. We are continuing the energy bills discount scheme to support eligible businesses with high energy costs until they can take advantage of lower wholesale prices.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
A lot has happened since I was last at the Dispatch Box. Not only have energy bills fallen to their lowest level in two years—welcome news for families up and down the country—but Britain has become the first major economy to halve our emissions, which is a huge milestone on our journey to net zero, our Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill has completed its Commons stages, and we are supporting the North sea by protecting 200,000 jobs and using our own gas to heat our homes.
I have signed a new partnership with Canada on fusion energy, which is a technology that could give us limitless energy and one on which Britain is leading the world. We have confirmed the UK’s departure from the energy charter treaty, which was holding back our transition to cleaner, cheaper energy. We have launched a consultation on smart energy tariffs, which could see £900 taken off people’s bills, and today we host our hydrogen investor forum, announcing eight successful projects to make low-carbon hydrogen, with over £27 million of Government support.
Simon Baynes
Residents in Esclusham in my constituency are alarmed by Innova’s plans for the UK’s largest lithium-ion battery storage facility near Bersham. Can my right hon. Friend give any reassurance about the safety of this technology to my constituents, who are concerned about the dangers of pollution, given the noise emitted by such equipment, and by reports of similar facilities elsewhere exploding, catching fire and emitting toxic fumes?
Claire Coutinho
Electricity storage allows us to use energy more flexibly and to minimise energy bills. Grid-scale lithium-ion battery energy storage systems are covered by a robust regulatory framework that is principally over- seen by the Health and Safety Executive. Planning guidance encourages developers and local authorities to consult relevant fire and rescue services on aspects such as location, ahead of any planning decisions being made.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Some 23% of households in Scotland are living in extreme fuel poverty. Energy debt across the United Kingdom has reached £3.1 billion. Age UK estimates that, had the UK Government implemented a social tariff this winter, 2.2 million households would have been lifted out of poverty. The latest costs of unpayable energy debt have once again been heaped on to ordinary taxpayers by Ofgem through the unit rate. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of how much energy debt could be reduced by through the introduction of a social tariff to mitigate totally unaffordable energy bills?
Claire Coutinho
The fact that energy prices are at the lowest level in two years is good news for families up and down the country. We have put in place support, including a package of more than £104 billion to support families—that is £3,700 per household on average. As part of that, we have made £900 cost of living payments to help people in the last year.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Wholesale energy prices have fallen compared with last year. The Government have been supporting eligible businesses locked into high contracts through the energy bills discount scheme, until they can take advantage of lower fixed-price rates. My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that the Government delivered more than £7.4 billion to non-domestic energy users last winter, covering around half of many businesses’ energy bills.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Last September, the Energy Secretary claimed she was lifting the onshore wind ban, but in the whole of 2023 and so far in 2024 there have been zero applications for new onshore wind farms designed for domestic electricity supply in England. She said that her decision would speed up the delivery of projects. Why does she think it has not worked?
Claire Coutinho
Let me be clear about our record on onshore wind. Energy production has quadrupled since 2010, when we had 3.9 GW of onshore wind, to 15.4 GW in 2023. We have connected the second highest amount of renewables anywhere in Europe, whereas the right hon. Gentleman’s plans have been widely discredited by industry and would deter billions of pounds of investment in clean energy.
Edward Miliband
The right hon. Lady did not answer the question. I will tell her why it has not worked: because she has left a uniquely restrictive planning regime in place for onshore wind. Her failure is costing families across this country £180 a year on their bills. We know that her policy has failed. She could dump the ban at the stroke of a pen. If she is vaguely serious about clean energy, why does she not face down the headbangers on her Back Benches and lift the ban?
Claire Coutinho
As I said, we have connected the second highest amount of renewable electricity anywhere in Europe since 2010. Our record on renewable energy is clear. This is the most extraordinary deflection that I have seen. In recent weeks, the right hon. Gentleman’s leader has shredded his policy platform on energy. To be honest, I feel quite sorry for him, because thanks to the action of his leader and his shadow Chancellor, he has been hidden away, his policy has been ripped up and it is now obvious to everyone that Labour has no plan for energy.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
I thank my hon. Friend for his continuing interest in this issue. The REMA programme is considering a number of options, including sending more efficient locational signals, which I know he is very knowledgeable about, zonal pricing, reform to transmission charging and changes to network access. The second round of the consultation is imminent.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Graham Stuart
The Government are doing the right thing, have done the right thing and will continue to do the right thing in coming to a fair settlement between miners, the Government and the taxpayer. That is what we will continue to do, and I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it further.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Graham Stuart
Of course, my hon. Friend has a highly distinguished history in the marketing industry. We agree that it is important that the public get the information they need to save money on their bills, as we set out in the net zero growth plan. That is why last autumn we relaunched the “It All Adds Up” campaign, which helped British households save an estimated £120 million last winter. Whether it is elf on the shelf or other such routes, we will find ways to better communicate with the public, precisely to allow them to be well informed in doing their bit for net zero.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Amanda Solloway
I could not agree more that we should not be paying different prices at different petrol stations. That is one of the reasons why we have launched a consultation on Pumpwatch, and why we have very regular meetings with the suppliers to make sure that they are not doing this. They should not be doing it and we are very clear about that.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Graham Stuart
I can. What the sector does not need, of course, as OEUK has itself set out, is the tens of thousands of job losses that would be driven by the ideological and climate-damaging obsession of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) with ending new UK oil and gas licensing.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The SNP, blinded by a misplaced belief in its own exceptionalism, seems almost alone in the world in not recognising the benefits of new nuclear when it comes to meeting our net zero objectives, delivering our energy security and improving our baseload. At last year’s COP, 30 countries around the world came together to commit to increasing nuclear-generated capacity by 30%. It would be brilliant if Scotland could be part of that change, but the SNP and its luddite partners in the Green party are holding Scotland back. We are determined not to do that for the rest of the UK.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Plans for a new incinerator in Wisbech are strongly opposed by my constituents and those of my right hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara) and for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). With 300 lorry trips a day and a structure bigger than Ely cathedral, there would be serious health and environmental concerns for the nearest school. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visit the site to see for herself why the plans are wholly inappropriate?
Andrew Bowie
The Secretary of State will be happy to engage with my hon. Friend, and I too would be delighted to visit the site to look into the issues that he has raised.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is right to salute the astonishing investments that we are seeing throughout the automotive sector, and I am delighted that the Government have been able to help to bring them about. As she knows, we are committed to spreading more and more charging across the United Kingdom, not least in motorway service areas, so that we have the infrastructure to facilitate the decarbonisation of transport alongside all our other emitters.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Earlier this month we welcomed the Prime Minister to A&P Falmouth to meet its workforce and talk about its fantastic submission for funding under the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme to enable the port of Falmouth to support the emerging floating offshore wind sector in the Celtic sea. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that the Government are looking at all the applications with a scrutinising eye to ensure that the supply chain can be built up throughout the south-west?
Andrew Bowie
I can indeed confirm that the supply chain and the manufacturing jobs that will be created through our investment in floating offshore wind will benefit every community in the United Kingdom. No decision has yet been made on FLOWMIS, but one will be made imminently.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Amanda Solloway
The Government are already committed to ensuring that households have the necessary energy efficiency. We have introduced the social housing decarbonisation boiler upgrade scheme, the home upgrade grant and many other initiatives, and we are of course helping all our constituents with affordability.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
We have made huge progress in decarbonising our electricity sector, but decarbonising transport and heat is much more tricky. Will the Minister encourage our plans in Copeland to harness any power that can be obtained from new nuclear for that purpose, and will he meet us so that we can discuss those plans?
Andrew Bowie
I should, as ever, be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, and very happy to discuss the opportunities that are opening up for her community and others throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, I have visited her constituency and observed for myself the huge enthusiasm for new nuclear, as well as the additional benefits that it can bring to the wider energy sector.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The potential loss of 2,800 jobs at Tata Steel in Port Talbot is devastating for workers and their families, with possible knock-on effects for Trostre in Llanelli. As well as investing in the electric arc furnace, will the Government commit themselves to primary green steelmaking in the UK to preserve our security and our jobs?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady should, alongside us, celebrate the £500 million that the Government are contributing as part of an overall £1.25 billion investment in the modernisation of steel production at Port Talbot through, for instance, the electric arc furnace. Government and industry will also invest £100 million in skills to ensure that there are thousands of jobs for the future, and that we reduce emissions as well.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend reaffirm the Government’s commitment to develop four operational CCUS clusters, including Acorn in my constituency, by the end of the decade? Will my colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero make representations to His Majesty’s Treasury to bring forward the financial investment decisions at the soonest opportunity?
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right: CCUS has such an important role, and we are committed to those four clusters. As we announced in March last year, we have delivered £20 billion of investment to make sure that we carry on with the transformation and decarbonisation of this country that was so woefully lacking when we took power in 2010.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Last week the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), shared a platform with an extremist, far-right, climate change-denying conspiracy theorist called Steve Bannon, who claimed that man-made global warming is a “manufactured crisis”. Will the Secretary of State condemn those crazy comments and perhaps distance herself from the former Prime Minister?
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. What he should look at carefully is that the UK is the first country in the G20 to halve emissions. If he wants to look at our record, he should look at that. It is absolutely extraordinary that no one on the Opposition Benches has welcomed that news today.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
National Grid’s Grimsby to Walpole project will see pylons driven across Lincolnshire’s beautiful landscapes and will take major chunks of some of this country’s best agricultural land out of production. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that residents respond to the consultation that is currently going on, and that National Grid should be told to take into consideration food security as well as energy security when it considers such applications?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he will know, I cannot comment on a specific proposal. We need to rewire this country in order to have homegrown energy. That means hosting new infrastructure, with the presumption that it is above ground and done in a way that minimises negative impacts on food security, which I am confident that any proposals that come forward will do. Let us make no mistake: we must rewire this country. We must power the UK more from this country, clean up our energy and reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Every single winter, the village of Altnaharra in Sutherland is the coldest community in the whole of the United Kingdom. Some parts of the United Kingdom are colder than others—that is geography. May I ask that this fact be taken into consideration when the Government look at schemes to help people with the cost of paying their electricity bills?
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he will know, the Government delivered over £40 billion in support last winter. We expect the warm home discount to support around 3 million households this winter, with the final figures to be published later. Since 2011, the warm home discount has delivered over £3.5 billion in support for eligible low-income households.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I welcome the news that Ofgem has put the price cap down by 12%, which represents a discount of about £20 for every average home. There is one problem, though: the standing charge is still relatively high. I know there is an open consultation, but would the Government consider transparency about the standing charge on bills so that the public understand exactly what it does?
Amanda Solloway
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Clearly, it is vital that we had the call for input on the standing charges, and we await with anticipation how we will react to the over 40,000 responses that we have had so far.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I have recently been inundated with correspondence following the collapse of SSB Law, a legal firm that took thousands of defective cavity wall insulation cases to court. It has left constituents with tens of thousands of pounds in costs that they cannot afford during an unprecedented cost of living crisis. Can the Minister assure me that the Government have a plan to address this scandal? What compensation will my constituents be offered to remove faulty cavity wall insulation so that they can finally be free of its devastating consequences?
Amanda Solloway
It is always awful to hear of these cases. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the issue.
Ukraine: Military Equipment
(8 months, 4 weeks 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
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on international supplies of military equipment and ammunition to Ukraine.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
The UK has been leading international support for the armed forces of Ukraine for 10 years since Russia first invaded Crimea in 2014, training more than 60,000 new recruits since 2015 and committing almost £12 billion in economic, humanitarian and military aid since 2022. From the UK-founded, UK-administered international fund for Ukraine, which has pledged more than £900 million, to spearheading capability coalitions, our efforts have paved the way and made a genuine difference. Our NLAW anti-tank missiles and our Javelins helped brave Ukrainians to devastate Putin’s menacing 40-mile armoured convoy, which was headed for Kyiv. We were the first to send main battle tanks with our Challenger squadron, plus 500 armoured vehicles and 15,000 anti-armour weapons.
Last week the Defence Secretary announced to this House a new package of 200 Brimstone anti-tank missiles, plus £245 million for artillery munitions. The UK will also co-lead an international capability coalition, alongside Latvia, to supply cutting-edge drones to Ukraine, in addition to the UK’s co-leadership of the international maritime capability coalition. The Defence Secretary has urged partners and allies to commit to long-term support for Ukraine. At the NATO Defence Ministers’ meeting on 15 February, the Defence Secretary and his counterparts from 14 NATO allies and Sweden signed an agreement on two new multinational procurement initiatives focusing on munitions and missiles. Spearheaded by the UK, these initiatives aim to increase defence industrial capacity across the Euro-Atlantic area, replenish stockpiles at pace and continue support to Ukraine.
Bob Seely
I commend the Government for their impressive record, but does the Minister accept that the equipment pledged by NATO nations is not reaching Ukraine in anything like the amounts promised? Does he accept, for example, that less than a third of the 1 million shells promised by EU nations have arrived, that more than 300 artillery barrels will reach the end of their productive life this year, that very few pilots are being trained and that the Ukrainians are perilously short of air defence? This is at a time when the Russians are on a war footing, with 40% of all their Government spending geared towards the destruction of the Ukrainian state.
Specifically, may I ask whether Defence Intelligence and the Government reckon that the Ukrainians will be able to hold their current positions, and if so, for how long? When will artillery stocks run even lower and fall off a cliff edge? Will the Minister confirm that we have delivered on all our pledges? I was in east Ukraine last week. Does he understand that, after the obliteration of the frontline town of Avdiivka, the Ukrainians are now asking which of their towns will be the next to be destroyed by Russian artillery, while Ukrainian soldiers die because they lack kit? Finally, does he accept that the situation is becoming acutely dangerous for everybody, with the forces of fascism beginning to overpower free states and their NATO allies? Where does he believe we might be with security throughout Europe in the next few months?
James Cartlidge
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to him and all parliamentarians who have visited Ukraine and shown our solidarity and support for our ally. I know that he has a background as an officer in the Intelligence Corps, so he speaks not only with the passion we all share but with significant expertise on these matters. He will therefore be aware that there is a limit to what I can say on the operational situation and being drawn into trying to estimate the level of supplies. These are all sensitive and important points.
I think we can all agree that what my hon. Friend says about air support and training is important. I was at RAF Valley recently and, as I understand it, we are providing 26 Ukrainians with elementary flying training. We are flying the F-16 and we have Typhoon F-35s, while other countries will be providing the actual platforms. He is absolutely right to say that air defence is a critical part of the conflict and we need to supply more. We have provided over 1,000 air defence systems but we want to do more.
On the overall position, as I have said, we cannot provide a running commentary on the exact operational situation, but we provide regular tweets sharing what intelligence we can. Fundamentally, my hon. Friend is right to warn all of us, and indeed our allies, of the risk, were the situation to be reversed. We can say with some certainty that when the war started, we would all have been surprised to be in this situation with Ukraine having won back so much territory and, frankly, remained in the fight. That is thanks in a huge part to the role of the United Kingdom, and we should be proud of that.
As the Secretary of State confirmed in his recent oral statement, we provided NLAWs before Russia invaded and have been training Ukrainians since 2014—60,000 in total—but I know there is more to do. My hon. Friend has a very good understanding of these matters. These capability coalitions—one on drones and the other on maritime— are a good way to turn the support that has been provided into targeted and effective capability on the frontline. We are clear that we need to do more, and our allies need to stay with us in the fight.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
As we mark two years since Vladimir Putin’s brutal, illegal invasion began, it should be a source of pride to all in this House that the UK remains totally united and committed to supporting Ukraine. We must continue to stand with the Ukrainian people for as long as it takes for them to win.
On military help for Ukraine and on reinforcing our NATO allies, the UK Government have had, and will continue to have, Labour’s fullest support. At yesterday’s opening of the Paris summit, to shore up support for Ukraine, western leaders rightly made it clear that Russia is far from a spent force and that Putin will not stop at Ukraine if he wins. As Russia steps up its war effort, we must step up our support, and so must Ukraine’s other allies. Labour welcomes the 200 extra Brimstone anti-tank missiles and the £245 million artillery munitions package for Ukraine, which the Government announced this weekend.
Ministers favour ad hoc announcements over a fuller military aid plan for Ukraine, but how can industry invest and mobilise with confidence without a long-term plan to work against? On stepping up western support for Ukraine, how are we co-ordinating with our NATO allies to ensure that our munitions support provides Ukraine with the urgent and sustained help it needs? Of the £2.5 billion announced for 2024, can the Minister confirm how much is being spent on Ukraine and how much is being spent on UK operational costs at NATO bases?
Given the importance of the Paris summit for Ukraine, why was the Prime Minister unable to attend the event, unlike other key western leaders? There could be a change in Government this year, but there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, to confront Russian aggression and to pursue Putin for his war crimes.
James Cartlidge
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for continuing to show solidarity, for the consensus that exists across the House and, in particular, for specifically mentioning the Brimstone gifting and the £245 million recently announced for artillery munitions.
The hon. Gentleman talks about our longer-term plan. Just to be clear, the war is happening today and the key focus of the £2.5 billion for Ukraine this financial year is getting support into the country as soon as possible, which is when they need it. Of course, we want to have a long-term plan too. I am clear that the UK will play a very significant role in helping Ukraine, when it is fully free, to get back to the level of prosperity it expects. For now, we have to focus on what is a very challenging situation.
Drones are one of the most important capabilities we have seen in Ukraine, and they have arguably transformed the nature of warfare in this conflict. Last week I was pleased to announce our own uncrewed strategy and, in doing so, I talked about the Malloy T150 drone, which has done an incredible job, lifting blood, munitions and other key supplies to Ukrainian marines on the bank of the Dnieper. We have provided 4,000 drones to Ukraine, and we will keep doing that—we have the £200 million. Yes, it is about shells and munitions, but we also have to provide a way to fight with them; we have to assist to ensure that we deliver that capability, which is why those coalitions are so important.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports us in the round, and we are sending a message that this House is united in supporting Ukraine.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Minister says the training started in 2014, which is the year after the House took, in my view, the wrong decision in the Syria vote; it led to Russia giving help to Assad, the taking of Crimea, the infiltration of eastern Ukraine and various other problems.
As Ukraine’s security is, in effect, our security and that of our NATO allies, will he confirm that we will do all we can to try to make sure that Ukraine is safe and that Russia, at some stage, returns to being a peaceful nation devoted to the prosperity of its own people, rather than doing down other people?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and he is absolutely right to say that their security is our security. We need to support Ukraine, because it is morally the right thing to do to support a free country that has been illegally invaded. We should also be clear that it is in our strategic interests and those of all of our democratic allies to do so, because we do not want to see an emboldened Russia, not least because of the impact that could have on other potential adversaries.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Ukraine is on the frontline, not only of its own battles, but of those of international democracy and law. We cannot leave the Ukrainians without in a time of need. Their fight is our fight, so let us look at what the UK Government can do. We must not allow Putin’s plan to wait until the international community loses interest to succeed. Will the UK Government prepare an International Criminal Court case against Russia for its bombardment of civilians in Ukraine? What more can the UK Government do to ensure the safety of Ukrainian skies, and to ensure a united and collective western effort in continued support of Ukraine?
James Cartlidge
Once again, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support and that of the SNP in ensuring that we have this strong consensus across the House in support of the Ukrainians. As he said, their fight is our fight—I strongly agree. He is also right about the ICC. As for where the Ministry of Defence is focused, he makes an important point about the threat in the air. As I said, air defence has been crucial, but of course that fight takes many forms; we need to look at not only ground-to-air systems, but drones, which have proliferated and had an extraordinary impact. We know that we cannot provide the F-16, which is the Ukrainians’ fighter of choice, but we have done what we can by providing the elementary flying training and I absolutely assure him that we will do everything we can.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I welcome all that the Government have been doing, including on Brimstone and the package of £245 million-worth of ammunition. However, may I ask specifically about 155 mm shells and the BAE Systems production line? Has it now got the orders to ensure that it is working at maximum capacity, on a war footing, to produce all it can to support Ukraine and indeed, in due course, our own stockpiles?
James Cartlidge
It is a pleasure to take my first contribution from my right hon. Friend in the Chamber since he became Chairman of the Select Committee. I look forward to further discussion with him later this afternoon on other matters before the Committee. He is right to stress the importance of that contract—155 mm shells are one of the fundamental munitions we need to see both replenished for the UK armed forces and, where possible, provided into Ukraine, along with other key artillery classes. I can confirm that we signed that contract with BAE last July and it should lead to an eightfold increase in 155 mm production, initially in the Washington plant, but thereafter in south Wales. I am keen to see that get going as soon as possible.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The MOD has clearly done a decent job of supporting Ukraine, but I still doubt that the Government as a whole are seized of the urgent critical nature of this crisis. I return to the question I asked the Secretary of State last week: why, when it was clear early in 2022 that this was going to be very much an artillery war dating back to the last century, did it take until mid-2023 to place the order for additional artillery shells? The Minister should have the answer by now.
James Cartlidge
I refer to the previous answer I gave, where I was clear that we placed that order last July, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said; that is for our own armed forces and it is an eightfold increase. But we have provided 300,000 artillery shells into Ukraine. We have procured them, Sir. We have done that not just from this country; we have done it through rapid procurement, through Defence Equipment and Support. All I can say is that I pay tribute to that effort. We all know that we need to go further. The other point is that this is not just about what we have procured; this country has played a leading role in ensuring that other nations join us and provide more munitions. That is as much a key part of the role that we have played.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Last week, in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly joint session in Brussels, top military leaders described to us their concern that the EU ethical banking laws are going to stop investment in arms companies. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the UK will always ensure that the money needed to invest in making sure that Europe can protect itself against Russian aggression will be there and that the arms can be manufactured?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend asks about an excellent point. Both the Secretary of State and I have commented on that. I have held meetings at the Treasury and with defence companies about the ESG—environmental, social and governance—issue, as well as with financial institutions, at Rothschild in the City, because it is extraordinary that anyone should think we should not invest in core munitions when we see now that the cause they support is peace, freedom and democracy. If we do not fund our defence sector, we simply will not be able to defend those fine principles.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
President Zelensky said yesterday that without new military aid from the United States, Ukraine would be unable to defend the Black sea shipping corridor, which has enabled the export of 33 million metric tonnes of Ukrainian grain. That has been enabled in part by the supply by the UK of the Storm Shadow missile and by France’s supply of the SCALP missile. What are the Government discussing with German counterparts about their potential to supply their equivalent, the Taurus missile system?
James Cartlidge
I know that the hon. Gentleman also served and speaks with expertise on these matters. He is right to raise the issue of the strategic importance of the Black sea. We have had huge progress in that area. I believe that since we reopened that corridor, through the success that the Ukrainians have had, with our support, in pushing back the Russian fleet to the east, some 19 million tonnes of grain have got through. That underlines how important that corridor is, but he is right to say that we need to look at what more we can do. Obviously, I am not going to comment on sensitive matters about individual countries’ capabilities, but he can rest assured that we continue to engage with all our allies on these points.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a direct threat to Europe and of course to wider global security. As my hon. Friend will know, Russia has increased, as part of its war mobilisation, its production of shells and ammunition by some factor of 10—or it is planning to do so in the next two or three years. What conversations has he had across Europe and with NATO allies about the longer-term response to this serious challenge?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend recently joined the Select Committee and I welcome him to it. He makes an excellent point. First, there is a lot of speculation about the level of production by the Russians. They have needed to increase that because they have lost a huge amount of ordnance and armoured vehicles and, tragically, a large number of personnel. On the long term, I draw his attention to the MPIs, which is where we are joining other NATO members for collective orders of ordnance. The first one we have announced is for missiles and for munitions. That is a powerful signal. We hope it will send a strong demand signal to industry in Europe, but it also sends a signal to Putin and the world that we are determined to stand together and stand up to Putin.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The UK has a great record of supporting Ukraine—for example, training Ukrainian troops is something we can be really proud of—but may I press the Minister on something? How much of the £2.5 billion for 2024 is being spent on Ukraine and how much is being spent on UK operational costs at NATO bases?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Armed Forces answered that in detail at oral questions. The key point is that we will not do a line-by-line breakdown of every aspect of the £2.5 billion. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is an incredibly important step forward in our support to Ukraine. As he knows, we have been able to confirm that that includes, for example, £245 million on artillery munitions and £200 million on drones. Those are incredibly important commitments, and they go with all the other efforts we have made, but we know that there is more to do, with our allies.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Along with a group of colleagues, I went to the US before Christmas to try to persuade the Republicans there to vote this Bill through urgently—we had a marginal effect on them. The thing I said to them was, “You are facing an axis of authoritarianism; China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are all in league together and they are winning.” When I was in Ukraine, I saw the Ukrainians taking mines out with bayonets and not having the equipment they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that this has told us that none of us is ready for what war is really all about—barbed wire, minefields and artillery shells? Does he not agree that we need to do more?
James Cartlidge
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his incredibly important efforts engaging with the US. Obviously, the positions the US takes and the decisions it makes on support are a matter for the US Government and legislature, but my right hon. Friend is right to make the wider strategic point. Surely we are united on the need to have a deterrent against all the adversaries and threats we face around the world. I sincerely hope it will not be the case, but if Russia were to make much more progress and succeed, it would embolden other adversaries. He is right about the horrors of warfare. That is why we need to invest in our own armed forces and conventional deterrent, but above all to keep supporting Ukraine as much as we possibly can.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The HALO Trust estimates that around 2 million landmines have been laid in Ukraine. Mike Newton from the HALO Trust has said:
“Ukraine cannot be rebuilt until the landmines are removed. Life itself depends on getting rid of them.”
What is the Minister doing to ensure that funds go to the demining of Ukraine? What more preventive work can we do internationally to persuade those countries that are supplying landmines to desist from doing so and to sign the landmines convention?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady’s excellent point about mines follows on from the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I am happy to go away and look into that to see what we are able to say about what we are doing. She will appreciate that there is also the issue of naval mines. I believe we will be looking at that, but there is some sensitivity within the maritime capability coalition; I will look into the issue further. I cannot say that there is a button I can press to stop those countries that are providing those munitions, but we know Putin keeps some rather interesting company and that we, as democracies, need to stand together to ensure we support Ukraine in this fight.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the fantastic work being done by Defence Equipment and Support in my constituency in ensuring that the overwhelming amount of support and military equipment we have supplied arrives on time at the frontline? What can we do to speed up the process of collaboration in manufacturing in Ukraine between British and Ukrainian companies? That will be huge in the future to ensure that the Ukrainians can produce their own kit on the ground and provide a deterrent after they have beaten the Russians.
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend is sterling in his championing of the Ukrainian cause and of the excellent work done by DE&S in his constituency. I have visited Abbey Wood twice and there is excellent leadership under Andy Start. DE&S has been responsible for the procurement of a huge amount of munitions and materials at pace in Ukraine, but my hon. Friend is right that we also need to think about the long term and how Ukraine can start to build its own industrial base. That is why we recently had our first defence trade visit there. I am keen to see much more of that and pleased to have his support for that work.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
May I take the opportunity to reiterate how proud we are of our armed forces personnel, who have worked around the clock to train and support Ukrainian recruits as part of the vital Op Interflex? I urge the Government to confirm where that programme will be after the summer and to make a commitment to it for as long as it takes Ukraine to win.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady makes the good point that we should pay tribute to all the personnel involved in Operation Interflex. We have provided a huge amount of training. I went to Salisbury plain to meet the Irish Guards who were training Ukrainian civilians of all backgrounds, who would have but weeks of training before returning to a pretty attritional conflict. We all need to reflect on that. It is an incredible operation that has had international support from many other nations. The hon. Lady is right that we are in it for the long term, and we will keep training Ukrainians to defend their homeland.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I have just returned from Ukraine. There was absolutely nothing but praise for what Britain has done in providing the munitions and equipment required, and in standing up to Putin when so many others blinked at that moment. It is clear that what is happening in Ukraine will move out further. Putin is now more powerful than Stalin and is trying to emulate what Stalin did in eastern Europe. Can we agree that Europe is at war? This affects our economy and our security. We have shown leadership up to now, so can we continue by allowing frozen assets, based in the UK, belonging to Russia, to be slid across the table to Ukraine?
James Cartlidge
As ever, my right hon. Friend makes some excellent points. I pay tribute to him and other colleagues who went to Ukraine to show that we stand 100% with Ukraine, and to show our solidarity as parliamentarians with them as a free democracy. He makes an excellent point on frozen Russian assets. The Prime Minister was clear that he wants to look at how we can do that and made the point that, obviously, we have to work internationally, particularly with the G7. Initially we will be looking at the interest earned on those assets, but we should definitely be focusing on this across Government.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will the Government retain UK air defence capabilities supporting NATO allies on the frontline, such as Poland? Can further medical units be dispatched to treat and rehabilitate any Ukrainian or Brit injured by Russian forces?
James Cartlidge
I apologise for missing the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question; I will write to him on that. On the second part, within the training figures I mentioned, there is significant training for medical personnel. I am happy to include that in the letter. Whether it is training medical personnel or frontline soldiers, the effort we have put in place is huge, it is international and we will do everything we can to keep it going.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The number of NATO member countries meeting the 2% GDP commitment is expected to rise from seven last year to 18 later this year. Indications from the US suggest that the US Government are more likely to release an expected $60 billion-worth of commitment to Ukraine once Republican congressmen have had their primaries. Will the Minister confirm that the British defence industry at home is now on a war footing and that we are best able to spend UOR—urgent operational requirement—money and deliver it to Ukraine?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend as ever asks an excellent question. As he highlighted, this has to be an international effort. There is a tendency to overplay the negative voices, but my experience from international meetings is of an overwhelming consensus, from small nations to large nations, and of a huge desire to keep supporting Ukraine in every way possible. Obviously, the role of the US is fundamental. I can give him the assurance that we will work with the British defence industry to ramp up production. We will be bringing forward a munitions strategy soon and the goal of always-on production will be most in the interests of both the military and our defence sector.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Along with colleagues from across the House, I have just returned from a sobering visit to Ukraine, during which we heard about what some refer to as “the slow yes” from a number of our allies on providing military supplies. That is costing lives on the frontline and limiting military options. Will the Minister tell us what specific recent efforts the Government have made to convey a real sense of urgency to key allies? Will he urge his Cabinet colleagues to redouble their efforts in this respect?
James Cartlidge
I assure the hon. Lady that at every international meeting and engagement we attend, whether multilaterally or bilaterally, we do everything possible to encourage our allies to join us in support. As I said in answer to the previous question, although there is a tendency to pick out negative voices, the overwhelming consensus among our allies is to want to support and do more. There will always be a debate about how quickly we can get stuff into line. We have done everything possible to get our support out as quickly as possible, including predating the war itself, so we can be proud of our efforts. I am acutely aware that we need to do more, particularly in concert with our allies.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Partly as a result of the magnificent effort we have made in the past couple of years, our stockpiles have gone and our warehouses are empty. I very much welcome the Government announcement about £245 million for artillery shells described by the Minister, but does he agree there have been a series of legalistic and bureaucratic delays to the issuing of contracts? British manufacturers are frustrated, because they are unable to crack on with producing the kind of goods we need.
James Cartlidge
I would not say that the cupboard is empty. We have to have our own levels of holdings for our own military, but we have gifted as much as we can. The obvious example is the AS-90 that we gifted; we rapidly replaced that with the interim artillery solution from Sweden, the Archer gun. I am pleased to say that earlier this morning I announced the launch of the next stage of the new medium helicopter competition, which is an important procurement for the UK military. That speaks to the fact that we are still carrying out core procurement for ourselves.
In addition to 155 mm shells, we have placed orders for lightweight multirole missiles, Starstreak and a whole range of other munitions so we can replenish our stocks. We should not be afraid to say that what we have donated, supported and procured internationally, which is a huge part, has played a massive role that we should be proud of, while recognising the need to do as much as we can, with our allies, going forward.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I was privileged to join colleagues on a cross-party delegation to Ukraine this weekend. The shortage of equipment, ammunition and supplies came up time and again. How are the UK Government monitoring and holding accountable those involved in the supply chain to prevent delay, misuse or diversion of military equipment?
James Cartlidge
That is a good question. Obviously, much of this work is happening internationally and in-country with Ukraine. I cannot go into operational details, but, absolutely, it is one thing to procure the equipment and capabilities—whether that is buying internationally, gifting or contributing to international funds, as many countries do, in order that other countries may do that—but we need to make sure that it all gets to the frontline.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In all the discussions that we have had about military hardware, it is easy to forget the human cost of this war, not least the 20,000 children stolen by the Russians and never returned to their families. As we said on day one, if Putin wins in Ukraine, he will not stop there; other countries will be next. That is why it is vital that the UK and allies continue to provide Ukraine with the weapons that it needs. But Russia must also pay. May I ask the Government to double down on the work that they are doing to use the proceeds of frozen Russian assets to pay for this war and the reconstruction of Ukraine, so that Russia knows that it cannot get away with this?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend, who speaks with great passion, is right to talk about the need to hold Russia to account. We have said that repeatedly. We have said that in reference both to the war itself and to specific actions, such as those involving Alexei Navalny and so on. We are under no illusion about the nature of that regime and what would happen if it were to succeed. We have had that view right from the beginning, and it is brilliant that so many countries have joined us in that effort. I strongly believe that without our efforts Ukraine would not still be in the fight. How do we keep the Ukrainians there? We must keep providing the munitions that we have described, keep training the personnel in Interflex, and keep ensuring that our allies join us in all of those efforts.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The US State Department has reportedly calculated that North Korea has delivered 10,000 containers of munitions to Russia for deployment in Ukraine. What can be done to disrupt the supply chain?
James Cartlidge
That is not a straightforward question to answer. As I said right at the beginning about the things that ultimately come from military intelligence, these are sensitive matters, but the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that these are priorities that we look at very closely with our international partners.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I, too, joined my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and other colleagues in Ukraine at the weekend. The point about the “slow yes” to the provision of kit and funds is well made by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). As well as conventional warfare, the Russians are increasingly using cyber warfare, recently taking out virtually the whole mobile network, with implications for the frontline as well. Central to countering that is advanced satellite technology provided by British companies, which also has applications for mine detection. Having recently had a spread of 30 metres, they can now get it down to 5 cm with heat detection devices. These are crucial, so can we make sure that we do not just limit our support to conventional warfare ammunition, but look at high-tech and cyber warfare, which will be increasingly necessary?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We knew already that the battle space is contested and that forces need to be closely integrated, but what Ukraine has shown above all else is the extraordinary extent to which electronic warfare plays a role. The mass jamming across the domain has to be factored into any kit that is used, and it will have to be factored into procurement going forward. We must be aware of these developments. We have our own brilliant resources, such as the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, and there are things that we have done that are sensitive and that have provided support as far as possible, but he is right to talk in particular about the importance of the space domain. The UK is lucky to have a strong, sovereign space industry, supporting defence in the civil sector. Going forward, we need to be aware of how warfare is changing and be able to respond rapidly with our procurement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his helpful and encouraging answers. Having read in the press recently about the price of military supplies and the protracted situation in Ukraine, it is clear that help with military supplies is essential. As I understand it, missiles can cost as much as £1 million each. Is there any more that can be done with our NATO allies, financially, physically and militarily, to help ensure that Ukraine continues to have the means to stave off the ceaseless attack by Russia?
James Cartlidge
As ever, we save the best till last. [Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Gentleman is second to last, my apologies. Nevertheless, I shall always say that when he is called to speak.
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about the cost. When we talk about the multilateral procurement initiative, we could argue that it is like a bulk buy between nations. Obviously, we want to see economies of scale for that in exchange for the massive demand signal that we will be providing for European industry. However, the key point is not just to send a demand signal, but, ultimately, to send a deterrent signal. If we in Europe rally round in European NATO along with our US allies and step up the pace on industrial reinvigoration in the defence space, that will in itself be part of the deterrent message that we send to Putin.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Along with colleagues from across the House, I was in Ukraine at the weekend, and I was struck by the gratitude of the Ukrainians to the UK. I was also struck by the words of General Wesley Clark, speaking at the Yalta European strategy conference, when he made a prediction that we are in the second year of a six-year war. If that prediction is accurate, will the Minister outline what efforts are under way to locate compatible ammunition supplies from countries with older stocks, and does he agree that it is important to get supplies out of stockpiles and on to the frontline in Ukraine, so that we can tip this war in Ukraine’s favour?
James Cartlidge
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for joining other colleagues in going out to Ukraine, showing the solidarity that we have for it and the strong cross-parliamentary consensus. Often when we talk about procurement for Ukraine, there can be some misunderstanding. Just to be clear, an awful lot of the munitions that have been provided were sourced internationally, but we do not necessarily go into the minute detail of that. He is absolutely right; initially that meant providing what was largely ex-Soviet stock, but in the long term we want to enable the Ukrainians to produce munitions to NATO standard. We want to work closely with them on that, and that is how we will get their industry into order so that they can sustain their own ability to fight over the long term.
Israel and Gaza
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
May I start by congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on your successful visit early last week to St Helena?
With permission, I shall now update the House on the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Let me begin by reiterating Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas. We condemn the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023, Hamas’s use of civilian areas, their continued failure to release hostages and their ongoing launching of attacks into Israel. Equally, we are deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, with tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed and injured.
The most effective way to end the fighting in Gaza—the absolute focus of our diplomatic efforts right now—is to agree an immediate humanitarian pause. That would allow for the safe release of hostages and a significant increase in the aid going to Gaza. Crucially, it would also provide a vital opportunity to establish the conditions for a genuinely long-term and sustainable ceasefire without a return to destruction, fighting and loss of life. That is the position shared by our close partners. It is an outcome that we believe is in reach right now and we urge all sides to seize it.
Many people may ask, including some in this House, why we are calling for a pause but not an immediate ceasefire. We do not believe that doing so, hoping that it somehow becomes permanent, is the way forward. Simply calling for a ceasefire will not make one happen. There is a different and better way to stop the fighting permanently: to push for a pause and, in it, secure a sustainable ceasefire that can hold for the longer term without a return to the fighting.
The British Government have set out the vital elements to achieving a lasting peace: the release of all hostages; the removal of Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel; Hamas no longer being in charge of Gaza; the formation of a new Palestinian Government for the west bank and Gaza, accompanied by an international support package; and a political horizon that provides a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution. Once we secure a pause, we will need to take action on all those elements to create irreversible momentum towards peace.
Meanwhile, Britain and our partners continue to do all we can to alleviate the suffering. We trebled our aid commitment this financial year, and we are doing everything we can to get more aid in and open more crossings. Last week, Britian and Jordan airdropped life-saving aid to a hospital in northern Gaza. The airdrop provided 4 tonnes of vial supplies, including medicines, fuel and food for hospital patients and staff. The Tal al-Hawa Hospital, set up by the Jordanian armed forces, is located in Gaza City and has treated thousands of patients since the start of the crisis.
Women are bearing the brunt of the desperate humanitarian situation in Gaza today. Many thousands are pregnant and will be worrying about delivering their babies safely. That is why over the weekend we also announced £4.25 million of new funding for the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency in response to an appeal for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That new UK funding will help make giving birth safer and will improve the lives of mothers and their newborn babies.
It is clear, however, that the flow of aid needs to be rapidly and significantly scaled up. We have reiterated the need for Israel to open more crossing points into Gaza, for Nitzana and Kerem Shalom to be open for longer, and for Israel to support the UN in distributing aid effectively across the whole of Gaza. The Foreign Secretary’s representative for humanitarian affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Mark Bryson-Richardson, is based in the region and is working intensively to address the blockages preventing more aid from reaching Gaza.
We also continue to urge Israel to limit its operations to military targets and avoid harming civilians and destroying homes. We have expressed our deep concern about the prospects and consequences of a military incursion into Rafah. More than half of Gaza’s population are sheltering in the area, including more than 600,000 children, and they have nowhere to go. The Rafah crossing remains vital to ensure aid can reach the people who so desperately need it.
The path to a long-term solution will not be easy. Ultimately, a two-state solution is the best way to ensure safety and security for Israelis and Palestinians. The Foreign Secretary underlined that at the G20 Foreign Ministers meeting in Rio last week. The Prime Minister and all ministerial colleagues will continue to press for that in engagements with regional partners, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
We welcome the prospect of further normalisation agreements between Israel and Arab partners. We are committed to supporting their enduring success and efforts to ensure that normalisation delivers benefits for the Palestinians too. Our long-standing position remains that we will recognise a Palestinian state at the time that is most conducive to the peace process.
The Palestinian Authority has an important long-term role to play and will need continued support from us and our partners, but it must also take concrete steps on reform. The Palestinian people need a technocratic and effective Administration that can win the confidence of the people of Gaza. We stand ready to support the Palestinian Authority to achieve that aim, following the announcement yesterday of the resignation of the Prime Minister and the previous set of Ministers. We also remain concerned about the situation in the west bank, and have taken action in response to extremist settler violence.
I repeat our commitment to finding a lasting resolution to this conflict that ensures that Israelis and Palestinians can live in the future with dignity and security. The goal of our diplomacy in the middle east is to see an end to the fighting and create a permanent peace based on a new political horizon for the region. We will continue working tirelessly to make that happen.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Once again, I note with disappointment that, given the seriousness of the geopolitical environment, the Foreign Secretary is absent from scrutiny by Members on both sides of the House.
Since the Minister’s last statement, there has been another month of intolerable civilian death, famine and disease in Gaza; another month of hostage families in Israel living in anguish; another month of worsening regional escalation; another month of war that cannot and must not go on.
Unlike the Government, Labour has always been clear that Israel must comply with the International Court of Justice’s orders. The ICJ said:
“Israel must take measures to ensure humanitarian access”.
But last week the World Food Programme suspended its aid operations in northern Gaza. Médecins Sans Frontières said:
“We no longer speak of a humanitarian scale-up; we speak of how to survive even without the bare minimum.”
The Association of International Development Agencies tells me that visas for 100 humanitarian workers in Gaza and the west bank have expired or are about to expire. There have been no humanitarian visa renewals since the outbreak of this war, leaving humanitarian workers facing deportation when the Palestinian people need them most. Will the Minister tell the Israeli Government that humanitarian visas must be renewed now, that aid into Gaza must flow unimpeded now, and that Israel must comply with all measures set out by the ICJ now?
It is with modesty that we debate Gaza in this House, because it is through diplomacy, not debate in Westminster, that we will ultimately secure an end to this war. There appears to have been progress over the weekend in Paris, so will the Minister update the House on the deal involving a truce in exchange for hostages? Is he optimistic that it will be achieved by Ramadan? We all fear the war continuing into Ramadan. Will he assure us that the Government are being absolutely crystal clear to Israel that its threatened full offensive on Rafah must not go ahead?
I hear the Minister when he says that simply calling for a ceasefire will not make one happen, but neither will calling for a pause, which confuses our shared desire for fighting to stop and not restart. I therefore ask the Minister, in all good conscience, whether he really disagrees that our goal should be an immediate ceasefire now. Does he disagree that both sides should stop the fighting now? Does he disagree that all hostages should be released now? Does he disagree that aid should flow unimpeded into Gaza now? Does he disagree that Britain should work with international partners to recognise the Palestinian state now? Does he disagree that we should work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver a two-state solution?
I respect the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman, greatly, and I strongly suspect that he agrees with every word of Labour’s position, and that the Foreign Secretary does too. Can we speak together, as we have done on Ukraine? Our words bring pressure and send a powerful signal that, for once, we can put the political games aside and meet as the Government and the official Opposition to agree a shared position and put out a statement calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire now.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for what he said. I must say to him that I set out at some length in the debate last week the Government’s position in the amendment that we tabled. Having listened to him with great care today, I must say that his position, on behalf of the official Opposition, is incredibly close to what the Government set out in our amendment last week. He asks me to set out clearly our position; our position was very clearly set out in that amendment. I am warmed by the fact that his position today appears to be almost identical to that.
The right hon. Gentleman asks what the Government’s position is. We have been clear: we are trying to negotiate. He asks me whether I agree with him on an immediate pause to get hostages out, and to get incredibly badly needed aid in, leading to a sustainable ceasefire. He mentions the position on humanitarian visas and humanitarian workers. There is nothing between us on that; we are doing everything we can to advance that position.
The right hon. Gentleman asks me about recent humanitarian entry. I can tell him that on Sunday 25 February, 94 trucks got in, but on 22 February, 220 trucks got in—178 through Kerem Shalom and 42 through Rafah. That was the highest number since 17 January. Those figures show that it is possible to get vital humanitarian aid in, and we must do everything we can to ensure that those higher levels continue.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the hostage negotiations. There has been a great deal in the press over the weekend. He asks whether I am optimistic. The answer is that I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but I can tell him that the British Government are doing everything we can to ensure that negotiations are successful.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is profoundly in the British interest for there to be a properly functioning system of international rules and laws, and that the International Court of Justice is central to that system, so what concrete steps are the Government taking to enforce the Court’s ruling on the conflict—not condemn, press or discuss, but enforce it? Is it the Minister’s view that an assault on Rafah, given its impact on civilians—including, as he pointed out, 600,000 children—would be in line with the ruling of the International Court of Justice?
Mr Mitchell
On his latter point, my right hon. Friend heard what I said in the statement. As the whole House knows, the rulings of the Court are binding and must therefore be respected. However, I point out to him that a recent episode of the “Law & Disorder” podcast, by three of the UK’s most experienced jurists, including two senior Members of the other place, concluded that it was not possible, at the time that episode was made, to declare that Israel was in breach of international humanitarian law.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for prior sight of his statement. We welcome the news that a ceasefire deal may be edging closer. We have been calling for a ceasefire and hostage-release deal since it became apparent that Israel’s self-defence had turned into a war against an entire civilian population —a war in which, in just five months, 30,000 people have been killed, 80,000 injured, and 2 million displaced. Now, 500,000 innocent people face starvation, not because food is not available, but because of a premeditated decision to impose collective punishment—one that has deliberately stopped food getting to those who need it.
Throughout this unimaginable horror, the UK continues to profit from the carnage by selling weapons to Israel. Shamefully, there has been no real desire or attempt from the UK to make the slaughter stop. The Government seem happy to continue providing tacit support for this illegal occupation, this systematic decades-long oppression and persecution, and now the ethnic cleansing and collective punishment that goes with it.
If and when we get a US deal to the UN, what action will the UK Government take? Voting for a ceasefire cannot happen in isolation. Will the UK Government stop selling weapons to Israel? Will they finally get behind the International Court of Justice investigation? Will they fund, as they did quite rightly in the case of Ukraine, an International Criminal Court investigation of Israel’s prosecution of this conflict? Whatever happens, Minister, this sorry episode will be remembered for being one of the most shameful in the history of British foreign policy, because we have witnessed a complete dereliction of all moral and legal responsibility from a Government and a Parliament that, at the time of greatest humanitarian crisis, have simply looked the other way. Quite rightly, history will judge them harshly for it.
Mr Mitchell
I simply do not think the idea that the Government have looked the other way carries any possible credibility at all. The hon. Gentleman might remember that the source of all this was the 7 October pogrom committed against the Israeli people—the worst killing of Jewish people at any time since the end of the second world war. There needs to be some balance in what is said, and the language that he uses is not helpful to the central aim that we all have: to bring about a ceasefire, and get hostages out and aid in.
Also, the hon. Gentleman should remember that Britain has the toughest weapons regulation and arms export regime of anywhere in the world. He talks about collective punishment, but the point that he misses is that our determination since day one has been to get as much food as we possibly can into Gaza. If he looks back at everything the Government have said on this, we have been working as hard as anyone to get that humanitarian relief into Gaza. I submit that beneath the sound and fury of what he says, there is more substantial agreement between his party and the Government than he recognises.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House and setting out a clear and principled statement. As he knows, our position is thoroughly in line with that of our partners—the ones who are involved in very serious and sensitive negotiations right now to end the fighting. Will he say a bit more about the concrete steps towards reform? He mentioned the Palestinian Authority and the resignation of Prime Minister Shtayyeh yesterday. Do the reforms that he has in mind include an end to endemic corruption, to incitement to violence through the school curriculum, and to the terrible policy of paying convicted terrorists a reward for having carried out murder?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend recognises that there will need to be significant changes in the approach that we have made on many of those issues. The British five-point plan encompasses most of what he believes should happen: the release of all Israeli hostages; the formation of a new Palestinian Government for the west bank and Gaza, accompanied by an international support package that would recognise many of the things that he has said; removing Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel; Hamas no longer being in charge of Gaza; and a political horizon that provides a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution. Within those five points rest the answers to almost every point that he raises.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
My Committee and I were at the Gaza border last week trying to get first-hand testimony of the 2 million stories of suffering that now represent Gaza. What can I say to the House? What we are hearing is just a tiny fraction of the horror that is going on out there. Will the Minister clarify one thing with the Israelis? We spoke to a senior UN security person who said that drones flying overhead are gathering data that artificial intelligence algorithms then translate into targets. We know that civilians, humanitarians and medics are being killed, so will the Minister urge Israeli defence to ensure that the algorithms protect the people that they are supposed to under international humanitarian law?
Mr Mitchell
The Chairman of the Select Committee makes a very good point, and I look forward to meeting her later today to discuss this and other matters. I believe that the point that she has made is addressed by the fact that, just as in the UK military, targeting in Israel is subject to lawyers being present in the room and legal advice. That should give her some comfort on her specific point about drone targeting.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On the post-conflict governance of both the west bank and Gaza, does the Minister share with me some concern that while the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority has resigned, there are still key Fatah people in place? He will know that in 2007, the Palestinian people in Gaza rejected Fatah, and we all saw where that ended up on 7 October. Why does he, along with the United States, think that Fatah will be part of the—albeit technocratic—post-conflict governance solution for both the west bank and Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point. The new Government on the west bank who have resulted from the resignation of the Prime Minister over the weekend are an interim Government, and many of these points can be addressed during the period of interim Government before we move to a new Government on the west bank.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I welcome the Minister calling publicly for Israel to limit its military operations to military targets. In turn, we should recall that hostage taking is strictly prohibited under international humanitarian law, and the International Committee of the Red Cross should be granted access to captives held by Hamas. In the long term, I and the Liberal Democrats believe that Israel would be more secure following a successful negotiation based on a two-state solution. Does the Minister agree with us that negotiations should begin from the position that the Palestinian state should be based on the 1967 borders?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but he will have seen from the Government’s amendment last week that a very clear process is going on. I very much hope that his party can support it.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I know that the Government are doing everything they can to get food into Gaza, but we hear increasing numbers of reports of malnourishment and even starvation of adults and children. Will the Government say to the Israelis that there really is no acceptable reason to not allow food in now?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right: there is no acceptable reason. That is why the Government are pressing so hard to get additional humanitarian support into not only the southern part of Gaza, but the northern part.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister told the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), that there needs to be some balance, yet the word “accountability” seemed to be missing from his statement. The UK Government recognise the jurisdiction and independence of the ICJ, which is of course investigating the alleged war crimes and genocidal actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza. As a champion of international law and human rights, will the Minister confirm that his Government recognise that Israel has an obligation to comply with the ICJ’s ruling of 26 January, and that the UK will support the Court’s decision to issue an opinion examining the legality of the occupation?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, we are very much in favour of accountability and transparency. That is at the heart of the reason why both our parties have been strong supporters of the International Criminal Court. He will be aware of the legal position on the ICJ’s rulings, which I set out a moment or two ago.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In attempting to build confidence for a humanitarian pause, we have to remember that the last time a pause was negotiated, Hamas broke it, rearmed and started firing again, and stole the international aid that was going in to help those poor Palestinians. What measures will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the precondition for a humanitarian pause is the release of hostages; that international aid actually gets to the people who need it, and is not diverted by Hamas; and that Hamas respect such a pause?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is correct. He underlines the great difficulty in negotiating and agreeing a pause or ceasefire when one of the parties is absolutely clear that they do not want one, and that they wish to replicate the events that took place on 7 October. That is the official position of Hamas.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
What is the Minister’s assessment of the effect of the UK’s abstention on last week’s Security Council vote on the US and its position?
Mr Mitchell
We are working towards a further United Nations Security Council resolution. Britain is continuing, as it has from the start, to try to bring people together behind the common position that I set out earlier. We will continue to do so in respect of future United Nations Security Council resolutions whenever we can.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Hamas is a terrorist organisation full of rapists, murderers and repressors—that cannot be overlooked at any time in these conversations. The reality is that the Gaza area has had hundreds of millions of dollars and other currency invested in it. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and associate myself with everything in it. He has talked about how the rebuilding will happen afterwards, so I ask him to ensure that as part of that rebuilding, the aid that will need to go in is used effectively to make that area the prosperous area it can be once it is free from the tyranny of those terrorists.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend sets out very well one of the key aspects of the five-point plan, which Britain is doing everything we can to see implemented.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Just a few weeks ago, in a debate on arms exports to Israel, the Minister for Trade Policy told Westminster Hall:
“We take our obligations in this space exceptionally seriously. As I have shown before, we have acted to change policy in relation to changing circumstances on the ground.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 272WH.]
The circumstances are tragic and brutal, and crystal clear to anyone willing to see them: Gaza is being razed to the ground and civilians actively targeted, potentially using the very equipment that the UK is exporting to Israel. Over 12,000 children have been butchered, with the Israel Defence Forces busy taking selfies over the ruins and bodies. What exactly will it take for this Government to suspend arms exports to Israel?
Mr Mitchell
The position that the Minister set out in Westminster Hall was absolutely correct. The Government take legal advice on this matter, the arms export Committee does its work effectively, and we will continue to act on the advice that we are given when we are given it.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
As I said last week, a ceasefire is a contract between two sides that is overseen by a third party. Neither side is agreeing to a ceasefire right now, nor is there a third party in place to oversee it. I am happy to say today that I want a ceasefire and the steps to get us there, and I also want Parliament to speak with a single voice, which is so much more powerful than our tabling motions that we then divide the House on. Speaking with one voice will require consensus and compromise, so before we risk repeating last week’s fiasco that saw tensions rise, I invite the Minister—as he has alluded to in his remarks—to quietly bring together the Opposition parties at No. 10 to see whether a consensus line can be agreed to avoid this House returning to the circus we saw last week.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the former Chairman of the Defence Committee for his wise and sensible approach. As I said earlier to both the shadow Foreign Secretary and the SNP spokesman, if we study carefully the Government amendment that was tabled in the SNP debate last week, we see a very substantial degree of agreement. We must try very hard to build on that so that the House speaks with one voice, as my right hon. Friend says.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been three months since the pause between 24 and 30 November, and at that point the aid could not reach people because of the infrastructure challenges. Today, those infrastructure challenges have escalated, and certainly a pause would not serve to get that aid into the places it needs to go. Why will the Minister not review his position in light of the fact that, to date, it has not achieved what it needs to: ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches all the people who need it? That will require a ceasefire, will it not?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member accurately sets out the fact that what was hoped for some weeks and months ago has not been realised, but that should merely incentivise us to redouble our efforts to get the necessary aid and support into Gaza. I would point out that Jamie McGoldrick, the highly experienced UN resident co-ordinator, said over the weekend that he hopes it will be possible for the United Nations to return to Khan Younis when military operations end there. That shows that the situation is dynamic, and we are doing anything we can to move with it to achieve the results that she and I both want.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
Given the humanitarian situation in Gaza, what does the Minister think is stopping Hamas releasing the hostages?
Mr Mitchell
To some extent, my hon. and gallant Friend answers his own question. Dealing with an organisation such as Hamas is extraordinarily difficult, as we have seen over recent weeks and months.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Have the Government of Israel yet shared with His Majesty’s Government their purported evidence of United Nations Relief and Works Agency complicity in the attacks of 7 October, and if so, when did they do it?
Mr Mitchell
The review of UNRWA, as the right hon. Member may know, is being conducted first and foremost by the independent UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, and secondly, Catherine Colonna, the former French Foreign Minister, is engaged in writing a separate report. It is to both those two organisations that the evidence is required to be delivered.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Few would deny Israel’s right to self-defence, but the ongoing events in Gaza are difficult to stomach. Can the Minister please confirm to the House that everything possible is being done with our international partners to demand Israeli restraint?
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Minister made great play in his statement of saying that
“we also announced £4.25 million of new funding for the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency in response to an appeal for the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”
How can he compare that £4.25 million figure with the amount of money that UK companies are benefiting from in arms sales that are slaughtering thousands of children?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have tripled our aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. While it may seem like a relatively small figure, we are careful guardians of British taxpayers’ money and we spend it on what we know we can do effectively. He will understand, from the position that exists at the moment on the west bank and in Gaza, the difficulty of making these subventions really count on the ground, but he will also understand the great need for them.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Can the Minister understand that some of us who are calling for an immediate ceasefire now are doing so against the backdrop of the horrific loss of innocent lives—1,200 innocent Israelis and 29,000 Palestinians? Our previous strategy from November of getting hostages out and getting aid in through humanitarian pauses, which I supported, has not worked. That is why we are advocating for a new strategy.
The world is looking to the United Kingdom to lead at the Security Council, so can the United Kingdom now lead and get that ceasefire, and ensure as part of that motion that religious places of worship are protected? If that is not included—given what we saw with the storming of al-Aqsa—that would kick things off again. Please can we ensure that there is an immediate ceasefire and, as part of the Security Council resolution, that all places of worship are protected, especially as we are coming into Ramadan, Passover and Easter?
Mr Mitchell
We cannot will a ceasefire unless both the protagonists are willing to endorse it. That is why Britain has argued consistently that the first thing to do is to get a humanitarian pause, so that we can get the hostages out and humanitarian aid in, and then build on that towards a ceasefire. That is the right thing to do in these circumstances. As far as the next United Nations Security Council resolution is concerned, we are doing everything we can to ensure that we make the progress the House quite rightly wants to see.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
We have heard details of the most appalling humanitarian situation in Rafah, with Palestinian civilians surviving on weeds, animal feed and even birdseed. Have the UK Government sought or secured any assurance that Israel will not launch a ground invasion of Rafah?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady will know that we are not in control of events. We have given our very strong advice and view, and the voice of this House will have been heard on the specific point she makes.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome the fact that the UK is now promising more humanitarian support for women and girls, who always bear the brunt in conflict situations around the world. I welcome the £4.25 million of new funding for the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency, but what are we doing to make sure that the money actually gets out of the agency and down to the ground to help the thousands of women who he says are waiting to give birth?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend accurately identifies the need, and we are seeking, through this small but vital amount of money, to meet as much of that need as we practically can. I give her and the House the commitment that, if there is in due course the opportunity to do more on this front, we will certainly do it.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
While over 1 million people continue to starve, the aid delivered to Gaza over this month fell by half compared with January. The Minister speaks about wanting to see more aid reach Gaza to alleviate the humanitarian nightmare that Palestinians face, but he is clearly ignoring reports from Human Rights Watch that Israel is blocking aid to Gaza. That is in direct contravention of the ICJ’s instructions for Israel to ensure the delivery of aid to Gaza. Does the Minister not see the huge flaw in arguing for more aid to Gaza at the same time as he refuses to endorse the ICJ’s interim ruling? It is the Government’s refusal to back one of the world’s highest courts that has given the Israeli Government the diplomatic cover they need to prevent aid from reaching Gaza.
Mr Mitchell
The effort to get aid and supplies in through Rafah is ongoing. The hon. Member will be aware of the great difficulties there have been in getting aid in through Rafah because of demonstrations there, because of bottlenecks and because of restrictions. That is why Britain has been pushing for the largest number of entry points, so that the aid that is available in the area can be got through those entry points to relieve people who are in the desperate need that he so eloquently summed up.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It goes without saying that aid is only of any use if it actually reaches the civilian population that needs it, and there is evidence that Hamas are misappropriating up to 60% of humanitarian aid entering Gaza, which is part of their long-term pattern of prioritising their fighters, abusing aid to produce rockets and using construction materials to build hundreds of miles of terror tunnels for their activities. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that Hamas are flagrantly disregarding the humanitarian needs of the civilian population in Gaza, and that there can be no peace and no two-state solution until they lose control of Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend could not have put it better. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Hamas do not care at all about the suffering and the humanitarian need that exists in Gaza, and at no point have they shown any understanding of what is happening as a result of their using the population of Gaza as a human shield for their vile activities.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Will the UK continuing to sell arms to Israel result in fewer innocent civilians losing their lives in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
I have set out the fact that Britain has the toughest arms export regulations anywhere in the world. Ministers rely upon the legal advice and other advice that accompanies the work of an independent committee within Government.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The scale of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza is beyond words. The Times journalist Amal Helles has reported that Gaza is a place now with no schools, no jobs, no homes and no streets, yet the United Nations is saying that the reduction in the number of food trucks from January to February is 50%. Apparently, the average is 62 a day, compared with 500 a day before October. Can my right hon. Friend share with us what progress has been made in the talks on a six-week pause that would surely allow more aid to get in and more hostages out?
Mr Mitchell
Our determination, which my hon. Friend articulates accurately, is to get that pause to enable the hostages to be released, and to get food in. That is the absolute burden of our activities. As I mentioned to the House, the number of trucks getting into Gaza is patchy. On Sunday, 94 trucks got in, but on 22 February 220 trucks got in, which was the highest number since 17 January. What the House can determine from those figures is that not enough aid is getting in, and we need a substantial increase in that number. That is why the negotiations we are pursuing are so important.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
We are less than two weeks from the start of Ramadan, and the general consensus is that the ground offensive in Rafah would add to an already catastrophic situation, as well as the Israeli operation in Gaza. More than 30,000 people have died. There is nowhere else for civilians in Gaza to go. Will the Government listen and join me, my constituents and many other people, to say that the only way we can stop this is to have an immediate ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
I have explained to the House why calling for an immediate ceasefire will not make it happen. It is the events that go with the purpose of achieving a pause and then a ceasefire that command the full attention of His Majesty’s Government.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Minister is obviously extremely well aware of the International Court of Justice judgment and the interim rulings that came with it. He will also be aware that Israel has not adhered to the requirements made by the Court. In that context, will he tell the House exactly what military aid has been sent to Israel, and exactly what the nature of the military co-operation is, and will he assure the House that no more arms will be supplied to Israel until that judgment is adhered to?
Mr Mitchell
As I set out to the House, and to the right hon. Gentleman, the former leader of the Labour party, these issues are governed by a rule of law in Britain, and by the arrangements that I set out to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). The Government have no plans to deviate from those.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The weakness in the Minister’s statement is that it makes his Government a commentator rather than an actor in the situation in Gaza. If this House and our international partners speak with one voice in calling for an immediate ceasefire, it would carry more weight with the Government of Israel. If he accepts that the absence of a ceasefire has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, and the horrific suffering of 2 million Palestinian civilians, does he not have a duty to call for a ceasefire now? Would that make the Government’s case stronger?
Mr Mitchell
As I have set out, a ceasefire that collapses back into fighting within weeks is not in anyone’s interest. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government are a spectator, but nothing could be further from the truth. If he looks at what the Foreign Secretary has been doing, at the way Britain’s humanitarian representative in the Gulf has been acting, and at all the discussions that have been going on in the region and at the UN, he will see that Britain is at the forefront of trying to achieve a humanitarian pause, leading to a sustainable ceasefire, and that is what we will continue to do.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Foreign Secretary has called for a stop to the fighting now, but the Ministry of Defence signed a contract with arms manufacturer Elbit Systems on 17 January. That company reportedly supplies up to 85% of Israel’s drones and land-based military equipment. The Minister called for advice in looking at how arms are exported. Does he not agree that in light of that, the UK’s approach appears to be deeply hypocritical? What advice does he need to stop the sales of arms?
Mr Mitchell
I do not agree with that, for reasons that I hope I have set out clearly to the House.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Only an immediate ceasefire can protect civilians and implement the ICJ’s historic plausible genocide ruling. With Ramadan less than 15 days away, aid agencies warn that a ground offensive in Rafah could be catastrophic for the 1.5 million people taking shelter there, including 600,000 children. If the Government only call for an immediate ceasefire if and when a full ground offensive in Rafah begins, what assessment has been made of whether they will have upheld their own obligations under international law, particularly in relation to the ICJ’s provisional measures, including measures around the prevention of genocide?
Mr Mitchell
I understand the passion with which the hon. Lady speaks, but simply calling for an immediate ceasefire will not make it happen. The best chance to stop the fighting is for an agreement in the hostage negotiations, which we can then use as the opportunity to deliver a full and permanent ceasefire.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister keeps referring to the Government’s amendment last week, but those are just words on bits of paper in the recycle bin. They could have been the resolution of this House, but the Government chose not to give this House that choice. Instead, the resolution of this House is that there should be an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. What message does it send to the UN Security Council and wider international community if the Government will not adopt the language that has been agreed by the democratic legislature to which they are accountable, namely this House of Commons?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is rewriting history. Last week saw the Leader of the House, a member of the Government, defending the rights of minority parties, in particular the hon. Gentleman’s party, from this Dispatch Box.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for his answers, which have been helpful to everyone in the House. What progress has been made to attempt to reunite the Israeli hostages with their families? What progress has been made to ensure that refugees who have to leave their homes can stay in family groups and will have access to food, water and a semblance of education?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, we will continue to do everything we can in that respect, and I am grateful for his comments about my answers being helpful to the whole of the House. He asked about the hostages, and he will have seen newspaper reports over the weekend about the hostage negotiations. Although I cannot comment in any detail on those negotiations, all of us are hoping that they will continue to make progress, ultimately to success.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Clearly the need for humanitarian aid is desperate. We are hearing reports of forced relocation up to 15 times, and many people in Gaza are reduced to eating weeds and birdfeed, with healthcare reduced to medieval methods. Clearly an immediate humanitarian ceasefire is required. Does the Minister agree that the 500 vehicles a day need to be restored as a matter of urgency, and that we should also look to restore and support UNRWA?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that we need a massive increase in the number of trucks getting into Gaza. He will have seen that we have been working with the Jordanian armed forces. There was a drop of important humanitarian support last week, and we hope very much that there will be more. He will also have seen that we have been working on the maritime side too. A meeting is going on today, but the hope is that it may be possible to pre-clear humanitarian aid and support. That would require the use of Ashdod as an entry point into Israel, and the Government are doing everything we can to facilitate that.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
On UNRWA, the inquiries that the Minister has told the House about will no doubt take some time, but having a hobbled UNRWA is undoubtedly exacerbating the humanitarian crisis that he has fully acknowledged. What consideration is he giving to urgently resuming UK funding to UNRWA?
Mr Mitchell
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, Britain has fully funded UNRWA, and under our agreement with it, no funds from Britain are due until the next financial year. I can tell him that both Norway and Guyana have put forward additional funding in recent days that will mean UNRWA is at least fully funded until the end of March.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Development assistance for the Occupied Palestinian Territories had already reduced from £95 million in 2013 to £26 million in 2023, before the suspension of UNRWA funding. Despite questions today and specific written questions, the Government have refused to declare what the source was for the basis of the allegations, and where that source came from, leaving many to speculate that it is simply Israeli allegations or Israeli propaganda. Other countries, including Ireland and Spain, are continuing to fund UNRWA. Will the Government not ensure that UNRWA funding is restored, to avoid the perversity that we can find weapons and munitions for Ukraine, but not money for humanitarian aid in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are waiting for the interim report—the forensic report—into collusion, which the UN Office of Independent Oversight is preparing. It is right to wait for that report and Catherine Colonna’s report as well. As I explained to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), British funding is up to date, and it will be paused until we have seen those reports, but additional funding has been made available to UNRWA. As the House will accept, UNRWA’s logistical support—its warehouses and vehicles—are essential to the distribution of aid within Gaza.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
On UNRWA funding, I want to follow up on his comments that we are up to date and waiting on the report. Can he give some assurances today that the Government will commit to bringing back the funding? What are the timescales on that?
Mr Mitchell
The issue of British funding to UNRWA does not arise until the next financial year, but it is only right that we wait for the two reports. As I say, one is from the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, and the other is from the former French Foreign Minister. We are seeking an interim report so that progress one way or the other can be made.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Will the UK Government take the evidence of the collective punishment in Gaza with the dehumanisation of Palestinians in the occupied west bank and come to the conclusion that the Israeli Government are authorising an oppressive regime with the goal of the complete displacement of the Palestinian people?
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I make a plea to the Minister to go one step further and join the chorus, now including our allies in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire now. It would send a powerful message.
Mr Mitchell
I have explained to the House that no matter how desirable it might be to achieve an immediate ceasefire, just calling for one and willing it will not make it happen. That is why the British Government have set out clearly, along with our allies, what the necessary steps are to reach the conclusion that the whole House would devoutly like to see.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Returning to the recent ICJ ruling, as I understand it one of the problems is that no country has ever responded to a call for pre-emptive steps when the court has made such a ruling. Part of that challenge is that no clear criteria have previously been set out for any country to meet. Can the Minister have discussions with his counterparts about agreeing a set of steps that would be made available to countries in the future, so that everyone can meet their obligations?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady makes an interesting theoretical and legal point, and I suggest that those discussions might go on usefully between theorists and lawyers.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I have raised with the Minister and other Ministers the case of my constituent who is trying to get his wife and baby daughter through the Rafah crossing. Very frustratingly, he cannot get the mother on to the approved list. I know it is not the only case like that. Will the Minister focus with a renewed urgency to press the Israeli and Egyptian authorities to resolve these delays and make sure that these people can get through to safety?
Mr Mitchell
My answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes. He and I have discussed the specific case, as well as the general cases to which he is alluding. I can tell him that the experts in the Foreign Office, extremely experienced in these matters, are doing everything they possibly can to advance that objective.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The horror and huge numbers of casualties in Gaza are unfolding for all the world to see. Alone of the three largest parties in this House, the SNP has called for an immediate ceasefire—not a humanitarian pause or a humanitarian ceasefire. We have also called for an end to collective punishment, which constitutes a war crime and has cost 30,000 lives so far and left 500,000 facing death by starvation. Our constituents are rightly outraged. Regardless of the Minister’s personal views, does he share my concern that Members of this House have been denied a recorded vote to express their views on these life or death matters, which is what our constituents want to see?
Mr Mitchell
Without revisiting the events of last week, I have no doubt of the worry of our constituents to which the hon. Lady refers. That is why I set out at the beginning why I think the British Government’s position, as articulated in the contents of the amendment that I failed to move last week, commands widespread support among our constituents. Although it was not voted on, as she rightly says, the amendment sets out the Government’s position, which I think should be widely supported among our constituents.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Some 5% of children under the age of two are malnourished in Rafah. I note that in the Minister’s statement, he expressed concern about the prospect of military incursion, but Rafah cannot happen; the consequences would be unbearable. Will the Minister go further, and do everything he can with the international community to prevent the Rafah invasion from occurring?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Lady’s first point, she is right about the degree of malnutrition, and that is why Britain is working closely with UNICEF and the World Food Programme. She set out the huge humanitarian consequences of a military attack on Rafah, and she will have seen what the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and I have said about the dangers of that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The possibility of an end to the killing—whatever we call it—brings hope in Gaza, Israel and, indeed, here, but I fear that divisions in our communities will remain. Many constituents have written to me upset at the difference they see in how Palestinian lives, Palestinian dignity and Islamophobia are valued in comparison with Israeli lives, Israeli dignity and antisemitism. Can the Minister go some way to perhaps addressing those concerns by condemning, for example, the Israeli Ministers and others who have ruled out a Palestinian state? Will he condemn the occupation, as well as settler violence? Will he condemn the Israeli soldiers who filmed themselves posing on the bicycles of dead Gazan children or rifling through the clothes of dead Gazan women?
Mr Mitchell
Let me make it clear, as the Prime Minister has, that in our country there is no tolerance whatever for antisemitism or Islamophobia. I reiterate that at the hon. Lady’s request across the Dispatch Box. She asked me about the importance of ensuring that all lives are treated equally and whether we care deeply about all those who are suffering in this conflict. Let me assure the House that we do.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
In response to my many written questions, the Government continue to say that they are keeping arms export licences under review, including with regard to international humanitarian law, and they confirm that Ministers are able to amend, suspend or revoke licences as circumstances require. One of the licences currently in place allows L3Harris in my constituency to manufacture components for the kinds of F-35 fighter planes used by the Israel Defence Forces in Gaza. Will the Minister publish the details of any reviews that have taken place? Will he tell us what threshold the Government are waiting to be crossed before they will suspend or revoke licences while there is a risk that they are being used to commit or to facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law?
Mr Mitchell
I will look into the burden of what the hon. Lady has said. If she tables a written question on precisely that point today, I will give her the Government’s answer.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The situation in Rafah is at a critical juncture. Disease and famine are setting in, and millions of Palestinians have nowhere else to go after being told by the Israeli Government to move south—the very place where the Israeli Government are now threatening military action—for their own safety. So far, the Israeli Government have remained belligerent in the face of international pressure to show restraint. Beyond words of advice and to “express deep concern”—to quote the Minister—what will be the response from the British Government if Israel decides to launch a ground offensive in Rafah?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady asks a theoretical question. What I can tell her is that the British Government are working together with our allies through the United Nations, and our friends and contacts throughout the region, to advance the situation in the way I set out in my statement. That is to try to ensure that there is a humanitarian pause, which enables us to get the hostages out and to get aid and humanitarian relief in, leading to a sustained ceasefire. That must be the right thing to seek to achieve, and that is what the Government will continue to attempt to do.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It has been suggested that if what Israel has done in Gaza becomes the accepted standard of self-defence, that core principle, which is meant to protect us all and is at the core of the international world order on which democracies are founded, is greatly undermined. How does the Minister respond to that?
Mr Mitchell
An unprecedented set of calamities has taken place. I reiterate that Israel has the absolute right of self-defence but must remain within international humanitarian law. It is important to hang on to those principles as we navigate this catastrophe.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Like Members across the House, I have had hundreds of emails from concerned constituents who are horrified by what they are seeing in Gaza—in particular, by scenes in hospitals where children have been operated on without anaesthetic. Will the Minister outline what specific steps the UK Government are taking to ensure that people from Gaza can get the medical treatment they so badly need?
Mr Mitchell
We are acting at every level to achieve the results that the hon. Lady and I both want. That is seen in: the work we are doing internationally in the region to try to facilitate the entry of medicines; our work with the Jordanian Government to make air drops, which include medical equipment; and our support for medical charities, some of which are based in Gaza. In every way, we are trying to alleviate the suffering to which she so eloquently referred.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
As we approach the five-month mark of this horrific conflict, nearly 30,000 Palestinians have died and children in Gaza are dying of starvation. Diplomatic efforts must yield results before thousands more die—it will be tens of thousands if the Rafah offensive goes ahead. Does the Minister agree that time is of the essence and that, unless there is a ceasefire now, there will not be a deal to make?
Mr Mitchell
The statement that the hon. Gentleman makes and the question he asks me underline the importance of the international community and Britain working with our allies to double and redouble efforts to ensure that we reach the situation that I have set out before the House on a number of occasions this afternoon.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Of course, an end to the threat of bombardment is the crucial step, but the humanitarian situation remains catastrophic. What specific assessment have UK officials made of the allegations against the UN Relief and Works Agency with a view to properly funding that organisation, whose infrastructure and capacity is crucial to meeting the basic everyday needs of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady underlines the centrality of UNRWA in Gaza. It has the necessary assets, which are essential for the delivery of aid and humanitarian relief. That is why we are urging the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services to produce an interim report looking into the collusion that allegedly took place. As soon as we have that report, along with the report from the former French Foreign Minister, we will be able to make the necessary dispositions not only about UNRWA but about how we get essential aid and support into Gaza.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Sir Oliver Heald—[Interruption.]
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the taking of hostages, and particularly civilian hostages, is considered an abomination. It is a war crime. Does he agree that one of the things that is driving the Israelis on is a desperate desire to get their people home and that anything that can be done diplomatically to try to make that happen—to get the hostages back—would really help the effort for peace?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right: the taking of hostages is an abomination. That is why we are doing everything we can to ensure that the hostages are released, including the two British hostages and others with a close connection with the United Kingdom. He will have seen the reports both from Paris and from Qatar over the weekend, which indicate that every sinew is being bent to try to get the hostages back.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I detected some unrest on the SNP Benches when I called the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald). The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been here for the whole of the statement; he chose to come in at this point and I gave him permission to do so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Let us make certain that we adhere properly to the rules, as Members know that I will.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
As we seek to tackle the rise in the evil of racism of all kinds in our communities in response to the tragedy unfolding in Israel and Gaza, is it not vital that we distinguish between, on the one hand, the awfulness of the Netanyahu regime and their outrageous actions and, on the other hand, the decency of the Israeli people and the right of Israel to exist? Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) met Yair Lapid, the leader of Yesh Atid, the liberal party of Israel. He is a former—and I hope future—Prime Minister of Israel who supports a two-state solution and desires peace. Are the Government keeping in close contact with Israeli opposition leaders who seek a peaceful resolution?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will have seen that the Foreign Secretary has recently been in Israel, as have many other members of the Government, including the Attorney General. We have a close relationship with many people across the political spectrum in Israel. He will also be aware that Israel is a rumbustious democracy in a region where there are not many democracies, and there are divergences of view among senior people in Israel. That is reflected in what we hear from Israel today.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I note the Minister’s earlier remarks on the topic, but Amnesty International UK is calling for the UK Government to suspend the supply of arms to the Israeli authorities given that serious violations amounting to crimes under international law are being committed. Will he accept the moral case for doing that? Will he revisit his policy? Will he also recognise that the killing of 12,000 children does show clear evidence of collective punishment?
Mr Mitchell
The earlier part of the hon. Lady’s question underlines the fact that these issues should not be resolved at the whim of Ministers but through the arms export Committee, which is both independent and legally advised. It is the toughest regime in the world and Ministers should look to it for guidance, which we do.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I hope the Minister will agree that there is clear consensus in this House that we want an end to the horror that we are seeing in Gaza and to the misery of the Israeli families who are missing those taken hostage. The Minister has made a great deal of the fact that a humanitarian pause is all that can be achieved, but that it can be a route to a ceasefire. We are hearing promising noises from the talks that there may be a pause in hostilities. While that is not enough, can the Minister assure us that our Government will do everything they can to reflect the will of this place and the people we represent in pursuing an end to the horror in Gaza and the long-term establishment of a two-state solution in the middle east?
Mr Mitchell
I can assure the hon. Lady. Her point underlines the degree of agreement rather than disagreement across this House. She said that the Government believe that a pause is all that can be achieved, but that is not the case. The Government believe that a pause will enable us to get the hostages out and aid and support in. It is part of the journey towards a sustainable ceasefire. It is certainly not all that we believe can be achieved, but it is necessary for the other things that we want to achieve.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
This weekend it was reported that the Government are finally starting to withdraw support for the Israeli military, suspending assistance for Israeli F-35 fighter jets and helicopters at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, and cancelling a planned joint exercise over the Negev desert. But British-made arms are still being sold to the Israeli military, including parts for F-35 jets. First, can the Minister tell the House on what basis the Government have suspended the aforementioned military assistance, and secondly and related to that, will he heed the call from UN experts on Friday, who said that arms exports to Israel must be suspended immediately in the light of the ICJ ruling on Israel’s plausible violation of the genocide convention?
Mr Mitchell
I have set out not only the principles by which Britain addresses the issue of arms exports but the practice of what we are doing in this situation. I am afraid I have nothing to add to what I have already said on that matter.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Minister has quite rightly reminded us that, as a matter of international humanitarian law, Israel has the right to defend itself against any aggressor. He also pointed out that that right must be exercised in compliance with international humanitarian law. Could he clarify the Government’s understanding of those specific conditions? Will he confirm that self-defence cannot justify attacks on a civilian population who pose no threat to anyone? Will he also confirm that self-defence does not apply to military action that is clearly disproportionate or, as President Biden said last week, over the top?
Mr Mitchell
In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s latter questions, the position is covered by what I have made clear from the start of this statement: Israel has the right of self-defence under international law, but it must be conducted within international humanitarian law. That is that context that I have reiterated, and it answers his latter two questions.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Yesterday, the UN reported that very little humanitarian aid has entered Gaza this month, having reduced by 50% compared with January. The commissioner-general said that the obstacles to aid getting in were a lack of political will, regular closing of the two crossing points, and insecurity due to military operations and the collapse of civil order. With increasing hunger and disease in Gaza, why does the Minister not agree with me and my constituents that we need an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, or is there a lack of political will by his Government for that, too?
Mr Mitchell
We are working towards precisely that—a humanitarian pause upon which we can build. On getting extra food and support, the hon. Lady will have seen that we have been working closely with Jordan and the World Food Programme on convoys that have left the Jordan border. We are doing everything we can, using our taxpayers’ money and our humanitarian expertise, to drive forward the common aim that she and I both wish to achieve.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Arms sales from the Netherlands to Israel have been halted after the Netherlands court found that there is a clear risk that components were used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. The court highlighted evidence of Israel’s deliberate, disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks, failure to warn civilians and incriminating statements by Israeli commanders and soldiers. Does that clear court ruling not make a nonsense of the Minister’s claim that the UK has the toughest arms exports licence controls in the world? If the UK does not stop selling arms to Israel, will it not also be complicit in breaches of humanitarian law?
Mr Mitchell
I do not agree with that analysis. We have to look at the small print of how our arms exports restrictions and operations work in order to see that that is not the case. I have set out clearly the way in which the arms exports regime works, and I am afraid I have nothing to add.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Palestinians desperately need aid, so which organisations are the Government working with to replace the humanitarian efforts of the UN Relief and Works Agency while it is unfunded, especially if there is a ceasefire or pause? Can he assure the House that not a penny of UK funding is still reaching the hands of the terrorists who committed the October atrocities, and who still hold 134 hostages?
Mr Mitchell
UNRWA is not unfunded. As I set out, Britain has funded it until the next financial year. I set out how other countries were also producing the necessary funding. The hon. Gentleman asked who else we work with apart from UNRWA: we work very closely with UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the Egyptian Red Crescent, as I saw on my relatively recent visit to Cairo. We continue to explore every possible way, not just through UNRWA, of getting aid and support into Gaza.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Government continue to be selective when they deploy the language of war crimes to different conflicts around the world. Notably, it is used in Ukraine freely, but not in reference to what is happening in Gaza. In refusing to endorse the interim ruling of the International Court of Justice, what assessment has the Minister made of the wider implications for rules-based international order? Surely, if international law is to have value, it must be applied universally not selectively.
Mr Mitchell
Britain has been at the heart of building the international rules-based system since 1946. The hon. Gentleman should give credit to that. When it comes to the different conflicts to which he alluded, the British Government have a uniform way of supporting international humanitarian law, supporting the rules of war and doing everything we can to stand up for the international rules-based system.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
The UN has said this week that a famine stalks Gaza, especially in the north where aid has not reached people since more than a month ago, on 23 January. The UN has confirmed that its inquiry into UNRWA will not report until 20 April. On a number of occasions the Minister has said that the issue of funding does not arise until the next financial year, so if we reach the next financial year and the report has not been issued, how will the Government decide whether we should re-fund UNRWA, and what evidence have they seen directly to suggest that we should not fund it now?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member is right on the timings of the report by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, but we are hoping for an interim report and the report of the former French Foreign Minister to inform any decisions that we make. It is important to make clear that UNRWA has sufficient funds to get it to the end of March at least, thanks to the actions of Norway and Guyana.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Does the Minister agree with the International Court of Justice findings that there is a plausible risk that Israel has been committing genocide against the Palestinian people, and just what will his Government do about it?
Mr Mitchell
It is hard to overestimate the offence caused by the extraordinary rhetoric of accusing Israel of being guilty of genocide, given the antecedents and events that took place in the holocaust during the war and the fact that more Jewish people were murdered on that one day of 7 October than at any time since the end of the second world war.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is now one month since the International Court of Justice ruled that there is a plausible risk that Israel’s actions in Gaza are in breach of the genocide convention. Since then, 3,000 more Palestinians have been killed, food and essential aid is still being prevented from getting into Gaza, and now Israel is threatening to invade Rafah. Given Israel’s obvious breaches of the Court’s legally binding ruling, what conversations has the Foreign Office had with the Trade Secretary about suspending arms sales to Israel, and should that not now be what is happening?
Mr Mitchell
Whether right or wrong, the analysis that the hon. Gentleman puts before the House underlines the importance of the initiatives that Britain has taken, and the work that is being done both regionally and internationally at the United Nations, to try to secure a sustainable ceasefire through a pause so that we can get the hostages out and also get necessary support and humanitarian aid in. I hope that he will share with me a common view that, on driving forward those initiatives, the five-point plan that has been set out so clearly by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary is the right way to address the very serious difficulties to which he alludes.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
We have heard many times about Israel’s right to defend itself. In fact, the Minister started his statement by reiterating Israel’s right to defend itself. On Sunday evening in Gaza City, the Israel Defence Forces fired on Palestinians who were waiting for food aid trucks to arrive. Ten were killed. Does the Minister believe that that was a legitimate act of self-defence?
Mr Mitchell
Unlike the other forces involved in this dreadful conflict, Israeli soldiers and members of the IDF are taught, as part of their basic training, about international humanitarian law. As I mentioned, there are lawyers embedded in the military forces as they make decisions on actions. That is not something that we see in other forces in the region and non-state actors. Although all deaths are to be regretted, we underline that international humanitarian law is very clear that all parties must respect it. We are deeply concerned about the lack of humanitarian access, and we are deeply concerned about the protection of civilians. As I set out in my earlier remarks, we believe that last week’s Government amendment, which was not moved but was tabled, outlines a set of circumstances that everyone across the House should be able to support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That concludes proceedings on the statement. We have taken rather longer than usual for a statement, but I have deliberately allowed this matter to run on, to make sure that everybody who wished to have their voice heard was heard.
Zarah Sultana
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), the Minister said that the arms export Committee does its work effectively. However, that Committee, formerly known as the Committees on Arms Export Controls, no longer exists. It last met publicly in December 2022, and last month its responsibilities were transferred to the Business and Trade Committee, which will scrutinise arms exports alongside a huge number of other matters. That means that, contrary to what the Minister suggested, this House no longer has a Committee specifically focused on scrutinising arms exports. What advice can you give me on ensuring that the Government take seriously the scrutiny of arms exports, given the Minister’s apparent lack of understanding?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Lady knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair but a continuation of the discussion. She asks for advice on how the matter might be drawn to the Government’s attention; I think I can call on the Minister to make a point further to that point of order.
Mr Mitchell
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The structure of these matters is approved by the House of Commons. The regime is clear, no matter where responsibility for it sits—and it is, I believe, among the toughest to be found anywhere in the world.
Higher Education (Student Finance and Skills Shortages)
Tuesday 27th February 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education (Student Finance and Skills Shortages) Bill 2023-24 View all Higher Education (Student Finance and Skills Shortages) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a scheme in which graduates of specified university courses may be exempt from requirements to repay a student loan, in full or in part, provided that they are employed in the United Kingdom in a relevant sector for a minimum time period; and for connected purposes.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I start, I would like to take the opportunity to echo Mr Speaker’s condolences to family and friends on the passing of Lord Patrick Cormack. He was in this place for 40 years and was born in Great Grimsby, my constituency.
It is my belief that good-quality legislation aimed at educational reform should not only encourage rising levels of attainment in both education and skills, but be designed to develop the workforce of the future. There have been numerous skills gap and skills mismatch reports over the past few years, and the path is clear for us to review how higher education—particularly undergraduate and postgraduate funding polices—can ensure that the Government provide excellent public services in the UK that help to keep the country healthy, improve productivity and grow the economy.
Before I became an MP, I worked in further and higher education for 22 years, and I believe that I have an insight into what motivates students to study to degree level and beyond. In my opinion, in too many cases, the current funding regime encourages people to study at degree level when it is not suited to the student’s skills and abilities or future career path. That is because we live with the effects of new Labour’s higher educational reforms and, in particular, the way that the student loan system works.
The policy of increasing the percentage of people who go to university, regardless of what they study, has led to a huge growth in poor-quality degrees that have little academic rigour; the loss of excellent vocational higher education courses, such as higher national diplomas, which were directly relevant to the sectors they were aimed at; and a graduate skills mismatch in the UK that is now so large that we import thousands of graduates from abroad, which means that other countries lose their highly skilled graduates to the UK. In addition, if a UK graduate emigrates, we lose any taxpayer benefit from funding their course or receiving their outstanding student fees. The Learning and Work Institute has indicated that the UK skills shortage will cost the country £120 billion by 2030, and that there will be a shortfall of appropriately 2.5 million skilled workers in our economy.
The annual cost to the Treasury of funding undergraduate and postgraduate courses in England alone is estimated at £20 billion. Graduates are expected to start paying a proportion of their tuition fees and maintenance grants, which are means-tested, only once they earn an annual income over a threshold that ranges between £21,000 and £27,660. We need a new student loan system that will incentivise students to study the degrees that we need, rather than a proliferation of degrees that do not give the country or the individual any added value and also delay that individual’s entry into a productive career.
Research findings from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and MoneySuperMarket show that UK student debt amounts to more than £100 billion, and is projected to hit £1.2 trillion by 2049. Currently only 27% of all graduates pay back their student loans in full, and 83% are projected never to do so. The IFS also estimates that 20% of students would have been better off if they had not gone to university, which proves that their degree does not add value to their career. The Open University’s 2023 “Business Barometer” report showed that despite our having a larger graduate workforce than ever before, 83% of large organisations face a skills shortage in their workforce.
Moreover, 2023 data from the British Medical Association suggests that 7% of doctors who train for employment in the NHS leave after completing their foundation years. That means a loss of £220,000 per student doctor, costing the taxpayer £146 million a year. The Government offer bursaries for doctors and dentists in the final years of their studies to help them with tuition fees and living costs, but at that stage they are already earning a wage. This is a back-to-front funding model that does not help us to recruit doctors and dentists to the NHS and maintain them there. There are also gaps in a wide range of other public sector services. Our local authorities, for instance, lack social workers, speech and language therapists and physiotherapists.
Let me suggest a solution. I should like the Secretary of State for Education to investigate the possibility of introducing what I am calling the British GradForce agreement. The model would be similar to a system that has worked well for decades in the armed forces: candidates can apply for scholarships and bursaries funded by the relevant armed force, on the understanding that they will then complete a minimum term in order to pay back to the country, in years of service, the investment that the taxpayer has made in them. Candidates who drop out or are removed before the end of that period are generally expected to pay back not only the bursary but their training costs. The system benefits capable and committed students from more disadvantaged backgrounds, rewarding them with no debt in return for their public service.
The Government should use their published skills shortage research to create a public sector graduate skills shortage list, so that public sector employers could accredit courses that are directly linked to skills shortages in particular roles. The courses would need to meet the quality thresholds required by organisations such as the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and professional bodies. Universities running those courses could then apply for them to be accredited by the Government, making them eligible for the British GradForce agreement funding policy. Students applying for and then starting to study on the relevant courses could opt to sign an agreement, in which they commit themselves to completing their studies to the required employment standards, and to working in the relevant sector for the specified timescale appropriate to their course. In return for that service commitment, the Government could choose to write off their student loan fees, up to a maximum amount, over the specified length of service in that profession.
We need a policy that incentivises students to choose the degrees that the country needs by differentiating the funding model for those degrees from those for all other types of degree. The changes I am proposing could have a positive and pivotal effect on the higher education sector. They could encourage students to choose the courses that the country needs, reduce the debt burden of those students, be a better deal for the taxpayer, and help to improve growth and productivity. I hope that the Secretary of State can investigate the possibility of such a policy.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Lia Nici, Sally Ann Hart, Tom Hunt, Miriam Cates and Martin Vickers present the Bill.
Lia Nici accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed (Bill 168).
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill
Tuesday 27th February 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 View all Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 27 February 2024 - large print - (27 Feb 2024)
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 14 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 294 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 170 / Noes: 299 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 27—Part 4: Crown application.
Government new clause 28—Redress schemes: no Crown status.
Government new clause 29—Part 5: amendments to other Acts.
Government new clause 30—Steps relating to remediation of defects.
Government new clause 31—Remediation orders.
Government new clause 32—Remediation contribution orders.
Government new clause 33—Recovery of legal costs etc through service charge.
Government new clause 34—Repeal of section 125 of the BSA 2022.
Government new clause 35—Higher-risk and relevant buildings: notifications in connection with insolvency.
Government new clause 42—Ban on grant or assignment of certain long residential leases of houses.
Government new clause 43—Long residential leases of houses.
Government new clause 44—Leases which have a long term.
Government new clause 45—Series of leases whose term would extend beyond 21 years.
Government new clause 46—Houses.
Government new clause 47—Residential leases.
Government new clause 48—Permitted leases.
Government new clause 49—Permitted leases: certification by the appropriate tribunal.
Government new clause 50—Permitted leases: marketing restrictions.
Government new clause 51—Permitted leases: transaction warning conditions.
Government new clause 52—Prescribed statements in new long leases.
Government new clause 53—Restriction on title.
Government new clause 54—Redress: right to acquire a freehold or superior leasehold estate.
Government new clause 55—Redress: application of the right to acquire.
Government new clause 56—Redress: general provision.
Government new clause 57—Redress regulations: exercising and giving effect to the right to acquire.
Government new clause 58—Enforcement by trading standards authorities.
Government new clause 59—Financial penalties.
Government new clause 60—Financial penalties: cross-border enforcement.
Government new clause 61—Lead enforcement authority.
Government new clause 62—General duties of lead enforcement authority.
Government new clause 63—Enforcement by lead enforcement authority.
Government new clause 64—Further powers and duties of enforcement authorities.
Government new clause 65—Power to amend: permitted leases and definitions.
Government new clause 66—Interpretation of Part A1.
New clause 1—Estate management services—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulation provide for residents of managed dwellings to take ownership, at nominal cost, of—
(a) an estate management company, or
(b) the assets of an estate management company, or other company or business connected with the development or management of the dwellings, which are used to provide services to managed dwellings
if the estate management company or connected company or business does not—
(i) provide the residents of the managed dwellings with a copy of its budget for the forthcoming year and accounts for the past year;
(ii) give sufficient notice to enable residents to attend its annual meeting;
(iii) acknowledge correspondence sent by registered post to its registered office within a reasonable length of time.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend primary legislation.”
New clause 2—Estate management: compensation—
“(1) This section applies where the first and second condition are met.
(2) The first condition is that it would not be reasonable for the residents of a property to continue to occupy that property as their primary residence due to a defect which the estate manager—
(a) is responsible for remedying, or
(b) could reasonably have foreseen would arise.
(3) The second condition is that—
(a) the defect is the direct result of actions taken or not taken by the estate manager, or
(b) the estate manager has failed to remedy the defect within a reasonable period of time.
(4) The estate manager must—
(a) provide compensation to the residents of the property equal to any reasonable financial loss they incurred as a result of the defect, or
(b) provide suitable alternative accommodation for the duration of the period for which this section applies.
(5) No cost incurred by an estate manager as a consequence of this section may be recouped from the estate in question through an estate management charge.”
This new clause would allow estate residents to claim compensation or alternative accommodation where it is not reasonable for them to remain in their homes due to defects caused, or left unremedied for an unreasonable length of time, by an estate manager.
New clause 3—Prohibition on landlords claiming litigation costs from tenants—
“(1) Any term of a long lease of a dwelling which provides a right for a landlord to demand litigation costs from a leaseholder (whether as a service charge, administration charge or otherwise) is of no effect.
(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify classes of landlord to which or prescribed circumstances in which subsection (1) does not apply.
(3) In this section—
“administration charge” has the meaning given by Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2022;
“dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, or outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it;
“long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002;
“service charge” has the meaning given by section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985;
“landlord” has the meaning given by section 30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.”
This new clause would prohibit landlords from claiming litigation costs from tenants other than under limited circumstances determined by the Secretary of State.
New clause 4—Remedies for the recovery of annual sums charged on land—
“(1) Section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 is omitted.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) has effect in relation to arrears arising before or after the coming into force of this section.”
This new clause, which is intended to replace clause 59, would remove the provision of existing law which, among other things, allows a rentcharge owner to take possession of a freehold property in instances where a freehold homeowner failed to pay a rentcharge.
New clause 5—Abolition of forfeiture of a long lease—
“(1) This section applies to any right of forfeiture or re-entry in relation to a dwelling held on a long lease which arises either—
(a) under the terms of that lease; or
(b) under or in consequence of section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
(2) The rights referred to in subsection (1) are abolished.
(3) In this section—
“dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, or outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it;
“lease” means a lease at law or in equity and includes a sub-lease, but does not include a mortgage term;
“long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.”
This new clause would abolish the right of forfeiture in relation to residential long leases in instances where the leaseholder is in breach of covenant.
New clause 6—Requirement to establish and operate a management company under leaseholder control—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—
(a) requiring any long lease of a dwelling to include a residents management company (“RMC”) as a party to that lease, and
(b) for that company to discharge under the long lease such management functions as may be prescribed by the regulations.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide—
(a) for the RMC to be a company limited by share (with each share to have a value not to exceed £1), and
(b) for such shares to be allocated (for no consideration) to the leaseholder of the dwelling for the time being.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must prescribe the content and form of the articles of association of an RMC.
(4) The content and form of articles prescribed in accordance with subsection (3) have effect in relation to an RMC whether or not such articles are adopted by the company.
(5) A provision of the articles of an RMC has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the content or form of articles prescribed in accordance with subsection (3).
(6) Section 20 of the Companies Act 2006 (default application of model articles) does not apply to an RMC.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State sees fit for the enforcement of regulations made under subsection (1), and such provision may (among other things) include provision—
(a) conferring power on the First-Tier Tribunal to order that leases be varied to give effect to this section;
(b) providing for terms to be implied into leases without the need for any order of any court or tribunal.
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe descriptions of buildings in respect of which regulations may be made under subsection (1).
(9) In this section—
“dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, or outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it;
“long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002;
“management function” has the meaning given by section 96(5) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the definition of “management function” for the purposes of this section.”
This new clause would ensure that leases on new flats include a requirement to establish and operate a residents’ management company responsible for all service charge matters, with each leaseholder given a share.
New clause 7—Power to establish a Right to Manage regime for freeholders on private or mixed-use estates—
“In Section 71 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, after subsection (2) insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to enable freeholder owners of dwellings to exercise a right to manage in a way which corresponds with or is similar to this Part.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””
This new clause would permit the Secretary of State to establish a Right to Manage regime for freeholders of residential property on private or mixed-use estates.
New clause 8—Regulation of property agents—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for implementing the proposals of the Regulation of Property Agents Working Group final report of July 2019 as far as they relate to—
(a) estate management;
(b) sale of leasehold properties; and
(c) sale of freehold properties subject to estate management or service charges.
(2) Regulations under this section—
(a) must be laid within 24 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act,
(b) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(c) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) If, at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the power in subsection (1) is yet to be exercised, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out the progress that has been made towards doing so.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to implement the proposals of the Regulation of Property Agents Working Group final report within 24 months of the Act coming into force and to report on progress to that end at the end of the period of 12 months.
New clause 9—Qualifying leases for the purposes of the remediation of building defects—
“Section 119 of the Building Safety Act 2022 is amended by the insertion after subsection (4) of the following —
“(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend subsection (2) so as to bring additional descriptions of lease within the definition of “qualifying lease”.””
This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to bring “non qualifying” leaseholders within the scope of the protections of the Building Safety Act 2022.
New clause 10—Meaning of “relevant building” for the purposes of the remediation of building defects—
“Section 117 of the Building Safety Act 2022 is amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following—
“(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend subsection (2) so as to bring additional descriptions of building within the definition of “relevant building”.””
This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to bring buildings which are under 11m in height or have fewer than four storeys within the scope of the protections of the Building Safety Act 2022.
New clause 11—Report on providing leaseholders in flats with a share of the freehold—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report outlining legislative options to ensure that all qualifying tenants in newly-constructed residential properties containing two or more flats have a proportionate share of the freehold of their property.
(2) The report must be laid before Parliament within three months of the commencement of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining legislative options to provide leaseholders in flats with a share of the freehold.
New clause 12—Proportion of qualifying tenants required for a notice of claim to acquire right to manage—
“Section 79 of the CLRA 2002 is amended, in subsection (5), by leaving out “one-half” and inserting “35%”.”
This new clause would reduce the proportion of qualifying tenants who must be members of a proposed Right to Manage company for a claim to be made from one-half to 35%.
New clause 13—Prohibition on new leasehold homes—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations prohibit the sale of any new leasehold home.
(2) Regulations under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument,
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament; and
(c) may amend primary legislation.”
New clause 14—Premises to which leasehold right to manage applies—
“Section 72 of the CLRA 2002 is amended in subsection (1)(a), by the addition at the end of the words “or of any other building or part of a building which is reasonably capable of being managed independently.””
This new clause which is an amendment to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 adopts the Law Commission’s Recommendation 5 in its Right to Manage report which would allow leaseholders in mixed-use buildings with shared services or underground car park to exercise the Right to Manage.
New clause 15—Meaning of “accountable person” for the purposes of the Building Safety Act 2022—
“(1) Section 72 of the Building Safety Act 2022 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After subsection (2)(b), insert—
“(c) all repairing obligations relating to the relevant common parts which would otherwise be obligations of the estate owner are functions of a manager appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 in relation to the building or any part of the building.”
(3) In subsection (6), in the definition of “relevant repairing obligation”, after “enactment”, insert “or by virtue of an order appointing a manager made under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987”.
(4) Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is amended in accordance with subsection (5).
(5) Omit subsection (2E).”
This new clause would provide for a manager appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to be the “accountable person” for a higher-risk building.
New clause 16—Commencement of section 156 of the CLRA 2002—
“(1) Section 181 of the CLRA 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after “104” insert “, section 156”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Section 156 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 is passed.””
This new clause would bring into force a requirement of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 that service charge contributions be held in designated accounts.
New clause 17—Eligibility for enfranchisement—
“(1) The LHRUDA 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3—
(a) in subsection (2)(a), after third “building”, insert “, or could be separated out by way of the granting of a mandatory leaseback on the non-residential premises to the outgoing freeholder”;
(b) after sub-paragraph (2)(b)(ii), insert “or
(iii) are reasonably capable of being managed independently or are already subject to separate management arrangements;”
(3) In section 4(1)(a)(ii), after “premises;”, insert “nor
(iii) reasonably capable of being separated out by way of the granting of a mandatory leaseback and reasonably capable of being managed independently from the residential premises;””
This new clause would ensure that leaseholders in mixed-use blocks with shared services with commercial occupiers would qualify to buy their freehold.
New clause 18—Right to manage: procedure following an application to the appropriate tribunal—
“(1) The CLRA 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 84, insert—
“84A Procedure following an application to the appropriate tribunal
(1) Where an application is made to the appropriate tribunal under section 84(3) for a determination that an RTM company was on the relevant date entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises, the Tribunal may, if satisfied that it is reasonable to do so, dispense with—
(a) service of any notice inviting participation;
(b) service of any notice of claim;
(c) any of the requirements in the provisions set out in subsection (2); or
(d) any requirement of any regulations made under this part of this Act.
(2) Subsection (1)(c) applies to the following provisions of this Act—
(a) section 73;
(b) section 74;
(c) section 78;
(d) section 79;
(e) section 80;
(f) section 81.””
This new clause would provide the appropriate tribunal with the discretion to dispense with certain procedural requirements where it is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. It is designed to deal with cases where a landlord attempts to frustrate an RTM claim by procedural means.
New clause 19—Service charges: consultation requirements—
“(1) The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 20ZA, after subsection (1), insert—
“(1A) “Reasonable” for the purpose of subsection (1) is a matter of fact for the tribunal, which—
(a) may or may not consider the matter of relevant prejudice to the tenant. If prejudice is to be considered the burden is on the landlord to demonstrate a lack of prejudice or to prove the degree of prejudice;
(b) must include consideration of the objectives of increasing transparency and accountability, and the promotion of professional estate management, as well as of ensuring that leaseholders are protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more than would be appropriate;
(c) must consider the dignity and investment of the tenant, who should be treated as a core participant in the process of service charge decisions;
(d) must have regard to the tenant’s legitimate interest in a meaningful consultation process, bearing in mind that minor or technical breaches may not impinge on the tenant’s interest, nor prejudice the tenant;
(e) at its discretion may or may not consider a reconstruction of the ‘what if’ situation, analysing what would have happened had the consultation been followed properly. The landlord is liable for the costs of such a reconstruction.””
This new clause would set matters for the tribunal to consider when deciding whether to dispense with all or any of the requirements for landlords to consult tenants in relation to any major works.
New clause 20—Building insurance and section 39 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000—
“A landlord may not manage or arrange insurance for their building under the protections of section 39 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.”
This new clause precludes a landlord from operating as an appointed representative under the licence of Broker, where the landlord has no such licence themselves.
New clause 21—Collective enfranchisement: removal of prohibition on participation—
“(1) Section 5 of the LRHUDA 1993 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) Omit subsections (5) and (6).”
This new clause would implement recommendation 41 of the Law Commission’s report on enfranchisement, that the prohibition on leaseholders of three or more flats in a building being qualifying tenants for the purposes of a collective enfranchisement claim should be abolished.
New clause 22—Leases for new dwellings: default length—
“(1) Where a lease is a regulated lease, it must be issued with a lease term of at least 990 years.
(2) In this section—
“regulated lease” means a lease which meets the following conditions—
(a) it is a long lease of a single dwelling;
(b) it is granted for a premium;
(c) it is granted on or after the relevant commencement day but not in pursuance of a contract made before that day; and
(d) when it is granted, it is not an excepted lease.
the “relevant commencement day” is 1 January 2025.”
This new clause would ensure that all leases created for new flats following 1 January 2025 come with a default length of 990-years, bringing the position of future private sector leases into line with the existing requirements under Home England’s new model shared ownership lease
New clause 23—Report on disadvantage suffered by existing leaseholders—
“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent evaluation of the matter set out in subsection (2) and must lay the report of the evaluation before Parliament.
(2) The matter is the extent to which a tenant who has extended their lease or purchased the freehold of their property after 27 November 2023 but prior to this Act receiving Royal Assent (Tenant A) is disadvantaged in comparison to a tenant who has extended their lease or purchased the freehold of their property after this Act received Royal Assent (Tenant B).
(3) The report must take account of the following factors—
(a) marriage value;
(b) the legal costs likely to be incurred by the freeholder; and
(c) any charge for which Tenant A would be liable but Tenant B would not.
(4) The report must make recommendations to redress any significant disparities between the costs for which Tenant A would be liable but Tenant B would not.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations give effect to any recommendations made in the evaluation.
(6) Regulations under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent evaluation of any disadvantages faced by a tenant who has extended their lease or purchased the freehold of their property after the introduction of this Bill but prior to it receiving Royal Assent.
New clause 24—Asbestos remediation—
“(1) The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 37B, insert—
“37C Asbestos remediation
(1) This section applies where a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement in respect of any premises is made by tenants of dwellings contained in the premises and the claim is effective.
(2) Not less than 3 months before the effective date of the enfranchisement, the landlord must cause a structural survey of the premises to be undertaken by an accredited professional to ascertain whether asbestos is, or is liable to be, present in those parts of the premises which the landlord is responsible for maintaining.
(3) Where the survey required by subsection (2) reveals the presence of asbestos, the landlord must, at the landlord’s cost, arrange for its safe removal.
(4) If the removal of asbestos required by subsection (3) is not carried out before the responsibility for maintaining the affected parts transfers to another person under the claim to exercise the right of collective enfranchisement, the landlord is liable for the costs of its removal.””
New clause 25—Right to statutory compensation when landlord alters premises—
“(1) This section applies when both of the following conditions are satisfied—
(a) the first condition is that there are premises in which at least one dwelling is let on a long lease to a person (“T”); and
(b) the second condition is that the landlord or any superior landlord (“L”) under T’s long lease undertakes substantial development to the premises containing T’s dwelling.
(2) When both of the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) are satisfied, L must pay to T compensation reflecting the disruption caused by the substantial development.
(3) The compensation due from L to T under subsection (2) is to be calculated and paid by L to T at a time and in a manner according to regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) Notwithstanding any term of any agreement to the contrary, whether the agreement is made before or after the coming into force of this section—
(a) T may set-off any part of any compensation due from L but not paid by L in accordance with this section against any service charges demanded by L; and
(b) L may not exercise or omit to exercise any right, or otherwise take any step, to prejudice T as a result of any set-off exercised by T in accordance with this section.
(5) The County Court has jurisdiction to determine any dispute regarding compensation payable under this section.
(6) Regulations under this section—
(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;
(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases;
(c) may make different provision for different purposes;
(d) may include supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.
(8) In this section—
“long lease” has the same meaning has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (see sections 76 and 77 of that Act);
“service charge” has the same meaning as in section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended by this Act);
“substantial development” means demolishing, reconstructing or carrying out substantial works of construction on, the whole or a substantial part of the premises.”
This new clause is proposed after clause 21. It would require landlords who extend or alter buildings to pay statutory compensation to residential leaseholders in that building, for example when adding new storeys under permitted development rights. Residential leaseholders would have the right to set-off this compensation against service charges if landlords did not pay.
New clause 36—Codes of management practice: requirement to adhere—
“In section 87 of the LRHUDA 1993 (codes of management practice)—
(a) after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) If—
(a) the Secretary of State has not approved a code or codes of practice which appear to him to promote desirable practices in relation to all necessary matters concerned with the management of residential property by relevant persons within three months of the passage of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, or
(b) as a consequence of the withdrawal of his approval of a code or modifications under subsection (1)(c) it appears to him that codes of practice in relation to all necessary matters are no longer in place,
he must draw up a code or modifications in relation to such matters as he considers necessary and treat that code, or those modifications, as if submitted to him under subsection (1)(a)(ii).”
(b) in subsection (7)—
(i) omit the words “not of itself”, and
(ii) for “but”, substitute “and”.”
This new clause would amend section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 so as to make the codes of practice allowed for under that section mandatory (paragraph (b)), and to require the Secretary of State to ensure that such codes of practice are in place (paragraph (a)).
New clause 37—Qualification in property management—
“In section 87 of the LRHUDA 1993 (codes of management practice), after subsection (6), insert—
“(6A) A code of practice approved under this section must require a person who discharges management functions in respect of residential property to hold a relevant qualification in property management.””
This new clause, together with NC36, would require any person who discharges management functions in respect of residential property to hold a relevant qualification in property management.
New clause 38—Information to be given to prospective purchasers of leasehold residential property—
“In the LTA 1985, after section 30P (as inserted by section 40) insert—
“Information to be given to prospective purchasers of leasehold residential property
30Q Information to be given to prospective purchasers of leasehold residential property
(1) The landlord must ensure that any person purchasing the lease of a dwelling is provided at the point of purchase with a copy of the Government guidance entitled “How to Lease”, as it may be updated from time to time.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “landlord” has the same meaning as in sections 30K to 30N (see section 30P).””
New clause 39—Rights of first refusal on disposal of freehold homes—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the rights of first refusal granted to qualifying tenants of flats by Part 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to be extended to tenants of freehold houses.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) may amend primary legislation;
(b) are subject to the affirmative procedure (but see subsection (3)).
(3) If before approving a draft of regulations under subsection (1) both Houses of Parliament have agreed amendments to that draft, the Secretary of State must make the regulations in the form of the draft as so amended.”
New clause 40—Failure of landlords to respond to requests for enfranchisement—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the problems faced by tenants wishing to exercise their right to enfranchisement whose landlords do not respond to enfranchisement requests.
(2) A report of the review must be laid before Parliament as soon as it has been completed.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations implement any recommendation of the review.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may amend primary legislation.”
New clause 41—Report on disadvantage due to payment of marriage value—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission an independent evaluation of the matter set out in subsection (2) and must lay the report of the evaluation before Parliament.
(2) The matter is the extent to which a tenant who has been required to pay marriage value when extending their lease (Tenant A) is disadvantaged in comparison to a tenant who has extended their lease after the passage of this Act (Tenant B).
(3) The report must—
(a) make recommendations to redress any significant disparities between the marriage value costs for which Tenant A would be liable but Tenant B would not; and
(b) recommend the date after which Tenant A must have extended their lease in order to be eligible for any financial redress.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations give effect to any recommendations made in the evaluation.
(5) Regulations under this section—
(a) are to be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent evaluation of any disadvantages faced by a tenant who has been required to pay marriage value when extending their lease in comparison to a tenant who has extended their lease after the passage of this Act and therefore not been required to pay marriage value.
New clause 67—Liability of freeholders for central heating failures—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission an independent evaluation of the matters set out in subsection (2) and must lay the report of the evaluation before Parliament.
(2) The matters are, where there is a failure of a communal central heating system for which a freeholder is responsible which lasts for a minimum of 24 hours—
(a) the extent to which a freeholder should be liable; and
(b) whether, if the freeholder is considered to some extent to be liable, financial penalties should be imposed on the freeholder.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations give effect to any recommendations made in the evaluation.
(4) Regulations under this section—
(a) are to be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent evaluation of the matter of holding freeholders financially liable for long-lasting central communal heating failures where the freeholder has a responsibility for upkeep.
“New clause 68—Shared ownership—
(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations create certain rights and obligations for leaseholders and freeholders on all leasehold properties which are subject to a shared ownership model created after 1967.
(2) The rights referred to in subsection (1) are that any leaseholder has the right to increase their share of the freehold in the property in increments of either ten percent or 25 percent on giving formal notice in writing to the freeholder.
(3) The obligation referred to in subsection (1) is that the freeholder may not charge a rent on their freehold share of the property which is greater than 2.75% of the market value of the share of the property which they hold.
(4) Rights and obligations created by regulations under this section are to apply notwithstanding any legal agreement previously entered into between the leaseholder and the freeholder.”
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
“(2) After section 4(5) of the LRHUDA 1993, insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers may by regulations amend this section to provide for a different description of premises falling within section 3(1) to which this Chapter does not apply.
(7) Regulations may not be made under subsection (6) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of—
(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State, both Houses of Parliament;
(b) in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, Senedd Cymru.”
(3) In section 100 of the LRHUDA 1993—
(a) in subsection (2), after “making”, insert “provision under section 4(6) or”;
(b) in subsection (3), after “making”, insert “provision under section 4(6) or”.”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State or (in the case of Wales) the Welsh Ministers to change the description of premises which are excluded from collective enfranchisement rights. Such a change would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Government amendments 24 to 31.
Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 16, leave out from line 27 to line 20 on page 17.
This amendment would leave out the proposed new section 19C of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, and so ensure that leaseholders are not liable to pay their landlord’s non-litigation costs in cases where a low value enfranchisement or extension claim is successful.
Government amendments 32 to 34.
Amendment 7, in clause 13, page 22, leave out lines 1 to 29.
This amendment would leave out the proposed new section 89C of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, and so ensure that leaseholders are not liable to pay their landlord’s non-litigation costs in cases where a low value enfranchisement or extension claim is successful.
Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 26, line 40, at end insert—
“(ja) any matter arising under Clause [Estate management: compensation] of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.”
This is a paving amendment for NC2.
Amendment 1, page 28, line 11, at end insert—
“(8A) When considering any matter under this section, the appropriate tribunal must have regard to previous decisions made by an appropriate tribunal in matters which appear, to it, to be materially similar to the matter under consideration under this section.”
This amendment would require tribunals considering cases related to leasehold to have regard to precedent set by previous decisions of tribunals in similar cases.
Government amendments 35 and 36.
Amendment 17, in clause 22, page 39, line 14, leave out “50%” and insert “75%”.
This amendment would allow leaseholders with a higher proportion of commercial or non-residential space in their building to claim the Right to Manage.
Amendment 9, in clause 23, page 40, leave out from the beginning of line 27 to the end of line 27 on page 41.
This amendment would leave out the proposed new section 87B of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and so ensure that RTM companies cannot incur costs in instances where claims cease.
Amendment 19, in clause 29, page 46, line 26, at end insert—
“(iii) a statement of all transactions relating to any sinking fund or reserve fund.”
This amendment would require the written statement of account which the landlord will be required to provide to a tenant to include a statement of all transactions relating to any sinking fund or reserve fund in which their monies are held.
Amendment 12, page 47, line 16, at end insert—
“(8) Where a landlord of any such premises fails to comply with the terms implied into a lease by subsection (2), any rent, service charge or administration charge otherwise due from the tenant to the landlord shall be treated for all purposes as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before the landlord does comply with those subsections.”
This amendment would require courts and tribunals to treat the landlord’s compliance with the implied term requirement for annual accounts and certification as a condition precedent to the lessee’s obligation to pay their service charges.
Amendment 13, page 48, line 11, at end insert—
“(9) Where a landlord fails to comply with subsection (1), any rent, service charge or administration charge otherwise due from the tenant to the landlord shall be treated for all purposes as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before the landlord does comply with that subsection.”
This amendment would require courts and tribunals to treat the landlord’s compliance with the implied term requirement for annual accounts and certification as a condition precedent to the lessee’s obligation to pay their service charges.
Amendment 14, in clause 30, page 50, leave out lines 12 to 19 and insert—
“(4) P may not charge R any sum in excess of the prescribed amount in respect of the costs incurred by P in doing anything required under section 21F or this section.
(5) The prescribed amount means an amount specified in regulations by the appropriate authority; and such regulations may prescribe different amounts for different activities.
(6) If P is a landlord, P may not charge the tenant for the costs of allowing the tenant access to premises to inspect information (but may charge for the making of copies).”
This amendment would make the appropriate authority (i.e. the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers) responsible for setting a prescribed amount for the costs of providing information to leaseholders. That prescribed amount would be the maximum amount that freeholders and managing agents employed by them could seek to recover through a service charge.
Amendment 15, in clause 31, page 51, line 35, leave out “£5,000” and insert “£30,000”.
This amendment would raise the cap on damages under this section for a failure to comply with duties relating to service charges to £30,000.
Amendment 16, page 51, line 35, at end insert—
“(5A) Damages under this section must be at least £1,000.”
This amendment would insert a floor on damages under this section of £1,000.
Amendment 20, in clause 32, page 52, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 33 and insert—
“(a) exceed the net rate charged by the insurance underwriter for the insurance cover, and”.
This amendment would define an excluded insurance cost as any cost in excess of the actual charge made by the underwriter for placing the risk, where such cost is not a permitted insurance payment.
Amendment 21, page 52, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 53.
This amendment, to leave out subsection (3) of the proposed new section 20G of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, is consequential on Amendment 20.
Amendment 22, page 53, line 18, at end insert—
“(5A) The regulations must specify a broker’s reasonable remuneration at market rates as a permitted insurance payment.
(5B) The regulations must exclude any payment which arises, directly or indirectly, from any breach of trust, fiduciary obligation or failure to act in the best interests of the tenant.”
This amendment would require “permitted insurance payment” to include payment of a reasonable sum to a broker at market rates for placing the cover, and to exclude any payments which have arisen from wrongdoing.
Amendment 10, page 60, line 2, leave out clause 35.
Government amendments 37 to 41.
Amendment 18, in clause 46, page 75, line 23, at end insert—
“(c) only where they are incurred in the provision of services or the carrying out of works that would not ordinarily be provided by local authorities.”
This amendment would mean that services or works that would ordinarily be provided by local authorities are not relevant costs for the purposes of estate management charges.
Government amendment 42.
Amendment 83, in clause 74, page 97, line 37, at end insert—
“(2) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on the circumstances in which the Secretary of State will give financial assistance or make other payments under this section.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the circumstances in which financial assistance would be made available for the establishment or maintenance of estate management redress schemes.
Government amendments 43 to 48.
Amendment 11, in page 104, line 30, leave out clause 83.
See explanatory statement to NC4.
Government amendments 85 and 49.
Government new schedule 1—Part 5: Amendments to other Acts.
Government new schedule 2—Categories of permitted lease.
Government new schedule 3—Leasehold houses: financial penalties.
Government amendments 50 to 53.
Amendment 4, in schedule 2, page 136, line 40, at end insert—
“(9) In setting the deferment rate the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of encouraging leaseholders to acquire their freehold at the lowest possible cost.”
This amendment would ensure that when determining the applicable deferment rate, the Secretary of State would have to have regard to the desirability of encouraging leaseholders to acquire their freehold at the lowest possible cost.
Amendment 5, page 138, line 6, at end insert—
“(7A) In setting the deferment rate the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of encouraging leaseholders to extend their lease at the lowest possible cost.”
This amendment would ensure that when determining the applicable deferment rate, the Secretary of State would have to have regard to the desirability of encouraging leaseholders to extend their lease at the lowest possible cost.
Government amendments 54 to 67.
Amendment 8, in schedule 7, page 168, line 15, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (a).
This amendment would ensure that all leaseholders, not just those with residential leases of 150 years or over, have the right to vary their lease to replace rent with peppercorn rent.
Government amendments 68 to 82, 84 and 23.
Lee Rowley
Let me begin by thanking Members in all parts of the House for their valuable contributions to the Bill. It is good to see that so many who have been involved so far are present; a number of them have been campaigning for these changes for years. I will not be able to name everyone, but I pay tribute to, in particular, my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid), and for Newark (Robert Jenrick), my late right hon. Friend the former Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, James Brokenshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), all of whom have played such important roles in preparing the ground for many of the measures before us today. They have all been invaluable in helping us to reach the point at which we deliver on the commitment that we made to reform a system that clearly needs change, and give millions the freedom, security and control over their life that comes with home ownership in its truest, fullest sense.
At a stroke, the Bill will provide that greater control for young people and many others. It will help to reduce unnecessary stress, uncertainty and wasted time by reforming a labyrinthine system and making it better. Buying a home, especially a first home, must be a moment of pride and celebration—a just reward for years of hard work, careful saving, sacrifices made, and doing the right thing. For some, however, the dream of home ownership is realised in soaring service charges, rip-off insurance commissions and escalating ground rents. Overall, and most infuriatingly, there is a sense of being left in the dark, and of a system that is working against, rather than for, the homeowner. That is bad for everyone, but it is notable that first-time buyers constitute nearly 50% of leaseholders; 15% of owner-occupiers are aged under 35. They are the future of our property-owning democracy, and they rightly expect and deserve to put down roots and have the same stake in society as previous generations.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I would welcome my hon. Friend’s views on that point. What he has said is entirely correct. I have met so many first-time buyers in my constituency who are trapped, because they are stuck in a cycle of increasing service charges. Even worse, facilities companies are not maintaining properties when there are serious problems. I am meeting representatives of one of them, FirstPort, at the weekend, but a great many other examples have been cited in the House. We are deeply concerned, because our constituents have sacrificed so much. They have put all their investments and savings into their property, but there is clearly no accountability or transparency, and we hope that the Bill will change that.
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the support that has just been expressed for her comments demonstrates that many of us see these issues in our constituency. As she says, it is vital that we give people who have made such sacrifices in order to achieve first-time home ownership the right to, and the greatest control over, that ownership.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
In my constituency, Victoria Avenue (Harvest Grove) Management Company seems to be extorting money from leaseholders and not providing any of the works that it says it is providing. It is taking them to court and charging them for the benefit of having letters sent to them with invoices. Through this Bill, we desperately need to redress the balance between freeholders and leaseholders. Will the Minister see that that is the case?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes a very important point about transparency, which is at the heart of the service charge changes in the Bill. He makes an extremely important point about fairness. Not all companies will be doing things that are incorrect, but where they have been found to be incorrect, it is important that they shoulder their own costs.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his generosity with his time. It is not only companies that are exploiting leaseholders; the St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust in my constituency refuses to allow its leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold. The charitable exception is very complex, and nobody wants historic houses to be sold, but these are ordinary terraced houses and the charity used to sell the freehold and, indeed, extend leaseholds in the past. Is it possible for the Minister to meet me or my constituents to look at how this issue can be addressed in the future?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for outlining that issue; I know she has raised it in this place before. As she indicates, this is a complex area of law, but I am happy to talk with her separately on that matter in the coming weeks, if it is helpful.
How are we doing this? We are giving leaseholders more security over the future of their homes by increasing the standard lease extension term to 990 years, by making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to buy their freehold, and by tackling unfair charges, exploitative practices and poor management. In doing so, we are overturning centuries of iniquity.
The Bill will also give leaseholders the control they deserve over the buildings they live in. At present, management companies are too often unaccountable to those who pay for them, meaning that they are able to charge excessive fees for poor-quality service. The Bill gives more leaseholders the opportunity to manage the buildings themselves, so that works get done properly and they have more of a say.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Minister might anticipate the question I am going to ask, because I have asked it before. It is fine giving leaseholders easier ways to buy their freehold, until we come across companies such as Coppen Estates, which we have debated before. It just does not reply to letters. I think that we are now on our third recorded delivery letter to the company about the residents on the Flockton estate, who have just been sent enhanced bills for their ground rent charges, with no justification. They face threats if they do not comply. Where in the Bill is there any measure to make sure that Coppen Estates and the like respond properly in future or face consequences if they do not?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, we have debated the iniquities of Coppen Estates extensively, and I repeat that it is treating my constituents in a way that is inappropriate, in the same way that it is doing with his constituents over the border. Given that we are extending the opportunity for charges to go to tribunal, I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Flockton will be able to go to tribunal and hold that company or other companies to account, should that be helpful.
Through the reforms, we will scrap the presumption that leaseholders must pay their freeholder’s legal costs, even when they win at tribunal, correcting another historical and unfair imbalance. Someone would not be expected to pay legal costs if they were successful in their claim in other cases, so leaseholders should not be treated any differently.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Minister was most accommodating throughout the proceedings in Committee, and we are all grateful to him for the way in which he has listened.
Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Minister will know that many developers have located themselves extrajudicially in places such as the Cayman Islands. Wembley Central Apartments Ltd in my constituency has finally ended up there, as have many others. What in this Bill will enable us to extend our reach and force such companies to respond, reply and do what the Building Safety Act 2022 already says they ought to do?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I know we debated in Committee. He correctly highlights the challenges in certain areas of enforcement. If I may, I will come back to that later in the debate.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) in recognising that this is not a partisan issue, because so many of us see the problems. The Minister talked about people not paying the costs when they win, but many will be shocked to discover that no precedent is set at a leasehold tribunal. We see companies exploit our constituents time and again, and it creates no precedent on which the courts and the tribunal courts could draw. Will he look at my amendment 1? It seeks to set that precedent and give people the protection of knowing that a freehold manager who has mistreated people will not be able to do it with impunity, because the courts will be able to take that into consideration if a tribunal has found that to be the case.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I know that she feels strongly about this matter and has raised it previously. I am always happy to talk outside the Chamber, but the advice I have received is that, at the higher tier of the tribunal, there is the ability to give an indication of the direction of travel and a precedent can be set there. As I say, I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady separately.
In Committee, we made efforts to further improve and expand the Bill. We moved 119 amendments, including on expanding leaseholder rights of redress and providing new guarantees that leaseholders will receive sales information, and tabled a number of technical amendments to improve it. Today we are proposing further improvements, and I will now turn to the Government amendments on Report. I will first speak to new clauses 30 to 35, and amendments 23 and 49.
Building on the Building Safety Act 2022, the Government have tabled a number of amendments to clarify and extend protections in specific areas to further prevent freeholders and developers from escaping their liabilities to fund building remediation work. The Building Safety Act provided leaseholders with a range of protections to ensure that those responsible for building safety defects were made to carry out the works or pay for them to be carried out. However, before and during the process of remediation, relevant steps may be required to keep the building and the residents safe. Relevant steps include such measures as providing waking watches, fire sprinklers or simultaneous alarms. Unfortunately, there have been cases where the landlord has failed to put those in place or to pay for the relevant steps. That has caused the leaseholder to bear the financial burden or required the local authority to step in.
New clause 30 would place beyond doubt that the first-tier tribunal can order that the costs of the relevant steps are met when making a remediation contribution order or a remediation order. It is often the case that doing surveys or investigative works to discover the full extent of remediation required on a building takes time, money and effort, and those assessments can be invasive. New clause 31 would place it beyond doubt that the first-tier tribunal has the power to order that a respondent must arrange and pay for evaluations, surveys or expert reports to establish the full extent of a building’s defects.
On new clause 32, we know that in some instances, landlords of buildings that are 11 metres high or above are failing to provide alternative accommodation for leaseholders when they are decanted from their homes. This new clause would place it beyond doubt that, in addition to relevant steps and expert reports, the costs of alternative accommodation for leaseholders and other residents who are decanted from their homes can be recovered through remediation contribution orders.
On new clause 33, resident management companies and right-to-manage companies allow leaseholders to have more control over their buildings. However, such management companies are unable to fund litigation against non-compliant landlords, as they are unable to recover the costs for doing so from leaseholders in their buildings. This new clause would allow such management companies, where the relevant lease allows, to raise funds for remediation contribution orders, making sure that we continue to hold those responsible for life-threatening defects to account.
New clause 34 would repeal section 125 of the Building Safety Act, which was intended to allow for the recovery of remediation costs relating to residential buildings that are 11 metres high or above in an insolvency, and for these funds to be used to remediate the building. However, there is a conflict with insolvency law and a risk that, instead of being used for remediation, any sums recovered under section 125 could be directed to pay down the debt. This problem cannot easily be remedied, so we are seeking to repeal the section at this time.
New clause 35 proposes that regulators need to be made aware if those responsible for relevant buildings—that is, responsible persons—become insolvent. This new clause introduces a duty on insolvency practitioners to notify local fire and rescue authorities, local authorities and, where necessary, the building safety regulator.
I also want to speak to new clauses 42 to 66, new schedules 2 and 3 and amendment 84. We know that there is little justification for selling houses on a leasehold basis. For years, developers have exploited the sale of houses on a leasehold basis for the sole purpose of generating an income stream from ground rents and fees. This has been done at the expense of consumers, who receive little or no benefit in return. We promised to shut down this abusive practice by banning the sale of houses on a leasehold basis, and today we are doing so. Other than in narrow circumstances where a lease can still be justified, all new houses will need to be sold on a freehold basis.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am really grateful for this news from the Minister. It certainly goes a long way towards addressing my new clause 13. He speaks specifically about banning leasehold sales of new houses, but what consideration will he give to extending that ban to leasehold flats? I know that that is a concern for a number of us on both sides of the House.
Lee Rowley
I know that my right hon. Friend has campaigned extensively for the ban on leasehold houses, as many in this Chamber have done, and she has spoken up in this place on the issue before. I am grateful for her support for it. She also rightly talks about the extensive debate about the potential extension of the ban to flats. The Secretary of State has said at this Dispatch Box on numerous occasions that the Government remain keen to make progress on finding an alternative workable solution to leasehold flats—most people in this place recognise that that will probably be commonhold—and work will continue on that. We hope to make further progress on that in the future—
Several hon. Members rose—
Lee Rowley
Commonhold has clearly created a significant amount of interest.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for what he is saying. There are certain building companies in this country—Bellway Homes, for example—whose policy is to sell the leasehold to leaseholders and sell the freehold to a company that then exploits every aspect of the freehold, without even informing the leaseholder that they have done this. Surely we can close this loophole—we could close it this afternoon—by ensuring that the freeholder must give the leaseholder the first right of refusal to purchase the freehold.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I know that it is covered in an amendment put down by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and I will come to it later in the debate.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
On the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), Bellway is certainly a company that has done this. Indeed, many people did not even realise that they had a leasehold house and only found out quite a while afterwards when all the costs started to come down the road. I welcome what the Government have done, but we must try to find a good solution for everybody who now finds themselves in this position, because in the years to come those houses could become very difficult to sell.
Lee Rowley
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need to ensure that this regime works. We recognise that there are challenges, which is why we are bringing forward a number of measures.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
On the point about existing contracts that have been signed by people purchasing a leasehold property, is it the Government’s view that those were legitimate contracts and that there is therefore a risk in trying retrospectively to reverse the conditions of those contracts? Or is it the Government’s view that those were abusive contracts and that there is therefore a public policy interest in retrospectively eliminating the leasehold element of them?
Lee Rowley
I hope that I will be able to answer my hon. Friends’ questions in a moment when I run quickly through our amendments. We are banning the sale of leasehold houses in all but unusual circumstances, but for those that are out there at the moment, there must be an ability to ensure that they can buy the freehold and move from the leasehold challenges to a freehold. Let me deal with some specifics that I hope will answer some of the questions that have been raised.
Lee Rowley
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why I hope that measures such as new clause 51 go some way towards making it crystal clear that there is no way to get around this, and towards providing clarity to those who seek to buy a new property.
New clause 52 will require a statement on the front of all new leases declaring that it is a permitted lease and is not a long residential lease of a house. Should a developer make a dishonest declaration to His Majesty’s Land Registry, the homeowner may be able to exercise the redress right contained in new clause 54, which will allow them to acquire the freehold from the developer free of charge.
Under new clause 53, if a lease does not include the prescribed statements, His Majesty’s Land Registry will have the power to restrict the resale of the property until the right information and declarations have been provided.
Mr Betts
The Minister is talking about the information on houses. Will it also apply to flats so that, before anyone buys a property, it must be explained to them that they are buying a lease and what that entails? I tabled new clause 38, which says that everyone buying a lease should be presented with a copy of the Government’s “How to Lease” document. Everyone in this situation should be given independent advice.
Lee Rowley
I am focusing on homes, and we have been emphatic and clear that the sale of leasehold homes will be precluded other than in exceptional circumstances. I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman both later in the debate and outside the Chamber about whether further consumer protections for those purchasing a flat may be proportionate and reasonable.
New clause 54 grants homeowners who have been mis-sold a new lease of a house the right to acquire the freehold from the landlord, as well as any superior leasehold interest in the property, for zero cost. New clauses 55 and 56 set out protections and reasonable limitations on this requirement, and new clause 57 provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out further details on how redress can be obtained.
We understand that granting homeowners the right to redress alone may not be enough to prevent bad actors from attempting to breach the ban on the sale of leases on houses, which is why we are introducing a system of financial penalties where there is a breach. These penalties will start at £500 for a minor breach, rising to £30,000 for the most serious breaches. To enforce this system of fines, as set out in new clause 58, we are asking all local weights and measures authorities to play a part where they see infractions in their area. We will also set out how they need to work through new clause 60.
The chief responsibility for investigating and taking action will lie with the lead enforcement authority. Through new clause 61, the Secretary of State will have the power to appoint the right authority to fulfil this important role, while new clause 62 details the duties. By amending the Consumer Rights Act 2015, clauses 63 and 64 also vest the appropriate investigatory and enforcement powers essential for both the lead authority and local authorities to carry out the job.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Can the Minister assist me with a relatively unusual issue in my constituency? I have listened very carefully to his helpful speech. In the Loddon Park development on the edge of Woodley in my constituency, residents were sold properties only to discover in the small print of their contract, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said, that they were expected to pay a standing charge to upkeep open space on this large development, even though they are freeholders of their own houses. Will the Minister look into this matter and write to me about what redress might be open to them?
Lee Rowley
I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the specifics.
In addition to the building safety measures and the ban on new leasehold houses, the Government have tabled a number of consequential amendments to refine and improve the Bill.
With the leave of the House, I will mention three key issues among the many that were brought to our attention in Committee. I understand these issues will be subject to further debate today, but I want to acknowledge that they are: capping existing ground rents, which has already been raised; leaseholder forfeiture, which I know will be raised; and support for the residents of freehold estates, which has already been extensively addressed.
I know that Members will have questions about the Government’s plan to address ground rents, and we have consulted on introducing a cap on ground rents in the Bill. We extended the consultation on request and, as a result, we are still considering our next steps. We will say more shortly.
Wendy Morton
The Minister is generous in giving way. Can he give us an indication of the timescale? Many Members will be interested to know the answer. And does he anticipate being able to introduce something when the Bill reaches the other place?
Lee Rowley
Although I cannot give the specific assurances that my right hon. Friend seeks, we are trying to work through this at speed. We recognise that it is an important issue, and we recognise that it is vital to today’s discussion. I know that hon. and right hon. Members will recognise that this is a hugely contested area in which there has already been significant discussion. People have very different views, so we want to make sure that, while we are moving at speed, we take our time so that we reach a conclusive decision through the right methodology and process.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
My constituent is in a flat with a ground rent of £454 a year. As that is over the £250 threshold, it means that their property can be taken away from them if they fail to pay their ground rent. As a result, my constituent has failed to sell their property six times, even though they have had buyers. They are stuck in this flat, and they cannot get on with their life. Will the Minister please look at this threshold, which is causing real problems?
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend moves me on to my second point. We also recognise the strength of feeling on the vexed issue of forfeiture. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) made a clear case on this in Committee, as did other Members, and I also heard a passionate and eloquent case in Committee from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes).
Eddie Hughes
Will the Minister simply remove any opportunity for forfeiture? It is arcane and has no place in our system. I strongly suspect that would get support on both sides of the House.
Lee Rowley
The House sees my hon. Friend’s passion, which he demonstrated in Committee and is demonstrating again today. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch made passionate cases in Committee.
I recognise that this is a real and significant problem, and there is a huge iniquity at stake. I have heard from colleagues, both today and previously, about why we should act, and we are currently working through the detail of the issue. We will report back to the House with more details shortly.
Finally, a comprehensive debate in Committee on freehold estates was led by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). He is a committed campaigner on this issue, and I know that many other Members also have very strong views. I have also been involved in this in places such as Alderman Park and Hunloke Grove in my constituency. We understand the strength of feeling on this issue, and we are considering it further.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Residents of estates across my constituency are trapped in extortive relationships with unaccountable private management companies while their estates go unadopted. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State expressed his willingness to bring forward and consider measures to make sure that residents have the right to manage on such estates, at a bare minimum, before considering wider action. Is there any reason why the Government would not accept new clause 7 in the name of the shadow Minister to finally give the residents of these estates the right to manage and to get out of these extortive relationships?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman made that case in Committee, and I am grateful to him for that and for repeating it today. As I say, we understand the strength of feeling on the issue and are considering it further.
Lee Rowley
I will give way one final time and then I will conclude, so that others can get in.
Gareth Johnson
These management companies that the Minister alluded to have a literal monopoly over the residents they are meant to serve—in effect, they control the residents, rather than the other way round—so I welcome the amendments made in Committee to ensure that residents can change their management companies. Will he give a commitment to this House that he will ensure that those amendments stay in the Bill, both here and in the other place, and that they will become law?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend has been a campaigner for many years on the importance of this matter, and I know how strongly he feels and how much he acts on it on behalf of his constituents. We are absolutely committed to making progress on estate management. The Bill demonstrates a significant step forward in doing that, and we will see what else we can do in the future.
Lee Rowley
I am going to wind up so as to give others the opportunity to speak. To sum up, property ownership has been described as one of the bulwarks of individual freedom, and the measures I have described today are designed to give all homeowners, particularly the younger generation, the chance to gain a proper stake in our democracy. The Bill seeks to bring greater fairness, transparency and accountability to the system, and to give millions of people across the country a more secure foundation to get on in life, a stronger stake in our society and a solid platform for the future. I am grateful for all Members’ efforts to improve the Bill and for the scrutiny and debate it has received so far, and I look forward to hearing the further discussions to that effect this afternoon.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Colleagues will see that a lot of right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to this debate, which has to finish at 6 pm. I will want to bring the Minister back for a short time. Another Deputy Speaker is taking over in a moment, but let me advise that those speaking from the Back Benches should be prepared to speak for between six and seven minutes, in order for us to get everybody in. I am afraid that that is because of the pressure on time. I call the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I start by declaring an interest: my wife is the joint chief executive of the Law Commission, whose work in this area I intend to reference in my remarks.
I rise to speak to the amendments and new clauses that stand in my name. Before doing so, I would like to put on record my thanks to all those hon. Members who served on the Public Bill Committee for so ably scrutinising the many technical and complex provisions that the Bill contains. There were, as one would expect, differences of opinion and emphasis, but it was also evident that there is a shared recognition that the Bill can and should be improved further, and an unusual degree of cross-party agreement as to some of the ways that might be achieved.
Despite reams of Government amendments tabled in Committee and for our consideration today, this Bill remains a distinctly unambitious piece of legislation. That is a matter of deep regret to those on the Labour Benches, not only because the Government’s paucity of ambition will see exploited leaseholders wait even longer for the current iniquitous leasehold system to be ended, but because it is also manifestly clear that there is widespread support across the House to go much further than this limited Bill does. Responsibility for the fact that the Bill does not contain so many of the commitments that successive Conservative Secretaries of State have made over recent years, not least in relation to the promised widespread introduction of the commonhold tenure, ultimately lies with Ministers. They had the opportunity to bring forward bold leasehold and commonhold reform legislation, and they made a political decision not to do so.
Although the Opposition appreciate the understandable desire of many leaseholders to see this Bill completely revamped so that it lives up to the many weighty promises made by the Government since 2017, we made clear at the outset in Committee that we did not intend to try to persuade Ministers to radically overhaul it by means of the many hundreds of amendments that would be required to implement all the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold. That remains our position. Whether this Bill receives Royal Assent or not before this Parliament is dissolved, a Labour Government will have to finish the job of finally bringing the leasehold system to an end by overhauling it to the lasting benefit of leaseholders and reinvigorating commonhold to such an extent that it will ultimately become the default and render leasehold obsolete. I reassure leaseholders across the country that we are absolutely determined to do so.
We recognise, however, that this limited Bill will provide a degree of relief to leasehold and freehold homeowners in England and Wales by giving them some greater rights, powers and protections over their homes. For that reason, we are extremely pleased it will complete its passage today, but we are determined to send to the other place the most robust piece of legislation that we can. That means rectifying the Bill’s remaining flaws and incorporating into it a select number of measures to further empower leaseholders and improve their rights. With that objective in mind, we have tabled a series of amendments and new clauses for consideration today. That they are almost identical to a number of those we discussed at length in Committee is a deliberate choice that reflects not only the importance we place on the changes they seek to secure, but the distinct lack of convincing responses from the Minister in Committee as to why the Government felt they needed to resist them.
Part 1 of the Bill concerns leasehold enfranchisement and extension. In seeking to implement the small subset of reasonable and proportionate Law Commission recommendations, it is almost entirely uncontentious. However, we believe that several provisions in this part are defective. We sought to remedy their deficiencies in Committee and we have tabled a number of amendments in an attempt to do so again.
Amendments 4 and 5 concern arguably the most significant provisions in this part when it comes to ensuring that the process of extending a lease or acquiring a freehold is as cheap as possible for existing leaseholders—namely the proposed new valuation process as provided for in clauses 9 to 11 and schedules 2 and 3. The current valuation method has a number of manifest flaws, and we fully support the new method as proposed in the Bill. However, with the applicable deferment rate becoming the primary driver of price to be paid in enfranchisement or extension claims under the new method, as a result of the abolition of marriage and hope value and the peppercorning of ground rents in the valuation calculation, we believe it is essential that it is set in a way that is fair to leaseholders. While the Government ostensibly agree, there is nothing on the face of the Bill to ensure that that will be the case and we therefore remain convinced that this Government, or a future one, could be lobbied by vested interests to set a deferment rate that will be punitive to leaseholders.
In resisting our efforts to amend the Bill in Committee to guard against such an outcome, the Minister argued that the Secretary of State must have flexibility to make decisions on the rate or rates. We agree; we are not suggesting that we bind the hands of Ministers by prescribing the rate or rates on the face of the Bill, but we do believe that the legislation should be amended to place a clear obligation on the Secretary of State to set a rate or rates with the overriding objective of encouraging leaseholders to acquire their freehold at the lowest possible cost.
Richard Fuller
The shadow Minister is right that there was a lot of consensus in Committee, so I hope he will not mind me probing him on some of the language he just used about the issue of setting rates. We all want to see what the Government do on deferment and capitalisation rates, but the shadow Minister used the term “punitive to leaseholders”. Does he accept that already embedded in the issues about ground rents and the changes here is a substantial transfer of value from freeholders to leaseholders, that the people who are more likely to suffer from punitive behaviour are those who entered into contracts historically from the freeholder side expecting that those values would be considered, and that it is a public policy decision that will change the value in those contracts?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, which he made in Committee as well, if I am not mistaken. We very much think the risk is on the other side of the scale—that is, that a Government would be tempted to set a rate that is damaging to leaseholders as a result of being lobbied by vested interests. While there is a balance to be struck, we think it is right that we put on the face of the Bill that the objective in setting the deferment rate as part of the premium calculation must be to ensure that leaseholders acquire their freehold at the lowest possible cost. Amendments 4 and 5 would ensure that that is the case and I commend them to the House.
Part 2 of the Bill makes changes to other rights of long leaseholders. It contains the four clauses in the Bill that implement Law Commission recommendations on the right to manage, several of which we have sought to improve, as well as clause 21, which makes provision for a new enfranchisement right to extinguish a ground rent without having to extend a lease. We still have absolutely no idea how this clause—or clauses 7 and 8, for that matter—will interact with any proposals that might emerge from the recently closed consultation on restricting ground rents for all existing leases. The Minister must provide further clarification on that; it cannot be right that we could be dealing with such a significant issue when we get to ping-pong stage, in due course.
We very much welcome the intent of clause 21 and schedule 7, which it gives effect to. Even if unamended, they will ensure that some leaseholders can enjoy reduced premiums and secure nominal ground rent ownership of their properties without the need to go through the challenge and expense of repeated lease extensions. However, we remain unconvinced by the Government’s proposed conferral of this new right only on those leaseholders with leases with an unexpired term of more than 150 years. In resisting our attempt to remove the 150-year threshold from the Bill in Committee, the Minister essentially made two arguments. The first was that there is a need to
“put a finger on the scale”
somewhere. In other words, the Government take the view that the new right must be restricted based on lease length. The second argument was that in determining the threshold for restriction, the primary consideration should be which leaseholders are
“unlikely to be interested in, or do not need, a lease extension.”––[Official Report, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2024; c. 271.]
We do not believe that either argument is particularly strong.
First, any long lease threshold for the new right is ultimately entirely arbitrary, as evidenced by the fact that the Government chose a different threshold from the one recommended by the Law Commission.
Secondly, there is a principled argument that we should trust leaseholders to make decisions based on what is right for them and their individual circumstances, rather than denying a broad category of leaseholders a new statutory right on the basis that Ministers know best what is in their interest—a viewpoint that we would have assumed those on the Conservative Benches would support.
As I put it to the Minister in Committee, there could be all sorts of reasons why someone with a lease shorter than 150 years might want to buy out only their ground rent, including simply that they are unable to afford the premium required to secure a 990-year lease under clauses 7 and 8. Denying them that right on the grounds that other leaseholders might advertently or inadvertently disadvantage themselves by using the new right to extinguish only their ground rent strikes us as overly paternalistic and misguided.
We remain of the view that there is a strong case for simply deleting the 150-year threshold entirely given that the “remaining years” test that applies is arbitrary and that the most common forms of lease are 90, 99 and 125 years. Amendment 8 would do so, thereby making the new right to replace rent with peppercorn rent available to all existing leaseholders. I commend it to the House.
Part 3 of the Bill contains a wide range of measures relating to the regulation of leasehold. We have tabled several amendments designed to strengthen the provisions in it. Arguably, the most important are amendment 10 and new clause 3, concerning litigation costs. Although we support the aim of scrapping the presumption that leaseholders will pay their freeholders’ legal costs when they have challenged poor practice, we believe that, in merely limiting the ability of landlords to do so, the Government are creating an incentive for freeholders to litigate in a way that is likely to erode the general presumption they are seeking to implement.
As we argued in Committee, a far more sensible approach would be to legislate for a general prohibition on claiming litigation costs from leaseholders, and then to provide for a limited number of defined exceptions to that general rule by means of regulations—for example, in cases in which the landlord is a leasehold-owned company, or in which the costs are, in the opinion of the tribunal, reasonably incurred for the benefit of the leaseholders or the proper management of the building. Taken together, amendment 10 and new clause 3 would provide for that approach by leaving out clause 35 and replacing it with a new clause that provides for a general prohibition on claiming legal costs from tenants, and for a power to specify classes of landlord who will be exempted from it. I commend them to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we want to see a number of other changes made to the Bill to provide leaseholders with better protection in law and to pave the way for a commonhold future. To that end, we have tabled amendments and new clauses to, among other things: abolish the draconian rent charge remedies provided for by section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925; provide for mandatory residents’ management companies in new blocks of flats; establish a right to manage regime for residential freeholders on private or mixed-use estates; bring forward legislative options to facilitate leaseholders in new blocks of flats being granted an automatic share of freehold; and regulate managing agents.
Of particular importance to us is the need to ensure that the Bill abolishes forfeiture and the windfall it provides to freeholders. As we argued in Committee, forfeiture is a wholly disproportionate and horrifically draconian mechanism for ensuring compliance with a lease agreement. Over the course of nearly a century, this House has taken intermittent steps to tighten the laws of forfeiture, yet its continued use and the chilling effect that results from its mere existence continues to put landlords in a nearly unassailable position of strength in disputes with leaseholders.
The Opposition are not suggesting for a moment that this House abolishes the right of forfeiture in relation to residential long leases and replaces it with nothing. There must be effective means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement, and we are more than willing to work constructively with the Government to determine what alternative arrangements are needed to deal with breaches of covenant or unpaid arrears. But forfeiture operates to the prejudice of leaseholders; it cannot be justified, and we must use the Bill finally to do away with it. We believe there is broad consensus across the House for grasping the nettle and abolishing forfeiture, and new clause 5 would do so, and—notwithstanding the very positive noises that we heard from the Minister—I urge hon. Members from across the House to support it.
Finally, let me turn to the 100 Government amendments to the Bill that were tabled last week, 29 of which were submitted just before the deadline on Thursday. In doing so, I feel I must put on record once again the Opposition’s intense frustration at this Government’s continued practice of significantly amending legislation as it progresses through the House. The sheer volume and complexity of amendments that this Government now routinely table to their own legislation represents a departure from established practice and one that acts as a serious impediment to hon. Members effectively scrutinising legislation, and increases the risk that Acts of Parliament contain errors that subsequently need to be remedied.
The Government amendments that have been tabled for consideration today fall into three broad categories—namely, shared ownership, building safety and new leasehold houses. I will take each in turn, starting with shared ownership. Although I am increasingly personally of the view that there is a growing case—one that is reinforced by the treatment of shared ownership in the Bill—for primary legislation to address various issues arising from shared ownership as a tenure, Government amendments 24 and 29, which relate to it, are not contentious and we support them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sure that everybody heard Madam Deputy Speaker’s request for brevity, as a number of Members wish to get in, and we have to accommodate everybody before 6 o’clock.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I agree with a large part of what the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) said, and with nearly all of what my hon. Friend the Minister said. Where I disagree with the Opposition spokesperson is that I think the Bill is ambitious in what it is trying to achieve, although we would all like it to go further. It is quite remarkable that this is the first major bit of legislation to help leaseholders since 2002—although we have had the Building Safety Act 2022, the Fire Safety Act 2021 and other things, which did some things towards that.
It is remarkable how few people know much about the role of residential leaseholders. They own nothing but the right to live in a home for a period. I declare that I am a leaseholder. I have a flat in my constituency for which there have been no problems and for which the Bill will do neither harm nor good, and I also have another leasehold property. If I happened to gain from the measures, I would give the benefit to a good cause—I am not here for myself; I am here for those who have been suffering for years.
I wish I could be at the Westminster Hall debate on BBC impartiality, but it conflicts with this debate. It is now 20 years since the peace activist and photographer Tom Hurndall was shot by a sniper in Rafah. The subsequent nine months of inquiry by the Israel Defence Forces were shocking. However, I will leave that to the other debate.
On leasehold reform, I believe that we have opportunities—both in the House of Commons and, perhaps more so in the House of Lords—to make significant progress. My hon. Friend the Minister will point out to me the consultation on permitted development rights that started on 13 February. Towards the end of the consultation document, paragraphs 43,44 and 45 appear under the heading:
“Construction of new dwellinghouses on a freestanding block of flats”.
That is a reference to the inexplicable and disastrous Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020—SI 2020 No. 632.
Those emergency covid regulations, accompanied by an economic assessment of which, to put it bluntly, I would have been ashamed were I a better economist, allowed owners, landlords and freeholders of certain blocks to put an extra one or two storeys on top without consulting the existing leaseholders at all. How any Government—let alone one I support—could have done that is beyond my comprehension. There had been a consultation some years before, and the general consensus was, “Don’t do it,” so why has it been done? I hope that people will look at the consultation, which is open until April, answer questions 27 and 28, and give explanations of their own experiences.
A developer tried to put extra floors on top of the St Andrews Gardens building in my constituency. That was turned down flat by the local authority, but its decision was overturned on appeal by the Government inspector. The developer then tried again, advertising for sale flats that do not exist, even though nobody wants them as they will cause significant harm.
My new clause 25, which I am indebted to Liam Spender of St David’s Square in E14 for drafting, says that the landlord or developer will have to pay compensation to leaseholders if the effects on them are harmful. The Minister’s legal advisers may say that the clause is not perfectly drafted, although I think it is pretty good. Even if he cannot accept it now, will he go through the replies to the consultation, have a talk with Members of all parties who represent those affected, and consider whether the Government can bring forward in the House of Lords proposals that would undo the effect of 2020/632 and implement some of the preferred responses to the consultation, to which he may not have time to refer in his winding up?
Mr Betts
It is five years since we produced the Select Committee report on leasehold reform. It came after long years of campaigning by the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, and I particularly commend the efforts of the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who has just spoken; my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders); and our good friend Jim Fitzpatrick, who is no longer in this House, but who certainly made a major contribution to that. To be fair to the Government, it is good that we have made progress on many of the items in the Select Committee report. The caveat, of course, is that we probably have not gone as far as we would have wanted or as quickly as we would have expected.
When the Committee met, I remember going into a room with about 100 leaseholders from all over the country—the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who was in his place a few minutes ago, was there as well—and hearing horror stories of people being ripped off in the sale of leasehold homes by developers. They were told that there was no difference between a leasehold property and a freehold property. They were told that by the solicitors who worked for them, because the solicitors were recommended by the developers. That was together with the free carpets in the living room that came as a bribe—that is what it was. Leaseholders were not aware that they would have to pay £300 to get a doorbell fitted if they wanted one because they had to get permission, or £3,000 for a conservatory, or whatever fees the freeholder chose.
Leaseholders were told that they could, within a couple of years, buy the freehold at a fixed price from the same developer. The problem, of course, was that by the time a leaseholder came to inquire about purchasing the freehold, the freehold had been sold to another party. There are lots of examples of that, which is why I have an amendment—new clause 39—that I want to push to a vote, although I hope the Minister will accept it. It is a simple amendment to say that before the sale of a freehold, the right of first refusal has to go to the existing leaseholder. That right already exists for leaseholders in flats, but not for leaseholders in houses. Why is that? That really cannot be justified or even explained.
Will the Minister accept just that one simple amendment? It would give leaseholders that right, and stop freeholders —we know that this happens—who want to evade the legislation, including the improvements the Government are bringing in, passing a property around from one organisation to a subsidiary to a third party, with a view to evading the legislation, so that leaseholders never know where to go to get the relevant freeholder to agree to the sale.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that part of the problem is that some of the freeholders are based overseas, and it is extremely difficult for leaseholders to track them down? This is an ongoing issue that I hope the Government will look into.
Mr Betts
Absolutely. I hope the Minister will have a look at the whole issue of freeholders who will not respond. That certainly applies to many who are overseas, with whom it is very difficult to get in touch.
I will not press new clause 40 to the vote, but the purpose of it is to say to the Minister that the default answer cannot be that the leaseholder can always go to a tribunal. Most leaseholders are simply ordinary residents trying to get on with their lives, who think it ought to be fairly easy to put in a request, get a calculation done and buy their freehold. They are not ready for these organisations, with all their lawyers and surveyors, that want to evade this and try to hide away, in some cases overseas, so that they cannot be contacted.
Can the Minister look at that issue? I know he is aware of it, because we share the same problem with Coppen Estates. There are others that are based overseas, but this one is based in a semi-boarded-up shopfront with a letterbox that never seems to be opened. That is the sort of company we are dealing with. They are small organisations that make a living out of charging ground rents from leaseholders, who cannot exercise their enfranchisement because of the attitude and evasion of the freeholders concerned. I hope that the Minister will have another look at that issue.
The other amendments I have tabled are about having professional qualifications and some form of regulation of property managers. The Government have legislated to say that the managers of social housing will need professional qualifications in future, but what is the difference between a manager of social housing and a property manager of leasehold blocks? In some ways, there may be greater complications in trying to manage a multitude of different leaseholders than people who have secure tenancies in a council or housing association block of flats. What is the difference?
Why will the Government not recognise that there are some good property managers who are well qualified, experienced and can be held to account, but others who are not like that? Indeed, some are put in place for that purpose: they are cheap, they do not have experience or qualifications, and they provide another way of avoiding the restrictions and rules that are rightly put on the management of property. They do not bother with proper service charge information or a proper list of charges for permission fees. I accept that the Government have tried to improve that, but in the end such improvements will only work if the individual or organisation managing the property does so in a proper way. Will the Minister look at those issues? What is the rationale? Why is there resistance to ensuring that people doing a serious and important job as property managers are qualified to do it and properly held to account through regulation?
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
Let me begin by declaring my interest as an adviser to the HSPG group, which among other things is a registered provider of social housing.
I rise to speak to new clause 68, which is based on a specific challenge that I have encountered in my constituency and that affects residents in more than 70 homes spread across three locations in the town of Hayle and the village of Mount Hawke. The experience of those cases exposes a potential gap in the Bill and in policy on the issue of shared ownership. The Bill deals at some length with standard leasehold agreements and the problems of extortionate ground rents, as well as with some of the issues around service charges and management companies with which we are familiar. However, in the early 2000s some agreements were put together that were technically leasehold agreements but that masqueraded as shared ownership agreements, even though those shared ownership agreements do not comply with the standards of modern shared ownership agreements.
The agreements I have encountered contain a number of defects, and I would like the Minister’s view on them. The first is that the freehold on those homes is not held by a registered provider. It was initially owned by the developer who built the sites, but it has changed hands twice. In a way that is familiar to many Members, the freehold has ended up in the hands of an offshore investment vehicle based in the British Virgin Islands, and with a company called Rockwell, which has not been easy for residents to deal with over the years.
The second major defect in the agreements is that there is no provision for staircasing or enfranchisement of the leaseholder’s share of the property. Residents typically own between 58% and 72% of their property, but their stake is fixed and cannot be extended. There is no right to extend under the agreement. The agreements are under a 990-year lease and there is no ability to extend that, although I appreciate it is a long-term lease.
The third defect is that even if residents could enfranchise and extend or staircase their ownership within the agreement, a section 106 covenant means that the properties must be sold to a local connection with a significant discount on market value. The way that has been worded in the agreement means that it is simply not worth the while of residents to increase their share, since there would be no value to the increased share that they would have.
Finally, there was something described as ground rent, although in practice a big chunk of that was effectively a rent on the shared ownership portion. The ground rent was initially around £20 per week, but that was linked to the retail price index on an escalating model. It has now got close to £2,000 per year for those residents, and it is still increasing rapidly.
All of those defects in that leasehold tenure arrangement or shared ownership arrangement—indeed, it appears to be neither one nor the other—mean that all of the properties have been judged unmortgageable by lenders, and that means the residents are trapped. They cannot sell their properties because no one can get a mortgage to buy them. These are people in my constituency who had a local connection. Typically, they are on modest incomes. These agreements and these homes were sold to them as a way to get a foot on the housing ladder, and for those residents it has transpired to be a complete nightmare.
I will say a word about planning and pay tribute to Penwith District Council, as it was then, and Cornwall Council. Planning was granted between 2004 and 2006, and the local planning authorities did their due diligence. They could see that this shared ownership model was defective, and they refused planning permission on all three sites on that basis. The Minister might ask how these homes were then built and sold under the arrangement, but I suspect he can predict the answer, which is that they were approved at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate, an agency within his own Department. The situation that my constituents face has been caused principally by a chronic failure of due diligence by the Planning Inspectorate, as is often the case with such issues.
In conclusion, my new clause 68 seeks to address a gap in the Bill and to give the Government the opportunity to atone for the mistakes of the Planning Inspectorate. It deals explicitly with shared ownership agreements and would create a statutory right to staircase ownership and put a cap on the rent of the freeholders’ portion of the home. I do not intend to press new clause 28 to a Division this evening, but I hope that the Government will consider the matter closely. I would like to meet the Minister or the Secretary of State and share with them and their officials a copy of the shared ownership agreement that my constituents are suffering under so much, with a view to seeing whether the Government might consider further changes at later stages of the Bill’s consideration to address a gap in it. Given that the Planning Inspectorate has been somewhat culpable in creating this problem for my constituents, I hope that the Government will seek to do that.
I support the general thrust of the Bill in all its attempts to deal with management charges, service charges and ground rents, but I hope that the Minister will agree to meet me to discuss some of these remaining issues.
Barry Gardiner
It was 1 December 1998. I had been an MP for one year and seven months to the day, and I was chained to the railings of College Green by 200 cheering leaseholders. Thankfully, they were friendly. It was to illustrate that leaseholders felt that they are were prison. Those were the days before social media, and it was a photo op. The BBC ran the headline, “Leaseholders demand more control”. They still do.
Since then, we have had the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2022, which was an attempt to resolve some of the problems, such as forfeiture of a person’s home for a failure to pay a small service charge, the ground rent grazers charging money for no service and moneys not being held in trust in sinking funds. It is strange that after 25 years, these should be the very areas that yet another Bill on leasehold reform is pretending and failing to solve.
I say “failing”, because that is the reason I rise to support new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). It is ridiculous that a landlord can take away a person’s home worth hundreds of thousands of pounds for a simple failure to pay a minor service charge amounting to a couple of hundred pounds and where there is a dispute over whether the service was even provided. That is why I tabled new clause 16 about moneys being held in trust, which would implement a provision of the 2002 Act that has never been brought into force. We heard in Committee that the policy had strong support from stakeholders, including spokespeople for the Property Institute and the Leasehold Advisory Service. Even the British Property Federation has campaigned for this provision of the 2002 Act to come into force, yet it is not here in the Bill. Of course, 2002 was a time when nobody had even predicted the new rentier practices that freeholders and developers have since invented to extract money from homeowners for the privilege of living in their own homes: the scandals of leasehold houses; the repeated doublings of ground rents; and the inclusion of commercial areas and shared services in any development to stop any hope of residents exercising their right to manage.
Neil O'Brien
There are a lot of good things in this Bill. I give credit to the Minister and previous Ministers for introducing it, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who has played a massive role in bringing it to the House. It effectively bans the sale of new leasehold houses through new clause 42 that we have been discussing, extends leaseholders’ rights in various ways and increases transparency over service charges.
However, there are two big things that still need to be strengthened in the Bill, which we have spoken about in Committee and on Report. The first is to end the fleecehold estate model. New clauses 1, 2, 6 and 7 are relevant to that. I was glad to hear the Minister, who understands this issue, talking about going away and considering this further, but for the benefit of the Whips, what my constituents want is not for the Minister to consider it further but to ride in like a new sheriff on a white horse and sort out the fraudsters, scam artists and various cheats who are making their lives a misery. That is what we want on the Government Benches.
The fleecehold estate scandal is just like the Post Office scandal, except that it affects more people. In considering the Post Office scandal, many people have asked, “How could we not have known about this injustice? It ruined so many people’s lives for so long, yet nothing was done.” It is the same in this situation.
My constituency has lots of these new estates. Often, the first people know of the problem is when they receive a massive bill that they did not know was coming and that was not mentioned in the notes they were given when they bought the house. And, funnily enough, it was not drawn to their attention by the lawyers of the housebuilder, whose services they are often encouraged to use. Some of these bills are a really scary size and often escalate quickly over time. A huge number of people—more and more every day—are now affected. About 20,000 estates are affected, involving between 1 million and 1.5 million homeowners and potentially 3 million or 4 million people. According to the Competition and Markets Authority, over the past five years 80% of the freehold properties built by the 11 biggest builders have used this fleecehold model.
A lot of my residents describe it as being like paying a second council tax, except that if a local councillor is not doing a good job, they can be kicked out, but it is not possible to do that to a fleecehold landlord, no matter how badly they perform. New clause 6 would address that, and I hope that the Government will address it as the Bill progresses.
I think that everyone now knows how the fleecehold scam works. Back in the good old days, the builder would build a new estate, make sure that all the roads and so on were up to spec and pay a section 106 charge. The council would then take it over and run it, and if there was a problem, people could contact their local councillor. Under the fleecehold model, it is not so simple. In effect, there is collusion between the council and the developer. The developer agrees to hand over to a different company—it might own that company itself or hand it over to the residents—the running of many parts of the estate, be it the roads, the verges or other facilities. That means that the developer pays less in section 106, the council does not have to maintain the road and effectively they split the profits while the residents and the new tenants get the new, massive bill.
It is extremely inefficient to run things in that way in the real economy. Usually, the council goes from road to road with its verge-cutting lawnmowers—it uses one simple system. On one fleecehold estate, however, a guy drives down from Oldham, which is more than two hours away, mows a tiny bit of lawn and then leaves. It is economic madness. A lot of the charges that people are hit with involve opaque management fees for nothing. It is inefficient to run things in this way in the real world. There is a ticking time bomb here. In addition to the number of people affected by the fleecehold estates scandal, the second problem is that when things are not adopted, they do not go through a gateway where we can check whether they are up to scratch. I know from the experience of my constituency that a lot of things are done badly and then a huge bill will land on the people on these poor estates to sort out the problems in the future.
We heard all about this in Committee. I pay particular tribute to Harry Scoffin, the work of the group Free Leaseholders and the residents group HORNET—the Home Owners Rights Network. They all made a powerful case to abolish the fleecehold estates model entirely. As one witness told the Committee:
“This is my property. It is my hard-earned future…normal homebuyers are not qualified to manage estates. If we are given the right to manage, if we are looking at a development of over 100 homes, it is really hard to get in touch with 100 people who will agree and be on the same page. It is not workable.”––[Official Report, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024; c. 54-55, Q133-134.]
I will give a few examples from my constituency. Karen is a brilliant lady who does lots of work for her community. She moved into a new Barratt home because she was bored of doing loads of DIY every weekend on her old home. She now finds herself spending massive amounts of time fighting a fleecehold company called FirstPort, a company so notorious that a national action group has been set up against it—the details can be found on Facebook—whose work I commend.
Karen explains:
“Barratt’s encouraged us to use their nominated conveyance solicitor for which in return we got £500 towards our legal bill. We were fools to do this, but money was tight…FirstPort didn’t do or arrange any grass cutting or anything by way of a service in the first two years.”
At first the bill was £35, and this year it will be £74. Karen continues:
“Our bill for the year includes: Property Damage & Public Liability Insurance…Terrorism Insurance…Grounds Maintenance…General Maintenance…FirstPort’s Management Fees”—
the most expensive item—
“Audit/External Accountant’s Certificate and Fee…General Reserve…Health and Safety Risk Assessment…This comes to £74.64 per house.”
She says:
“In the months of December, January and February each year I must spend more than a couple of days a week working on this. It’s like having a part time job. I didn’t move house to face the possibility of having to be a director of a residents’ ‘Right to Manage’ company. I want adoption…by the local council…as it used to be.”
She is right. Members may be asking, “Why are residents of this estate having to pay terrorism insurance for a fence?” That is a very good question, to which I do not know the answer.
Let me introduce Members to James—a brilliant, hard-working constituent of mine, who has had to do tons of work on the estate where he lives. He says:
“Councils should be adopting new estates”.
He says that he has done
“about 50 days’ work…over the first couple of years. We moved in in 2018 and it wasn’t really sorted until 2021—in fact it is still going on.
Had I not been proactive we would have ended up being short-changed.”
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 3 and amendments 12 to 14. A huge number of new builds have been built within my constituency boundaries over the last months, the vast majority of which have been flatted. There have been numerous difficulties over the years, many of which I will not be able to cover today due to the time limit and your exhortation, Mr Deputy Speaker, to stay within seven to eight minutes; as the first woman to speak, I intend to do so.
I will start with Legacy Wharf in Stratford, where leaseholders have been stuck with a succession of management companies that fail them time after time. Under the former management company, shoddy—and probably overpriced—repairs were made by favoured companies at leaseholders’ expense over and over again, rather than any investment in long-term, high-quality maintenance. Residents were hugely suspicious about possible kickbacks from service firms to the management company and the use of companies under the management company’s ownership, rather than it seeking the best price and the best quality of service.
Thankfully, that management company has changed, but many problems remain. Residents have just been handed bills for 18 months of energy use all at once due to the management company’s mistakes. Service charges and insurance bills rocket year after year, with residents wondering what on earth has been done with their money: they have poor landscaping, broken lifts and inadequate fire doors; the security of communal areas is rubbish; residents have lost access to hot water and the boilers have not been serviced for as long as four years. Those are all serious concerns raised about just one building. Ultimately, when accountability is sought, there is absolutely no way to get a prompt response. When there is such as constant deficit of transparency, it inevitably looks like a way to cover up wrongdoing, mismanagement or incompetence.
I strongly welcome the provisions in this Bill on service charge transparency, and I add my support for the amendments tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). Amendments 12 and 13 would surely provide additional support to my constituents, because they would mean that leaseholders would not have to pay service charges unless basic transparency and accountability were in place. Amendment 14 would enable a maximum cost to be set for the provision of information to leaseholders, preventing the abuse of such costs to effectively obstruct accountability—it ain’t on.
Leaseholders in every part of West Ham have faced massive difficulties getting accountability. I am reminded of events in the Hallsville Quarter development in Canning Town, where residents in several buildings had to leave their homes after a sewage ingress and power cuts. The two management companies responded in totally different ways: Grainger offered £50 a day in subsistence payments, while FirstPort initially offered just £15 a day and only raised it to £25 after enormous pressure. FirstPort had to be chased by me for multiple basic actions, and responded so poorly to residents whose lives had been turned upside down by problems that were absolutely not of their making.
Next, I would like to raise the continuing concerns of the residents of Chobham Manor about their estate charge, which has increased rapidly over recent years. The charge is supposed to help pay for the upkeep of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, but many Chobham residents believe that it bears no relation at all to the amenities available to residents near the park. Despite my support, they have found it almost impossible to scrutinise the budgets they are paying for and to make sure that they ain’t paying through the nose for poor value for money. Chobham Manor residents frankly do not see what they are getting from the park in exchange for this charge, given that they are the only local residents who pay for it. I know that they will be grateful for an explanation of how they might benefit from the changes that the Bill will make.
I also want to mention, yet again, the continuing limbo of many residents of East Village in Stratford. Leaseholders there have lived under serious financial threat for well over four years now. The remediation needed to make their homes safe is still being held up because this Government’s previous legislation left the issue open to litigation. How can my constituents be reassured that this Bill goes further? The Secretary of State himself committed to using his planning powers to call in proposals submitted by irresponsible developers. I have to ask: will he make good on that promise and target those who are continually refusing to act on fire safety and leaving leaseholders on the hook?
In a final case from West Ham, diligent and determined leaseholders have successfully taken managing agents or freeholders to the tribunal for their dire failings. I am sorry to tell the House that these failings were across the board, including rat infestations, lack of insulation causing skyrocketing energy bills, no transparency on the huge service charges, building safety problems and a complete lack of accountability. Surely it should not have come to this.
We should not be depending on individual leaseholders to battle their way through obscure systems for their plight to get the attention it needs. MPs should not have to make dozens of detailed representations over and over again. It could not be clearer who has the power in these disputes, and in so many cases leaseholders are still paying the price for a system that is absolutely broken. Sadly, the legacy of years of failure to act creates understandable scepticism that change will come now, so I want to hear from the Minister today that he believes that the Bill will finally end this injustice.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown). We share a similar part of the world: Essex and the east of London. In Romford, just as in West Ham and the London boroughs to the east of the capital, we have seen a huge increase in the number of flats and high-rise blocks being built over the last 20 years. Havering is a town and country borough and we have not had many flats in the past, but suddenly we are seeing huge numbers of that kind of accommodation being built. This brings huge numbers of problems with it, including what we are debating today.
I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill forward. I hope that it will deal with many of the issues that colleagues across the House have raised today, because they are very real. I sense that there is consensus on both sides of the House that serious action needs to be taken, because this can really destroy people’s lives and ruin them; they have saved to buy a property and they have a leasehold, yet they are fleeced by sharks and managing agents who pile on the costs, and by armies of lawyers who make their lives miserable and threaten them with losing their property all together. This is not right for the people we all represent.
I am now dealing with these cases in Romford on a daily basis. The hon. Lady mentioned many of the problems in West Ham, and I have examples in the Steelway apartments in the centre of Romford. I visited those apartments only a few weeks ago and saw the problems that people there are facing. They are failing to get responses from the management agents and those responsible, they are paying money for no service, and they are being ripped off by management agents who are not doing the job they are paid to do. I went to Rubicon Court, a fairly new development built only a few years ago, and was shocked—absolutely flabbergasted —to see how badly the residents are being looked after. The service they are paying for has completely failed. I saw mould, rats, rubbish and CCTV cameras that do not work. That is not acceptable and, when the Bill is passed into law, I hope the Minister will ensure that it is effective. It is no good passing legislation unless it is effective and comes into force quickly.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I can see that, across the Chamber, there is strong concern for leaseholders who are caught up in very difficult situations. I will first speak to new clause 67, which I tabled after a case came to my attention late last year. I will then speak in support of new clause 5 and amendments 4, 5 and 8 tabled by the official Opposition. These amendments relate to issues that have not been properly addressed by the Government, including forfeiture, the right to vary ground rent to a peppercorn, and deferment rates.
My motivation for tabling new clause 67 stems from what has happened to residents of Lee Court, a purpose-built art deco mansion block in my constituency dating back to the early 1930s. Many will remember the cold snap at the start of the year, when temperatures went below zero and Arctic winds swept across the country. Until mid-January, residents of Lee Court had not had any heating all winter. Furthermore, they did not have access to hot water for weeks and, prior to that, hot water provision was very patchy. This has seriously impacted many vulnerable residents, including the elderly, young families, people with medical conditions and many others.
Leaseholders at Lee Court repeatedly raised these issues with Drivers & Norris, the block’s former managing agent, and Grandpex, the building’s freeholder that has ultimate responsibility for the central heating system, yet little progress was made until it came to my attention and the attention of the national media. The residents’ plight included: a neglected communal area; a door leading to the roof that was hanging off its hinges; broken windows; exposed openings for rodents; weeds and plants growing through the drains; roof leaks; damp, mould and rot in communal areas; and the lack of heating and hot water that I have already mentioned.
Even though my constituents have now taken on the building maintenance and appointed a new managing agent, this situation illustrates the difficulty for leaseholders in securing recourse from freeholders who have responsibility for central heating and other maintenance issues. As a result, my new clause 67 seeks to open up a discussion on how to ensure that such situations never happen again to residents. It would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent evaluation on holding freeholders financially liable for long-lasting central communal heating failures, where the freeholder has a responsibility for this upkeep.
It is important for the Government to know that I am not asking for them to impose measures straightaway, but rather that I want them to pay closer attention to the problem at hand via an independent evaluation. There is clearly something wrong when vulnerable residents are left without heating for months on end despite raising their concerns with the managing agent. The only way they seem to be heard is by going to the media, and that is not acceptable. Residents’ health and wellbeing needs were put at risk by the failure to restore Lee Court’s central heating. The Government have a duty to look at how we can rectify this situation, so that it never happens again. Will the Minister say whether he would like to strengthen the voice of leaseholders? Leaseholders would like that—they need it.
More widely, this overdue Bill is welcome, but the Government’s planned reforms do not go far enough. This is why I particularly support new clause 5 which would abolish the right of forfeiture in respect of residential long leases where the leaseholder is in breach of covenant. I have heard the Minister say that the Government are working on this and will be looking at the issue, but the Law Commission proposed a repeal in 2006 and there has been no action to progress this for some 18 years.
Additionally, amendments 4 and 5, on deferment rates, are very important, because during a housing and cost of living crisis, with many families struggling to get by, it is important for leaseholders to acquire their freehold or extend their lease at the lowest possible cost.
Lastly, amendment 8 is important, because we must ensure that all leaseholders, not just those with residential leases of 150 years or over, have the right to vary their lease to replace their rent with a peppercorn rent. That is because the most common forms of lease are those of 90, 99 and 125 years, and so the Bill, as it stands, will mean that leaseholders with the most common forms of lease will not be able to enjoy the right to vary their ground rent to a peppercorn.
In conclusion, in contrast to the Government’s approach, a Labour Government will enact the Law Commission’s recommendations in full. Labour will make commonhold the default tenure for all new properties, in order to reform the leasehold system fundamentally and comprehensively. In my constituency, what has happened to the residents of Lee Court shows that the current leasehold system is not working. I suggest that the Government accept my new clause, as well as the Labour amendments.
Wendy Morton
I rise to speak to new clauses 13, 23 and 41, which stand in my name. I wish to place on record my thanks to those right hon. and hon. Members who supported me with my amendments and to the Public Bill Office for assisting with advice on their drafting.
Today’s Bill is important and I think we would all agree that it is long-awaited. I spoke on Second Reading, when I declared that I, like probably many others here, am one of almost 5 million leaseholders in this country. I am also one of the many who has gone through that awfully stressful process of extending a lease—that was prior to my being an MP. What I have learnt since becoming an MP is that the issue of leasehold affects not just London and our great cities, but constituents in places such as Aldridge-Brownhills. It affects people who have bought a house on a leasehold basis and many apartment blocks that were built perhaps 20 or 30 years ago. That is why I have taken such a keen interest in this piece of legislation. Buying a home is the biggest financial commitment that most people will make in their lifetime, but they are probably unaware of some of the complications they may experience later down the line.
I raised many questions on Second Reading and I wrote to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Minister has been very engaged with me, but I gently say to the Department that a bit more engagement with Back-Bench Members would help enormously. That said, I am clear that I want the Bill to succeed, although in common with many other hon. Members I still believe it could and should go further. I will not push my amendments to a vote today, but I want to make a few points in relation to them.
On new clause 13, the prohibition on new leasehold homes within three months of the passage of the Act, I appreciate and welcome what the Minister said from the Dispatch Box. The Government have long been committed to the provisions in that new clause and I have sought clarity about what exactly they intend to do. I have heard welcome news today, but I will continue to press the point about commonhold because that matters. Moving forward, if we are to continue to look at this legislation and get it through this place, we will have to revisit this topic to ensure we get the best for our constituents, whatever type of housing or home they live in.
New clause 23 seeks a report on disadvantage suffered by existing leaseholders. In effect it was the sunset clause I referred to on Second Reading. The extent of the number of leaseholders who started the process of extending their lease during the passage of the Bill and the impact on them is unclear. Many will have been waiting to see the outcome of this legislation. Quite feasibly, that group will include people who have been forced to extend their lease in order to sell their home because, as we know, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get a mortgage on a short lease. I am certain some leaseholders will not have been able to wait for the Bill to reach Royal Assent. Such leaseholders risk being seriously disadvantaged, so new clause 23 would take steps to assess and remedy any unfairness by considering issues such as marriage value, legal costs and other charges. I do not think we fully appreciate the size of this group compared to the number of people who will extend their leasehold after Royal Assent.
Similarly, new clause 41 seeks to redress the imbalance and unfairness of marriage value for those leaseholders who extended their leases many years ago or prior to the Bill passing through this place. By seeking to produce a report on disadvantage due to payment of marriage value, I hope we can better understand the extent of some of challenges around a system that, as we have heard today, is feudal, difficult to navigate and has disadvantaged many leaseholders over the years. It is important that we do not lose sight of the need to address the issue of marriage value.
The fourth area of concern is ground rent. I did not table an amendment on this issue but I will touch on it again. Many colleagues on both sides of the House have mentioned it. The Minister was clear in his response to me, but we need to continue to push forward for change.
I will support the Bill and I welcome the steps that have been taken. However, from the many examples that colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have highlighted today and the examples we have all seen sent to our inboxes by constituents, particularly around the challenges of service charge, it is clear that we need to go further. I will continue to gently nudge the Minister; he is nodding his head. He does a really good job and I am certain he gets the issue, but let us continue to work together for the benefit of our constituents.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have nine Members trying to catch my eye, so if people speak for about five minutes, that will allow everyone to get in roughly equally. There has been some slippage, I can see that.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 24, which is in my name. It was also considered in Committee. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for moving it there and to the Minister for his response. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) who have added their names to the new clause on the Order Paper.
I thank the Minister for his reply in Committee, but I think he missed the crucial central point of the amendment. At the moment, the risks of exposure to asbestos in a workplace are managed by the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, which is monitored by the Health and Safety Executive. For every workplace under those regulations, there is a duty holder responsible for monitoring the condition of the asbestos. They are required to keep up-to-date records of the location and condition of all asbestos-containing materials, to provide that information to anybody liable to disturb the materials, and to develop a plan for managing any risks that arise.
Residential blocks with a commercial freeholder will generally also have a duty holder, because the block will have been for them a workplace, so it is covered by the Control of Asbestos Regulations. It is usually the freeholder or their agent who is the duty holder. That duty holder is responsible for all the common areas in the block, such as foyers and staircases.
The effectiveness of this whole regime is debatable. The sixth report in the 2021-22 Session of the Work and Pensions Committee expressed considerable reservations. It is doubtful, I think, that the Health and Safety Executive is doing enough to monitor compliance, and the assumption that leaving asbestos in place is better than removing it is increasingly questionable as the asbestos ages. None the less, there is at least a clear regime for managing the risks.
The concern that motivates this new clause is that, following a transfer of the kind made possible and facilitated by the Bill, there will no longer be a duty holder for the communal areas in such a block. At the moment there is, but the responsibility will be entirely extinguished, as far as I understand it, on transfer. The asbestos is still going to be there, the risks will remain, but nobody will any longer be responsible for managing them. Understandably, no individual resident will take on the responsibility, but there will be no corporate entity to do it either. In fact, it may be worse than that. The residents may well not be aware before the transfer is completed that they are taking on both a financial liability for managing the asbestos in the communal areas, and possibly a risk to life as well. It is important to bear it in mind that we are seeing 5,000 deaths per year at the moment as a result of past exposure to asbestos.
In his response in Committee, the Minister said that the amendment would
“duplicate the existing duty in regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 for landlords to survey the common areas of their property”.—[Official Report, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2024; c. 461.]
However, the newly enfranchised property would not fall any longer under regulation 4. There would be no landlord to survey the common areas once the transfer has taken place.
New clause 24 aims to prevent this problem from occurring. It requires landlords to perform a detailed survey of the asbestos present in the building within three months of a transfer taking place and then requires the landlord to remove any asbestos that is there.There is a 150% tax relief for businesses removing asbestos from their premises, so removal will not be costly for landlords. It will save newly enfranchised leaseholders from a large and probably unexpected liability and a potentially lethal long-term risk. I hope that makes the case for this change clear.
I am grateful to the Minister for his assistance with the residents of Barrier Point in my constituency. I think we have a meeting in his office next month. Last night, I had my regular Zoom call with leaseholders from Waterside Park in my constituency. Before Christmas, we thought we had a clear way forward. Barratt, the builders, had signed up and Aviva, the current freeholder, was happy, but last night we learned of the requirement that the Building Safety Regulator to look at any proposal for a minimum of eight weeks, which will substantially delay the work that has been committed to. Will the Minister look at whether it is really necessary for residents who have been waiting so long for these problems to be resolved to wait another eight weeks?
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I fully support the Government’s wish to overhaul the antiquated and feudal leasehold system in this country and address the imbalance of power between freeholders and leaseholders. I thank the Minister for his ongoing discussions with me about a number of issues I have with the Bill, and for attending the leasehold roundtable that I held recently with my constituents.
I would like the Government to abolish the system completely, but I understand that that will not happen with this Bill. I have therefore tabled an amendment and three new clauses that would improve the Bill further. New clause 12 would reduce the participation threshold required to claim the right to manage from 50% to 35%. That is a massive issue in Cities of London and Westminster. More than 1,300 properties in the City of London and an eye-watering 12,100 in Westminster have owners living abroad or are owned by companies using central London’s golden postcodes as a place to park their cash. That reduces the ability of leaseholders in those blocks to secure the 50% of signatures required to achieve the right to manage, as it is incredibly difficult to contact those overseas leaseholders for a meaningful discussion.
Let me give an example of that type of dilemma in my constituency. Residents in The Quadrangle in the Hyde Park Estate say that leaseholders in their block will struggle to meet the 50% participation threshold. They estimate that at least 40% of leaseholders in their block do not live in the building and are uncontactable. Accepting new clause 12 and lowering the threshold to 35% would give many more leaseholders living in similar blocks the chance to manage their buildings.
I commend the work that has been done on the Bill to support blocks that have shared commercial and residential usage. The Bill proposes to increase the proportion of commercial or non-residential space permitted in an individual block for a right to manage application from 25% to 50%, but I believe we can go even further. I have heard from many residents whose blocks will fail to qualify even after the threshold rises to 50%. For example, residents of 8 Artillery Row in Victoria believe that increasing the threshold to 50% does not go far enough, as the residential element of their block is lower than 50%. That is why amendment 17 is needed, as it would allow residents in a block with up to 75% commercial premises to apply for the right to manage.
New clause 14 is similarly designed to allow more leaseholders to strive for the right to manage, especially those in mixed-use buildings. Simply sharing a broom cupboard with a commercial property can disqualify them from claiming the right to manage. At Cambridge Court in Marylebone, for example, leaseholders striving to manage their block would benefit from the Government’s proposals to increase the non-residential threshold allowed in a building, but they are concerned that their ability to qualify for the right to manage would be undermined by the existence of a single shared car parking space in their building. My new clause 14 would amend the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 by adopting recommendation 5 from the Law Commission’s “Right to Manage” report, which is to allow leaseholders in mixed-use buildings with shared services or underground car parks to exercise the right to manage.
Finally, my new clause 15 would correct the unintended consequences of the Building Safety Act 2022. That Act has interfered with the long-standing section 24 regime, which was a vital right for leaseholders. It introduced an accountable person mechanism that expressly banned section 24 managers from being the accountable person. Consequently, specially trained and vetted professional property managers willing to take on difficult sites have been barred from being the accountable person. That makes absolutely no sense, and it stripped leaseholders of an existing right. That could not have been the Government’s intention when they introduced the 2022 Act, which was intended to provide leaseholders with additional statutory protections. So many leaseholders in my constituency and across the country would benefit from applying for a section 24 manager, but they cannot risk it if they are in blocks of 18 metres or higher because of the accountable person regime issue arising from the Building Safety Act. It is imperative that our buildings are safe, that leaseholders are safe, and that the burden does not fall heavily on leaseholders.
I will not press my amendments to a vote, but I hope that the Government will consider what I have spoken about and work with me to introduce the measures in the other place. This is a watershed moment for the Government to prove that they understand the terrible treatment that leaseholders have faced and continue to face by incompetent freeholders, and to address the imbalance between freeholder and leaseholder. I hope that the Bill will deliver real change.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I rise to speak to new clause 1, which was tabled in my name, and in support of a number of new clauses and amendments tabled by right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House.
I tabled new clause 1 because, as was said by the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), who is no longer in his place, fleecehold is a scam. It attempts to deal with the issue whereby a freeholder is trapped in a situation where they pay estate management charges for the areas around their development, be they roads, play areas or open spaces. Critically, the new clause also deals with the shared assets that might be in use to service their homes, such as ground source heat pumps, septic tanks or sewage pumps. I am sure that there are many instances in which the management company does a great job and charges reasonable fees for its work, but my inbox—like those of many hon. Members—contains horrifying examples of the management company, which is usually directly owned by or related to the developer in North Shropshire, failing to do a good job, or to do any sort of job at all.
There is a freeholder in my constituency, for example, who must obtain an information pack from their estate management company in order to sell their house. Despite repeated requests, my constituent has not received that information pack, so their sale has been significantly delayed and is at risk of falling through altogether. The management company is apparently just a shell—it does not respond to correspondence, hold annual general meetings or provide accounts—so the affected residents are powerless and cannot take control of the company and appoint a reliable professional to provide the services that they so desperately need. New clause 1 would allow them, where the management company has gone AWOL and will not respond to anything that they request of it, to take control of the company and do those things themselves.
The new clause also extends to assets, which may be more of a rural problem when it comes to shared estate charges. In one example in my constituency, a developer installed a ground source heat pump to provide all the heating and hot water for a barn conversion development that involved several houses in the same set of barns.
That developer has two separate companies: one is the management company through which he charges the owners of those houses for their electricity bill, and another, totally separate company that was nothing to do with the sale process, which is where he placed the heat pump. As such, he is able to cream off all the renewable heat incentive income for himself; he provides accounts to residents through the management company, but does not provide them with any information about the fundamental asset that is servicing their home. Those residents are unable to benefit from the renewable heat incentive that accrues from that asset, and do not know whether it is being properly maintained and serviced. They are unable to do so themselves—they have no rights in relation to that heat pump.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I draw to the hon. Lady’s attention and that of the Minister the article by Patrick Hosking in The Times today, which deals with estate management companies and estate management charges. I hope that the Government will read what he has written and see what they can do to make things better.
Helen Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his intervention.
I will conclude by saying that I support the amendments that would require professionalisation of the industry— that would be very sensible and consistent with other legislation that the House has passed. I also support new clause 5 and amendments 4 and 8, tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook); new clause 39, tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts); and new clause 25, tabled by the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The Bill goes some way towards providing the protection that we need, but it needs to go much further to protect freeholders from rogue developers and estate management companies. I urge the Government to take that away and do more.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To protect the last six speakers and protect ministerial time as well, there is now a five-minute limit on speeches, which will give the Front Benchers sufficient time to respond.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It was a great pleasure to serve on the Public Bill Committee on this Bill. We had a great debate, and there was actually a lot of agreement across the Committee Room. These are deeply Conservative reforms, championed by none other than Mrs Thatcher, starting in 1965, which she continued to do throughout opposition and during her premiership.
I gently say to Opposition Members, of whatever party, that they must not fall into the trap of making this a political football. They must engage with the seriousness and complexity of these reforms, in part because, as we have heard, they did very little to advance these very significant reforms during their own time in office. I suspect that they backed away from it because of the very significant legal challenges they would have faced, as we ourselves will no doubt face. Pretending they do not exist is not a serious position. I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State, who are aware of my comments, that we must not buckle, but must continue to take this forward.
It is great to see the package of amendments laid by the Government, particularly new clause 42, which is a ban on leasehold houses. I want the Minister to think carefully about how he will address the inevitable imbalance in the creation of a two-tier system, in which some people will have the freehold of their house, but some will not. There is an additional imbalance between flats in our urban areas and new freehold houses. That point was very well made by James Vitali in a Policy Exchange report. I am slightly worried about the omission from this of retirement properties, so perhaps the Minister could return to that.
In Committee, I spoke about the need to truly move towards a commonhold system. I think the Opposition’s new clause 11 is something of that nature. I very much hope that, as the Bill goes through completing its stages, the Government—here or in the other place—can look at that suggestion. I think we do need to set out the future legislative scaffolding for our fifth term in office, and to build on the work we have done so that we can finally get rid of this leasehold system.
Other Members have mentioned a lot of the points I would have made about shared services. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) raised that, and it is one of my concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has done a fantastic job in talking about the lack of adoption by local authorities. There is also new clause 7, which I know is again an Opposition amendment, and new clauses 1 and 2. This problem is not going to go away. It is a blight on many homeowners in Redditch, and it also goes to the heart of our planning system. We really do need to look at that; we cannot pretend that it is going to solve itself.
I thank the Minister for writing to me about one of my concerns, which is litigation costs. I think new clause 3 looks at that. He has reassured me that what is in this Bill will go the distance in ensuring that leaseholders are not subject to unjust litigation costs by their landlord. That is one of the cases highlighted by Liam Spender and many others. These are hugely complex issues, but we must tackle them.
I want to see ground rents reduced to a peppercorn. It is pure extortion, and a feudal relic from medieval times when people were serfs and worked the land. We should not have this in 2024, or in any year. I refuse to believe that there is not a way, through the wit of man and the considerable intelligence of Ministers on the Front Bench, to solve the issue, perhaps where some financial assets are held in pension funds. I do not buy the pretence of that incredible con artist Mr Steve Whybrow and his outfit that somehow we are robbing pensioners. I would urge anybody with an interest in this debate to look at the genuine pensioners who are fighting for the right to have pure enjoyment of their own properties, which they richly deserve after a lifetime of working.
I will make my final remarks on forfeiture: it must go. The forfeiture of a long lease cannot be right. It cannot be right that a freeholder can hold this nuclear bomb over somebody such as Dennis Jackson, a pensioner, of Plantation Wharf. He disputed a £6,000 service charge, which led to an £80,000 legal bill, and he had his £800,000 flat forfeited during a 10-minute hearing at Wandsworth court. I thank LEASE for all the work it has done to help him. That just simply cannot be right, and we must address it. I want to see us finally finishing the job that Mrs Thatcher started when she was Opposition Housing spokesman in 1965. We must finish that job, and I thank the Minister for all the work he has done so far.
Stella Creasy
I feel for the Minister today, because he must be kicking himself. This is probably one of the few debates I have heard in this place recently where I have not heard a bad idea. As constituency MPs, we see time and again the problems caused by retaining this feudal system of leasehold, and I suspect that the Minister, who has been looking at this issue for some time, is kicking himself because what he would really like to do is abolish the whole thing. Indeed, today we have heard support from across the House to do just that. In the short time available, let me say again to him that he would have our support to move to commonhold. He talked about how commonhold was probably the better model, and for those of us living in the vortex of gentrification, where thousands of flats have been built in our community, this is an incredibly pressing issue. We know that the casework we have seen over the past few years will expand as a result of leasehold continuing. That is why I wish to see the Government change their mind, perhaps in the other place, about getting rid of leasehold altogether, and why I have been pressing my local authority to listen to concerns of local residents who are stuck with leasehold, and change our local plan to make commonhold the default. I hope that they have heard this debate and will rethink their opposition to that.
I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and wish to draw the Minister’s attention to two new clauses that I have tabled on issues with the existing system and the problems that leaseholders face. With 12,000 leaseholders in Walthamstow, I know that these issues will come up time and again.
New clause 2 is about the fact that although we have leasehold legislation, it does not tally with our consumer legislation. Leaseholders pay a service charge. They have a contract with freehold management companies to oversee problems in their properties, but few residents feel empowered to access rights that exist under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to have a reasonable service within a reasonable timeframe for repairs. Today, colleagues across the House have given countless examples of that, so let me add my own, which is where my proposed new clause has come from. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) is not here. She talks about Leigh Court and new clause 67, but residents in Essex Brewery in Walthamstow have been without hot water and heating since before Christmas. Indeed, they are still without hot water and heating, with little sight of any change.
Essex Brewery was built just five years ago. It has become apparent that the build by Crest Nicholson was poor at best, and a downright con at worst. Until January this year, Crest Nicholson was on the management committee and made more than £100 million in profit in the year that Essex Brewery was built. It has made half that this year—possibly less—because of widespread concerns about the condition of the builds it has made. What does someone do when they have bought possibly their first home, whether through shared ownership or leasehold, as hundreds did in that development, and they find that the pipes that bring in the hot water are faulty? I am sorry to say that those resident have little redress, because the management company, Kinleigh Folkard and Hayward—another multimillion pound organisation—left them without any explanation of why it would not repair the hot water until after Christmas. What a Christmas present that was. The Grinch had strong competition.
That was another layer of bureaucracy. KFH was appointed by the Essex Brewery management company, which was established by the freeholder, Helpfavour, to meet those obligations. KFH told the residents that because their insurance policy said that as long as they had water at all, the property was habitable and it was not going to do anything about it. That has left hundreds of residents, many of them vulnerable, for months on end without any hot water or heating in the current weather. Residents have had to boil kettles to get hot water to cleanse their babies, or pay bills that they cannot afford for extra heating through portable heaters. For those who have shared ownership it is even more complicated. Metropolitan Thames Valley states that it owns 24 of those properties and that it is prohibited by law from fixing the problem. New clause 2 is about matching consumer legislation with leasehold legislation, and giving residents the right of redress, not saying, “You’ve either got to buy out the leaseholders if you want some property control, or you are stuck with them and waiting to see.” I hope KFH hears this debate and is ashamed of its behaviour.
Amendment 1 is about leasehold tribunals. I know the Minister spoke of precedent setting, but residents across the country would tell him otherwise. I beg him to look at the Warner properties in Walthamstow, and at Y&Y management, which repeatedly rips off constituents across the country. The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) is not here, but he asked why people have to pay terrorism insurance. In Walthamstow that was the Warner estate company, which said that because the plane bomber lived in our constituency, 3,000 households had to buy terrorism insurance. Such cases come up time and again with leasehold and they do not get fixed in the tribunal. Amendment 1 would give precedent.
Vicky Ford
For some of my Chelmsford constituents, these provisions cannot come soon enough. One constituent told me how he bought his leasehold flat seven years ago, but now he and his wife want to move to a bigger home to start a family and progress their lives. For the past three years, they have been unable to sell their flat. They have tried listing the property with many different estate agents and had many offers, but no buyer can get a mortgage on the property due to a clause in the lease that means the ground rent can be doubled every 15 years. According to my constituent, nobody in this block of 20 flats has been able to sell a property since 2018. They feel stuck.
Priti Patel
The amendments tabled by the Government —new clauses 30 to 32 in particular—will offer my constituents some hope and a quicker means of redress on many of the points raised in the House’s discussions. I will press the Minister on some concerns raised by my leaseholder constituents and by all colleagues on the whole issue of remediation of defects, and transparency and accountability.
At one development in my constituency that opened in 2019—now a significant period of time ago—the residents experience a shocking case of misery and distress. The problems include water ingress, damp and mould, with children getting sick as a result, which is unforgiveable. There are also: damaged sprinkler systems; defective and non-compliant fire doors, which is unthinkable in this day and age; inadequate insulation—we have heard about water pipes and the lack of heating and cold water; roofing issues; damaged gates; and poor grounds maintenance. On top of that, when someone raises a complaint, guess what happens? Nobody does anything about it. However, whenever constituents get a letter, it is about their service fees increasing—it happens all the time. That is not acceptable.
The residents seek redress, but it just does not happen. Not only are they frustrated but we see a clear issue with buck passing; that is shameful and must be addressed. This property was a permitted development, and we should pause for thought on that. I am pro such developments—we need more of them—but we must ensure that charlatans do not come along and exploit people who are desperate to buy their first home, with all sorts of things happening in the building. I have had reports from residents who have purchased their property more recently, and guess what? They were not informed of all the defects and the problems going on. That is simply scandalous.
I want to mention again FirstPort—this should be a topic of wider debate in the House—and management companies. I am meeting FirstPort at the weekend. Again, why do these companies feel that they can be let off the hook? They will not engage effectively. In one case, leaseholders of a site in Stanway were not notified of a change in management company for about half a year. Every single colleague in the House will have cases of that nature.
FirstPort has refused requests to hold annual general meetings and has been lacking in visibility. If I may, I will praise Councillor Kevin Bentley, my county council leader, who is a divisional member for the area in question and has secured a public meeting for the weekend. It will be the first point when we have been able to get in the room with these people to seek redress. Contractors come in, and people are charged for monitoring works that never take place—it goes on and on.
I am grateful to the Minister for how he opened the debate, and spoke frankly about the issues and concerns. I have a suggestion to put to him. Yesterday it was announced that the Competition and Markets Authority will look into the practice of house builders and whether there has been collusion in pricing and the development of schemes. May I suggest that it might be worth looking into management companies? Many of those house builders come part and parcel with the management companies. The house builders do the negotiations with the management companies, and there is a lack of transparency. Should we be looking at more open book contracting around management companies, with details of how they are brought on board by the developers published, so that there is greater transparency for the purchasers? That is really important. As the Minister’s Department has already enlisted the CMA, he may wish to ask it to look at that important area as well. I hope that he can respond to some of those points when he sums up.
All hon. Members are grateful for the chance to raise these points, which speak to the totality of what we are seeing—a sense of a lack of fairness for many of our constituents, which the Government are clearly pressing in the right direction and seeking redress.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I very much welcome the Bill, which addresses the frustrations expressed by a great many leaseholders in my constituency. I thank Suzy Killip from the Pembroke Park Residents Association and Jo Tapper at The Sigers, both of whom have faced significant challenges while representing their communities and taking forward issues arising from the management and lack of services often provided to them under their lease arrangements.
I would particularly like to thank Ministers, because this legislation takes into account the way that the market has changed. Many years ago I started my career as a financial adviser, dealing with people taking out mortgages. One stark change is the extent to which leaseholds are seen as an opportunity to extract money from people as investments to be traded by freeholders, on the basis of extracting the maximum possible amount rather than ensuring good quality of services. I was involved in cases as a local authority councillor, where part of the planning agreement was that roads, parks and open spaces would be brought up to an appropriate standard to be adopted by the local authority. Once the development was completed, an opportunity was spotted by the developer and, therefore, people who had moved in on the understanding that the local authority would take over—because the roads were built to adoptable standard, for example—found that it did not happen because it was seen as an investment opportunity. That is very much in line with the rip-offs referred to by Members across the House.
I commend Ministers on taking a balanced approach on the need to recognise a link between the arrangements in the Bill and our housing supply. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe. The ability of freeholders of larger developments to regenerate sites where properties that have been rented are falling vacant over a period of time could be inhibited if there is a proliferation of small freeholds on those types of sites. If we are to ensure that the quality of our housing, in particular energy efficiency, is brought up to a good standard, it must still be possible for larger sites to be regenerated. We must not inhibit that completely while addressing a different concern about the rights and freedoms of leaseholders.
I mentioned some constituents earlier; the situation in particular at Pembroke Park is a good example of why the reforms in this legislation are so important. The development was constructed on a former military site by Taylor Wimpey, and handed over to be managed by A2Dominion housing association, with a mix of social housing tenants and private leaseholders. There are umpteen issues still more than a decade after the completion of that site, and issues simply getting A2Dominion to respond to problems including insulation that was never installed in buildings to the building regulations standard, a complete failure to ensure that proper ventilation was installed in the buildings, and drains that are completely inadequate. There has been progress, but I would add A2Dominion to the list of companies raised by other Members.
I commend A2Dominion’s relatively new chief executive, Ian Wardle, on the progress that he is making, but it remains a huge challenge to my constituents, and a huge frustration, that as opaque charges rise and rise, the actions of that organisation make it incredibly difficult even to understand whether the basic legal protections that they enjoy under existing legislation are being observed, including how insurance costs are apportioned across a very large property portfolio.
I strongly support the points made around forfeiture provisions. A number of constituents have come to me with significant challenges and justifiable concerns about the rising service charges on their properties. It is completely unacceptable that they would forfeit a significant amount of value that they have paid for and earned—potentially to fall to the developer. That is another opportunity for the shamelessly greedy to rip off our constituents. I am very glad that this legislation and the comments made by Members across the House today will represent a significant step towards ending that practice.
Richard Fuller
Thousands of homeowners in my constituency and millions across the country who face estate management charges will have their rights substantially increased thanks to the provisions in this Bill. I am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Minister and his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for including estate management charges in this Bill.
Lee Rowley
With the leave of the House, let me start by thanking all Members for their contributions to the debate. The breadth of discussion across the House has shown that while we can discuss precisely how far we should go, there is a general consensus that progress needs to be made, and I think all Members will accept that it has been and is being made in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) tabled new clause 25, and he is right to say that it deals with an important issue. As he said, a consultation is open, and we will review the responses very seriously. I urge anyone whose views are as strong as those expressed by my hon. Friend to contribute to the consultation, so that we can consider the issue in the round.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) spoke passionately about his new clauses 39 and 40, and I understood the points that he was making. I hope that some of the changes introduced in the Bill will make the acquisition of freeholds much easier. We have discussed regularly the need for a disincentive for freeholders not to respond or to “go slow”, which should mean that the right to first refusal falls away to the extent that it is no longer necessary.
I was sorry to hear about the problems experienced by the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). He was kind enough to mention them to me earlier, but I would be happy to meet him as he requested, because I recognise that the specific matter that he raised is important to his constituents, and we need to look into it in more detail.
The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who served on the Bill Committee, made many useful points. I cannot do justice to all of them, but I am happy to continue the discussion about Daejan Holdings and building safety to ensure that, if there is an issue that the Government have not worked through fully, we understand the details better.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) highlighted the huge inequity that is affecting individuals in individual blocks in their constituencies. That inequity is exactly the reason why we must make progress, and I hope that the Bill is a good proposition for that to happen.
The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) was kind enough to give me more details about the background to her new clause in a separate discussion. What I have heard about from her, and also from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)—who is not in the Chamber, but who has a similar concern—is absolutely unacceptable. I entirely appreciate the individual concerns that are felt, and I am keen to continue our discussion so that we can learn from it for the broader good of the building safety sector in general.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) tabled an important new clause about leasehold houses. I am glad she recognised that the Government have now introduced measures to deal with the issue that she raised. She also raised two important points about reports, and I am keen to meet her so that we can discuss those further and, in particular, discuss the impact involved.
I can tell the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) that we are looking into the issue of the Building Safety Regulator, and I will be happy to talk to him about that when we meet to discuss Barrier Point. Since his speech I have checked the position on asbestos. We do not believe that that right is extinguished, but if we are not correct I would be keen to talk to him further to ensure that we understand exactly how that regime will work in practice, and to try to assuage his concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) exhorted us to move at this watershed moment. I am keen to talk to her further about the participation thresholds. She has made a powerful case, both to me in the House today and more broadly, about the importance of ensuring that this is workable, particularly in the circumstances that are faced in the centre of London.
While I entirely understand the point made by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) about some of these changes, I worry about her new clause, and I ask her not to push it to a vote. While her intentions are clearly noble, the new clause would put us into a position in which assets were being expropriated for the purpose of something that could be as insufficient as notice of an annual general meeting. I hope that she will reflect on that during the time we have left before the votes.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) made a strong point about the need to consider estate management further, and I have given a commitment to do so. FirstPort was raised by a number of Members, including my right hon. Friend. It may interest the House to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) will lead a Westminster Hall debate on that tomorrow—so same time, same place, same discussion, but an opportunity to consider further the people and organisations that are not doing the right thing in this regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) has been an absolutely doughty champion of progress on estate management, and he is absolutely right to do that. His speech demonstrates again the strength of feeling about this issue and, as I said at the Dispatch Box a moment ago, we are considering it further and recognise the importance of doing that.
I turn to the contribution from the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who speaks for the Opposition. He has tabled a new clause on forfeiture. I hope that the Government have indicated very clearly that we recognise the significant problems in this area and are working through the detail. Although I understand what he is trying to do with amendments 4 and 8, we think it is proportionate to retain the current position that we have set out from the Front Bench, for the same reasons as in Committee.
My hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) and for Harborough made a very clear case about the importance of those on the Government Benches leaning into reform. In the time I have left, knowing that other parties and other traditions represented in this House will make similar cases—it is a shared endeavour in this area—I want again to make the Conservative case for leasehold reform. Building on our proud heritage of reform, it is a Conservative Government who are bringing forward the most transformational proposals for improving the lives of millions of leaseholders. It is a Conservative Government who are building the case for change to deal with the iniquities present on new estates, and who are committed to setting ordinary families free from unnecessary burdens. It is a Conservative Government who have brought forward one of the most comprehensive changes to property in a generation.
Why have we come forward with these proposals? It is precisely because it is a Conservative thing to do. We are cautious about interfering in the markets, for fear of unintended consequences or the creation of barriers. We know that no Government can ever fix every problem, but when we are convinced about the case for reform, we will fight for it with every sinew. At the heart of being a Conservative is the desire to smash monopolies and remove bad practice. We will celebrate where things work well, but we will joyfully remove distortions that are exploited by chancers and rogues. We will constrain rent seekers and middlemen, who add little to the basic economic exchange of goods and services that is at the heart of our economy.
Fundamentally, we are committed to making our markets more perfect and, as a consequence, to setting people free to make their own choices, live their lives and build their own future. Leasehold has been exploited for far too long by those who have no interest in the good functioning of capitalism. The lack of transparency, clarity and redress in freehold estate charges causes frustration up and down the land, and it does nothing for the efficient functioning of markets. That is why we are reforming.
Adam Smith talked of ground rents as monopolistic in 1776, Hayek reminded us in 1944 of the importance of making competition work and of not accepting institutions as they stand and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough indicated, Margaret Thatcher asserted in 1982 that there is no prouder word in our history as Conservatives than “freeholder”. That is the centuries-long call as to why we have to make further improvements to our property system. With this Bill, in the true spirit of thousands of Conservative reforms that have made this country better, we are sending a clear signal that change for the better is coming and will benefit millions of people for the long term. That is only possible because of all the hard work of all the officials, all the people in the Law Commission and my opposite number, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, who has been extremely constructive on this Bill.
I give huge thanks to Professor Nick Hopkins; Tom Nicholls and Chris Pulman at the Law Commission; officials in the Department, led by Robin Froggatt-Smith; my private office, including Grace Doody; and Members from across the House for their valuable input. Although I have just made the Conservative case for reform, we know that this is a shared endeavour among us all, which is why there is an unusual amount of unanimity in this place. It demonstrates the importance of our continuing to make progress on this issue.
As the Bill moves to the other place, I hope that those sat in the other place take note of the consensus and keenness here to ensure that progress is made. I hope they also take note of the importance of ensuring that the Bill continues and of the very many great reforms that are in it already. This demonstrates that together, as a broad group all across this House, we are committed to ensuring that leasehold reform happens, that leaseholders get a better deal and that the estate managers, estate management and freehold estates get clearer transparency, clearer information and a clear understanding of how they can live their lives and set themselves free in the future.
Business without Debate
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deferred Divisions
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Committee on Standards
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Family Visa Minimum Income Thresholds
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition urging the Government to reverse their decision to increase the minimum income threshold for family visas. This policy, which will see the income threshold for family reunification visas almost double, will lead to multinational families being torn apart. It will entrench the UK’s hostile immigration environment, and is likely to be overwhelmingly discriminatory against ethnic minorities, particularly British Asians. Most concerningly, it threatens the European convention on human rights, which grants everyone the right to family life. I believe that Britain is better than cruel policies like this.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to not implement the increase in the minimum income threshold for family visas to £38,700.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Manchester Gorton,
Declares that multinational families are facing separation due to the Government's decision to increase the income threshold for family reunification from £18,600 to £38,700; notes that there were 82,395 family-related visas granted in the year ending September 2023, with the most common origin countries being Pakistan, India and the USA; further declares that workers of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage have the lowest median hourly pay of any ethnic group which may lead this policy to be overwhelmingly discriminatory against British Asians; and further declares that the European Convention of Human Rights grants everyone the right to family life which this policy could threaten.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to not implement the increase in the minimum threshold for family visas to £38,700.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002916]
Road Safety: North Yorkshire
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to use the first Adjournment debate that I have secured to speak about the crucial issue of road safety in North Yorkshire.
I have now been in Parliament for seven months, and some of the most transformative change that I have witnessed in this place has happened when Members have responded to genuinely pressing local need, using every mechanism available to them to fight for their constituents. This is one such case. In my rural constituency, dangerous drivers and inadequate speed-calming measures mean that residents in the communities I represent live in fear. Sadly, according to data provided by the House of Commons Library, there were 36 fatal casualties in Selby and Ainsty between 2018 and 2022. That is second only to the figure in Skipton and Ripon, where 46 fatal casualties occurred during the same period.
The root causes of the issues in my area are clear. Selby and Ainsty has numerous arterial, high-speed roads that pass through village communities with inadequate traffic-calming measures, and rural lanes and streets that were never designed for the motor traffic that we see today. When those infrastructure challenges are combined with the actions of dangerous and reckless drivers, they can have truly lethal consequences.
In the village of Hambleton last month, a person tragically lost their life in a very serious collision. They were attempting to cross the A63, a dangerous main road through the village on which cars travel at unsafe speeds, even though it is surrounded by residential new-build estates and very close to a local school. This was not an isolated incident—there have been numerous accidents on this specific stretch of road—but despite the work of local residents who have set up a road safety action group, the danger remains. I should be grateful if the Minister could provide some advice about what measures are at the community’s disposal and can be pushed so that action is taken—action that I will certainly continue to fight for in this House.
I want to make something very clear: in North Yorkshire, too much of the debate on road safety has been wrongly co-opted into a wasteful, irresponsible and distracting culture war by the Conservative party. It holds a majority on North Yorkshire Council and the executive position for highways, and has 10 of the county’s 12 MPs. If the Conservatives wanted to do something about road safety in my constituency and across the county, they could do so. Instead, they have spent recent months jumping at shadows, fighting anti-motorist policies that do not exist and opposing 20 mph blanket bans that have never been proposed.
All the while, communities in the Selby district are crying out for political representatives who will take the issue of road safety seriously. What is too often forgotten is that when motorists step out of their cars in a village like Cawood or a town like Sherburn in Elmet, they are local people who want to enjoy their communities in safety and with their family. Rather than fomenting divisions that do not exist, the Government and North Yorkshire Council need to sit up, get serious and listen to the concerns of local residents in my area, who cannot wait another day for action to be taken.
The Minister could forgive residents across North Yorkshire for their confusion over the mixed messages they have received from the Conservative party, which has meant that common-sense ways to limit dangerous driving have not been taken. In a piece of literature sent recently to local people in my area, both the local Conservative candidate and the party’s candidate for North Yorkshire Mayor registered their opposition to Welsh-style blanket 20 mph limits, which, to my knowledge, not a single representative of either main party in the county has proposed. In September, however, the very same mayoral candidate, in his role as executive member for highways and transportation on North Yorkshire Council, praised the
“most significant 20 mph zone the council has ever introduced”
in Harrogate. I agree and applaud those efforts, but I ask why there can be a grown-up discussion about road safety in Harrogate, with seven schools having new 20 mph zones placed around them, but in the Selby district we have to deal with unsafe roads and suffer under a Conservative party that is distracted by waging a culture war that simply does not exist.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing his first Adjournment debate. I have to say that I do not recognise his characterisation of the way the local council approaches road safety issues. He gave the example of Harrogate. That particular campaign was started by two residents, Hazel Peacock and Jenny Marks, and it led to a broader community campaign. The issue of 20 mph zones around schools is fairly uncontroversial, particularly when they are adopted alongside such measures as crossings or barriers along the roadside. I have found that introducing simple measures like those has brought communities together, and it might be a way to help the hon. Gentleman in Selby and Ainsty.
Keir Mather
To an extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment: it is uncontroversial to have common-sense measures such as 20 mph limits in villages, outside schools and in urban areas. I wish the debate was tret with the seriousness it deserves in my part of North Yorkshire by the council’s executive member for highways, who has been able to achieve that work in Harrogate.
By attempting to turn sensible measures, such as 20 mph zones where they are necessary, into wedge issues in my part of North Yorkshire, the local Conservative party disregards the concerns of local residents. Meanwhile, the council is not taking action in villages such as Lumby, Monk Fryston and Hambleton, where the immediate safety concerns are acute and are badly damaging communities. People want their council to get on with making their villages and towns safe. In some cases, the excuses for inaction just do not add up.
I return to the community of Hambleton, where a local person tragically lost their life. The A63, which bisects the village, is a long, straight stretch of road used by parents with prams, elderly residents and large groups of schoolchildren. It is crying out for pedestrian islands, but North Yorkshire Council has argued that footfall on the road is insufficient, using data from a study that was taken during a school holiday. Although I am pleased that the council has committed to reassessing the area due to the fatality that occurred, an accident should not have had to happen for people to realise that action needed to be taken.
In Monk Fryston, over 800 local residents petitioned for a pedestrian crossing on the A64, and they continue to have my full support. North Yorkshire Council has acknowledged, in my correspondence with it, that speeds are excessive on the road, but it has refused to implement the crossing because it says that there is not a suitable location. I know that the installation of traffic-calming measures is a complicated business, but this road is the key link between Selby and Leeds, providing people with access to the A1. Again, the A64 bisects the village, leaving residents on the other side with no access to local amenities. I ask the Minister to join me in putting the case to North Yorkshire Council that Monk Fryston cannot be held back and disregarded any longer in its campaign for common-sense traffic-calming measures.
I now turn to the wider issue of speeding, which I know is of concern to all our constituents. In Brayton, which lies just to the south of Selby, there has been consistent and widespread concern about speeding along Barff Lane. I am glad that by working with local agencies such as North Yorkshire police, residents’ concerns have been heard and measures have been taken to tackle the chronic problem of speeding on Barff Lane. There is now a speed-activated warning sign along the road and North Yorkshire police are in the process of identifying a suitable location for camera van sites, which will do much to ensure that drivers along the road follows the speed limits and will ultimately save lives in Brayton.
Regrettably, speeding is also seen in other places in my constituency, including Cawood, an extremely rural village whose roads are not fit for the amount of traffic that it sees or for cars going at the speed that they do. I recently held a drop-in event for the community there, and a significant number of residents raised the issue of speeding and dangerous driving on Sherburn Street. I want to make it clear that the safety of residents in Cawood should be a top priority for both North Yorkshire Council and North Yorkshire police. Although I have been assured by the council that there are several existing traffic-calming measures in Sherburn Street, they are in reality having a minimal impact on speeding in Cawood. I would greatly appreciate any support the Minister can give me and local residents in working with North Yorkshire Council and the police to push for measures that will provide a lasting solution to this issue.
It is clear that we have a lot to do, both in Selby and Ainsty and across North Yorkshire, to improve road safety. Every single injury and road death in our communities is one too many, and we must all work together to prevent this debate from being reduced to meaningless, wasteful and distracting culture wars when our constituents are crying out for common-sense change. We need to ensure that local families and the communities in which they live are protected across the length and breadth of our great county, and I look forward to working with anyone who is willing to make this a reality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) on securing his first Adjournment debate. I think this is the first time I have had the opportunity to answer questions from him in the House of Commons, so I congratulate him on winning the by-election. My research tells me that he was born in 1998, which is a very scary thought for those of us who well remember 1998. It is of particular concern to me that when he first came to the House, he indicated to me that he used to work for my first parliamentary staffer, Pete McManus, whom he described as my boss. It is a worry when things are so proximate that the age of individual Members of Parliament is catching up on you. I am sure that that is not an issue for anyone else in the House but it definitely is for me.
I take this debate very seriously, and the hon. Gentleman rightly raises the concerns of his constituents. I pass on my condolences on behalf of the Government and on behalf of everyone here today for the recent fatality that has taken place. Before responding to the essence of what he said, I want to make it clear that every death or serious injury on our roads—not just in North Yorkshire but up and down the country—is a tragedy, and we continue to work tirelessly to improve road safety for all users. That is not just drivers; it is also pedestrians, motorcyclists, cyclists and mobility scooter users. However, the fact is that Britain has some of the safest roads in the world. The most recent records show that 1,711 people were killed and 28,000 seriously injured on our roads. However, that is clearly a tragedy for any individual so affected and for their family, and we want to work to address that.
I want to make a number of points. Speed-calming measures were a massive part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Local authorities, as he rightly identified, have powers under the Highways Act 1980 to install a range of traffic-calming measures. Road humps, chicanes and other such features have all been proven to reduce inappropriate vehicle speed, which, as well as reducing the risk of collisions, lessens the severity of any that do occur. There is also the ability to install other measures to improve road safety, such as pedestrian crossings and 20 mph speed limits. The Department for Transport produces a wide range of good practice advice to help our local authorities to design and deliver such measures. It is for the local council to decide what measures may be appropriate in different locations, taking into account a vast number of criteria. The Department does not set numerical criteria for footfall or collision numbers that must be met to justify the installation of such safety measures. Local authorities can choose to set their own criteria, but that is a decision for them.
I now turn to the vexed issue of 20 mph zones. Every Member will be acutely aware that the introduction of a not total but effective 20 mph zone in Wales has been a singularly unpopular policy that has caused great concern, and it is certainly not something that the Government support. On the other hand, as far as I am aware, not a single Member of Parliament is against the concept of 20 mph zones around schools. There has to be a happy medium, and that is a local authority decision. There are all manner of different factors, including how a zone will influence quality of life, road safety, the environment and the local economy. Local authorities should also take into account the Department’s plan for drivers. To assist them, we are updating the 20 mph speed limit guidance for England to ensure consistency.
I asked for the road safety statistics for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency dating back some considerable time, and my source is the STATS19 data adjusted for changes in reporting systems. There were 46 KSI—killed or seriously injured—casualties on an adjusted basis in 2022, compared with 138 in 2009. We all accept that all the numbers are too high. There is much criticism of both the local authority and this Government, but I gently point out that Labour was in government in 2009. There is a significant difference, and the number has been in double figures since 2013. One can bandy around statistics, but it is clear that the number has come down significantly.
There are a couple of key points to note. First, there has clearly been significant investment in North Yorkshire with the A59 Kex Gill scheme, the A164 Jock’s Lodge junction improvement, the A1237 York outer ring road dualling and the A1079 improvement scheme. I merely make the point that those road improvements have inevitably improved safety.
Andrew Jones
The Minister will have seen that, yesterday, York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority was allocated £380 million from the local transport fund. When we have a local Mayor in place, could that money be used to fund road safety improvements through capital projects?
Guy Opperman
The answer is yes, quite simply. It is legitimate to say that this new money for areas across the country, which was announced only yesterday, is a result of the Prime Minister’s decision on the second leg of High Speed 2. A £4.7 billion, seven-year local transport fund has been made available to a large number of local authorities outside the city regions—city regions receive city region sustainable transport settlements—in the north and midlands.
The LTF includes £2.5 billion for local authorities in the north and £2.2 billion for local authorities in the midlands, and that funding will be available from 1 April 2025. This allows local authorities and combined authorities to plan and set their processes, to consult in the appropriate way and then to deliver.
The York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority will receive £379 million—I correct my hon. Friend by £1 million—from the local transport fund, which will be game changing. There is much criticism of the local authority, but I met Keane Duncan, local representatives and Members of Parliament when I visited the region at the beginning of January. I was impressed by their commitment to try to do transformational work for North Yorkshire, which includes making the case for further funding. As my hon. Friend outlined, we have been delighted to set forth and provide that. It can bring about road improvements, pelican crossings, road safety measures and traffic-calming measures, and can address other particular points. The guidance will be published shortly, but the fact that it is dramatic new money to assist with specific transport policies can only be welcomed.
I wish to make a few extra points. Road safety is determined, fundamentally, by individual drivers. We should all acknowledge that we can throw brickbats at local authorities or Government, but we require drivers to change their ways. When my hon. Friend was in the Department for Transport, he instituted changes to the highway code and to the driving test. The test that those of us of more advanced years took is dramatically different from the one taken by someone of more recent years, and the highway code is also dramatically different. It includes a hierarchy of road users and makes it very clear that there is a greater degree of reliance upon safety; we are conscious that the driver needs to be better qualified. There is no comparison between the old test and the new test. That has made a difference, which can be seen in the reduction in the numbers that we see in the safety statistics. That is just the tip of the iceberg, and I wish to set out some of the other Government interventions that have been made.
The safer roads fund has invested £47.5 million to fund 27 schemes, taking the total funding to tackle our most dangerous roads to £147.5 million over 83 schemes since 2017. We have made interventions to legislate to address some of the most dangerous activity on our roads. Clearly, the rules on mobile phones have changed. We have also increased the sentence for causing death by dangerous driving, or careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, from 14 years’ to life imprisonment. We have increased the disqualification period for those causing death by dangerous driving or death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs from two years to five.
We have also undertaken a number of projects to improve the safety of our roads, including the roads policing review, whereby the number of forces putting road policing in their police and crime plans has increased from 15 to 42, with 30 now including road safety. Roads policing has been a strategic policing requirement since February 2023. That sounds techy but it genuinely makes a difference. Our Project RADAR is a systematic investigation that is creating new opportunities to combine and compare data across Departments, arm’s length bodies and policing. That is identifying and intercepting the most dangerous vehicles on our roads. I could go on.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
This is a wonderful debate and I commend the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) for bringing it to the Floor of the House. I thank the Minister for permitting me to intervene. He will be very aware of my interest in the increase in insurance premiums, as we had a Westminster Hall debate on that last week. People are now deciding not to insure their vehicle and still go on the road, which is increasing risk. Does he agree that action is needed to ensure that we support young drivers to get on the roads, but to do so safely? Will he further consider the graduated driver licensing scheme, which I believe would help with that safety element for young people?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Lady is continuing in a rich tradition established by her illustrious colleague the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We miss him in the debate today, but we take her as a very able replacement. Her debate last week was attended by a number of colleagues and I have had a chance to read it; I should have been responding to it, but I happened to be responding to the Adjournment debate in this place at the same time and, as we all know, nobody can be in two places at the same time in the House of Commons, so I apologise, but the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), sat in for me at that debate.
I will take away the comments that the hon. Lady made today and in last week’s debate, and write to her in more detail, if she would be so gracious as to allow me to do so. I take on board that there are clearly ongoing issues in respect of insurance. We are working with insurance companies; there have been issues around raising the price of insurance that are, quite frankly, beyond the Government’s control. She makes some legitimate points on the matter, and we want to address those that she raised both in the debate last week and today.
Let me back to the points made by the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty. There are certain key campaigns; changes to the highway code and driving tests are key, because we are trying to change drivers’ behaviour. That is the most important thing. We can rail against individual pieces of road, but changing the behaviour of drivers is the real way to improve road safety. The Department for Transport’s THINK! campaign continues to target the most at-risk group. Its aim is to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads by changing attitudes and behaviours.
I could go on in more detail, but I will make a couple of final points. The safer roads fund has undertaken key projects in North Yorkshire, including £900,000 for the A167, £615,000 for the A682, £7 million for the A684 and £2.9 million for the A6108. Those are substantial investments that the Government have made in the past. Substantial investment will also follow yesterday’s announcement, which makes this debate all the more relevant.
To conclude, I congratulate the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty on securing his first debate. He raises important points for his local community, and I am certain they will be taken on board. I would gently push back on the points he makes about local statistics, the actions of his local authority and the complexity of the issues. The key point is that it is in all our interests to try to improve road safety up and down the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Paternity Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury (Mike Wood)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Paternity Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. The draft regulations were laid on 10 January 2024. I am pleased to be here today to debate these measures, which will benefit families by working alongside the paternity pay regulations to provide valuable additional flexibility to paternity leave, effectively making it easier and more useful for parents while putting minimal burdens on businesses.
Currently, eligible employed fathers and partners are entitled to one or two consecutive weeks of statutory paternity leave and pay to care for their baby or to support the mother. This must be taken within eight weeks of birth or placement for adoption. The regulations recognise the importance of fathers and partners spending valuable time with their children in the first year following birth or adoption and will make it easier for parents to take their full paternity entitlement.
Some 64% of respondents to the 2019 consultation, “Good Work Plan: Proposals to support families”, wanted greater flexibility in when and how paternity leave could be taken. Allowing fathers and partners to take their leave up to a year following birth or adoption was the most commonly suggested measure to accomplish that. Our changes will provide that much-needed flexibility and will fulfil our 2019 manifesto commitment to make paternity leave easier to take.
Our first change will allow fathers and partners to take their leave in non-consecutive blocks. Currently, only one block of leave can be taken, which can be either one or two weeks. Our change will remove that barrier by enabling parents to take two non-consecutive weeks of leave. We hope that providing fathers and partners with the flexibility to take their two weeks of leave non-consecutively means that they will find it easier to use their full entitlement.
For some parents, taking two weeks of leave in one go is challenging due to pressures of work or other reasons. Enabling parents to take their leave non-consecutively means that they can take it at a time that works best for them and could lead to an increase in parents taking their second week of paternity leave.
Our second change will allow fathers and partners to take their leave and pay at any point in the first year after the birth or placement for adoption of their child. This represents a big increase from the eight weeks in which parents currently have to take their leave following birth or adoption. This change gives parents more flexibility to take their paternity leave at a time that works best for their family.
For example, this change could enable a father or partner to take time off work to be the primary care giver when the mother returns to work. This is important, as evidence shows that fathers who spend time solo parenting are more likely to play a greater role in caring for their children in later years.
Our third change will shorten the notice period required for each period of leave. The new regulations will require an employee to give only four weeks’ notice prior to each period of leave, instead of 14 weeks before the expected week of childbirth. This means that a parent can decide when to take their leave at shorter notice to accommodate the changing needs of their families. This will apply to parents in birth and surrogacy scenarios, as the notification rules are different for adopters. It will also allow fathers and partners to change the number and dates of blocks of leave they plan to take. Responses to the “Good Work Plan” consultation show that both employer and employee groups considered that to be a fair and practical option.
The Government have in place a range of leave and pay entitlements to support parents to balance their work and family responsibilities in a way that works best for them. For families who would prefer a father or partner to take a longer period of leave, shared parental leave may be available. This entitlement allows eligible parents to share up to 50 weeks’ leave and up to 37 weeks of pay between them. Parents can choose whether to take time off together or to stagger their leave and pay.
The Government are also introducing new entitlements to enhance the current provision for working parents, including additional protections against redundancy, which will be available from 6 April for pregnant women and parents who are returning to work after a period of eligible parental leave. There are also improvements in flexible working. From 6 April, employees will be able to request flexible working from their first day of employment, and the new entitlement of carer’s leave will give unpaid carers one week of leave from work from their first day in a job. That can be used to provide care or to make arrangements for the provision of care for a dependant with a long-term care need.
We are also introducing new leave and pay entitlements for parents with children who spend time in neonatal care. That will give each eligible employed parent up to 12 weeks of additional paid leave on top of their existing entitlements if their baby is admitted to neonatal care in its first month of life. That will ensure that parents no longer find themselves in the incredibly difficult position of having to choose between risking their job and spending time with their baby during such a stressful time. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The birth of a child, and their early years, are crucial periods for the child and their development. They are special and very important for parents to be involved in. Parental leave is crucial to making this period a smoother, healthier and more beneficial time for parents and newborns alike. I welcome these reforms, which make parental leave more flexible and thereby open up the opportunity for increased parental involvement in the child’s first year. These changes are a step in the right direction, and we will not stand in the way of measures that facilitate greater take-up of important workers’ rights, particularly those that will help more women to return to work after having a child.
The current paternity leave system is too rigid: leave must be taken in one block of no more than two consecutive weeks within a period of eight weeks after the child’s birth and the employer must be notified 14 weeks beforehand. We will all be familiar with cases in our families and constituencies of how that can be a barrier to parents, particularly fathers and partners, who want to take that leave. It is limiting for them, and I am glad that these changes will go some way towards making improvements.
Although I welcome these changes, I still have concerns that this will not go far enough to meet the stated aims of the policy in the impact assessment, which is to allow
“more fathers/partners to play a greater role in caring for their children”.
It is a shame that this opportunity has not been used to reform the failed shared parental leave system. In October 2020, the Women’s Budget Group commission on a gender-equal economy noted:
“At the root of women’s disadvantage in the labour market is inequality in unpaid work…75% of mothers face pregnancy or maternity-related discrimination”
Along with many other campaign groups, it has reiterated the need for implementing equal parental and caring leave policies as a crucial step in addressing this.
If the Government are committed to encouraging fathers and partners to play a more active role in lessening the burden on mothers, doing this would no doubt have a greater impact. Take-up of shared parental leave is measured in two ways: as the proportion of eligible fathers who take a shared parental leave each year, or as the proportion of new mothers starting statutory paid maternity leave each year who used the shared parental leave scheme to transfer some of that paid leave to the child’s father. The second method is more meaningful because the size of the pool of eligible fathers is unknown. According to Maternity Action, in 2021 and 2022, only 2% of mothers used shared parental leave to transfer leave to a partner. That figure shows that shared parental leave is not reducing the domestic burden on women. It is not helping women to return to the workplace, and it continues to restrict the involvement of fathers and partners in this crucial time in their child’s life. The Government’s consultation on shared parental leave concluded that the system was found to be “too complicated” for many respondents to use and there was a lack of awareness about the available leave. Despite receiving that report, the Government stated:
“We are not proposing any changes to shared parental leave or unpaid parental leave at this time.”
Can the Minister explain why the Government refuse to take further action to reform shared parental leave?
Today’s changes in the policy area stem from the 2019 Conservative party manifesto, which committed to
“look at ways to make it easier for fathers to take paternity leave.”
It is only now, five years later and just before another general election, that that manifesto pledge is being looked at. The consultation took place in 2019 and the response was published in June 2023. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why there was such a long delay, which has meant that we have not seen the benefits of the changes that could have happened sooner. The delays to this crucial legislation speak to a wider context in which the Government have not prioritised the importance of addressing workers’ rights.
The Minister has a great track record of being persistent on issues for which he has responsibility. I hope that he will speak to his colleagues to ensure that we continue to build on what has been announced and done today to address the wider issues affecting parental leave and the discrimination faced, particularly by women, and make the much-needed reforms to ensure that shared parental leave in practice derives the benefits that are desperately needed for parents.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Mr Hosie. On behalf of my party, I very much welcome the statutory instrument. It is important to recognise that we are broadly congratulatory on the greater flexibilities, but I will mark a waypoint on the public record about how far the UK still lags behind other jurisdictions.
I will give two examples across the North sea. On the length of parental leave, Norway allows 49 weeks of parental leave, with 15 weeks reserved for each parent. Sweden allows 480 days of parental leave, with each parent, if there are two, allowed 240 of those days. While we recognise the flexibility that this legislation will bring, let us not forget how far behind many other prosperous northern European societies we are. With that said, anything that makes it easier to take paternity leave and encourages its uptake must be a good thing. To that extent, we very much welcome the flexibility brought by the legislation on the timing of the leave, the notice required to be given in order to take up that leave and the flexibility in how it is taken.
To speak personally as a father of two, when I took some parental leave after the birth of my first child, the first week certainly was not terribly restful, and getting back to work was actually a blessed relief in many respects. The poor girl was tongue-tied. That was not noticed in the hospital, and feeding her became far more of a challenge that it ought to have been, which was to her great detriment. However, having flexibilities in the legislation might have helped us to navigate that. At the time, I was a local authority councillor; I had a great deal more flexibility than many other people—certainly many other fathers—in how I could manage my workload to balance home life and get as much of those precious early few weeks with both my children after they were born as I could. I certainly benefited from that, and I hope that as a family unit we all benefit from it going forward. As the Minister said, there is a considerable body of evidence showing that when fathers are involved in caring for their children and in their upbringing, a range of better outcomes result across the course of everyone’s lives.
I will veer off momentarily to say how important this legislation is in tackling gender inequalities. At Prime Minister’s questions on International Women’s Day, I highlighted a report by the pension firm Scottish Widows that showed that women were retiring with a pension pot worth £123,000 less on average than men. Further, a woman aged 25 today would be on track to retire with a pension pot £100,000 less than her male counterpart.
There is no doubt that a whole range of reasons that contribute to that, including discrimination and attitudes in the workplace, a large part of which come back to the differences that emerge after people go on to start a family. Anything that recalibrates attitudes and which not just allows but encourages men to play a more active role in the upbringing of their children, in particular to get involved at that early stage, hopefully breeding good habits that go on as their children grow up, has to be a good thing.
There is no single measure that will tackle that gender inequality, particularly that gap. Rather, a series of small measures such as this one will start to make the difference. I very much welcome the flexibilities in the regulations, but we need to remember that there are other places that are doing this much better than us in the overall amount of leave for parents of whatever gender, and I firmly believe that we should aspire to improve that as well.
Kevin Hollinrake
Before I respond to hon. Members, may I apologise for the late change in Committee attendance? The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow made an interesting point and I welcome her challenge. She mentioned pregnancy and maternity discrimination. As I said in my speech, we have recently legislated for that, to provide more protections in pregnancy and on return to work. On the take-up of shared parental leave, those are very much a floor and not a ceiling, and many employers go much further in both the private and the public sector. Take-up of shared parental leave is in line with expectations and, indeed, has doubled in recent years.
There are obvious reasons for not going further. We tread carefully when placing extra burdens on business and we are clear about that. A strong labour market is in workers’ as well as employers’ interests, so it is about striking a balance. In addition to these regulations and others, we have brought in measures that create extra burdens for businesses, such as flexible working, day-one rights, carer’s leave and neonatal care. Those are on top of other burdens that businesses face, such as cost of living pressures and the rise in the national living wage, which has increased by historic amounts. We believe that we have struck the right balance.
The Opposition may differ and set out, as they have, to go much further if they are ever in government. I am interested in their intention to have a day-one right to unfair dismissal. Employers should look carefully at that as it might upset the delicate balance between workers and employers, to the detriment of workers. We have to guard against that.
On delays, we would have liked to introduce the regulations more quickly, but it is fair to say that we have been dealing with covid and its aftermath. That is not just about the administration of some of the measures but the impacts on business, and we have to tread carefully in that regard.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon, made some interesting points, and asked why we cannot go much further on parental leave, citing Norway and Sweden. Looking at work by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the average tax take in Norway and Sweden is 43% of GDP. In comparison, it was 32% of GDP in the UK in 2021. The hon. Member may want to go 13% higher with our taxing of businesses and people; we do not and that is very clear. It is clearly the direction of travel in Scotland under the SNP. Under our Government, however, we want to keep taxes low. Where there are those kinds of measures, they have to be paid for by somebody, and inevitably that is the taxpayer. We therefore think we should tread carefully.
We support the regulations, which deliver on our manifesto commitment. We want the UK to be one of the best places to work and to start and grow a business. We want to build skills, increase productivity and move to a high-wage economy that delivers this ambition. We will continue to prioritise labour-market policies, such as these changes to paternity leave, which have the potential to benefit the most people, the most firms and the most jobs while at the same time ensuring we balance burdens on business and taxpayers. The changes to paternity leave brought forth today will advance our progress towards those objectives. I thank hon. Members for their contributions and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The instrument clarifies requirements on trustees of authorised collective money purchase schemes, which are more commonly known as collective defined contribution or CDC schemes. The Government believe CDC schemes have an important role in the future of pensions in this country. CDC schemes offer members a seamless transition to the regular retirement income that we know many want, without the need for complex financial decisions that many are ill equipped to make.
The Government want to ensure that as many savers as possible can take advantage of the numerous benefits of CDC. By pooling longevity and investment risk across their membership, CDC schemes can shield savers from much of the uncertainty faced by members of DC schemes, which allows the CDC schemes to target higher investment returns. As part of our Mansion House reforms, that will help to unlock capital for our most promising industries and increase returns for savers, supporting growth across the wider economy.
The Pension Schemes Act 2021 provided the legislative framework for single or connected employer CDC schemes to be set up in the UK. Those regulations came into force on 1 August 2022, enabling such schemes to apply for authorisation from the Pensions Regulator. Throughout the development of our policy, the Government have engaged with stakeholders on how best to deliver CDC in the UK and invited challenge and scrutiny. In that vein, we have been helpfully advised that two areas of the current framework do not meet our published policy intent. CDC schemes can only succeed if there is confidence in this new type of provision. The technical changes made by this instrument ensure that prospective schemes are set up to work as we intend from the start.
Turning to the first amendment made by this instrument, the existing regulations make provision in relation to the annual actuarial valuation and benefit adjustment process for CDC schemes. That means that, each year, benefits are reviewed and adjusted where required, so that the value of assets held is in balance with the projected costs of benefits. It is important that a balance is maintained between the value of the available assets of the scheme and the amount needed to provide the target benefits to members on an ongoing basis.
The policy intention is to provide that, where a cut to benefits must be made due to an economic downturn, the trustees of the CDC scheme can smooth the impact of the benefits cuts on members over three years. That is called a multi-annual reduction. The mechanism helps to reduce volatility and to ensure that current and future benefits remain relatively stable, in contrast with individual DC schemes, which have no pension smoothing mechanism. Members of those schemes experience the full impact of falls in investments as they happen, which can lead to a significant reduction in the value of their retirement savings immediately. For savers closer to retirement, that may be unrecoverable.
The intention is that, where a market recovers during a multi-annual reduction, increases in benefits resulting from a subsequent annual valuation would first be offset, in whole or in part, against the remaining planned cuts under the multi-year adjustment before any remaining increase can be applied as an increase to future benefits in the normal way. If we did not do that, the benefits of the recovery would likely go to future pensioners. That would run against our principle that, as far as possible, all members—that is, current pensioners, those who are currently accruing benefits and those who are not contributing, but have rights to a future pension from the scheme—should all share in the upsides and downsides at the same time. The instrument also ensures that information about any multi-annual reduction and subsequent offsetting must be reported to the Pensions Regulator in the actuarial valuation to ensure proper oversight.
The second amendment ensures that, when a scheme winds up, a beneficiary’s accrued rights are transferred to suitable pension schemes or alternative payment arrangements. A key element of the wind-up process is calculating the share of the fund for each person who is a beneficiary at that time. The scheme rules may provide that that person be a member, but could include a spouse, a child or a person financially dependent on the deceased beneficiary. Our intention has always been that if that beneficiary dies during the winding-up period, the pot allocated to them will not be extinguished but be reallocated among their successors, where a scheme’s rules provide for that.
In conclusion, CDC schemes are an important addition to the UK pensions landscape. When well designed and well run, they have the potential to provide a good retirement outcome for members. The draft instrument will provide clarity for schemes moving forward by more accurately reflecting our intent.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
As usual, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Harris. The Minister has covered all the technical details, so I will not repeat them, even though they are important to why we will not be opposing the draft instrument.
As we have heard, the instrument makes technical amendments to clarify two areas of regulations relating to collective defined contribution pension schemes. The first is to mitigate the impact on members when reductions to benefits need to be made. The second is to provide clarity on the categories of flexi-access drawdown fund to which accrued rights in a CDC scheme that is being wound down can be transferred.
We will not be opposing the measure, and we hope that it represents a step forward in getting CDC schemes up and running. To date, only one pension scheme has been granted CDC authorisation—the Royal Mail collective pension plan, which my former colleague Jack Dromey worked very hard to secure. The journey up to this point has been challenging, and I commend those in Royal Mail and the union representatives who were able to reach that milestone agreement. It is important that the remaining regulatory hurdles are cleared as soon as possible so that they can actually launch the CDC scheme. I welcome recent progress in that area, particularly from the Department for Work and Pensions side. However, I understand that new tax legislation and guidance is still outstanding. I hope that will be resolved in the upcoming Budget. From his conversations with colleagues in the Treasury, could the Minister confirm whether that is the case?
To conclude, we support efforts to get CDC schemes off the ground as soon as possible, so, as I have said, we will not oppose the draft instrument. I know that many in the pension sector are eagerly awaiting the launch of the Royal Mail scheme; I hope that that is now in the very near future, and I look forward to seeing its progress.
Paul Maynard
I echo the hon. Lady’s comments on Royal Mail, the late Jack Dromey and the Communication Workers Union ushering the CDC initial vehicle almost to its delivery. I think it is coming very soon—in just a few weeks, if not months.
I can confirm that we have worked closely with the Treasury to ensure that we get in place all the wider regulations needed, particularly for multi-employer trusts, which are slightly more complex than Royal Mail, and indeed even those that might cover a whole profession with a range of similar characteristics. That work is ongoing with the Treasury, and I stress that the draft regulations are part of it. On that note, having answered that point, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Child Maintenance Service
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Child Maintenance Service.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating this debate, prompted by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions inquiry on the Child Maintenance Service. We published our report last April, and the Government their response in July. The Child Maintenance Service, which I shall refer to as the CMS, was introduced in 2012 to replace the Child Support Agency.
Child maintenance is paid in three ways: non-statutory, family-based arrangements, in which the CMS plays no part; direct pay, where the CMS calculates the amount due and draws up a schedule, but the parents themselves arrange payment; and, thirdly, collect and pay, where the CMS calculates the maintenance owed, collects it from the paying parent and transfers it to the receiving parent. For direct pay, there was, until yesterday I think, a £20 application fee, waived for under-19s and in cases of domestic abuse. For collect and pay, the paying parent pays an extra 20% of the maintenance owed and the receiving parent receives just 96% of what they would have under direct pay.
The Department for Work and Pensions reported 2.5 million separated families in Great Britain in March 2022, with 4 million children in those families. The National Audit Office says that about half receive at least some child maintenance, and one in three has an arrangement that is satisfied in full. Of those with any arrangement, around 500,000 were on direct pay or collect and pay, but nearly 1 million had a family-based, non-statutory arrangement. The National Audit Office made the point that take up of the CMS has been lower than expected, for reasons that the Department does not know, and that setting up the CMS has not increased the number of effective child maintenance arrangements.
Our report made recommendations about the calculation of child maintenance. The maintenance assessed for some parents—I think this is now widely acknowledged—is unaffordable in some cases, causing serious hardship. The bands for calculating maintenance are in primary legislation, so it is hard to change them. Christine Davies, who is honorary senior lecturer in mathematics at Royal Holloway, University of London, told us that because inflation over the past quarter of a century has not been allowed for, someone earning £15,000 today should, according to the scheme’s original intentions, be paying £364 per year in maintenance, but is actually required to pay almost 10 times that or £3,500 per year.
The Callan review called for the formula to include both parents’ income, instead of only the paying parent’s. The Government rejected that, but said they would explore the possibility in their review of the calculation formula. The Government have committed—I welcome this—to a “fundamental review” of the child maintenance calculation. The Minister in the Lords told us in correspondence that the review would be wide ranging and take some time. When the Minister winds up, will he tell us whether we can expect changes before the election?
This is urgent. We have heard of paying parents taking their own lives, because the demands being made of them are simply impossible for them to meet. I was in touch yesterday with Mr Ian Briggs, whose son, Gavin Briggs, took his own life. Mr Ian Briggs told me that on 26 June 2020, the CMS sent his son a letter telling him he owed nearly £16,000. His son took his life a few days after that on 1 July, and on that day his account showed less than £4,000 in arrears. Mr Briggs asks:
“How can this be possible?”
He has had no answer to that question.
The CMS was established to deliver more effective maintenance arrangements, but there is little data on how many direct pay arrangements are effective. We do not know how much child maintenance is not being paid. We asked DWP to monitor the effectiveness of the arrangements proactively—for example, with yearly surveys of parents with direct pay arrangements—but the Government said no to that. My question to the Minister is: what are the Government’s plans for monitoring that for research on the subject? Does the Department think that it understands the effectiveness of direct pay? If so, what evidence is it using? We do not think that it does. How many direct pay arrangements switched to collect and pay or family-based arrangements in the first 12 months? Does the Department know why that is happening?
The Committee also raised concerns about collect and pay. About half of paying parents with those arrangements do not pay or pay less than they should. We heard that enforcement is slow and often ineffective, so we welcomed the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023. That was taken through the House by the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who I am delighted is in her place this morning and who makes a distinguished contribution to the work of the Committee. The Act aims to speed up enforcement by allowing CMS to make administrative liability orders when a paying parent has not paid and deduction of earnings is not appropriate. Previously, CMS needed to apply to a court for a liability order, taking up to 22 weeks. The secondary legislation on that will specify the notice that CMS must give to the paying parent before making an order—seven days for those living in the UK and 28 days for those overseas—and set out the process for paying parents who want to challenge a liability order. The Government published their response to the consultation on that two weeks ago, on 12 February. Can the Minister tell us when the secondary legislation will be introduced?
Another set of recommendations in our report was about domestic abuse. In October 2021, the Government asked Dr Samantha Callan, who I already mentioned briefly, to conduct an independent review of CMS processes and procedures for supporting parents subject to domestic abuse. Her report was published in January 2023, and the Government accepted eight of its 10 recommendations. On the first recommendation, the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 received Royal Assent last July; I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) in her place this morning as well. Where there is evidence of domestic abuse, a parent can set up collect and pay at the start instead of first trying direct pay, so the two parents need not be in contact. Last September, a written answer said that bringing the Act into force would require consultation and secondary legislation. Can the Minister tell us what the timetable is for those?
Our report asked for a timetable for all the work arising from the Callan review. One strand of that is a pilot of single, named caseworkers for complex domestic abuse cases. In the written answer that I referred to earlier, the Minister said that the Department had started a pilot and it would be evaluated. Can the Minister tell us when that will be and how the pilots went?
I am worried about that, because yesterday I spoke to Rachel Parkin, who gave evidence to the Committee’s inquiry. She is an abuse victim. The former CMS chief executive apologised to Rachel for how her case was handled, assured her that she would be on collect and pay permanently and that she would be in the pilot of a single caseworker. She had a single caseworker for a period of eight months. Her calls in that period were automatically routed to the right caseworker—it worked very well—and she made real headway in resolving long-standing difficulties, but now, without any explanation, she is being put back on direct pay. She has simply been told by the service that it is not bound by promises made to her by a former chief executive. She will be back to random caseworkers and the debilitating need to go through her story every time, which so many people talked to us about during our inquiry.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Member in full flow, but while he is talking about the failures to give adequate support to people who report that they have been living in an abusive relationship, may I ask whether he was as concerned as I was to realise how completely unaware CMS senior management seem to be that very often the abuse or controlling behaviour starts only after the relationship has ended, and that until about a year ago that was something that just did not seem to have occurred to anybody at the CMS?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Member makes a very important point, and I think he is right. I very much welcome his work and that of his colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee in drawing attention to a number of these problems.
I ask the Minister whether the idea of a single caseworker has now been abandoned. Is a domestic abuse team still in place or has that whole initiative, which the CMS talked to the Public Accounts Committee about last year, I think, now been given up? Why is it that someone such as Rachel Parkin has gone back to the arrangements that she was promised she would not?
In our report, we also raised concerns about paying parents who fraudulently attempt to reduce their maintenance assessment and about the fact that the Department does not estimate levels of fraud and error. The Public Accounts Committee, in its 2022 report— two years ago—said that the Department had
“not taken responsibility for detecting child maintenance fraud”
and had shifted the burden to receiving parents, who were expected to challenge false assessments. The Committee pointed out that a paying parent who was notified of being investigated for understating their income would no doubt guess that their ex-partner had reported them, and as a result, the Committee warned, many receiving parents would not report. I think that the Committee was right to make that point. In response, the Department said that it used risk profiling and threat scanning to target fraud in the child maintenance system and that it already had proportionate and cost-effective controls. Can the Minister tell us what exactly risk profiling and threat scanning are in practice?
We recommended that there should be specialist caseworkers for cases in which the paying parent’s income is from self-employment. In correspondence, the Minister in the other place who has responsibility for this part of the Department’s work, Lord Younger, pushed back on that, on the grounds of “funding implications”. However, the Department has said that it will legislate to ensure that unearned income, such as savings, investments, dividends and property income, is taken into account automatically when maintenance is calculated, to make it more difficult for
“the small number of parents who avoid paying the correct amount.”
Can this Minister tell us when that legislation will be introduced?
The Government have just introduced, as I mentioned earlier, secondary legislation to remove the £20 fee for all parents who apply for a statutory maintenance arrangement. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that took effect yesterday as planned. The same secondary legislation also introduced new powers for the Secretary of State to write off maintenance arrears under £7 in certain circumstances.
Finally, I want to make this point. There are, as all of us in the House well know, unending complaints about very poor customer service from the CMS. It is very difficult to get through; calls go unanswered. There are incorrect assessments, and people are having to tell their story again from scratch on every call. The service does have a very tough job, against a backdrop of pain and conflict; it is very difficult to provide a good service in that situation, but can the Minister offer us any prospect that the improvements needed will be made?
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Seven colleagues wish to speak. You have six minutes each. If you are on the list to speak and you intervene, that might reduce your time to four or five minutes if you are at the end of the list. I call Dr Thérèse Coffey—six minutes, please.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles. I congratulate the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), on securing this important debate.
I recognise the importance of the Child Maintenance Service in trying to help children in low-income households. I give credit to Arlene Sugden, the former director of the CMS: she did a tremendous job and made a lot of changes. It is sad to hear that some of the reforms that she brought in might now have slid, but we should recognise that thanks to the CMS, more than £1 billion a year has made its way to the parents who look after the child for the majority of the time.
Several of us will have distressing stories. When parents come to us, they and their child are struggling. It is terrible to see how children are often used as pawns in a dysfunctional or non-existing relationship. That is why I really care about the Child Maintenance Service. In my time in the Department, I worked with my noble Friend Baroness Stedman-Scott to see what we could do to improve the experience for parents. Our priority was to reduce child poverty. With only one parent working, perhaps not full time, extra income from child maintenance was critical to boosting opportunities for the child.
I am conscious that in the majority of situations, whether they involve hiding assets or getting someone else to do a DNA test to avoid being identified as a parent, it is women and children who are affected. Men are also affected, however; I do not want to dismiss that in any way. Some of the most harrowing cases that I have heard have been those in which a father has been left with the children while the mother has been trying to avoid responsibility and, in some instances, lying to my face. Nevertheless, the Department continues to fund the Reducing Parental Conflict programme. The Child Maintenance Service is never seen to take sides between the two parents; it is seen to be on the side of the child. That is a vital approach.
I have already laid out how the issue matters to me. We started a strategy; it is good to see significant elements of that. I was delighted when my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) took legislation through the House on the issue, with the support of the Government. As the right hon. Member for East Ham says, we are still waiting to bring into force these important Acts of Parliament with the important changes that are needed, and we are still waiting for commencement orders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud says, it is vital for section 25 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 to come into force.
I appreciate that the Minister is very competent, but this matter is not in his brief; he is speaking for my noble Friend Viscount Younger and for the Government more broadly. In July 2022, the Department issued a call for a consultation—not a call for evidence—on enacting section 28 of the 2008 Act, which is about curfew orders. We have still not had a response to that consultation.
By the way, it is perfectly acceptable for a new Secretary of State to come in and change the approach taken by their predecessors and different Prime Ministers. I have no issue with that, but it is important that we hear from the Government what their intentions are. I am not a huge fan of doing lots of pilots. The Government have put forward legislation and Parliament has voted for it, so we should get on with putting it in place. That is one of my key messages. I will take this matter directly to the Minister when I meet him in March, but it could be useful to pre-empt some the questions.
One thing I discovered during our deep dive is that, for people who are not working or are on benefits, there is a “nominal” payment—it is actually quite a significant one for someone who does not really have an income—of £7 a week, to be paid from their benefits to the receiving parent. There are also challenges with universal credit when not everyone is not working, and there may be different elements of income support. One challenge with child maintenance is that those who do not pay everything may end up paying nothing, so over time they end up accruing money to which the child should be entitled. We need to look again at that. We also need to focus a lot more on work coaches getting people into work so that they can start paying for their children.
I will keep to my six minutes, Sir Charles. In essence, we need parents to cough up the cash for their children, and the Child Maintenance Service needs to facilitate that. I am glad that it seems to have dropped the idea that it would potentially do all collect and pay. The state does not need to be involved in every interaction between two parents, but when parents ask it to get involved it must do so to the best of its ability. I look forward to the commencement orders getting under way so we can make sure that children are put first.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Thank you for being so helpful to the Chair and setting a fine example.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) on his speech. I will comment not only from a Northern Ireland point of view, but from a personal point of view and on behalf of my constituents.
We brought in the Child Maintenance Service to ensure that when a parent—a mother or a father—leaves the family unit, the child is cared for. It is so important. We deal with these cases nearly every week in my office. Unfortunately, they are not always good to hear about, because the contribution—in most cases from the father, but in some cases from the mother—is not always up to scratch.
The Government give parents a small amount of money to help with childcare, but not many people can raise a child on less than £25 a week. Subsequently, it is incumbent on parents to do the bulk of the financial giving. For some parents, child tax credit helps to fill the gap, yet when there is a relationship breakdown, finances are inevitably strained. Instead of just one rent or one mortgage, there are now two. There are two sets of heating bills and two sets of electricity, yet the income has not doubled. I completely understand that it cannot all be done, but there can never, ever be an excuse for a parent not providing for their child.
The CMS was set up to facilitate things when a relationship breakdown means that an agreement cannot be reached. Its role is to ensure that help is there to work out how to pay the bills and provide for the children. That is the theory, and it is all great, but in practice I have parents coming to my office upset because their partner will not meet their obligations. I know of one who has holidays, nights out, a big car and a lavish lifestyle, and he is absolutely suntanned to the eyeballs—this is all detailed on social media! Everybody else seems to know what he is doing, but the CMS seems not to. I find that quite frustrating. What is he paying? He is paying £5 a week in maintenance. How can that be right? The computer will say that people are paying what they are able to pay, but the reality is that they have turned their back not only on their relationship, but on their child and on their obligation. Their life is so expensive. It hits you right between the eyes when you see that.
The most recent statistics that I have found, for Northern Ireland’s separate but very similar system, show that the compliance rate for paying parents on collect and pay remained relatively stable from September 2020 to September 2023. Between 75% and 83% of parents paid some child maintenance; in the quarter ending September 2023, compliance was at 79%. It is interesting that one in five parents are not paying towards their offspring, but to me the telling phrase is “some child maintenance”. That £5 a week example shows a real shortfall. How much is “some”? Is it £5 short? Is it £5 a week? It could mean the difference between a child who can afford to have swimming lessons in school and a child who has to sit on the sidelines and is made different from their peers because one parent has decided, “No, I’m not paying that.” That is absolutely unacceptable.
It is a difference that we need to know about. We cannot accept a reporting system that appears to say that any amount paid is a victory. Try explaining that victory to a struggling single parent whose mum is giving money out of her pension to keep the lights on! That is the reality for the CMS.
There is a mechanism by which those who are not paying can be taken to court. A 2018 review of the Northern Ireland child maintenance reform programme, commissioned by the Department for Communities, found that from the introduction of enforcement charges in 2014 to December 2016, £7,200 had been received in enforcement charges. I suggest that there needs to be a bit more action on that. On collect and pay, the review noted:
“Collection charges were introduced in August 2014. Up to December 2016, £432,100 have been received in collection charges from paying parents with £83,400 received from receiving parents.”
Part of the problem with parents pursuing CMS is that they speak to a different officer every time. How many times have we, as elected representatives, had to explain the whole case again to a different officer? If it is going to be one officer, that is okay, except for one thing—it does not work out either.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The point about case officers not being fully au fait with the issue is an extremely frustrating one that more and more parents are describing. They are experiencing delays on the phone, and then they have to start from scratch to explain their case from A to Z. It is extremely frustrating for all concerned.
Jim Shannon
It certainly is, and that is one of the problems. The Minister is a very compassionate and understanding Minister, and hopefully he will come back with the answers that we all seek. I am very keen to hear his thoughts on how we can we ensure better continuity.
Reforms have been happening, thanks to the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie). Like other hon. Members, I want to thank her personally, because it was her determination and commitment that enabled the Department for Work and Pensions to impose tougher sanctions on non-paying parents such as forcing the sale of property and taking away passports and driving licences through a quick and simple administrative process. The Child Support (Enforcement) Act was designed to see families being paid faster, as it gives the DWP the power to use a liability order to reclaim unpaid child maintenance instead of applying to court and waiting for up to 20 weeks. My goodness me! How frustrating to wait that long for something to be done.
I want to keep to my six minutes, Sir Charles, so these will be my last few sentences. The reform is great, but more is needed. I look to the Minister to see what improvements can be made throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s thoughts on discussions between the DWP and Northern Ireland to ensure that in a bitter breakdown, the child is not the one ultimately paying the price. That is what this debate is about, and that is what we should try to achieve.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
As ever, Sir Charles, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), on securing this important debate.
The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), has made the point that when constituents come to our surgeries to discuss their Child Maintenance Service concerns, cases and complaints, it is almost invariably a very distressing meeting. I will not rehearse every case that has been brought to me, but I will highlight some issues that I have encountered recently.
A man was in tears because he simply could not get the Child Maintenance Service to adequately explain the arrears on his account. On the phone, he would be told that he owed nothing, but days later he would get a letter telling him he was several thousand pounds in arrears. A deduction from earnings order would then be attached to his employer, the Ministry of Defence. It became very difficult for him professionally, because he was not allowed to be in debt, yet whenever he spoke to the service on the phone, he was told that he was not in debt. There are complexities and confusions that still prevail within the system.
Another issue that I would like to highlight is the flip of that. There are several live cases that I keep raising with the Child Maintenance Service involving 17, 18 and 19-year-old children who are no longer in college, but whose parent is still in receipt of child benefit. The paying parent is still being asked to make contributions, yet they can produce evidence from the colleges to show that those young people are no longer attending. The parent with care is claiming that the child is still in full-time education, but the child is not. They are effectively fraudulently claiming child benefit, as a result of which the paying parent is still expected to pay their child maintenance contributions. They are not averse to supporting their children; they are just trying to make the point that this is a young person who is no longer in education. When they raise that with the CMS, the CMS takes it at face value when the parent with care says, “Yes, yes, yes—they are still attending college.” It is hugely problematic.
I think there are times in this place when we should confess our sins. Previously, for 12 months of my life, I was the Minister with responsibility for the Child Maintenance Service—a Commons Minister. I pay tribute to the Minister here today, who I know is going to do an admirable job in responding to us, but I want him to take a very strong message back to the DWP: there remains a great deal of unhappiness about how the system is or is not working.
During my time at the DWP, I was desperate to have the power to remove passports from non-paying parents. Several successive Ministers—my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), the latter of whom eventually delivered on that power—all followed in my footsteps to make the point that taking a driving licence away from a non-paying parent hampers their ability to go out to work. Taking their passport hampers their ability to take their new partner on a weekend to Paris. I know which would be more likely to be effective in my mind.
In the intervening years, we have taken only a handful of passports from non-paying parents. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who has done so much good work on this, passed me a note that told me it was seven in 2022. It is just not good enough. If we are to have powers in place, like the curfews suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) or those advocated for by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), they have to be used. We have to make the point to non-paying parents that powers exist and they are going to be used robustly. If they do not cough up for their children, they will suffer the consequences. I regret that I still do not think we are getting that message across adequately.
Finally, I have veered away from the many times when I have accompanied constituents to tribunals and sat with them while their cases were heard by telephone; I have always sought to support them. I recently had a really concerning response from the DWP about a constituent who had sought a deduction from earnings order for a parent who had not paid for years for their children. The DWP responded that it could not grant a DEO because it was not confident of the non-paying parent’s address. We know that the DWP has the powers to look at HMRC records and that it can see where someone is employed, yet it was not confident of the individual’s address.
That sends a very clear message: if anyone wishes to be a non-paying parent, then they can just disappear. If they ensure that their partner cannot trace their address, the DWP will back off. To be quite frank, we should never be in a situation where the DWP backs off. Parents have a duty to support their children and I urge the Minister to take the message back that we must redouble efforts to ensure that non-paying parents are compliant.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) on securing the debate on this important issue. The Child Maintenance Service can play a vital role in lifting children out of poverty, but despite significant improvements since 2012, further reforms are needed.
Last summer, I was delighted that my private Member’s Bill, which ensures that victims of domestic abuse can receive child maintenance without contact from their abuser, received Royal Assent. The Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 will allow the CMS to intervene in cases where abuse is evident, using its powers to collect and make payments. That set-up, “collect and pay”, is already used by about 37% of parents using the CMS. It provides extra protections for parents who have experienced domestic abuse by managing payments and avoiding the need for contact, preventing perpetrators from inflicting financial abuse and control. It builds on the CMS’s existing procedures to protect both the paying and receiving parents who are vulnerable to domestic abuse, ensuring that more children in separated families are supported.
The commencement of the 2023 Act, as already highlighted, is reliant on secondary legislation to be developed and approved. When I contacted the Minister in January, the consultation details were being finalised—perhaps this Minister can update me on that. That Act and the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023, brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), provide the basis for the CMS to act swiftly, progressing enforcement action faster with the aim of getting money to children more quickly, establishing compliance, preventing further arrears and bolstering domestic abuse protections for parents. I look forward to the secondary legislation coming into force to give effect to those two Acts as soon as possible.
However, I have a point to make about the collect and pay service: the CMS charges the paying parent 20% of the maintenance collected, and the receiving parent forgoes 4% of the collected money. It is not right that a victim of domestic abuse must effectively pay for the privilege of being abused. They should not be penalised by the fees, which should be scrapped. In addition, as per the recommendation of the Work and Pensions Committee, to help parents on low incomes there should be means testing for collect and pay fees. The fees should not apply to the lowest-income households. The children’s needs must come first, and it is important that available family moneys are for the maintenance of children to help lift them out of poverty.
Improving the effectiveness and speed of enforcement is also key. We are all aware of the fraudulent efforts of some parents who seek to avoid paying for their children, and the complication that arises when children live with both parents. For example, I have a current case with four children. Three of them live with parent A, who is not working and claims benefits, and should pay child support to parent B for one child, while one lives with parent B, who is working and pays child support to parent A for three children. Parent A has not been paying child support to parent B. Parent B cannot deduct the payment from the child support she is paying to parent A, because they are considered to be two different cases and there is no linking up. Parent B is struggling and the CMS cannot seem to get its head around it. There seems to be a need for better co-ordination within the CMS, as well as with other departments such as the family courts, to access financial information when non-resident parents are actively seeking to avoid paying maintenance. Information sharing is key, and better IT is also needed to enable joined-up enforcement activity. All public services need to remember that they are dealing with people who are often struggling.
I attended a departmental briefing in November last year with the Minister, who outlined the work in train to increase enforcement action. I welcome the further steps to improve the CMS, including the liability orders consultation to speed up enforcement action, the removal of the £20 application fee and longer-term changes. The scrapping of the £20 fee to the CMS signifies a shift towards inclusivity and accessibility. The fee can deter parents, especially those in vulnerable situations.
All parents need to take financial responsibility for their children. It is not fair on the children if they do not receive the support that they are due for essential food, clothing, education and healthcare. Financial support is also vital to reinforce a child’s overall quality of life, and their sense of security, wellbeing and stability. Knowing that both parents care about them and for them fosters emotional wellbeing. The CMS process must not add delay or hardship. Streamlining processes, improving enforcement and going after parents who will do anything to get out of paying for their child will help create a fairer system and provide financial security for children and parents.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), on arranging this debate.
It is not too naive to say that we would all like parents who separate to reach an amicable arrangement on access and maintenance for their children, so the state does not have to get involved at all. However, I suspect that is somewhat unlikely to happen in every case, hence why we need to have this service. The problem is that the service is not sufficiently effective. It creates more need for itself because some parents think that they can get away with it and try not to pay, so we force the family through the system to try to fix the situation.
If there was a general feeling that a parent who did not pay their maintenance would get caught and have to pay more, we might actually push more parents to reach an amicable arrangement rather than try this route, and we would not end up having to be the referee or the battering ram that we were desperately trying to avoid in the first place. I remind the Minister that having a service that actually works is not inconsistent with the Government’s overall aim of not getting involved unless they really need to: that would stop some of the demand in the first place.
The cases that most frustrate me are the ones that are superficially easy. The parent who should be paying is in employment and has a relatively stable income, which we can see through a real-time information feed, and they either do not pay at all or do not pay regularly. It is incredibly frustrating to see how long it takes for any enforcement action to be taken in that situation. We see scenarios where that person does not pay for a bit, finally gets some threats and starts paying for a couple of months, and then stops paying again, and the whole process has to start again. It is effectively just a game that they are playing. We end up with huge arrears building up, the parent with care struggling financially and the child losing out.
I hope that, now we have administrative liability orders in place that can be brought in much more quickly, we can stop those situations from arising. I certainly hope the CMS can monitor how fast arrears are building up and how quickly the orders are being put in place, so that we can show real progress and so those arrears do not get to the stage they have been getting to in the past.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to my colleague on the Work and Pensions Committee. He and I were at the roundtables we had in Greater Manchester where we heard from both paying and receiving parents. There were harrowing stories of parents who were in arrears. We heard a story of someone who unfortunately had died. Is he as concerned as I am about the reports around the deaths of both paying and receiving parents, and the fact that that has not been adequately considered in the handling of those parents by the CMS? What does he think we should be doing about that?
Nigel Mills
I agree with the hon. Member that those stories were incredibly concerning. That reinforces the point that if we get this right early, and everyone knows what they should be paying and it is enforced, hopefully some of that stress goes away. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, rightly made the point that we should be looking at the thresholds and the calculations to ensure that they are fair on all parties.
The other situation that frustrates me concerns when somebody has arrears and is sent the demand. I have seen cases where someone is sent five demands in a week, all with different numbers and vastly different by thousands of pounds. I naively assumed that when somebody is sent a demand with arrears, a calculation is made on the system to come to that number and that when somebody asks for it, CMS can just press a button and it will be emailed over, so the person can work out how it has come to that number. That is not the case. It takes weeks and weeks. The chief executive said before the Select Committee that it is a 12-week turnaround.
How can the CMS send a demand out for arrears without calculating it? When that person finally gets the calculation, they think, “I’m paid monthly, and there is a certain percentage I have to pay. I get paid two grand a month and pay 15%. That is £300. I have paid £200, so I owe £100”—a simple calculation. What they get is 16 sides of calculations and, for some reason, it is done by weekly income. It is totally unfollowable. I would seriously urge the Minister to look through some of these calculations, if he has not done so. There must be a better way of doing it, so that everybody understands what they owe and can check it to prove whether it is right. It cannot be that complicated.
Finally, will the Minister look at where child maintenance arrears sit in the universal credit deductions? They sit a long way down, and below debt owed back to the Department. If we really think this money is essential for child welfare, we should be letting the parent with care have that money before we take it back to pay debts owed to the state, and it should be much higher on the list.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for securing a debate on this topic, on which I have campaigned consistently during my time as an MP. I campaign on this issue because I feel strongly that there is a pure moral obligation and benefit to hard-working taxpayers of cracking down on delinquent parents.
I have said before and I will say again that having children, then not contributing to the cost of raising them is morally reprehensible. I certainly think it is worse than shoplifting, fraud, dropping litter, selling counterfeit goods and a whole range of other things for which individuals can and do regularly face much tougher sanctions. This is not about some idealised view of families or saying that families should be one size fits all; it is about saying that whatever the relationship between parents, both maintain a moral obligation to provide for their children. Recently, children have seen a win with the successful passage of the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for introducing the Act, and I fully support its aims. We have had the necessary consultations ahead of enactment and, like others, I would welcome an update from the Minister on when we can expect to see the powers being used, because they are very much needed.
According to Gingerbread, total arrears sit at £547.9 million. Imagine the positive impact we could have had on children had that money been paid. The non-payment of maintenance is a key driver of child poverty. If all maintenance due was paid, 60% of children of single parents who are not benefiting from payments would be lifted out of poverty. Let us be clear that in many respects taxpayers pick up the bill indirectly. Although I praise these advances, I worry that they will not be enough, and represent a partial acceptance of an unacceptable status quo, in particular for those parents who do not earn, or earn very little, when they could reasonably have expected to earn more.
This is where we need one of two fundamental rethinks. When it comes to out-of-work benefit payments, we expect recipients to make an effort to find work and earn more, because they have a moral obligation to the rest of us who pay for their benefits. Surely, the obligation to earn to care for one’s children is even greater. We should subject parents to the same reasonable expectations to find work and earn more as we do for those who claim benefits.
To enforce that and other expectations, I continue to ask the Government to make use of the home curfew powers available. The use of already established but unused powers to impose a home curfew, I believe, would have a positive impact on those who shy away from their parental financial duties. Indeed, spending six months with no social life would certainly provide time to reassess responsibilities and allow people to be made an example of.
That brings me to the second fundamental rethink. The current system ignores the moral aspect of this debt. This is not a commercial debt; people should be punished for not providing when they reasonably could. At the moment, the system simply asks them to start paying money again and, if they do that, everything falls away. There is no punishment for their moral failure to make an effort to pay, when they could, or for deliberately seeking to avoid paying. We need to create moral hazard for individuals to behave in that way.
A home curfew has the added benefit of providing time for a parent to go out to work, so arguments about punishments hampering earnings, particularly custody, fall away. Of course, these powers should not be the first port of call. Cases must have a clear evidence base that a parent has actively made attempts to deny sharing money, or made no effort over a long period of time to find work and increase earnings. I am also clear, for those who are concerned about this and write to me when I raise it, that custody and benefit arrangements are separate.
I recognise that there are parents who want to pay, do pay, and do not get access to their children. That is wrong and I encourage all of them to use the courts to secure the access to which they are legally entitled. That does not mean that someone should not pay in the meantime. If there is a genuine dispute about maintenance payments, I can understand why these cases arise, but I question the priorities of a parent who only wants to pay maintenance for their child when they have custody. Surely, payment of maintenance should come first, and custody rights should be pursued separately.
I will finish by asking the Minister to explain why we have again moved away from using home curfews, and ask him to reconsider that, or at least commit to doing so, if these newly enacted powers fail to bring down the maintenance backlog, which, unfortunately, I am confident they will not. Children deserve nothing less, and wider society should rely on us to uphold these basic moral standards.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I give my full support to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and the Committee, and everything he asks for today. He had the foresight to bring this matter forward after the publication of the NAO report, and is smart enough to follow up and start poking the Government again, to ensure that we can get some changes. This is a serious issue that everybody up and down the country experiences in their postbags.
I am grateful to colleagues for being so kind about the Bill which I introduced. I am committed to changing the law and improving enforcement, but I must give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who initially introduced the Bill but was then made a Minister, and to the Government for their support under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). Having Government support always makes it easier when trying to force through change. In that respect, it is a big team effort.
I care so much about the CMS because of my work as a family lawyer and because of personal family experience. My dad still stares off into the middle distance when he talks of his experience of the Child Support Agency back in the day, because it was a disaster. The service goes far beyond the impact of putting money in people’s pockets, important as that is, and as much as we are right to focus on the poverty of children. It affects every single child of every demographic caught up in the difficulties of separating parents. If the system does not work for them, parents often have an impact on their children. They do not mean to; it just happens. If a parent has had to spend a whole week fighting with the CMS on trying to get a calculation, and then there is the handover, the kid is caught in the middle of that frosty handover—or worse, if there is shouting and frustration. I cannot emphasise enough the need to get the system working. As colleagues have said, getting it right early on and making early interventions deters others and changes the lives of families.
I want to say a little bit about dads. They really feel under attack whenever we talk about changing the Child Maintenance Service. It is often dads in my surgery who are in tears, because they care deeply about their children. They often have residence of their children and shared care, but the system does not recognise that or has ignored a court order. The round robins and the constant nightmare with correspondence is very damaging, and sadly it is often dads who are taking their own lives or pointing to problems with the CMS.
It is right to recognise that 93% of paying parents in the system are dads. However, we cannot ignore the fact that non-paying parents include dads, and that the liability orders that were sought in the past were sought against dads. I ask all the dads listening to this, when they hear of the push for curfew orders, societal changes and so on, to stay angry. They should not necessarily stay angry with MPs in this room, because they will just join a long list of people who are angry with us, but rather stay angry with the dads who are letting down their kids and not paying, because they poison the well for the good dads who are trying their best.
One of my constituents said that he feels—and colleagues have said this too—that there is an institutional bias in favour of the receiving parent. Even when it is proven that a receiving parent is not being honest or true, the burden of proof is often on the paying parent, and that is causing a huge amount of stress.
I am trying to calculate how much time I have left to speak. In the complex cases that we are trying to fix by tightening up enforcement, parents are seeing the lifestyle of non-paying parents far outstripping their own. The non-paying parents are going abroad and having a lovely time with their new families, but the process of taking evidence of that to the CMS is falling down. A mum wrote to me saying that she was experiencing considerable stress. She was not receiving any money. She was working between 40 and 50 hours a week just to keep her kids clothed, and that meant, because of her work ethic, that she did not qualify for any benefits. However, she could see the non-paying parent treating himself to several luxurious holidays a year to faraway shores. That is hugely detrimental to the children in that family, and we have got—
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
On the hon. Lady’s point about complex cases, some of the most egregious cases which I and other hon. Members have seen in our surgeries involve the paying parent concealing income because they are self-employed, so they are not paying what is owed. One mother came to me who is owed £18,000 in arrears, and I met another who has been fighting for six years for £22,000- worth of payments. The way in which arrears are treated is different from live cases, where a small amount being paid is accepted. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a full review of how those complex cases are dealt with and reform of the CMS?
Siobhan Baillie
One of the biggest issues is that people’s lives are complex—families are complex and blended. We have wonderful ways of living, which must be reflected in how CMS caseworkers are trained, but we also need a bespoke approach to each case, because this is incredibly difficult. I give credit to the CMS; I am always impressed by it and I thoroughly enjoyed working with it to try to make changes, as well as with Lord Younger and Baroness Stedman-Scott, who are amazing parliamentarians who are working really hard.
The National Audit Office says that we are heading for £1 billion-worth of arrears by 2030. When the Child Support Agency had a controlled explosion from 2014 to 2018, the figures were not anywhere near that. The reality of the long wait for decisions, a lack of clarity about maintenance paid, poor communication, unclear calculations, poor service and bad handling is poisoning the well for all families. I urge the Minister to take that strong message back to the Department.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I will give Wendy Chamberlain two minutes in which to speak; she has been here from the start of the debate and has been trying to catch my eye.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Thank you, Sir Charles, for calling me to speak; I am very grateful. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate.
There were two aspects of this issue that I wanted to raise. The first is domestic abuse cases about which many Members have spoken so eloquently. I have a particularly egregious case in my constituency. The children are now adults, but the coercive control is still being applied to the receiving parent by the withholding of money. I agree with the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) that we need to examine how we consider arrears in terms of debts and that people need to be pursued quickly, because the legacy of these issues is ongoing for these children into adulthood.
Secondly, we say that we want the system basically to work so that we do not make the situation worse when the CMS becomes involved. However, the reality is that even those parents who engage with the system in good faith are being let down.
I will just the case of my constituent, Kevin, who was medically discharged from the military 18 months ago. He reported his falling income to the CMS and continued to make payments for his children. However, the CMS then did everything wrong: it took overpayments; it wrongly moved him to the collect and pay route; and it pursued him for £12,000 of debt that never existed, because the systems work on the basis that there is a consistent salary and income going forward. The 12 weeks that was talked about earlier means that Kevin has gone through a huge amount of stress and anxiety, and we are left in a situation where those children have been negatively impacted as a result. It is clear that this issue is complex and difficult, but it is also clear that the Government need to do more.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Thank you very much. I now call Peter Grant. Mr Grant, you have 10 minutes in which to sum up for your party.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Sir Charles, for calling me to speak; I am grateful for the chance to begin summing up in this debate.
First, I commend the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Select Committee, for securing this debate. I thank him and other Members of that Committee for giving me the chance to attend, as a guest, some of the hearings when they have had the Child Maintenance Service before them. Also, I want to give the right hon. Gentleman more than the usual token 20 or 30 seconds at the end of the debate to sum up, so I will try to keep within the 10 minutes I have; those who know me will know what a struggle that will be, but I will do my best.
I think this is the third time I have participated in a Westminster Hall debate on the Child Maintenance Service and I am again struck today by the fact that there has been very little disagreement in the Chamber; everybody accepts that the CMS is not working, that the time for talking about changing it is long past and that we need to start seriously changing it.
It was very noticeable in this debate today that the overwhelming majority of contributions have come from the Minister’s own party, with two of them from people who have been there with ministerial responsibility: the right hon. Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).
Incidentally, while the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North was speaking, I made a quick check and found that, since she moved from the Department for Work and Pensions in 2017, we are now on our fifth Minister with responsibility for child maintenance. Maybe that partly explains why it has taken so long to get anywhere. There are obviously reasons why there have been so many Cabinet changes in that time, but I think the Child Maintenance Service is far too important to be one of the things that gets added to the portfolio of someone who stays in post for six months before they get moved on, because it is complex and, if a Minister is in post for only a year, they will not get the time to get on top of the service and drive forward significant changes.
As I have said, this is a system that is simply not fit for purpose. I do not think that we can beat around the bush and look for minor changes; we need a complete overhaul and review, starting from a blank sheet of paper and redesigning the whole thing.
To illustrate that point, I will ask a question. If somebody came in who did not know what the Child Maintenance Service was for and just looked at what it did, would they ever be able to work out what its purpose is? If they did, I will guarantee that they would not conclude that its main purpose was to make sure that no child had to live in poverty simply because of the family circumstances that their parents have found themselves in. If we accept that aim as a valid purpose for the Child Maintenance Service, we begin to understand just how far away from hitting that target we are just now.
Depending on what figures people believe, the United Kingdom is probably the fifth or sixth wealthiest economy in the world, yet 4.2 million children in the UK live in poverty, according to the Child Poverty Action Group. Again, we can argue about the exact number of children in poverty, but we cannot argue that the number of children living in poverty in an economy with so much money spilling around in some places is simply not acceptable. By fixing the Child Maintenance Service, we can certainly reduce the number of children living in poverty, and in such a way that the people who pay for it are the people who should have been paying for it all along. The parents have had the children, but for one reason or another are simply not meeting their responsibilities to pay financial support for their upbringing.
One of the previous speakers—the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), I think—talked about the fact that debt owed to the Child Maintenance Service is not seen as important or as such a high priority for collection as debt owed to the Government. Again, that is simply wrong. Why do we not have a system in which the DWP pays all the child maintenance due, and then the DWP chases the people who are fiddling the figures or trying to hide and not pay the money? I can guarantee that if the DWP were chasing an absent parent for the money, they would not be living on a fancy yacht in the Bahamas or in the Mediterranean, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). If they were doing that, but the money was owed to the Government, they certainly would not be posting on Facebook to boast about how much money they had or how much they were able to hide.
Dr Mullan
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was able to listen to my points about moral hazard, but does he agree that his proposal for the taxpayer to pick up directly the payments of absent parents who are not paying would double the impact of saying, “You don’t have responsibility. The taxpayer will step in directly and pay it for you.”?
Peter Grant
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I was saying, he would realise that that is exactly what I am not saying. I am saying that the full force of collection and enforcement that is in the hands of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or DWP should be brought to bear not only on those who refuse to pay what they are assessed as being due to pay, but on those who are lying, committing fraud and stealing from their own children. Ultimately, they would still be stealing from their own children, but HMRC has powers to enforce in a way that a single parent does not have. That is what I am saying. It is not a simple solution, but I think it would make a significant difference. As has been mentioned, the DWP’s own figures reckon that since the Child Maintenance Service was set up, £590 million of debt has not been collected. That does not include the undetected fraud or the under-declaration of income, assets and so on.
Something else that I always find concerning about the CMS is that it does not seem to have any curiosity about a parent who fights and fights to get a settlement but then just disappears off the system and gives up. In Child Maintenance Service cases I have dealt with, I have found that probably the single biggest outcome is that the parent with responsibility for bringing up the children simply gives up in frustration, deciding that it is better for them just to get on with their life and to struggle through—very often in or near poverty—because they can no longer cope with the stress of dealing with the Child Maintenance Service. That is a shocking indictment of any Government service, in particular one whose only point, whose only reason to exist, is to make lives better for vulnerable young children.
I have often noticed that, when speaking to parents, the paying partner always talks about how much they are having to pay to their ex-partner. They often do not see it as paying for the upkeep of their children. Something about the language we use here, we need to look at. Something raised by one of my constituents at a roundtable held by Fife Gingerbread, which I hope the Department has picked up and started to act on, is that CMS letters get addressed to the parent—the parent’s name is on it—and it does not say “To the parent of” with the name of the child, which would be a simple way of making it clear that this is about the children.
There will often be bad will between two partners who have split up. Whether they split up amicably or acrimoniously, once they start disagreeing about money, it is likely to become quite a bit more acrimonious. The children, however, should never be made to suffer as a result.
I mentioned Fife Gingerbread. I again need to commend the outstanding work that it has done, and not just within the boundaries of Fife. It is one of the organisations that has influenced the way in which the Child Maintenance Service now operates. On the scrapping of the £20 fee for being able to claim child maintenance, for example, I am convinced that Fife Gingerbread is one of the organisations that can claim part of the credit for having achieved that, as well as a number of other changes that we are seeing.
We have had reference to the fact that IT systems are not fit for purpose. This is the 21st century—we are almost a quarter of the way into the century—and we are using systems that are 40 or 50 years out of date. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, and other members of the Work and Pensions Committee and of the Public Accounts Committee will remember only too well what happened to the payment of state pensions when the Department carried on using systems that were no longer fit for purpose. We could be heading for an equally massive injustice in the assessment, payment and collection of child maintenance if we do not get those systems sorted out. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, it should not take three or four months for somebody to be told why the assessment is the number that it is. In some of the queries to HMRC, when people are assessed on self-assessment, they could go online, and sitting in front of them would be exactly why HMRC had assessed them for that amount.
The final thing is that one way to reduce the need for child maintenance is for Governments to take other action on children in poverty. This Government could undertake actions that have already been shown to be successful by the Scottish Government. There is the child payment, which has lifted about 50,000 children in Scotland out of poverty; if we do that down here, we are talking about half a million children being lifted out of poverty. Actions taken by the Scottish Government are estimated to reduce the cost of bringing up a child by somewhere in the region of £25,000 to £26,000 during their childhood. Policies similar to those would reduce the demands on child maintenance, reducing the need either for children to live in poverty or for their parents to almost literally come to blows arguing over who should care for their child.
I entirely agree that nobody should feel that they can just leave their children to be the responsibility of someone else. I find it interesting that financial neglect, which is what we are talking about here, is treated differently from any other forms of neglect. If a parent neglects their child in any other way, we do not just stand back and leave the parents to sort it out. If a parent is deliberately neglecting their children financially, they cannot be allowed to get away with it. I do not have confidence that the existing Child Maintenance Service will ever be able to address that, which is why we need to design an entirely new service fit for the 21st century that recognises the wide variety of circumstances that people live in today.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Thank you, Mr Grant. That was a perfect 10 minutes.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. I thank all colleagues who have contributed, in particular the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for bringing forward the debate. As we heard from all the serious questions asked, it is important.
The Minister has quite a number of important questions to answer, so I will try to be swift. It is clear from this debate that on both sides of the House we all want parents to meet their responsibilities and pay what their child needs—no ifs, no buts; just get it done. We know from Gingerbread, which was mentioned by many hon. Members, that 60% of children of single parents not benefiting from child maintenance could be lifted out of poverty if that support were paid in full. That is why we want to get it sorted. The current situation is just not acceptable, which is why it was good—if a little tardy—that recently we the Government finally removed the fee for the service, after many people had warned for a number of years that it would remove its effectiveness.
Listening to colleagues, it strikes me that it would be helpful if the Government could provide a timeline or working update to help colleagues to know which improvements to CMS they are making and the status of those improvements. There are areas where the Government could do that and help us: on issues relating to domestic abuse, to customer service—I think particularly of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) about the complexity of calculations; it cannot be beyond us to have clarity and be able to inform citizens of the information that the Government have on their behalf—and to enforcement. Members have made it absolutely clear how long we have been trying to get enforcement improved, and having a working update from the Government on where we are with that would really help colleagues. I want the Minister to consider that.
When the Minister and I last met across Dispatch Boxes, I had some questions about research undertaken by the Government. The Minister was kind enough to write to me on 21 February to say that Ipsos is commissioned currently to research direct pay customers. That is really helpful, because we really need to understand what is going on for parents. Can he say more about when that will be published? That would be really useful.
In the letter to me, the Minister also mentioned a particular tool that the DWP has developed, which I think gives us some hope in this area. Members have rightly expressed frustration and distress from listening to cases involving people who have had to deal with having a calculation that they knew was wrong. I am thinking of the person that the Chair of the Select Committee mentioned at the beginning of his speech—the dad who had lost a son. These are really heartbreaking cases.
However, I think that there is some hope in the letter that the Minister sent to me where he mentioned the “Get help arranging child maintenance” tool that had been developed for unbiased advice and support and designed to be convenient for parents and to support people into the most suitable arrangements for their circumstances. I would like to ask the Minister what lessons the DWP has drawn from the development of that tool. From listening to the contributions of colleagues, it strikes me that if we could have a focus also on early advice, help and support so that people knew, at the very distressing time of relationship breakdown, what the best steps were for them, that would be hopeful and point to a better direction, so I would be grateful if the Minister could say what lessons the DWP is drawing from the development of the tool.
Sir Charles, I said that I was going to be swift and I will be. I will sum up by making three brief points that I think we can all agree with.
Dr Mullan
There could be a change of Government by the end of the year. I welcome the warm words, and the hon. Member may go on to describe specific policy pledges, but I would like to hear specific policy goals that her party has in mind. For example, do you support the introduction of home curfews? Rather than just speaking warm words, what will you actually do differently should you end up in government?
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. Can we not use the word “you” in the Chamber when referring to another Member?
Alison McGovern
Thank you, Sir Charles, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will just say to him that not a single vote in an election has been cast yet.
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman may have said “could”, but I am not the Minister and I would not be so arrogant as to assume that that will be certain to happen. My aim was to leave space for questions to be directed to the Minister, to assist colleagues. I simply say this to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan): I could point to the record over the past 14 years and the number of occasions when Labour spokespeople have called for the removal of the fee and stronger enforcement. Some of that, including on the issue of the fee, the Government have now done, which is good. However, as I have been saying, we all know that a range of improvements need to be made. I think that we would all find it helpful if the Government could undertake to regularly update us—through the Select Committee, if necessary—on what is happening.
As I was saying, and as we all know, the children’s needs must come first. Members have described the pain that parents experience in this system, which affects children very deeply. That is why this issue really matters to us all.
The second point that I think is uncontroversial is that the service also has to react to some complex realities of life, and one of those realities is the power dynamic in a relationship. Anyone can find themselves a victim of domestic abuse, but unfortunately, domestic abuse tends to work along the lines of the imbalance in power between men and women in our country. That then leads us to a heightened concern about how domestic abuse is handled within the system, and I hope that the service will hear that concern.
I want to end on a hopeful note, because although there has been deep dissatisfaction, I felt that in the Minister’s letter to me there were some signs that the civil service is working hard to improve the quality of the service for all parents. If we can do that early, we can avoid some of the deeply distressing situations that Members have described today.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Thank you, shadow Minister. Minister, will you just leave a couple of minutes at the end for the mover of the motion?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
Provided that you cough strategically, Sir Charles, because my eyesight—
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I will—I actually have a cold, so I will be coughing and sniffling throughout.
Paul Maynard
My eyesight cannot quite determine the numbers on the clock any more—such is my venerable age. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for applying to the Backbench Business Committee to obtain this debate, and all hon. Members for their participation.
We have had a constructive, wide-ranging and, for my part, very interesting debate. We have discussed the original findings of the Select Committee report, which I very much enjoyed reading. Indeed, I always enjoy reading difficult, challenging reports when they are not in my brief, because I find them much more reassuring to read knowing that thinking is going on. We discussed the Government’s response at the time, the progress since that response, what is being done and how far that has got.
I will try to cover as many themes as have been raised today, but if I run out of time or there is insufficient detail, I will make sure that we write to all hon. Members. I know that Viscount Younger has already spoken to the right hon. Member for East Ham to have a further briefing. I am sure that all hon. Members here today will be interested in what Viscount Younger has to say, so I will try to ensure that all that information is properly communicated.
I do not normally do this, but I particularly thank the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for speaking in such glowing terms about my letter to her. There were some helpful comments about the progress the Government have been making. That might give other hon. Members some optimism that things are moving in a more rapid direction than they might hitherto have realised.
The Child Maintenance Service makes a real difference to the life chances of many thousands of children. That is why we are reforming it for the long term on an ongoing basis to continually improve outcomes. The service plays a crucial role in securing financial support for children when parents have separated, mandating and, when necessary, enforcing arrangements so that money flows from paying parents to receiving parents, which can benefit children and help prevent them falling into poverty. Indeed, payments for both child maintenance and private arrangements delivered an estimated £2.6 billion annually to parents between 2020 and 2022, keeping around 160,000 children out of poverty.
The vast majority of parents strive each and every day to give their children the best possible start in life. Those who shirk the financial responsibilities they have for their children must be quickly held to account. That is why we continue to improve the Child Maintenance Service to ensure it works as effectively and efficiently as possible. However, it is currently still too easy for parents to avoid paying up if their income does not come through normal PAYE. That is why we are looking at changing the rules so that child maintenance calculations include a much broader range of earnings, such as property income.
We recognise that some parents will find it more difficult to afford their payments if they have built up substantial arrears. The Child Maintenance Service will continue to prioritise collection of ongoing maintenance, but we have committed to reviewing the calculation. We have begun the process of updating the underlying research to consider how we ensure the calculation reflects current and future societal trends. Any changes made to the child maintenance calculation will require amendments to both primary and secondary legislation. The calculation formula underpins every Child Maintenance Service case. Furthermore, those with private arrangements can also use the online calculator to get an estimate to inform their own arrangement, which is doubly crucial. It is essential, therefore, that we undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of the calculation formula and consider the potential impacts on all parents and children. That requires time to ensure we take an informed and co-ordinated approach, to ensure the calculation is fit for purpose and future-proofed.
Peter Grant
Clearly, there has been an error at set-up that the calculation needs primary legislation to be updated. Given that it is now 25 years out of date, is it not time to bring forward legislation to change it once and for all, so that future changes can be made through secondary legislation or by other means? There have been examples recently where other DWP payments were uprated through statutory instruments and it did not take nearly as much bureaucracy to get that done. We should be able to do that with the child maintenance system as well.
Paul Maynard
The hon. Member makes an interesting point that may risk becoming a digression. I note that the secondary legislation he refers to is regarding automatic uprating of particular indicators. This is a more fundamental change to how the entire structure of child maintenance is conducted, so is perhaps not suited to secondary legislation. We often hear criticism that too much goes through secondary legislation, unscrutinised by this place. As a Member rather than a Minister, I always think that I would rather such a fundamental change be scrutinised properly in the form of a Government Bill. That is an important point.
Paul Maynard
I will. I am in danger of making things up now, which I should not do.
Sir Stephen Timms
I take the point entirely about the complexity of the review’s underlying formula, which the Minister has just been talking about. Can he give us any sense of how long he envisages that review will take to complete?
Paul Maynard
I have made a lot of comments today about the drumbeat of ongoing changes and how we implement some of the private Members’ Bills that have gone through, for example. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about the progress and the drumbeat, but I am not sufficiently close to the actual data and the information that he seeks. I will ensure that he is written to, along with other Members present today. I am sure that will be discussed when he meets Viscount Younger.
Alison McGovern
While I am pleased to have cheered the Minister up, I can assure him that I will certainly be giving the Government down the banks yet again. But that exact point is why I thought it would be helpful if we could have some sort of regular update out of this debate. Can the Minister feed that back to the Secretary of State, if necessary? I am sure it can be discussed whether that is a statement that the Government place in the Library or a regular update to the Select Committee, but for those reasons, Members need to know what is happening with the different streams of improvement to the service.
Paul Maynard
I have already heard that point, and in my preparation for the debate, I noted the complexity and the number of workstreams going on in this area. I will certainly take that point back to the Department. Another theme that we have heard today is the importance of not just having an enforcement process but having an efficient and effective one. That is done partly by deciding what actions are appropriate on a case-by-case basis and using the existing powers that have the greatest chance of ensuring that parents meet their obligations to pay for their children.
The CMS has made a number of improvements to processes, for example by making better use of deduction from earnings orders so that they can be set up faster. The CMS has also brought forward the point at which deductions from bank accounts are made, which not only has increased the volume of deductions from bank accounts but means getting money to children faster. Working alongside His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, the Child Maintenance Service has improved court processing times by introducing virtual court presenting and the electronic exchange of documentation.
Following the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023, the Government propose to bring into force a legislative change to accelerate the enforcement process. The change will introduce a simpler administrative process to obtain a liability order against those paying parents who actively avoid their responsibilities. That will enable the CMS to take faster enforcement action, affecting at least 10,000 cases a year. They will also publish a consultation shortly on how the Child Maintenance Service collects and transfers payments to support survivors of domestic abuse, following the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 receiving Royal Assent.
In addition, operating a scheme where parents are not paying their maintenance liability and where the Government guarantee child maintenance payments is not the intent of the Child Maintenance Service’s policy, which is the philosophical issue that we are stressing. The role of the CMS is to encourage parents to take financial responsibility for their children. The scheme is designed to encourage parents to agree their own family-based arrangements wherever possible, and that tends to be in the best interests of children. The CMS must always work in the best interests of children. The statutory scheme exists as a fall-back if parents are unable to reach those voluntary arrangements. The Government do not believe that the state covering the shortfall of unpaid maintenance is the right way to target additional funding appropriately, given that there is no means test for receiving parents.
We are also bringing the Child Maintenance Service into the modern age, having made a number of improvements to ensure that it delivers to the highest standard with a more digital customer focus. In order to get help arranging child maintenance on the digital service, which is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we are making it more accessible for parents to decide what type of arrangement is most suitable for them and to make an application online. Those improvements have already seen new applications rise by 13% in the year to September 2023, and I look forward to seeing further progress in the future. That is a welcome increase that we expect to continue with the removal of the £20 application fee. The upgraded online service allows customers to access and maintain their CMS cases themselves. Twenty-six different changes of circumstances can now be reported online. The advantage of digital systems means the service is, as I have said, available 24 hours a day. Many customer requests are now fully automated, so it is much quicker for parents to manage their own arrangements.
We have also, as I have said, improved the speeding up of enforcement processes. In the quarter ending September 2023, around £23.5 million—more than half—of the child maintenance collected through collect and pay was from parents who had a deduction from earnings order in place at the end of the quarter. Those improvements deliver a modern and efficient service for customers while enabling caseworkers to focus on parents who have more complex issues.
I will try to deal with specific issues that were raised. I might not succeed in three minutes, but I will at least try. I can confirm that the £20 fee has been removed as of yesterday, along with the eradication of debts of £7 and under, which we achieved through delegated legislation—the draft Child Support (Management of Payments and Arrears and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
I was equally as concerned as the right hon. Member for East Ham to hear of the case of Rachel Parkin regarding the continuity of the support that she received from that single nominated caseworker. The Department will write to the Chair of the Select Committee to make sure that we properly understand that case and what can be done about it. There will be more to come on that point.
I was asked for updates on the progress of various Acts. It might be unhelpful to confirm that consultations are ongoing, because we want the measures to be proportionate, robust and targeted appropriately. It is never easy to rush consultations through. We are often criticised should we rush a consultation. Equally, I understand, not least from when I was a Back Bencher, that when final reports have been issued by the Government, people like to see action, so that point has been heard. I do not wish to pre-empt any Government decisions on curfews—those are not mine to take—nor would I wish to pre-empt the meeting of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), with Viscount Younger when that will be fully discussed, I have no doubt. I, like her, await the outcome with great interest on what is discussed.
I have been told I now have one minute left, not three minutes. I would love to talk about fraud, but one point I have observed from my own casework is that very often people know that something is not right. They have suspicions that fraud might be occurring, but when they engage with the CMS it is not always taken forward. One thing that we hope to be able to do by the end of this month, in order to avoid vexatious frauds, is to provide to those making claims an illustrative list of evidence that the financial investigations unit will require to take an investigation forward. That then avoids the disappointment when someone thinks that something is going on, but they cannot prove it. I think that will help the individual stuck in that situation and perhaps also our caseworkers who try to guide people who ring our offices on how to go about it.
Anything that I have not covered I will cover in a letter to Members. On that note, I will sit down.
Sir Stephen Timms
I thank everybody who has contributed to this important debate. We all deal with people who struggle with the Child Maintenance Service, so I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made. I welcomed the very constructive contribution that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made from the Front Bench. She is absolutely right that if there were more regular updates to Members about what is going on, that would be really helpful, given the changes that are happening.
On a couple of areas that we have touched on in the debate, first is the concern about paying parents. I am grateful to the Minister for his commitment that that fundamental review is under way. It would certainly be helpful to know how long he anticipates that review is going to take.
I was struck by the example given by the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) about somebody who was told over the phone that he did not have any arrears, and yet he received a demand and deduction of earnings order to pay arrears. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) made a point about people receiving several notices with contradictory figures. Such muddle and confusion is terribly damaging. The stakes are really high. People are losing their lives. We must be able to come up with a system that delivers basic competence.
On the single caseworker, I was very concerned— I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance about a letter about that—but the implication was that that would be spread out to the whole system. I really hope that it is.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the governance of the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust.
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, for this short debate about the historic governance of the trust, and about how the management of NHS North East and Yorkshire has dealt with the formal inquiry that questioned the integrity and performance of the board over two years ago. The outcome of that inquiry remains a mystery, as NHS North East and Yorkshire has fought for the past two years to keep the report a secret—a fight that continues today, and not just through my speech.
Before I get into detail on the failures of NHS North East and Yorkshire and its leadership, I want the House to know that I was proud to serve as a non-executive director of the trust before I was elected to Parliament nearly 14 years ago. I was proud that the trust was recognised not just for sound finances and delivering for patients, but for innovation and a can-do, will-do attitude that continued long after I found myself in this place.
Much of the credit for performance being maintained goes to the non-executive directors, who gave a large part of their lives to the trust and provided a robust challenge to the executive. That ensured that the trust’s performance, finances and proposals for new projects were examined in detail, not simply signed off; they were forensically examined to ensure that they were all delivering for patients. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to those people and to all independent non-executive chairs and directors for the work they do across our country, often in the most difficult circumstances.
Sadly, two years ago, the trust went through a very difficult patch that included the resignation of several non-executive directors, a few of whom I put on the record as my friends. That happened after the NHS regional leadership launched an inquiry that questioned the integrity and performance of the trust’s board, and in particular its non-executives. This was a trust that was rated as good. The contents of the ensuing report remain shrouded in secrecy, sadly, although what can only be described as a well-edited but short summary was published in 2022.
The inquiry was launched after a robust challenge from the non-executive directors to a proposal from the then new joint chair of the North Tees and South Tees NHS foundation trusts, Professor Derek Bell, to have a joint chief executive on an accelerated timescale. I suspect to this day that this was being driven not by the chair of the trusts, but by officials in the regional office, led by the regional director for North East and Yorkshire and North West, Richard Barker. So much for local decision making! I do not name an official on the Floor of the House lightly, but—given his approach to the issues raised by the inquiry—I believe that in the interests of natural justice I have no other option.
It appeared to the non-executive directors that the proposal for the new joint chief executive in November 2021 was being rapidly pushed through without due process, including consultation with the health and wider community, and without proper papers or a business case for the idea. That meant that there were no answers to the robust challenges from the non-executive directors. I can capture their views and concerns in a few bullet points: the joint chair’s proposal was made without consultation or discussion with the NEDs or governors; principles of good governance and due process were ignored or sidelined; the proposed timetable was highly risky and unlikely to lead to a sound appointment of a joint CEO; any proposal to install a joint CEO and some form of amalgamation of management structures would require careful planning, options appraisal and scenario modelling, extensive consultation with the boards and governors, senior trust stuff and other stakeholders, and expert input from human resources and legal teams; and the timeline for a successful appointment of a joint CEO was likely to be 18 months to two years, not a matter of just a few weeks.
The non-executive directors summarised their concerns and objections in a formal document, with an outline of how to organise progress towards a joint CEO and potentially a joint management structure in a way that would minimise risks and maximise benefits. The joint chair’s response was, I am told, obdurate and unyielding. There was no offer to discuss the matter at full board or a meeting of the council of governors, or to consider an alternative to his proposal. Trust between the joint chair and the non-executive directors had been severely damaged by his actions. It was at that stage that the members of the board, concerned that there was no proper process and that they were being steamrollered into a decision, alerted me to what was going on. For me, that was the real reason for the inquiry.
I believe that NHS England’s influence on the joint chair’s proposal was palpable and unhelpful. In late December 2021, the joint chair, CEO, deputy chair and senior independent NED were called to a meeting at short notice with representatives of NHSE, including Richard Barker and national board directors Sir Andrew Morris and Sir David Sloman, as well as the chair of the North East and North Cumbria integrated care board, Sir Liam Donaldson. Although the NHSE representatives recognised that they had no formal powers to oblige the board of a foundation trust to change its organisational form, they were insistent that the joint chair’s original proposal should go ahead as quickly as possible. The trust was informed that it had until the end of January to agree a plan. The meeting ended with the NHSE representatives commenting, “Don’t tell us that it’s going to take two years,” and “Just get on with it.” Some would suggest that this was simply an exercise in bullying.
In January 2022, it became clear to the non-executive directors that they could not approve a proposal that was not supported by a full and proper case, but within a month Mr Barker ordered the investigation into whether the board was acting in a unitary fashion, and into its behaviour and leadership. On 18 February, five of the six NEDs resigned with immediate effect, as they felt that they were being prevented from doing the job they believed they had been appointed to do, and that NHSE and the joint chair would steamroller their way to the desired outcome regardless of any advice to the contrary. I suspect that that is exactly what the powers that be wanted: the removal of people who were not sticking to the line or doing what the officials wanted, but were instead maintaining their independence and putting patients first.
There was an allegation that the non-executive directors were somehow deliberately delaying the proposal for a joint chief executive. Were they supposed to roll over and not do their job of scrutiny properly? I am sure that the Minister will understand that the non-executive directors were insisting on due process and consultation with the trust’s wide range of partners. I believe to this day that they were right to ensure that others were aware of what was going on. They were concerned, as I was, that it was the start of a merger process for the two trusts. One of the trusts, North Tees, was considered high-performing at the time; the other, South Tees, was struggling and under considerable scrutiny from the Care Quality Commission. Happily, there have been improvements since then.
Non-executive directors are required to be independent and put the interests of patients first. Their robust challenge was clearly not appreciated by the chair and regional bosses. Those non-executive directors were local. They knew their community and wanted to do their best for them. I would like to put it on the record that not one of the new non-executive directors lives in the general area served by the trust—a completely opposite picture to the one before. It took me several attempts to find out where the new people hail from. Only when I issued a request under the freedom of information system was I told the answer: the new non-executive team come from Stafford, Hexham, Newcastle, Middlesbrough, which is quite nearby, Crook and Northallerton. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the idea of local trusts is just that—local—and that local people best know the needs of their community.
The outcome of the inquiry remains a mystery to all, including those who were investigated. The full report is being kept under wraps by NHS North East and Yorkshire executives, despite Richard Barker sitting in my office in Stockton and assuring me that it would be made public. What on earth have they all got to hide? Perhaps it is the fact that their actions were being questioned or that they had needlessly mounted an inquiry because the non-executive directors wanted to understand why a joint chief executive was being proposed and would not just roll over.
When Mr Barker refused to publish the report in full as he promised, I wrote to him several times, but I had to resort to the FOI request, which was ignored for some considerable time. I did think I had finally persuaded them when I eventually got a copy of the report, but it was so heavily redacted by Mr Barker and his team as to render it useless. The excuse that individuals had to be protected was far from satisfactory.
We still do not know whether the report showed that the non-executive directors were failing in their duty, or whether NHS North East and Yorkshire was even justified in mounting the inquiry. As I say, the fight for the full report continues. Although I contested the decision to make the redactions, I decided, on learning that one of the former non-executive directors was pursuing it through the Information Commissioner, to allow that action to take its course. That is still in play. Today I am asking the Minister to save the Information Commissioner a job and order Mr Barker—who commissioned the report, but then blocked its publication—to publish it now.
The Minister should also find out why this sorry mess was allowed in the first place. The decision to mount the inquiry called into question the integrity of people of long-standing service, yet not even they have been allowed to see it. They remain damaged by what has gone on, and they deserve to know what the report says—a report that cost tens of thousands of pounds. They want to see whether it is critical of them or not.
I suspect that the report remains under wraps because it may be critical of others in this sorry saga; in fact, I know that to be the case. In my Stockton office, when Mr Barker promised me full transparency and publication of the report, he said that it would be critical of the chair’s role in the scandal. That was omitted from the short summary report published by the regional officials and is not obvious from the redacted report. Mr Barker also acknowledged that the region could have handled the matter better, and I suspect that the report does too. He, too, now needs to be held accountable; I have, in the past, called for his resignation. I have no doubt that the regional officials have some questions to answer about the appalling way in which they have handled this matter.
To go back to the central issue, neither the non-executive directors nor I were opposed to the idea of a joint chief executive. In fact, I placed it on record that I was not even opposed to the two trusts one day becoming one, provided that our local hospital services were maintained and even improved. Yes, the regional officials did get their way in the end, but it was a genuine pleasure for me—I mean that honestly—to meet the new joint chief executive recently when the mayor of Stockton-on-Tees, Jim Beall, held his charity ball. Only time will tell whether a joint chief executive is the right decision. I sincerely hope that it is.
I reiterate my request to the Minister to order the publication of what should never have been a secret report. It is in the interests of natural justice, it is the right thing to do and it will give those affected the chance to move on with their lives. I provided the Minister’s office with the gist of the issues that I wanted to raise today, and I can provide him with a much fuller timeline that was too detailed for me to put on the record today. I look forward to a positive response that can help us to draw a line under this whole sorry matter.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this important debate. He has used it to raise important questions that are vital to NHS governance—localism, transparency and accountability. He is right that patients in his constituency and the wider region should be at the forefront of decision making about their healthcare. NHS England has found that shared leadership and group working arrangements between trusts can stabilise governance and align approaches to help improvement.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I thought that those were very legitimate questions and concerns about the way forward with mergers—joint working—but one of the issues in our part of the world is that South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was burdened by the last Labour Government with a huge PFI deal at James Cook Hospital that cost £1 million a week. That is what makes this contentious. That is what makes it so difficult to see joint working in our part of the world.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I recognise that they are two trusts with very different characteristics. He is right about the eye-watering legacy in one trust—I think it is £57 million a year of PFI debt—which can make joint working controversial. However, as I will come on to say, I have been assured that the two trusts want to work together with joint arrangements, but not merge. I hope we can set the record clearly: in doing the research behind this speech, I have heard that this is not the prelude to a merger through the back door; rather, it is about trusts wanting to work together to address the healthcare needs in the area.
It is right that any decisions about shared leadership arrangements are made in Stockton, not Westminster. However, where an NHS trust is facing performance challenges, the Government back targeted interventions by NHS England, bringing the trusts together to properly diagnose the problem and develop an improvement plan, which could include shared leadership. Any leadership changes should be kept under constant review to ensure that they are effectively delivering for patients and the local area. The point is to help challenged trusts to improve and take ownership of local issues. External evaluations of NHS England’s leadership interventions have found them to be effective.
I will address the current leadership arrangements of the North and South Tees trusts. Up and down the country, trust governance fits a variety of different frameworks. As the hon. Member for Stockton North knows, putting a round peg in a square hole is pointless. However, although we support a diversity of models, I am crystal clear that every arrangement should be geared towards building a faster, simpler and fairer NHS that works for both patients and staff. I am happy to assure him that, in this instance, I have been assured that the shared leadership and joint working arrangements are not in any way a precursor to trust mergers or acquisitions. In other words, both trusts intend to remain statutory organisations in their own right.
NHS England promotes those models of working to maintain consistency within trusts and to ensure that everyone is on the same page when lessons are being learned. However, for over 10 years now, North and South Tees trusts have been discussing how to work together to provide a better offer for the people of Stockton.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister may like to acknowledge that the North Tees and Hartlepool trust and the South Tees trust have worked together for many years. It is not a case of how they can do it in the future; they have been doing it for many years.
Andrew Stephenson
They have been doing it for many years. There are shared challenges in the area that they need to work on together, and this model of operation has worked in many parts of the country. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman describes is very much a bump in the road rather than something that characterises the past 10 years of joint work, most of which seems to have been constructive and conducted through local consensus.
In September 2021, the trusts appointed a joint chair. Just over a year later, they announced plans to form a group model to strengthen health services in the local area. That model was intended to improve recruitment and retention of specialist doctors and nurses, ensure join-up with local communities and partners, and secure capital investment to rebuild and upgrade hospital facilities. To deliver that new way of working, I understand that North Tees and South Tees foundation trusts engaged extensively with partners in the local area.
There is now strong collaborative work taking place across the Tees Valley, in the long-term interest of patients. The North Tees foundation trust is one of the best performing providers across the country for urgent and emergency care. The area’s NHS urgent care services will now be run by an alliance of four health organisations, including the North Tees and South Tees foundation trusts. Together, the partnership will oversee minor injuries and illnesses across the Tees Valley, including urgent care centres at the University Hospital of Hartlepool, the University Hospital of North Tees, and Redcar Primary Care Hospital.
I am delighted that the new urgent treatment centre at the James Cook University Hospital opened in March. We are backing the centre with a £9 million investment in urgent care services on Teesside, which will integrate services, provide patients with care close to home, and ease pressures on A&E. We should also celebrate the new Government-funded Tees Valley community diagnostic centre, which will open in Stockton town centre later this year. The centre will offer rapid scans, tests and checks for a number of major conditions. It will help thousands of people to access simpler services, with easily accessible life-saving tests and faster treatment.
I turn now to the investigation that the hon. Member for Stockton North raised. I understand that NHS England looked into the proposed appointment of a joint chief exec, as well as the actions and behaviours of the board. It aimed to find out whether these concerns amounted to breach of the trust licence. The investigation determined that the trust board had not acted consistently in relation to moving to a single chief executive appointment for South Tees. This constituted evidence suggesting a breach of a provider licence by the North Tees and Hartlepool Trust, which would normally lead to formal regulatory action being taken. After careful consideration, however, NHS England decided that the trust should implement the recommendations on a voluntary basis.
Alex Cunningham
Does the Minister recognise that the non-executive directors had moved on by then? They had actually resigned from their posts in protest at the lack of due process. Does the Minister, or maybe even the region, accept that this matter could have been handled a lot better?
Andrew Stephenson
I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that there are local government arrangements, and also that these are very much operational matters for NHS England and for the region. Certainly, given the concerns that he has outlined, it is quite clear that things could have been done better to take people with them, rather than alienating people. I also echo the tributes he paid to people who serve as non-exec directors on trust boards across the length and breadth of the country. They play a vital role in local NHS governance, and it is therefore regrettable to see a large number of non-execs resign for any reason.
I think that looking at the reasons behind this and investigating the best way forward is something best delivered by the NHS, and not dictated centrally by Ministers. The recommendations arising from the report were that a summary of it should be presented at the next board meeting and that an action plan for the next steps should be agreed, which has now been completed. It was also recommended that proper consultation between board members of both organisations should take place in future, so that they can reach the best collective decision for better services for Stockton. I hope that the trusts are now able to move forward with these new arrangements, especially with a new joint partnership board, establishing a clear chain of accountability going forward to address their challenges during this troubled period.
In wrapping up, I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister has just indicated that he is wrapping up, but the central question here is whether or not that report will be published. I have a heavily redacted report, which has more black ink than white paper. Does he accept that those people have the right to understand what judgments were made on the accusations against them? They should see the full report, not a version from the person who ordered it and then refused to publish it.
Andrew Stephenson
I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the NHS commissions a large number of reports on a whole range of services. When those reports are published internally, we expect all participants to be frank and open with investigations. They do so on the basis that they are internal reports to improve the governance of the organisation. It is not expected, and it is not the normal course, for such a report to be published. My understanding is that, following the hon. Gentleman’s freedom of information request, the report will be published in a heavily redacted fashion, as he said. The redactions were made by NHS England, in accordance with its policies. It is not a report that I am privy to and, to the best of my knowledge, it has not even been shared with the Department. It is an NHS England report that, as I say, has been published in accordance with its usual practices.
Alex Cunningham
Frankly, I find it amazing that a Minister cannot even get access to a report that questioned the integrity of five long-standing non-executive directors, who then resigned because of the lack of due process in the appointment system. I remind the Minister that, as I said in my speech, Mr Barker sat in my office and told me, face to face, that he would publish the report and that I would get to see it. He has reneged on that promise. Does the Minister think he should fulfil that promise?
Andrew Stephenson
Unfortunately, I will just reiterate the point that a summary of the recommendations emerging from this investigation were published; they were shared with the board. They are accessible by anyone who wishes to see them. Through his own endeavours, the hon. Gentleman has been able to secure a copy of the redacted full version of the report. As far as I can see from the investigations that I have made, the report has been published fully in accordance with NHS England’s normal practices.
Clearly, this is something that has led to a rocky period for the trust, but I believe that the recommendations that have been shared with the board are now being implemented and that the group model of working, as I have said today, is not a merger by the back door. I know that, in securing this debate, the hon. Gentleman wanted to give greater impetus to the trust to get its act together and resolve these issues. I am absolutely sure that the issues he has mentioned today will have been heard by members of the trust’s board—I am absolutely sure they have been listening. I urge them to work with him and other local MPs to ensure that any other concerns that he has raised, and any other concerns that other hon. Members may have, are addressed in due course.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
No, not in a half-hour debate.
Question put and agreed to.
BBC News Impartiality: Government's Role
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Government’s role in upholding the impartiality of BBC news coverage.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I refer the Chamber at once to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am grateful to have secured time for this important debate.
The BBC is a much-treasured national institution. Its news service is relied on by millions of British people and others around the world. Impartiality is rightly the foundation stone of the BBC’s operational guidelines and the very reason why it has garnered the trust of its users over many years. Its journalists provide an invaluable public service, often in trying and sometimes even dangerous circumstances. It is with great regret, though, that I have concluded that the BBC’s impartiality has been brought into disrepute. The BBC has found itself at the centre of ever-increasing controversy in recent years, and the organisation’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas war has led it comprehensively to fail the British public.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Sir Michael Ellis
I will make a little progress, then I will give way. The tragic events in Israel and Gaza undoubtedly pose a challenge to any media outlet given the strength of feelings that they elicit. However, a careful review of BBC output shows a clear failure to uphold its obligation to impartiality. In doing so, BBC News’s broadcasting and online content has actively inflamed community tensions here in the United Kingdom, fuelled the appalling rise in antisemitism and, in at least one particularly shocking case, harmed diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the violence.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Before we move on to the in-depth part of my right hon. and learned Friend’s speech, is not one of the problems with the BBC that it lays down rules then just ignores them? For example, what Gary Lineker wants to say is up to Gary Lineker. However, if the BBC says, “You do not have the right to do that,” when he then does it and waves two fingers, does that not completely undermine the BBC’s editorial content?
Sir Michael Ellis
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The BBC’s failure to adhere to standards and deal with those problems when they arise is a fundamental, systemic and systematic problem; I will come on to that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Sir Michael Ellis
I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. I apologise to him and to you, Ms Bardell, for not being able to be here throughout; I have a meeting with a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister. The right hon. and learned Member is right to set out the case on Israel and Hamas. If we look at the BBC’s bias against Brexit and Northern Ireland, it cannot even name our country right; indeed, its correspondent is called the Ireland correspondent. My goodness me. How long will it be before the BBC understand that when the Welsh correspondents are called Welsh correspondents and the Scottish correspondents are called Scottish correspondents, the people of Northern Ireland should have a Northern Ireland correspondent? We are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is who we are. The quicker that the BBC catch on, the better.
Sir Michael Ellis
The hon. Member makes a good point. The examples of biased content are great in number, and I simply do not have the time to document all of them.
Sir Michael Ellis
I will share a sample in a moment, but I will give way first.
Theresa Villiers
One of the most worrying examples of biased content on the BBC was their coverage of the bombing of the al-Ahli Arab Hospital, where its rush to accept the Hamas allegation that it was caused by Israel genuinely created problems on the ground and made it harder to resolve things. It had a real-life impact. That is an example of how the BBC needs to be much more careful in its coverage of Israel.
Sir Michael Ellis
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I shall come on to that in more detail momentarily.
BBC News has been roundly and deservedly ridiculed for its abject failure to identify Hamas as a terrorist group. Under immense pressure, the BBC eventually chose to acknowledge in its ongoing coverage that Hamas is proscribed in the United Kingdom, but it still refuses to explicitly label it as a terror group. That double standard was clear for all to see just weeks after Hamas’s heinous pogrom on 7 October, when BBC News immediately reported on its website an incident in Brussels as a “terror attack” linked to Daesh. Not only is the BBC failing to uphold the law of this country when it refers to Hamas as anything other than a terror group, it is effectively becoming complicit in Hamas’s well-orchestrated disinformation campaign.
The most dangerous example of the dissemination of disinformation during the current conflict came on 17 October—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) has said—when the BBC inaccurately reported that Israel was responsible for an explosion in the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital. BBC News’ breaking news Twitter account hurriedly notified its 51 million followers:
“Hundreds feared dead or injured in Israeli airstrike on hospital in Gaza, Palestinian officials say.”
BBC News’ international editor Jeremy Bowen told television audiences that “hundreds” had been killed and “thousands” injured after the hospital was “destroyed” in what he described as “the attack”—terminology that would clearly lead viewers towards the wrong impression that Israel was responsible.
There was an urgent Israeli investigation into the explosion at the hospital, subsequently independently confirmed by non-Israeli sources, which revealed that the incident was in fact caused by a misfired terrorist rocket launched by Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Even then however, BBC News saw fit to present claims and counter claims on its website, as if there was some sort of moral equivalence between a democratic state whose leaders are elected by their people and whose courts deal with their government, and a genocidal terrorist group that oppresses its people and murders children and innocent civilians.
Sir Michael Ellis
I will in a moment.
That particular incident at Al-Ahli Arab hospital had profound real-world implications. It led to the cancellation of a Head of State-level regional peace summit and violent protests erupting across the middle east, and the World Jewish Congress said it contributed to a spike in antisemitism globally—including the burning of synagogues in Tunisia and Germany. Such were the repercussions of that one misreport.
Reasonable people accept that mistakes can be made in any profession. However, it was the dismissive nature of the BBC’s response to the Al-Ahli coverage debacle, and the continuing pattern of troubling output since then, that does not reassure that lessons have been learned. Disgracefully, when Jeremy Bowen was interviewed about the incident he dismissively said he did not “regret one thing”, and that he did not
“feel particularly bothered about that.”
Bowen seemingly downplayed Israel’s discovery of evidence—including guns—that confirmed Hamas’s military operations within Gaza’s Al-Shifa hospital, saying it was “not convincing”. Perversely though, he said
“wherever you go in the Middle East you see an awful lot of Kalashnikovs and it’s not inconceivable that…I dunno…perhaps the security department of the hospital might have them.”
Repeated preparedness by the BBC to disseminate unverified claims provided by a proscribed terrorist group with a track record of disinformation should trouble us all.
Simon Jupp
My right hon. and learned Friend is making a great speech detailing some of the failures of BBC editorial policy. However, it is not just the BBC that does not describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation, other public service broadcasters such as ITV and Channel 4 do not do so either.
As politicians, we have to be a bit careful about asking broadcasters to bow to our whims as Members of Parliament when it comes to proscribing things and making editorial decisions. As a former BBC journalist myself, I think there is a real need to balance that with editorial justification and impartiality—and I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will come on to that in his speech. It is important to recognise that other public service broadcasters also do not describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman continues, I remind Members that interventions should be short and brief.
Sir Michael Ellis
What we want, need and expect from the BBC is a lack of bias and proper impartiality—that is all anyone expects. It is supposed to be a leader in its field and to set an example for other smaller broadcasters. I make no apology for expecting high standards from the BBC.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
In relation to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp), is it not the case that, when we have a criminal case in this country, the BBC describes the people in those criminal cases as murderers, burglars or whatever else they are? We have a legal framework in this country that has determined that this is a terror organisation, and the BBC should apply the same rule in that situation.
Sir Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As my example indicated, it does that for Daesh, which is another terrorist organisation. It will not do it for Hamas, and that is because of a link with Israel. Not all examples are as flagrant; the bias of BBC News and its journalists can be seen in other ways, which shows the depth of the problem. The BBC follows Hamas’s cynical policy of not distinguishing between civilian and combatant casualties. BBC News reports routinely add what amounts to disclaimers on information released by Israel or the Israeli army as being unverified. Time and again, that same rule is not applied to information released by Hamas. It was only after another pressure campaign that the BBC even started informing viewers that casualty figures in Gaza were provided by a terrorist-controlled Hamas health ministry, yet that seldom comes with a disclaimer about how they are unverified by the BBC.
For example, take a story on the BBC News website from just 2 February this year, in which it reports:
“More than 26,750 Palestinians have been killed and at least 65,000 injured, according to health officials in the Gaza strip.”
It then states:
“Israeli officials say that 9,000 of those killed were Hamas militants but have not provided evidence for the figure.”
By the way, Hamas have subsequently said that they had lost 6,000 fighters, still half of what Israel has claimed, but the BBC has chosen to ignore that Hamas statement, unlike many other news outlets. That happens daily. Each time the message that it conveys to readers, viewers or listeners is that Israel is not to be trusted over the word of a proscribed terror group that are known to wage information war.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On the broader question of the charter itself, a royal charter confers a privilege, which is effectively a kind of monopoly. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the licence fee payers, who come from all over the country, are themselves paying for disinformation on the basis of what he is saying? That, if it were a product liability issue, would lead to all kinds of legal consequences.
Sir Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course, it puts the BBC in that elevated status where the taxpayer is obliged to pay for it, and there are consequences from its poor leadership in this area. The BBC’s coverage of weekly pro-Palestinian marches has displayed an extraordinary disconnect from reality. It has repeatedly stressed that the marches are “mostly peaceful”, yet television reports have featured BBC journalists amidst crowds chanting genocidal refrains and brandishing flagrantly antisemitic placards. Not all viewers will have an understanding of those deplorable scenes and it is incumbent on the BBC to cover them responsibly.
On 30 October, the BBC posted a news item on its news app headlined, “Met Police chief wants clarity on extremism”. The article actually concerned the appalling displays of antisemitism and violent rhetoric at those pro-Palestinian rallies, but strangely the BBC saw fit to use a photograph of an Israeli flag as the banner image accompanying the piece. The message that would send to the casual reader is unmistakable: Israelis, or pro-Israel individuals, are the extremists.
I would like to touch on BBC Arabic now, which has repeatedly presented former Palestine Liberation Organisation Major General Wasif Erekat, who has celebrated the “heroic military miracle” of 7 October, as an independent military expert. Erekat has appeared on BBC Arabic at least 12 times since 7 October, despite having admitted to firing artillery shells on what he calls “Zionist positions” from Lebanon, and making outrageous remarks about how Hamas does not target civilians.
Concerns about bias within from the BBC are perhaps unsurprising when one considers some of the employment controversies engulfing the organisation, which I would like to touch on now. A scheduling co-ordinator for BBC3, Dawn Queva, branded Jewish people “Nazi apartheid parasites” and referred to the holocaust as the “holohoax”. In the wake of 7 October, BBC News Arabic journalists likened Hamas to freedom fighters and spoke of a morning of hope. A Beirut-based correspondent on BBC Arabic, Sanaa Khoury, tweeted that Israel’s prestige is “crying in the corner” and liked a comment about receiving sweets that were distributed in celebration of Hamas’s attack.
We have heard about Gary Lineker, who encapsulates the problem within the BBC. Lineker has shared a video with 8.9 million of his followers, with the offensive accusation that Israel is committing genocide and mourning the death of a Palestinian footballer, who was later revealed to be a “martyr fighter” for Hamas. He also shared a message calling for Israel to be banned from international football tournaments. Lineker has frankly made a mockery of new social media guidelines that had been drawn up following an earlier controversy over his politicised posts.
Amid that sorry state of affairs, it is perhaps unsurprising, though no less distressing, that the director-general of the BBC, Tim Davie, recently acknowledged that antisemitism was within the corporation. Perhaps that is not surprising, when “The Apprentice” star, who we have heard about recently, tweeted that Zionists were “odiously ogre-like”. The BBC compliance department apparently ruled that that was not antisemitic. Instead, they sent him on a diversity course. If Zionism were just a policy, and not a euphemism for Jews, as we all know it is, how can someone who supports a policy, of any sort, be physically ugly? That gives the lie to the whole charade. What they are really talking about when they say Zionists is, of course, Jews. Shamefully, BBC employees were prohibited from attending a major march against antisemitism last year, on the spurious grounds that it was controversial. Compounding that, BBC News saw fit to describe that as a pro-Jewish march.
The BBC has been criticised by Ofcom for its coverage, as many will recall, of a vile antisemitic attack on Jewish students in London in December 2021, finding that it had
“failed to observe its editorial guidelines on due impartiality and due accuracy.”
In that episode, the BBC had falsely accused Jewish victims of making anti-Muslim slurs. That was swiftly disproven, but the BBC failed to update its online news article for nearly two months, with no regard for the wellbeing of the attack victims and the wider Jewish community.
Simply, there have been too many examples of a lack of impartiality for the BBC to keep dismissing concerns. The BBC’s biased coverage throughout this conflict has undoubtedly had an impact on the public’s perception and the understanding of it, and has steered it in a more anti-Israel direction.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
What response has the right hon. and learned Member had from the BBC when he has raised these concerns? Is it taking action?
Sir Michael Ellis
I will be coming to that. We know that the BBC has received myriad complaints. The consequences of its lack of impartiality have been particularly acute for the UK’s Jewish community. Just as the Al-Ahli misreporting led to a violent spike in antisemitism across the world, so too has the relentless bias of BBC News coverage contributed to the record level of intimidation and attacks on British Jews.
It is interesting to note that more than three quarters of Jews in Britain—77%—believe that BBC coverage of the war in Gaza is biased against Israel, according to a recent poll by Survation for a newspaper. Dozens of current Jewish employees at the BBC are understood to have filed formal complaints related to their concerns about antisemitism, describing it as a “grim” and “frightening” time to be Jewish at the corporation. The BBC’s senior management has fundamentally failed to deal with this problem and uphold its own guidelines. The organisation now appears complicit in peddling misinformation and allowing antisemitism to fester. In those circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the BBC is institutionally antisemitic.
It has now been 20 years since the Balen report into the BBC’s anti-Israel bias. The organisation has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of hard-working licence fee payers’ money to suppress that 20-year-old report. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to join me and add her voice to the calls for the BBC to finally publish that report. I wrote to the director general before Christmas, and he declined to release it. I also ask the Minister whether she would agree that the time has come to finally say that the BBC’s ability to mark its own homework must be removed. Existing complaints procedures are ineffective and do not command confidence.
I shall end by recounting the words of 22-year-old Noah Abrahams, who left his dream job at the BBC after its refusal to unequivocally call Hamas what it is: a terrorist organisation. Noah said that words have the power
“to fuel hate and put fuel on the fire…Words impact how we think, how we react, how we act. They have influence.”
I challenge all of us here to stand up for truth, challenge the BBC in its deeply entrenched bias, and call for accountability.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to be called to speak. I hope to call Front Benchers by 3.28 pm, so I ask those who are speaking to be mindful of that.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) on securing this debate. I will start, as indeed he did, by quoting what anyone can get if they go on Google and ascertain the BBC’s main contribution to wider society on its website:
“The BBC is the world’s leading public service broadcaster. We’re impartial and independent, and every day we create distinctive, world-class programmes and content which inform, educate and entertain millions of people in the UK and around the world.”
That was indeed the case many years ago. I hope that the BBC can salvage something of its reputation and return to that high-sounding statement of what it sets itself up to be.
The right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North alluded to the high-profile on-screen talent, as they are called. The most expensive, well-paid employee in the BBC is Gary “Multimillionaire Lefty” Lineker. Mr Lineker was taken to task whenever he made his initial contribution, which it was felt breached the guidelines. The BBC agreed that he did indeed breach the guidelines to which he and others were expected to adhere. Within a few hours, however, some of Mr Lineker’s on-screen friends—some of whom were in his employ—decided to down tools, and they walked out. We had one edition of “Match of the Day” without Gary Lineker in situ. Then the director general of the BBC caved in, instead of saying to Mr Lineker and those who were with him, “There’s the door. If you don’t like the guidelines, off you go and get jobs elsewhere.” That is what the director general should have said—and did not. He caved in, and Mr Lineker returned, smirking at his ability to thumb his nose at the guidelines.
Then the BBC revised the guidelines and Mr Tim Davie was asked: if Mr Lineker says again, under the guise of the new guidelines, what was in breach of the old guidelines, is he in breach of the new ones? The director general could not really answer the question. I do not know whether Mr Lineker decided to test the water again, but off he went. The right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North alluded to what he said the next time; and, of course, no action was taken. Unfortunately, this is a blatant example of how the BBC seems to be prepared to take whatever the woke or the leftist agenda is as something they must endorse. If there is a breach of the guidelines, it turns a blind eye to it.
Simon Jupp
The hon. Member is making a very good point about high-grade staff at the BBC. Does he agree that, whether someone is a staff member or a star, the social media guidelines for working in the BBC should be exactly the same?
Mr Campbell
Yes, I do, and the penalty should be the same as well. That should go without saying, but unfortunately we have to say it.
I wish to turn to the comprehensive analysis that the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North gave about Hamas and Israel. He spoke with in-depth knowledge, and I do not wish to add anything other than to agree with him. I watched aghast at some of those breaches, whether it be Jeremy Bowen or the BBC News Arabic journalist, and the whole plethora of issues he raised.
The BBC has some excellent investigative analysis programmes, such as “Panorama” and BBC Northern Ireland’s “Spotlight”. From time to time, they do very comprehensive, in-depth investigations into issues that are in the public interest. That is exactly what they should do, and they are to be commended when they do it. But over a period of years, there has been an issue of huge public interest, not just in Northern Ireland but across the UK, and it is a concept that I have consistently ridiculed, because I have personal experience of it: the hard border on the island of Ireland.
There could have been a “Panorama” or “Spotlight” investigation to show how ludicrous it is and how porous the border is. It was nonsense to be bullied by the EU to agree to some sort of trading regime between the UK and the EU because of the threat of a hard border when it could not materialise, because there were 280 physical crossing points on the land border, which only stretches for 300 miles. It would take a military force of some hundred thousand personnel to man up, and we had 30,000 personnel when there was a murder campaign and they could not create a hard border. But there was no “Spotlight” or “Panorama” investigation into the concept of a hard border.
Similarly, at the moment we have a trading issue between Northern Ireland and GB, which is hopefully being resolved. We could have an investigative programme into the problems that some people have in trying to get plants and seeds from GB into Northern Ireland. A simple reporter, with a photographer, cameraman and a sound person, could go on the ferry from Belfast to Stranraer, acquire a few plants and seeds, put them in a car, drive back to the ferry and return to Northern Ireland with no problem caused to the EU single market. Yet the EU demands certain regulations, which we hope are being resolved. There is no investigation by the BBC, when it could and should be doing one.
Another issue that is coming up is a BBC Four programme called “Shooting the Rapids”. It is to be broadcast this weekend, although I will obviously reserve complete judgment until I watch it. In it, a former director-general of the BBC says that the British public were not being told the truth about the troubles in the 1960s and 1970s in Northern Ireland because—I apologise for the language—
“the bloody Protestants were running the BBC in Northern Ireland.”
I do not know where he has been for the last 30 or 40 years, but he needs to come back and check who is running the BBC in Northern Ireland now. Martin Bell and Denis Tuohy of the BBC also say that the BBC was prevented from telling the British public about discrimination against Catholics in education, work and housing. If they had come to me or gone to people I would have recommended they speak to about disadvantage in education, work and housing, they would have seen that it is not the people they think, but many Protestants, who are currently disadvantaged in those sectors.
So there are some programmes, and I hope the Minister will take on board the issues. I do not expect her to respond to every assertion about individual programmes, but there is an Ofcom responsibility and a Government responsibility, particularly regarding the recent mid-term review, to tell the BBC that there have been a plethora of assertions and allegations made against its coverage and its partiality and partisanship in news reporting.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
There is very much an imbalance within the BBC in relation to those in frontline reporting being from one section of the community or another. The difficulty we have is that there seems to be a hidden agenda in terms of what happens not only in Northern Ireland but in this House. What is deemed important is what is made important by the media, not necessarily the general public; it is what the media want to portray as the most important thing to focus on.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Member responds, let me say that I am sure we are all looking forward to him making his peroration so that everybody gets a good crack of the whip.
Mr Campbell
Thank you, Ms Bardell, and I will bring my remarks to a close. I agree with my hon. Friend. These issues have to be investigated. Hopefully the Minister, who I know takes a deep interest in these issues, will be able to raise them with the director-general and we will see, not words, promises and new guidelines, but action from the BBC, both nationally and in the regions.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Before I call Steve Double, let me say that I am going to impose a formal time limit of four minutes to allow interventions and to make sure that everybody can get in.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) on securing this important debate. He made an excellent opening speech and, as I have only a few minutes, I will not cover the ground that he covered. He made great points and cited specific cases where the BBC is clearly failing in its responsibility to be impartial, particularly in regard to the reporting of the events in Israel and Gaza.
The BBC enjoys a privileged position in our country, particularly in the broadcast media. It is funded by the licence fee—it is, effectively, publicly funded—and we have a right to expect it to uphold higher standards than anyone else. Comments were made about other broadcasters, but we expect the BBC to set the standard and to provide the leadership that others will hopefully follow. I believe that it has failed to do that in recent months with regard to Israel and Gaza.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North cited a number of incidents, but I will highlight the case of the rocket that hit the hospital. It felt like the BBC could not wait to jump to the conclusion that it must have been Israel. It seemed almost disappointed when it came out that it clearly was not and it grudgingly had to admit that it had got its initial reports wrong.
That raises a number of serious concerns about what is going on at the BBC. I sometimes wonder whether it has a blind spot and is so blinded by its views about Israel that it cannot see how biased it is being in its reporting, or whether it is aware that it is being biased but just does not care. I am not quite sure which it is, but it has to be one of those two. The BBC seriously needs to assess what is going on and the way the conflict is being reported on its broadcast news media, because it has a role in shaping public views. Clearly, we have seen a rise in the number of antisemitic incidents taking place in recent months in this country and the shameful treatment of a number of members of our Jewish community across the country. It is difficult to come to any other conclusion than that, sadly, the BBC has contributed to that because it has presented Israel in such a poor light over recent months.
I am not saying that Israel is faultless and never gets anything wrong, but it feels like the BBC will report Hamas reports, statistics and numbers without any qualification, without any sense of caution that that information is coming from Hamas, yet when Israel reports something, it is highly qualified as though the BBC is saying, “It is Israel telling us this. Therefore we need to treat this cautiously.” I think that that is having an impact on the public’s view and on the public perception of what is happening. Sadly, that is feeding through into what we are seeing on our streets.
In the mid-term release on the BBC, assessing its charter responsibilities, the Secretary of State did lead on the issue of and concerns about impartiality. That leads me to believe that the Government perhaps share many of our concerns about the impartiality of the BBC, so I simply ask this in concluding: what further discussions are going on with the BBC to hold it to account and to its obligation to be impartial and to fulfil its public service obligation in reporting the news from Gaza and Israel?
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) on securing this debate.
All reporting on this conflict should be done from the starting point of remembering that on one side we have a Jew-hating, gay-hating, misogynistic, terrorist death and rape cult, and on the other we have a democratic, liberal state with strong independent processes, which was attacked on 7 October. The fact that 77% of British Jews—remember that just 0.5% of the population of this country is Jewish—do not consider its coverage to be fair should be taken by the BBC as a cry of pain from the Jewish community, and it should take that very, very seriously.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the director-general’s recent email. I ask the Minister to follow up with the director-general to ask what he is actually doing to respond to these examples of antisemitism in the BBC. In a debate a couple of months ago, I described the BBC as Israelophobic, and I think that the words that my right hon. and learned Friend used—about it having an institutional problem with antisemitism —are absolutely true. That is fuelling not only hate towards the Jewish population in this country; the way in which the BBC is presenting this conflict on television is also fuelling hate towards Members of Parliament.
Why do I say that? We have heard my right hon. and learned Friend talk about how the BBC continues to quote as fact casualty figures from Hamas—an organisation that has previously misrepresented casualty figures. Meanwhile, Israeli witnesses to the rape of Israeli women on 7 October had their story told on the BBC with the proviso that the BBC had been unable to verify those claims. That was not applied to Hamas, of course. The BBC has deliberately presented this conflict from the point of view of civilians in Gaza and contrasted that with the Israeli military or with Israeli politicians, including those at the most extreme ends of the Israeli Government, with whom all of us on the Government side of the House would have little to do and who, at the end of the day, have little impact on the positioning of the Israeli Government’s policies.
The BBC has chosen to subject viewers to an antisemitic “The Apprentice” participant. Even when it became aware of that, it offered him sensitivity training. I have written to the BBC numerous times asking who provided that training and what the specific content was on antisemitism, because none of the charities that deal with this and have expertise on this, such as the Antisemitism Policy Trust, were involved, and the BBC will not tell me.
As Hamas perpetrated its massacres on 7 October, the BBC aired an interview with Refaat Alareer, a lecturer at the Islamic University of Gaza, who described the attacks as “resistance” and “legitimate and moral”. A senior BBC broadcast journalist joked about a woman whose grandmother was abducted by Hamas as receiving an “inheritance”. On Christmas eve, the BBC reported unverified and false claims from Hamas that the Israel Defence Forces were carrying out summary executions—it had to apologise for that. Today we see an example of that with the coverage of civilians in Gaza. Of course, there is absolutely no doubt that civilians are suffering, but the coverage provided on the BBC today is not something that was given to members of Israeli society or to those victims. I would like to go on, but the speaking time in the debate is so limited that it is impossible to.
In my final few minutes, I will ask the Minister to do a couple of things. One is to ask the BBC for a full review of how its coverage of this conflict contrasts with others’, and the other is to ask whether the BBC plans to offer proper antisemitism training, provided by actual members of the community with expertise on the subject.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I, too, am concerned about the BBC’s persistent failure to fulfil its legal obligation to be impartial. We saw this with Brexit. To give an example, News-watch, which is an independent monitoring organisation run by a former BBC producer, said that, on Europe, there were twice as many remainers as pro-Brexit speakers, with an even greater imbalance in the amount of time people had to speak, at 7:3, or nearly 9,000 words against 4,000 words. No wonder the political elites of this country were stunned by the result of the referendum—they did not see it coming.
Theresa Villiers
The BBC, in its language about Brexit, was not impartial, as illustrated by it persistently describing leaving without a deal with the EU as a so-called cliff-edge Brexit. No one wanted that outcome, but the BBC should not have been portraying it as a potential disaster via the terminology it used.
Adam Holloway
I wish I had thought of that for my speech. The reality is that the BBC fails to impartially report the multiplicity of viewpoints in the UK. It prides itself on diversity, but it has a real lack of diversity of thought. There is an intellectual homogeneity, which means there is no real balance of opinion among its staff. There is no recognition among those who make the decisions at the BBC that a recruitment policy that broadened its culture would better serve licence fee payers and better reflect the BBC’s viewers and the wider country.
Today the stakes seem very much higher, as we heard in the superb speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis). Given that the BBC has these huge resources made available to it via the licence fee, and given the heightened tensions here as a result of the crisis in the middle east, we thought it really could do a bit better. In 2021, colleagues and I wrote to the Prime Minister and urged him to consider directing Ofcom to deal directly with all impartiality events at the BBC, rather than letting the BBC do those itself in the first instance. Of course, that would need to be accompanied by some changes in Ofcom; to deal with complaints impartially and objectively, its contents board needs to change, because it seems to be stuffed with former BBC lifers. I also urge Ministers to consider requiring the BBC to set up an independent unit to monitor bias on an ongoing basis.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I would first like to refer to some figures from the past five years on the complaints made by licence fee payers—that is, taxpayers, 90-odd per cent of whom pay for the BBC. According to the figures, there were 1,935,179—nearly 2 million—audience complaints to the BBC from 2017 to 2023, of which only 3,692 progressed to the BBC executive complaints unit. Only 147 complaints were upheld or partially upheld by that unit, and only four of the 1,067 escalated to Ofcom were decided to be BBC breaches of the broadcasting code. It goes from 2 million complaints to four breaches upheld by Ofcom.
That tells us a great deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that the rest of the 2 million complaints must have contained, and do contain—as people know from their common sense and personal experience—gross breaches of impartiality. I have been talking to Ministers about that for several years. To my great regret, the mid-term review was revealed to the public by a mere written ministerial statement, when it should have been done by an oral statement on the Floor of the House. I hope I have got that right, but that is my understanding.
Secondly, we need a proper, full debate. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) for raising this issue, with particular emphasis on the Hamas-Israel situation. However, the problem goes very much deeper. It is an endemic, almost perpetual problem, to which there appears to be no answer. Great importance should therefore be attached to the need to propose or implement an effective and workable regulatory structure between the BBC and Ofcom, and to reform Ofcom’s role in the complaints framework.
An inadequate reform of the complaints framework has been going on, and particularly the intended roles of the BBC board and the editorial guidance and standards committee. Despite the Government’s recognition of the inadequacies of the BBC, there has been a failure to initiate an independent framework for handling complaints. Although we need a vital reform to facilitate the closer scrutiny of impartiality, with no reason specified that has unnecessarily been postponed until the next charter review in 2027.
A major omission of the review is a failure to define “impartiality”. The review actually claims that the task was too complex. I find that astonishing, particularly when one considers that the Oxford dictionary definition of “impartiality”, which is pretty standard stuff, insists quite clearly that
“official judgements and reports should be based on objective and relevant criteria, without bias or prejudice”.
All the evidence points in the other direction. The figures that I have given are absolutely astonishing, and it is a great failure for us not to have managed to get this right.
I pay tribute to this Minister, and to other Ministers who have participated in this process, but I have to say that it has not met the degree of performance for which we would have hoped. We were hoping for a mid-term review that would deal with the issue of impartiality, and I regret to say that this will need a bigger debate on the Floor of the House, with the Minister giving a full account and every Member having the opportunity, cross-party, to get this thing right once and for all.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis), whose opening speech covered such a wide area, with many vital points backed up by the evidence that his fine legal mind was always going to bring to this debate.
My Jewish constituents are bloody terrified now. It was bad enough leading up to the 2019 general election, when many of them felt that they would leave this country, but they had fairly good faith that the Labour party would not win that election. Now, they are truly terrified. I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) say that he feels safer in Israel than on the streets of his own country. That is true for a great number of my constituents who, to make matters worse, are seeing an in-built bias in the BBC almost justifying those launching antisemitic attacks against my constituents.
Andrew Percy
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I did not get chance to say this because of the limited time, but will he consider the coverage today on the BBC? Once again, the picture being painted by the BBC is of suffering Gazans—who inevitably are suffering, of course—versus a well-armed Israeli military trying to deal with Hamas. There are no images of Hamas fighters or the hostages being held. It is this picture of civilians versus the Israeli military that gives a wholly false impression of the battle going on. There is a whole day of it today on the BBC, and all that will do is lead to more threats and abuse for Jewish people in this country. Nobody has been able to verify any of the information coming out, and we know that people cannot speak freely because Hamas control the message and control people. The coverage today is appalling.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He brings to the debate a unique perspective on what is actually happening to the Jewish population in this country; it is more than I could hope to describe at this time.
There are several ways in which how terrible the Israelis are just creeps in, especially when listening to the radio, when we do not necessarily have the pictures. For example, “Israel have bombed a refugee camp”—most people believe that a refugee camp is an area full of tents and people who have been displaced and are suffering. These are historical refugee camps, with concrete buildings and towns that have been built around them. The laziness about going further and actually describing the situation adds to these issues.
The BBC is a very important institution in this country. There is always a role for public service broadcasting, but I hear so many of my constituents say that they hate the BBC. I would argue that what they hate is BBC News, not the BBC itself, but the reality is that the BBC’s bias is coming through in so many ways. Gary Lineker can say what he wants, but those who said that he could not say it and then did nothing about it are doing untold damage to the credibility of the BBC.
Sir William Cash
Would my right hon. Friend like to lay a bet that these particular proceedings will not appear on “Today in Parliament” tomorrow morning?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
That is quite amusing. I was sat here wondering if we would actually make “Today in Parliament”; I think it may get a mention, but it will probably be quite well edited. The reality is that we live in a world where people are willing to be more militant. If the BBC does not grasp this problem and deal with it, people will stop paying their licence fee and damn the consequences. They can overwhelm it with social media, a bit like when the poll tax happened and it basically got dropped because no one was paying it. That is one of the issues for the BBC.
If we ask people, they say they listen to BBC Radio and football coverage a lot. A public service broadcaster has an important role in any country. When we have these debates, we must be careful not to give the impression that we want to abolish the BBC. What we all want is quality, independent, impartial news coverage that allows the public to get a view of what is actually happening in the world. There are plenty of television and news stations, especially in the advent of digital television, that will pander to people’s opinions if they want that. A public service broadcaster must always be above that.
I cast my mind back to when, on the “Today” programme, Amol Rajan was interviewing the Home Secretary, who told him
“if you’re just going to make a statement, I can go and get a cup of tea”.
I had never heard that on the “Today” programme. It is vital that some of the most hard-hitting questions should be put to politicians, and we should be able to answer them. I do not care how bad they are, as long as everybody gets the same toughness of interview and questions. But it is not up to journalists to sit there and make statements towards the politician they are interviewing; it is up to them to probe the policies they are running and where they are at. If that ends up embarrassing the politician, so be it, but it has to be equal across the board.
I have a great concern that what is happening at the BBC is undermining the entire institution. What potential conversations can the Minister have to ensure that those who are setting the rules to protect the impartiality of the BBC, but are doing absolutely nothing to enforce them, can be held to account? I believe that this institution is vital across the world and to this country, as long as it is doing what it is supposed to be doing, and, at the moment, it is not.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
I thank Members for their brevity. We come to the Front Benches earlier than expected, starting with the SNP spokesperson.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you for your work in chairing today’s debate, Ms Bardell, and I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) on obtaining the debate. I will cover a few things, some of which have been covered and some of which have not been so much.
Public service broadcasting is incredibly important, and it is incredibly important that impartiality is measured and is there in the broadcasting. Many UK Government decisions have undermined the impartiality of the BBC, including the director-general being a former Tory candidate, and including a personal friend of Boris Johnson being made the chair of the BBC—a Tory donor who donated £400,000 to the party and lent £800,000 to Mr Johnson specifically. So there is an issue with impartiality—an issue with being seen to be impartial, as well as with potentially being impartial.
I have a BBC studio in my constituency that does local news in Aberdeen and has also been involved in some big events that have happened. For example, when the Queen passed away, it was the first on the scene reporting. I want to be clear to those people working in my constituency, and across the BBC, that we are not saying—nobody in this room, I think, is saying—that any of them individually are antisemitic, other than perhaps the ones that were mentioned by name. It is not—I do not think, from anyone—an attack on these individuals. I want to be clear that we value the work that they do and the fact that they do report in sometimes incredibly difficult conditions. Sometimes reporting is got wrong from every broadcaster; mistakes are made and they need to be as swiftly as possible rectified.
I want to be clear about the BBC’s position on what happened in relation to al-Ahli Hospital. It said that
“contrary to many reports—the BBC did not claim that the Israelis were responsible for the attack. We, along with many other…media organisations, reported initial claims by Palestinian officials and eye-witnesses…that this was an Israeli air strike…We attributed the claim to those making it.”
The BBC sought a response immediately from the IDF, and when
“the Israeli authorities countered those claims”,
the BBC “prominently and consistently” reported the position of the IDF. That is the BBC’s position. It may be an idea to watch back some of that coverage to see what exactly was said by the journalists at the time.
Andrew Percy
I like the hon. Lady and I hate to criticise her on this, but I think that that is not really credible. The BBC reported it, and I believe—I will check this—that it went out on push notifications. The fact remains that as a serious public broadcaster, on an issue as sensitive and as serious as this, the BBC should have applied independent verification to this story—as it demands and requires Israel to provide on claims—before it put that out and gave it such prominence. So I do not think that its response is really credible, with respect to the hon. Lady.
Kirsty Blackman
I just felt that this was the BBC’s position and I wanted that to be clear, because it does not have a voice in this debate right now.
Sir Michael Ellis
It may just help if I repeat the BBC’s breaking news Twitter account—the push notification to 51 million followers:
“Hundreds feared dead or injured in Israeli airstrike on hospital in Gaza, Palestinian officials say”.
Kirsty Blackman
Which, in that, is attributed to Palestinian officials, but absolutely—I think it is worth watching it back. But the BBC position is that it was very clear about that.
On the ideas around the bias or the lack of impartiality, apparently 36% of the public see the BBC as neutral; 15% see the BBC as pro-Palestine; and 17% see it as pro-Israel. There have been protests outside BBC studios throughout Scotland suggesting that the BBC is in fact too pro-Israel. Those protests have taken place outside a number of BBC studios in Scotland, including twice in Aberdeen. Any of those things are concerning and worrying for staff. People absolutely have a right to protest. Whichever the view of the protesters, the protests can be worrying for people who are perhaps not anywhere near reporting on either what is happening in Gaza or on any other sort of foreign affairs.
Andrew Percy
I am sorry to do this again, but I heard this when I met the BBC. I have had it said to me that, “Look, a lot of people think we are pro-Palestinian. A lot of people think we are pro-Israeli.” That is irrelevant. It is about the actual coverage; it does not matter what the perception is. That does not mean that there is not an issue here. I have so far not found a single example of a BBC journalist who has had to be dealt with, suspended or reported for making pro-Israeli statements on their social media accounts, whereas there are plenty that relate to this. The fact that there might be that perception does not alter the fact that there is an issue.
Kirsty Blackman
Actually, I do think the perception is important. It is also important that, as the hon. Gentleman said, 77% of Jewish people in the UK think that the BBC is biased. Having said all of that about the views of the general population, it is none the less incredibly important to listen to the communities who have a long history of persecution, particularly Jewish people. It is incredibly important to listen to those views and to understand that, if a community feels that the BBC is doing something wrong, it needs to take that incredibly seriously.
Sir Michael Ellis
The hon. Lady has been generous in giving way. I reiterate the point, which I am sure she will agree with, that it is very easy for people to make any sort of claim or counter-claim, but there needs to be some evidence. I like to think that in my speech I gave numerous evidenced examples. If people are going to say that there is evidence of BBC pro-Israel bias, they need to be able to cite some examples of that. I do not think they will be able to do that.
Kirsty Blackman
Given that I came to talk more generally about the impartiality of BBC news and I had few notes on the conflict in Gaza, I am afraid I do not have an answer. I am not here to defend the BBC. I just wanted to be clear on what its position was, particularly around that one incident that was mentioned.
I met representatives of the Union of Jewish Students in the wake of the beginning of the conflict. We spoke about what was happening at the University of Aberdeen and how safe or unsafe they felt on campus. They raised concerns with me about reporting, but the concerns that they raised were not specifically about the BBC; they were about reporting in general. It is very important for us to listen to those people who are saying, “We are being discriminated against” or “There is bias against us” because, as a non-Jewish person, I do not feel, see or hear all the undercurrents. It is not only we as parliamentarians who must listen to such views; the BBC must ensure that it listens to members of the community who are the experts in this when providing diversity training, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) mentioned. I absolutely agree with his suggestion that the training should be carried out by those people who are genuine experts, such as Antisemitism Policy Trust. I will declare an interest. Members can look at my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to that.
It is important to think about the regulation of the BBC. We recently had the first Media Bill in 20 years. It has been a long time since there was a change to the regulation of public service broadcasting in general. However, the BBC is governed by the charter and the agreement that comes alongside it. In some ways, Parliament is unable to take action on this; that is more in the remit of the UK Government. I ask the Minister, when she is looking at this, to look at some of the genuinely good work the BBC has done around increasing diversity—I have spoken to it about that in recent times—and to assess whether she, the Government, and the communities that are impacted feel that the 10-point plan and the impartiality and diversity training the BBC has put in place are sufficient, so that the BBC can be impartial, continue to be respected, and provide the public service broadcast that so many people rely on in order to get their news.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I would like to begin by congratulating the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) on securing this important debate. Impartiality has always been, and must remain, a crucial underpinning of the BBC. It is right that the BBC is operationally and editorially independent from Government, and that impartiality is embedded in its governance at every level. As a result, not only do eight out of 10 UK adults consume BBC news on average per week—double the next nearest provider—BBC news is unique in its ability to gain the trust of audiences in the UK regardless of their political persuasion.
As has been discussed in this debate—we have heard opinions from across the House, and indeed across the country, from East Londonderry, St Austell, Brigg and Goole, Gravesham, Stone, and Elmet and Rothwell—many are deeply concerned about the impartiality of coverage regarding the terrible events in Israel and Palestine, where over the past few months we have seen an intolerable loss of life and an unacceptable growing humanitarian disaster in Gaza. There has been some debate over the way the BBC chooses to use the word “terrorist”. To be absolutely clear, Hamas are terrorists, and proscribed as such in UK law. Hamas has committed brutal atrocities and I call it a terrorist organisation, as is only right. The BBC is responsible for its own editorial guidelines, and it is not for politicians to tell it what should and should not be included in them. However, I will use the word “terrorists”, and it will report that I did.
On the BBC’s coverage of the topic more broadly, concerns over impartiality have been raised by people of many different persuasions and backgrounds. A poll conducted by More in Common found that roughly equal numbers of people find the BBC’s coverage to be as pro-Israel as pro-Palestine. However, an even larger percentage of the 2,000 people polled said they felt that the public service broadcaster’s output on the conflict between Israel and Hamas had been mostly neutral. That is not to say that the BBC makes no mistakes, and when it does, it must work swiftly to rectify them. That is particularly important at a point where community tensions are high. The Community Security Trust, a charity that works to eradicate antisemitism, has reported a staggering 500% rise in antisemitism, and Tell MAMA, a project working to address anti-Muslim hatred, has reported over 2,000 Islamophobic incidents between 7 October and 7 February—more than triple the 600 reported during the same period the year before.
We must denounce hate crime in the strongest terms, and I expect to see a robust response to all incidents of hate associated with the conflict. I recently met the Community Security Trust, Stand Up! and Maccabi GB to discuss the worrying rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia and the work going on in communities to promote tolerance and integration. There is no place in Britain for antisemitism or Islamophobia, and all of our media outlets have a duty to report responsibly and accurately on both the conflict itself and the rise of hatred in this country. With that in mind, it is concerning that Jewish employees at the BBC have raised complaints about its coverage. The BBC says it has well-established and robust processes in place to handle any issues, concerns or complaints, so I would hope and expect that to be dealt with fairly and accordingly.
Sir William Cash
Does the hon. Lady agree that although the word “racist” is often used in this context, much of it is actually to do with divisions of opinion on matters of religion, and that is very much at the heart of a lot of these problems? If she does not know that, does she recall that Gandhi himself, when asked what the most important question about politics or religion is, said that those who do not understand that politics is secondary to religion do not know what they are talking about?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point; he has certainly put it on the record. I would like to move on.
On the BBC’s record on impartiality and its complaints processes more broadly, it is timely that the Government’s mid-term review has finally been published, as it looked directly at those issues. Indeed, the review noted that the BBC has completed the implementation of its 10-point plan, following the Serota review, with measures including impartiality training for staff, internal content reviews and regular staff surveys on impartiality. Further to that, following the independent review by John Hardie in 2023, the mid-term review also notes the new social media guidance for BBC presenters who do not cover news, current affairs or factual journalism.
The Government also found in the review that BBC First delivers fair complaints decisions that withstand scrutiny from the regulator. In terms of improving that further, the review makes a number of recommendations, including external scrutiny of complaints, improving the visibility and clarity of the process, ensuring the quality and timeliness of responses, and giving greater transparency on decision making. It is important that action is taken to work on those, and that Ofcom looks at progress in those areas when it reviews BBC First before the charter renewal.
Like any institution, the BBC does not get everything right. It is, however, a cornerstone of our creative economy and an important part of our day-to-day lives. The BBC is an important national institution, and we believe we must secure its future as a universal, publicly owned, public service broadcaster, not least in a world where misinformation is rife and public interest journalism is becoming harder to access.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) for securing an incredibly important debate on the impartiality of the BBC, and the Government’s role in upholding it. I am also grateful to every hon. Member who has contributed this afternoon, as well as the Opposition spokespeople, including the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), whose contributions have been constructive.
I appreciate the important words that were said in relation to Hamas as a terrorist organisation, and a clear understanding that the Government have taken action, but will keep a lot of these matters under review. I think there is unanimity here that the BBC is an incredibly important organisation, the integrity of which we all fundamentally seek to uphold. That is why we are here today talking about this issue. There is a collective desire in this House to focus the BBC on its core purpose when it comes to news, to report on the world with a relentless dedication to facts and truth. That is the foundation on which trust is built.
Trust, in my opinion, is the BBC’s currency in a very complex, ever-changing world where regional events can ricochet with great consequence into the communities and neighbourhoods of the UK. Hon. Friends have spoken of that and given examples, and it causes me a great deal of concern, both for my constituents and for my Jewish and Muslim friends, who have received pretty horrifying attacks from the same source—Islamist fundamentalism.
That worries me deeply, and nobody in the UK wants to see that play out in our streets. We have a duty to try to lower the heat, and also to have difficult, complex arguments on this issue. That is why we all feel strongly about the BBC’s role in that. We have an implicit social contract that grants the BBC a unique place in national life, with an equally unique funding structure in the licence fee, because it is bound by duties that commit it to that truth-telling and the reflection of communities in every corner of the UK.
Having a public service broadcaster structured in such a way says something very important about our values as a society, where a commitment to freedom of expression and openness provides an increasingly stark contrast to jurisdictions where the truth is manipulated or suppressed, or focused only on stories of the powerful. We can see that in how conflicts are reported around the world in other countries.
Indeed, the first public purpose listed in its royal charter requires the BBC to provide duly accurate and impartial news and information. The impartiality of the BBC goes to the heart of the contract between the corporation and all the licence-fee payers it serves. The public rightly expect the BBC to be an exemplar of impartiality and accuracy, while allowing a range of opinions to be offered and debated.
Of course, the BBC is not there as an instrument of Government. Ministers seeking to interfere with editorial decisions or the day-to-day running of the organisation would be in nobody’s interests, in seeking to build the trust that is so fundamental to its core purpose.
Sir William Cash
Will the Minister commit to putting forward the idea that there should be a proper definition, along the lines of the Oxford dictionary, as I mentioned, so that we have a definition of impartiality in the charter, as well as the statement she has just made about it?
Julia Lopez
I am always happy to engage with my hon. Friend on those sorts of issues, which we have engaged on in relation to the mid-term review. I shall look into the particular issue he raises on the definition of impartiality, although I suspect that it is written down in some of the documents. It may not be in the charter itself, but we do talk to the BBC about this on a very regular basis.
As hon. Members will be aware, I tread a fine line here. I appreciate that there may be a desire from colleagues for me to go very far in sticking the boot into the BBC on certain issues. I want to ensure that I am always on the right side of that line, because I would not seek to undermine the trust that the BBC must put at the centre of its compact with the public.
By the same token, if concerns are expressed by citizens of this country, and by hon. Members on their behalf, about how the BBC is carrying out its duties to fair and impartial news, and the structures that hold it to account, then I think that requires a response. No organisation, particularly one of the BBC’s nature, should be exempt from scrutiny. If large numbers of citizens are questioning the legitimacy of the BBC’s funding model as a result, in a way that I fear might risk undermining the future sustainability of the organisation, then it is fundamentally in the interest of the BBC for there to be a response.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
We often find the left screaming that the BBC is a Tory mouthpiece and the right screaming that the BBC is a left-wing mouthpiece—that is political opinion, and it probably means that it has got it roughly right. But there are indisputable facts that are black and white, as with the bombing of the hospital and the failure to verify sources. That is where the BBC is taking a wrong turn. That is what is fundamentally undermining the credibility of its impartiality. It is not the knockabout politics we have on particular issues; these are black and white facts.
Julia Lopez
That is the point that I am trying to make. We do not seek to interfere with the BBC editorially, but where there is a risk that trust and faith in the organisation will be undermined because of how it is being run, that should be of concern to the BBC, of concern to Ofcom and of concern to the Government.
Andrew Percy
Further to the point from my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), I feel we are being trolled in this debate. Someone has just sent me a picture of the main banner running alongside the BBC News website at 3.39 pm today, which says:
“Gaza health ministry: 29,878 Palestinians killed”.
We are being trolled in this debate. There is no reference to that being Hamas’s figures. There is no reference to the fact that we know that thousands of those people who have been killed are Hamas operatives. These are the very issues we have raised today. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are facts, and then there are opinions. It is a fact that these are Hamas’s figures, but they are not being presented as such. In this very debate in which we are calling this out, the BBC is trolling us. It is having a laugh.
Julia Lopez
As I say, I am trying to get the line correct between giving the BBC editorial independence and expressing concern.
In the mid-term review, we have tried to ensure that there is much greater power for the BBC board to conduct thematic reviews of complaints and to have much more independence from the editorial teams, so that if there is a clear pattern coming through in the nature of the complaints about the BBC’s reporting and editorial decision making, the BBC can look into it. That is a new innovation from the mid-term review.
I note that Samir Shah, the incoming chairman of the BBC, has made reference to the idea that there may be an opportunity to review how the BBC is reporting on foreign conflicts, to ensure that the corporation is getting it right. This goes to the fundamental currency of the BBC: it is a trusted organisation, but with that level of trust comes a much deeper level of responsibility. Hon. Members have spoken about how licence fee payers are paying for this content and therefore rightly expect certain standards to be adhered to.
A response is needed, not so that we can kick the organisation and its dedicated reporters, but so that the BBC can discharge its fundamental duties to be a beacon of trusted information in an era of water muddying, truth bending and industrial disinformation. That is precisely how we worked in the mid-term review. Halfway through the royal charter, the review was an opportunity to pause, examine and evaluate the effectiveness of the BBC’s governance and regulation. The review focused on a range of issues, including editorial standards and impartiality, and our recommendations were unambiguous about the fact that there is scope for material improvement across a variety of areas.
The review highlighted that impartiality continues to be a major challenge for the BBC. Audience perception that the BBC is not sufficiently impartial is an ongoing issue. Within a culture of continuous improvement, we think that more can be done. Following direct and constructive dialogue with the Government, the BBC is implementing major reforms, although perhaps not major enough for my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.
Sir William Cash
That would be true. Surely an improvement would be to have a test within a few months—a review of what has already been done under the new system that has been created. If that fails, the whole system fails.
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend and I discussed the mid-term review and its findings just before it was launched, and I said to him that there is an opportunity to see how it is playing out, which will inform some of our discussions about charter renewal and future funding debates. A review of the funding model for the BBC is forthcoming. We will invite all hon. Members to engage with that review, which may be an opportunity for my hon. Friend’s views to be aired loudly and persistently.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the fact that there will be a funding review, but how the BBC is funded is not the issue. The BBC has built a reputation as the trusted news source, and it is letting that reputation down. There will be a BBC no matter how it is funded, and people will turn to it. The problem now is that there is a bias being launched against Israel. That is a fact. The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) talked about a survey in which people felt that it was balanced, but they are the ones receiving the news, not the ones involved in it. It does not come down to how the funding is put in place; it is about how we ensure that the BBC keeps its impartiality.
Julia Lopez
I was referring to the next staging posts down the line. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone suggested that the mid-term review was not meaty enough for his tastes, so I was simply encouraging him to engage in the next stages of the conversation. It is an incredibly important national conversation that will involve not just hon. Members, but the general public.
I have expressed to the director-general a concern that in public life we sometimes focus on the micro issues in relation to the BBC. I am not suggesting for one moment that this is one of those issues, but we get involved in regular tussles without asking fundamental questions about what we want the BBC to be going forward. That is something that I hold very close to my heart, because we are entering a very uncertain world in which misinformation and disinformation are being industrialised, and the BBC has an incredibly important role. It is in our interests as a nation, and as a western nation, to try to ensure that its future is safeguarded and that it maintains its public perception of trust and impartiality. I simply encourage hon. Members, in advance of the charter renewal process and in advance of discussions on the funding fee, to ask some of those big, searching questions about what we truly want the BBC to be.
Andrew Percy
As we are on the topic of asking questions, will the Minister write to the director-general to ask him what his actual plan is to deal with the institutionalised antisemitism in the BBC, which I think he has acknowledged himself in his email to staff? Will she ask him what specific training was given to the antisemitic, racist star of “The Apprentice”—well, I will not call him a star, because he is not a star; he is just a nasty little racist—on content related to antisemitism, because the BBC will not tell me? Will she ask him whether the BBC has an editorial note on antisemitism within the newsroom and, if it does not, whether it will produce one?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for those searching questions. I have regular discussions with the director-general. Hon. Members regularly talk to me about their concerns relating to how the BBC is run, and I relay some of those concerns. We have open discussions when he comes to see me and vice versa. As my hon. Friend notes, an email has gone out to all staff within the BBC in relation to antisemitism. I will be happy to discuss his specific questions about training for the candidate for “The Apprentice” and the other issues in person with the director-general at our next meeting, if not before.
I have no doubt that somebody from the BBC will be listening to this debate and noting the concerns that have been expressed in this Chamber about how the organisation is run. It must be very difficult in BBC newsrooms when staff have concerns about other members of staff in relation to personal opinions on social media that have recently come to light. Again, it goes back to the fundamental interests of the organisation, which are to make sure that staff can work in the newsrooms with a drive towards the truth and without fear of intimidation from anybody else in that newsroom.
I return to the mid-term review. We worked very hard with the BBC and Ofcom to try to tackle the fundamental concerns that have been raised about impartiality. A new, legally binding responsibility on the BBC board will require it actively to oversee the BBC’s complaints process to assure audiences that their concerns are being fairly considered. I appreciate that many hon. Members in this Chamber wanted to move on from the BBC First complaints process. Again, that is an issue that will be considered in charter renewal. We will also be closely monitoring whether there is a substantial change in how complaints are handled as a result of the mid-term review changes.
We have recommended that Ofcom’s regulatory responsibilities be extended to the online content that the BBC produces. I believe that one hon. Member referred to a complaint about how an incident involving antisemitism on a bus in Oxford Street was reported. That was part of the BBC’s online material, and it is the kind of complaint that will be brought into scope because of the mid-term review.
Sir William Cash
Will the Minister be good enough to take into account the views of Baroness Deech KC, a Cross Bencher in the House of Lords who was a governor of the BBC? She wrote an important letter to The Times or The Daily Telegraph—it does not matter which—about the judgment of the BBC. Will the Minister look at Baroness Deech’s extremely interesting letter and speak to her about it?
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Order. I have been generous in giving the Minister extra time to answer all the questions, but I hope she will afford the same consideration to the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) and allow him to sum up.
Julia Lopez
I shall look into the specific issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone raised.
As I say, the mid-term review is by definition a stepping stone. It takes us to charter review, which will be the time to ask many more fundamental questions of the BBC. I do not wish to take up any further time. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North again for securing this debate.
Sir Michael Ellis
I am grateful to you, Ms Bardell, and to Front-Bench and particularly Back-Bench colleagues.
The BBC is a treasured institution. We care about it and want it to prosper—that is why we are here—but it is failing. Ironically, as colleagues have mentioned, today the BBC is heavily pushing what it is calling its Gaza day. No one begrudges it that—that is what it is entitled to do—but has the BBC done an Israel day? If it purports to be neutral, it has to do both. Why not do an Israel day? If Uruguay and Paraguay were at war and the BBC did a Uruguay day, we would find it also doing a Paraguay day. Why not interview the victims, the injured, the Israeli families of the murdered of the pogrom or the hostages who have been released? Why not interview the heroes who saved civilians? If it purports to be neutral, it has to do both, so it is a highly topical example. It is suspicious, of course, because doing such an Israel day would be a lot easier to arrange and could perhaps have been done already.
Today the BBC is going some way to proving the case, but what makes the BBC institutionally antisemitic is not that there is bias or antisemitism within—sadly, there is a lot of that everywhere—but the fact that the management have not done what they should be doing about it. That is what makes it institutional. BBC employees suffering abuse from within, mistakes not being corrected, staff and so-called talent not being disciplined and erroneous reports not being corrected or being pushed out without responsible checking have inflamed community tensions here in the UK, fuelled the rise in antisemitism and harmed diplomatic efforts to end the violence.
To hold oneself out as neutral and to be biased is a form of corruption. The BBC can no longer be permitted to mark its own homework.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Government’s role in upholding the impartiality of BBC news coverage.
Time Banking
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for timebanking.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I was reflecting ahead of the debate about where and how we find community and how that might have changed over the years. In recent decades, many of the traditional sites and sources of community have become fragmented or disappeared entirely. The changing nature of careers in the workplace, a decline in the membership of religious and community organisations, and people relocating more often have perhaps all played a role, among other factors. It is ironic that in an era dominated by online social networks and mass communication, for all the many undoubted benefits, we are grappling with issues of social isolation, loneliness and declining community cohesion.
Office for National Statistics data from March 2021 shows a 7.2% decrease since 2014-15 in those who agree that people in their local area are willing to help their neighbours, and an 8% fall in the proportion of people who believe that others in their neighbourhood can be trusted. According to the Campaign to End Loneliness, in 2022 nearly 50% of adults in the UK reported feeling lonely occasionally, sometimes, often or always. There are multiple reasons for these trends, and there is no one easy fix, but they clearly demonstrate that initiatives such as time banking are needed more than ever. I declare an interest as a long-serving member on the committee at Leith Time Bank.
Life has changed, and our friends and family do not always live nearby. It is not always easy to ask someone for help, especially if it brings with it a feeling that we cannot pay them back. Time banking is a fun, relaxed and informal way of enabling people to help each other and bringing out the best in us all. Time banking is essentially about neighbours being neighbours. It offers a slightly more formalised approach to creating and sustaining the bonds that have long been fixtures of our communities. It reaffirms the old adage that the most valuable thing a person can offer someone is their time.
We all have skills, knowledge and experience to offer that could be beneficial to someone. It could be gardening, sewing, simple repairs, language skills, running errands, tech skills or helping with shopping—whatever it might be. Time banking is a way for people to exchange their skills and experience. It is based on a simple premise: for every hour someone spends helping someone, they earn an hour back from their time bank. Everyone’s time is valued equally, whatever is being offered. Everyone is encouraged to spend their time credits to give others the chance to make a difference and feel valued.
Timebanking UK was founded in 2002, inspired by the growth of time banking in the US. Social activist Martin Simon opened the first bank in Stroud, four years after the concept was introduced to the UK by Fair Shares. Having visited Dr Edgar Cahn and witnessed the time dollars movement in America, Martin Simon was determined to bring that system to the UK. He began development work from an office at City Works in Gloucester, creating Britain’s first time bank.
Now, 22 years on, there are well over 100 time banks and around 25,000 time bank members across these isles, with an estimated 6.7 million hours of help exchanged. Timebanking UK helps communities to set up time banks by providing all the resources needed. It offers monthly training sessions and networking events, a software platform and start-up materials, as well as individual support, advice and guidance.
Time banks bring together people of different ages, cultures, backgrounds and abilities who interact with each other on an equal footing and with mutual respect and understanding.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate; I cannot help but be enthralled by how she has presented her case for time banking. Does she agree that the old Bible truth “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is at the very core of the idea behind time banking? It allows all people to acknowledge their strengths, and to get help in return. Taking my speechwriter as an example, she says to me:
“These fingers are designed for typing”—
but there are others who are unable to manage that skill but would be able to provide tuition for a new skill. The ability to share should always be encouraged, as long as safety is paramount. We need to be assured, so I ask: is there a safety aspect to what is being put forward?
Deidre Brock
Is the hon. Gentleman asking whether there is a safety aspect in terms of monitoring what happens to everyone?
Deidre Brock
Yes, there certainly is, and I will explain a little bit about the set-up of time banks as I continue. The hon. Gentleman has got to the heart of what makes time banks work: mutual respect and the feeling of giving as well as receiving. He has hit the nail on the head.
To return to what I was saying, a time bank member is not a volunteer in the traditional sense; they must be prepared to receive from others as well as to give to others. It is that reciprocity that makes time banks unique. Timebanking UK’s case studies show that joining a time bank really can change people’s lives. Time bank members learn new skills, meet new people who are often from different backgrounds, report better self-esteem and self-confidence, and feel healthier—both mentally and physically.
After six months as a member of a time bank, 80% of participants felt a greater sense of community belonging, 74% had made new friends, 74% experienced improved mood or reduced depression, 69% felt more comfortable asking for or receiving help, 66% experienced decreased loneliness and 60% noted improvements in their quality of life, health and wellbeing. Despite its considerable success over the years, time banking has not been raised in the House of Commons since 2011, so a chance to pay tribute to the movement and identify opportunities to grow it is long overdue.
As I mentioned, I have been a long-time supporter of the Leith Time Bank, which is part of Timebanking UK and Timebanking Scotland and has been running for more than a decade. Leith Time Bank’s development worker Mary O’Connell, and Anne Munro, the manager of Leith’s wonderful Pilmeny Development Project, along with my committed fellow committee members who sustain Leith Time Bank, have been at the heart of its burgeoning success. Its primary focus is to support older people, carers and adults with chronic health conditions, but many other demographics are represented among its 200 members. The skills one can offer or ask for are as numerous, if not more so, than the number of members, and include gardening, sewing, cooking, form filling and helping with the shopping—the list goes on and on.
Leith in my constituency is a densely populated area, but folk do not always socialise locally, and particularly not across different groups and generations. Recent waves of gentrification can create tensions, but time banking has been remarkably effective at breaking down barriers and forging connections between old Leithers and new arrivals, forming friendships between people who might not otherwise have ever met.
Time banks thrive best at a local level where members can get to know one another. Leith Time Bank runs social activities to help to facilitate this, as well as activities such as a multicultural cooking group and home energy advice meetings. Every month it offers a programme of activities whereby members can get to know each other in a safe and comfortable environment, and they range from weekly language classes and culture group meet-ups to one-off events such as a gardening squad, through to attending football matches or museums.
At the height of the pandemic, communication with loved ones online was a godsend for many folk, but lockdowns also exacerbated the digital divide. Those without access to digital devices faced really increased social isolation. Leith Time Bank runs a project whereby people offer their digital skills, largely—although not necessarily completely—to support older people in learning about tech access, and they can then get something back in return.
Time banks also offer a lot of flexibility, which I know has worked well locally for students, those with irregular schedules or just folk juggling various commitments and responsibilities in busy lives who still want to put something into their local area. I mentioned Mary O’Connell from Leith Time Bank; I spent some time with her recently and she shared some examples of its positive impact. For instance, one of its members is an 80-year-old man who is visually impaired and lives alone, with no friends or family nearby. He earns credits by providing one-to-one Spanish and French lessons in a local café with other time bank members. In exchange, those members earn credits by accompanying him to medical appointments and social activities, or by providing practical help with day-to-day needs like shopping, as well as telephone and face-to-face chats.
Leith Time Bank also operates a community pot whereby people can donate credit virtually, and it can be used for those who cannot contribute, perhaps due to health issues. One gentleman wanted to see a film at the cinema but he was unable to travel there himself, so he used the community pot to find someone to buddy him for the film. Mary also told me about an older lady who had been receiving help through the community credit pot but felt she had no expertise to give back. During a group activity, she met young mums and realised that she did indeed have skills to offer as she was able to teach them all how to make soup.
Members have described time banks as a “lifeline”, spoken of how they have done wonders for their mental health, and reflected on the opportunity they give them to
“meet lots of interesting people with good values”,
and also, of course, to meet and befriend people from all sorts of different ethnic backgrounds. I have given small local examples, but there are many thousands more such interactions all across these isles. The Timebanking UK network has helped to create local mutual support structures that can work in tandem with statutory services as well. At a UK national level, it has worked on projects with organisations across the charity, public and private sectors, including the likes of Sport England, the National Lottery and Disability Rights UK.
I argue that expanding the time banking network further would have multiple benefits, and I urge the Minister to consider where the Government might be able to lend some support. Our ageing populations, the cost of living crisis and the challenges facing social care all make the case for time banking to play an enhanced role in our society. Timebanking UK proposes a three-year national programme to create multiple time banking networks, including a public awareness programme—part of the problem is that not many people are aware of time banking and its many benefits—and training in co-production for key members of the social care management and frontline workforce.
Additional funding would enable Timebanking UK to expand its operations and realise its vision of a time bank on every high street in every village, town and city, just as there are general practitioners and pharmacies. Under a social franchise model, Timebanking UK would set up delivery partnerships with stakeholders, including voluntary and support organisations, GPs, health centres and community groups.
Further support would also help Timebanking UK to implement a system for quality-effectiveness and to calculate the social return on investment. It would allow more detailed assessments of the impact of time banking for individuals and communities, and a focus on the amount that it saves for statutory services, as well as for the creation of an app for UK national interaction between participants and to engage the younger audience. To give a cost example, just £20,000 to £50,000 would enable the creation of complete start-up packs for 100 new time banks.
I strongly urge the Minister to check whether he has a time bank in or near his constituency, if he is not already in touch with one. I also thoroughly recommend that he consider meeting Timebanking UK—representatives of which are in the Public Gallery—to hear more about its proposals in detail.
I will conclude with a quote from Mary, that fantastic development worker at Leith Time Bank, which eloquently captures the essence of time banking:
“We think the reason Leith Timebank works so well is it offers opportunities for people of different ages, cultures and backgrounds to come together to share their skills, knowledge and experience with others. Everyone is valued equally, with everyone having something to offer and to receive. Timebanking is not just about exchanging services, it’s about building relationships—connecting with others in the community and creating a culture of mutual support and collaboration. This approach helps members and the community to connect, build resilience, and improve overall well-being.”
The value of time banking in fostering community cohesion and addressing social isolation is abundantly clear. Anything we can do to promote and expand the movement would be welcome. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for securing this debate on the potential merits of Government support for time banking and for an insightful speech on the benefits that she has clearly witnessed herself.
For me, volunteering is vital to society. As a Government, we are strongly committed—and I am personally—to supporting volunteering in all its forms. I thank all volunteers who contribute their time and energy to support others. They make a real difference in their communities. Our latest figures show that about 25 million people in England had volunteered at least once in the previous 12 months. That is a huge number of people making a positive impact in their communities.
I was delighted to take part in the launch event for this year’s Big Help Out campaign, which will take place from 7 to 9 June. It will help to raise awareness of volunteering throughout the United Kingdom and will provide opportunities for people to experience volunteering, often for the first time. Without doubt, the British public’s enthusiasm for volunteering was evident in last year’s campaign, during the celebration of the coronation of His Majesty the King, with more than 6.5 million people volunteering on that day. I hope that we can see even more people take part this year. I am sure that hon. Members present will join me in supporting the campaign.
I am also grateful to all those who did so much during the pandemic. Many people in our country would not have had the help and support that they needed, were it not for amazing volunteers up and down the country. We must not forget, however, that quality volunteering requires effort and support, so I also take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the people who make volunteering happen and who work tirelessly for volunteers every day.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for highlighting the vital work that time banking plays in volunteering. As she rightly pointed out, recruitment and retention of volunteers is an increasing problem for charities, in particular the small local ones. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations’ “Time Well Spent” survey, which was funded by my Department, indicated that the primary barrier to volunteering among non-volunteers is not wanting to make an ongoing commitment. That is where offering incentives can be an excellent way to encourage people to try out volunteering. Who knows, they might then want to make an ongoing commitment.
As the hon. Lady mentioned, she has sat for more than seven years on the advisory group of Leith Time Bank in her constituency. Reading about some of its work, it is good to see that from its inception her work has helped to promote the time bank concept to a wider audience. I, too, read the story of the 80-year-old man who is visually impaired. It is fascinating to listen to his experience, providing one-to-one Spanish and French lessons in a local café, which is amazing. She also gave an example of someone who is clearly a master of making soup—maybe I should try some.
What the hon. Lady highlighted throughout her contribution was the true two-way nature of volunteering, and how it can bring communities together. That is why, in recognising the value of volunteer rewards schemes, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has had a hand in supporting their development. Between 2017 and 2020, Tempo Time Credits received a DCMS grant to help it to scale up from its origins in Wales, to pilot three new hubs in England. As the hon. Lady said, volunteers involved in the time credits programme felt more involved in community activities, healthier and more socially connected.
Tempo has continued to do magnificent things, and now has more than 15,000 volunteers registered on its platforms. Similar initiatives have had equally significant impacts in other sectors, including the arts and the creative industries. In West Yorkshire, in my area, the Leeds Creative Timebank, established in 2010 with Arts Council England funding, has helped to create a thriving social economy for the arts across Leeds, by facilitating the exchange of information and support among its members.
There is no doubt that time banking can be fantastic for rewarding and recognising volunteers. It is truly striking to see how time banking can help to foster those social connections and help local communities and economies to thrive. Funding from the Government in that space has helped to test this innovative model.
I know that there are barriers still to overcome, to ensure that everyone who wants to can volunteer. We are committed to encouraging and enabling volunteering across the country, and to improving volunteering experiences. That includes supporting the next generation of volunteers and enabling them to create a lifelong habit of volunteering. Rewarding and recognising volunteers is a pivotal way to encourage more people to get involved and volunteer.
My Department works closely with No. 10 to co-ordinate the Points of Light awards, whereby the Prime Minister recognises outstanding individuals and volunteers who are making real changes in their communities, inspiring others. Those awards are an essential part of telling the story of the impact of volunteering across the UK. Beyond our work to recognise volunteers, we are providing funding, and working with an extensive range of partners, to ensure that there are clear entry points for volunteering.
Another key initiative is the Vision for Volunteering, which is a voluntary sector-led initiative to develop volunteering in England over the next 10 years. The Government supported the Vision from the outset, sitting on its advisory boards and lending support to voluntary organisations that are taking the work forward. One of the themes of the Vision is to increase equity and inclusion, ensuring that volunteering is accessible and welcoming to everyone, wherever they may be.
Last year, we announced the Know Your Neighbourhood fund, with a funding package of up to £30 million, including £10 million from the National Lottery Community Fund. That funding is widening participation in volunteering and tackling loneliness in 27 of the most disadvantaged areas of the country.
I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned loneliness. I have the pleasure of being the Minister for loneliness, and I have seen how important volunteering is as a tool for making social connections and tackling loneliness in all the age groups that suffer from it. I have given a brief glimpse of the vast work that is going on to support volunteering; I am immensely proud of what we are doing to back volunteering and enable more people to benefit from activities.
I am really glad that we have had this debate, because we all share the same ambition to support volunteers to make a real difference in their communities. We will continue to test and support many ways to encourage and enable people to take part. It is heartening to see how time banking can successfully incentivise and reward volunteers. I thank everyone who is involved.
I extend an offer to meet, as the hon. Lady requested, because I am always interested to hear about innovative ways to get all our communities working together. Day in, day out, I see the value of people volunteering, whatever form their role may take. It is a crucial tool for getting communities working together, making social connections and breaking down the barriers to talking about loneliness. The stigma around loneliness is still one of the biggest issues we face. I would be more than happy to meet to discuss what can be done. I make the caveat that I do not have a great big pot of money at my disposal, but I am sure there are innovative things that we can think about to spread the gospel about how people can get involved in their community. I thank the hon. Lady sincerely for her debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Tackling Obesity
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling obesity.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Dowd. I am incredibly grateful to be able to raise the important subject of tackling obesity, which I believe is vital to our country’s future. I am grateful to see colleagues here from both sides of the House, as tackling obesity requires a cross-party approach. I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is also a personal friend. I have worked closely with her in the past, and I know how interested in and concerned about this issue she is.
Obesity is a major public health problem and a global concern. According to the World Health Organisation, worldwide obesity has nearly tripled since 1975. Most of the world’s population live in countries where issues associated with being overweight or obese kill more people than issues associated with being underweight, and 39 million children under the age of five were overweight or obese in 2020. These are quite shocking statistics. However, the problem is of particular concern in the United Kingdom, where we have the third highest obesity rates in Europe, behind only Malta and Turkey, and where we have the third highest in the G7, behind only Canada and the US. Almost one in three adults here is now classified as obese, a dramatic increase from the one in 10 adults in 1970. The increase in this country has been much greater than in other western European countries, such as France, Germany and Italy.
The health survey for England monitors trends in our national health and care. It found that a higher proportion of men than women were either overweight or obese—69%, compared with 59%. The highest rates of obesity were found among the lowest socioeconomic groups. Almost 70% of people in the most deprived quintile of English localities are classed as living with obesity or being overweight, compared with 59% of those in the richest.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and apologise to him in advance: but for an AGM that I am attending at five o’clock, I would have participated in the whole debate.
According to the Department of Health back home, 65% of adults in Northern Ireland are obese, which is quite a shocking figure. There are now plans for a consultation, which highlights the need to make healthier food more affordable. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this must be a priority for every region of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that that must be done in partnership with our own agrifood sector? It has a role to play—maybe a financial role, as much as a role in guidance. When it comes to the Minister’s reply, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that partnership with the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs might be advantageous?
Sir David Evennett
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us that information from Northern Ireland. Of course, this is something that we need to work on across all four of our countries that make up the United Kingdom. I am sure that co-operation is the best way forward.
Behind these statistics are real people—our people, not just statistics: parents, grandparents, children, friends and neighbours. Overweight people are more likely to experience other health issues as a result of excess weight. There are real consequences, too, for the quality of life of our people. People who are obese are seven times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes. Some 11% of obese adults reported in the health survey for England that they had a diagnosis of diabetes from a doctor. The figure was less than half that among overweight adults, at 5%, and it was just 3% among those who were neither overweight nor obese.
People with obesity are two to three times more likely to have high blood pressure and other consequential health issues. Obesity is a risk factor for depression and is associated with social isolation and less physical activity, contributing to an increased risk of dementia. Obesity between the ages of 35 and 65 can actually increase dementia risk in later life by some 30%. Of course, excess weight puts strain on joints, increasing the risk of musculoskeletal conditions. Other health problems from excess weight include cardiovascular disease, liver disease and many common cancers. Obesity is actually the second biggest preventable cause of cancer.
As well as the costs to individuals’ health and wellbeing, there is the real cost to the economy, businesses, jobs and communities. The Times reported yesterday that 60 senior health experts—including the heads of the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Anaesthetists, the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal Society for Public Health, and dozens of health charities—have written to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging him to put tackling obesity and other public health issues at the heart of his Budget next month, for the sake of the economy. The plea is not just about healthcare, but about the economic vitality and future of our country. That coalition of doctors, scientists, charity bosses and food campaigners say that
“poor health is one of the greatest…threats”
facing Britain today and warn that it is damaging the economy in ways ranging from
“the size and strength of our labour market; to productivity; to growth and GDP.”
They also say that
“the vast majority of health conditions contributing to…economic problems are driven by poor diets, alcohol and tobacco.”
They cite the work of the independent Times Health Commission, a year-long inquiry that called for stronger Government intervention to tackle the growing obesity crisis and that recommended a number of interventions to combat obesity, including expansion of the sugar tax, curbs on cartoons on packaging and a pre-watershed ban on junk food advertising on television. The experts urge the Chancellor to issue a formal call for evidence on
“financial and non-financial health policy options that…make it easier for everyone to lead healthy lives—by shaping the environments they grow, learn, work and play in.”
They conclude by advising:
“The public overwhelmingly believe the government should have a stronger role in acting to create healthy lives and to take pressure off the NHS.”
The Times editorial of yesterday, under the heading “Body Politic”, gives a convincing account of the issues and the need for action. It also notes that merely increasing taxes on already hard-pressed consumers is not the way forward; we should be encouraging the switch to healthier products. I agree with that assessment and find it increasingly worrying that Frontier Economics estimates that in 2023 the total economic impact of obesity was £98 billion, accounting for the costs to the NHS and social care, lost productivity, work inactivity and welfare payments.
Obesity-related ill health does reduce workforce productivity. People living with obesity are estimated to have four extra sick days a year. That is approximately equivalent to an extra 37 million sick days across the UK working population. Estimates put the annual cost of obesity at 1% to 2% of GDP. With obesity rates continuing to soar, that is only likely to increase. Obesity places a heavy burden on the NHS. It contributes to high workloads in GP surgeries, hospitals and social care, adding to the pressures that we are already experiencing.
Tackling obesity has actually been on the political agenda for many years. In 1991, the then Conservative Government recognised that obesity was a sufficient threat to the health of the nation to warrant specific action. The first target for reducing obesity rates in England was set and was to achieve a return by 2005 to the 1980 level of 7%. Sadly, that target was missed. Over the last three decades, there have been various strategies, countless policies and many reforms, with key agencies and teams created and abolished. Despite that, and as highlighted in the statistics that I have mentioned, the issue is still very prevalent.
In my own borough of Bexley, the issue of obesity is one where, statistically, we are performing relatively badly—unlike in other areas, where Bexley performs extremely well. Last month, Bexley was dubbed the fattest borough in south-east London, after the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities published information on the percentage of adults over 18 who are classified as obese. According to the report, Bexley has the worst obesity rate in south-east London at 28% of the population, yet in recent years we have been successful in my area on health issues. The stop smoking campaign was a great success, and I was privileged to be involved in it. The number of smokers in our borough has considerably reduced because of campaigns by the NHS and the council, as well as people like me adding to those campaigns.
We have real issues with childhood obesity, and Bexley council has endeavoured to be proactive in improving the health of people across the borough, as well as implementing an obesity strategy in 2020. Despite that, childhood obesity rates in Bexley have worsened following the coronavirus pandemic. Figures by NHS Digital show that 745 of 3,095 year 6 pupils measured in Bexley were classed as obese or severely obese in 2022-23. Across England, 13.9% of year 6 pupils were overweight and a staggering 22.7% were obese or severely obese. That was slightly down on the previous year, but still higher than pre-pandemic figures.
That is extremely worrying, and childhood obesity is a major public health concern in its own right. Children who are obese are five times more likely to become obese as adults, and that puts them at higher risk of the conditions previously highlighted, as well as shortening their life expectancy. As the majority of obese children will remain obese as adults, early intervention is essential. We have to act early in their lives before they suffer complications later on due to something that was avoidable.
The Government have taken some action on childhood obesity. In 2018, they set a target of halving childhood obesity in England by 2030 and reducing the gap in obesity between children from the most and least deprived areas. While it is necessary, meeting that target unfortunately does not seem possible at this time. Despite all the health problems, the impact on lives and the cost to the economy, we must remember that obesity is preventable in many cases. Action is required by individuals, parents, schools, the Government, media and the food and drink manufacturers.
What can and should be done? Basically, as a nation, we are simply consuming too many calories each day. According to Public Health England, many adults consume an extra 200 to 300 calories a day over what they need, while children who are overweight or obese often consume an additional 500 calories a day. The NHS needs to do more, as public health improvement will ease the pressures on GPs and hospitals.
Of course, there needs to be an emphasis on the individual in tackling obesity. At an individual level, people can limit their energy intake from fats and sugars, increase their consumption of healthy food, particularly fruit and vegetables, and engage in regular physical activity. People who are overweight or obese may also benefit from joining a local weight loss group, or even from receiving support and counselling from trained healthcare professionals to help them to better their relationship with food and develop different eating habits. More publicity, promotion and education on food, nutrition and the consequences of a bad diet are absolutely essential.
Although that is important, tackling obesity is not just about individual effort; we need to see cultural and environmental changes too, while ensuring that everybody is given the necessary information to make healthy choices. Because of our fast-paced lives, our eating habits have changed in recent decades. There is a huge increase in people eating fast food, and more people are eating out, eating higher-calorie foods and buying hot food from takeaways that is high in fat, salt and often sugar. While it is good to see businesses thriving, it is incredibly worrying that some are exacerbating the problem and increasing the sugar and calorie intake of our nation. Treats are fine, and we should not be Job’s comforter on these sorts of things, but they should be for special occasions, rather than the mainstay of an individual’s diet.
Our food environment affects our behaviour and has a significant part to play in reducing obesity. Parents are crucial in this as the primary educators, and education is vital. It can be difficult to make healthy choices if someone is blissfully unaware of the content of the food they are eating. I know from personal experience that, when we do the weekly shop, identifying the healthiest products is not always easy. That is why we have to ensure the labelling of products in shops, cafés, restaurants, coffee shops, fast-food outlets and the rest, so that individuals can make an informed choice. Essentially, the healthy option should also be the easier option on the menus for everyone. Research shows that when Governments act on this issue, they have a positive effect. Our own Government have done excellent work in this area. The voluntary traffic-light scheme, which was introduced jointly by the UK Government and devolved Administrations in 2013, has been incredibly successful. Restrictions on the placement of unhealthy foods in supermarkets and shops have been hugely popular, and they stop shops using children and pester power to hassle adults into buying those items. The soft drinks industry levy has had an impact by encouraging reformulation and decreasing the volume of sugar in soft drinks.
However, more needs to be done, and advertising on television is still a real concern. Restrictions before 9 o’clock are due to come into effect in October 2025, having been originally planned for 1 January 2023. That delay is disappointing but understandable. These actions need to be taken, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take them on board in the dynamic way that she does in her role.
In conclusion, serious action is needed, and tackling the obesity epidemic is a responsibility for all of us—the Government, schools, families, industry, and politicians—whether local, regional, national or whatever. Everyone has a part to play. It is also something that I think we can unite on across this House, because it is an issue that affects everyone’s constituents and every person in the country. I know that the Opposition and Government would want to work together with the Scottish nationalists, and others in the Chamber, to ensure that we do this. If we do not, it will cost our NHS billions of pounds a year and have a huge detrimental economic impact. Most importantly of all, it affects our constituents, and particularly our children.
With strategic policy interventions, we have an opportunity to turn the tide against obesity, improve our nations’ health, enhance people’s quality of life, prevent needless early deaths and secure the economic future of our nation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will carefully consider what I have said, and that colleagues on both sides of the House will endorse the fact that action is required.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) on securing this important debate. Whenever possible, I like to talk about the accomplishments of my constituents. One constituent of mine made an outstanding contribution to tackling obesity eight years ago, and I am glad that the hon. Member has recognised their efforts, because that constituent is the former Chancellor, who introduced the soft drinks levy in 2016.
That policy has meant a 46% fall in average sugar levels per soft drink product since 2015. Sales have not been affected; actually, they have increased by 14.9% over 4 years. That levy has been a remarkable success. The Medical Research Council estimates that it has prevented about 5,000 cases of obesity in year 6 girls, and 5,500 hospital admissions for children with tooth decay within five years. This is unambiguous and indisputable. Interventionist health policies are the only way to solve our obesity crisis, because the food system in this country is rigged against us.
This is not just a crisis. In Somerset, 34.6% of children leave primary school overweight or obese, but 21.8% of five-year-old children start primary school overweight or obese. In 2021, 60% of adults in Somerset were overweight or obese. We should be one of the healthiest countries in the world—we have an NHS that covers every citizen, a mild climate and a high level of economic development—but we are not. Thirty years of failed Government obesity policies tell us that we must change. A University of Cambridge team analysed 30 years of Government obesity policies in England—14 obesity strategies with 689 individual actions. Eight per cent fulfilled seven criteria identified by researchers as necessary for successful implementation, and 29% did not meet a single criterion.
We have tried blaming the individual, and it has not worked. It is not just remiss; it is wrong. The charity Beat reported that
“strategies harmful to people with eating disorders appear…to be ineffective at reducing obesity.”
By refusing to change the system and telling people that they are to blame, we are killing people who are already vulnerable, and there is a consensus. Polling last September from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission and More in Common showed that 77% of participants wanted Government to put health standards over cost, and 67% thought that the Government were not doing enough to safeguard children against unhealthy food and drinks. The status quo simply cannot continue. Our farmers are underpaid, undervalued and underused in a food system that does not prioritise healthy local food of high standard. Small and medium UK agrifood businesses cannot compete with cheap, ultra-processed food. Our NHS staff are so overwhelmed in dealing with the results of obesity that they have little time or budget to deal with the causes.
We Liberal Democrats want a robust, thorough obesity and food strategy that meets all seven standards specified by Cambridge. We want junk food advertising restricted on TV and online, as the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford has mentioned. We want public sector food procurement strategies that benefit the farmers and local businesses producing the food. We want to extend the “polluter pays” principle that we have for water companies. We want to make junk food giants either change their ways or pay their way.
As a serving Somerset councillor, I know how vital it is to empower local authorities to develop and manage tailored strategies in their areas. We should give local authorities more power over planning to prevent high streets being clogged up with cheap fast food outlets, and to restrict junk food advertising. Let them develop food partnerships with farmers and agrifood businesses. We must have a new, interventionist approach to our food system. All other approaches have failed. It makes economic sense, environmental sense and moral sense. Let us make a better food future.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I am going to give Members five minutes each. The Opposition spokespersons will have five, and the Minister will have ten.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett), and I agree with pretty much everything that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) has just said as well. In July 2020, the House of Lords produced an excellent Select Committee report, “Hungry for change: fixing the failures in food”, which is pretty shocking. We are one of the most overweight nations in Europe, and that is not an accident, because our diet is pretty appalling. Page 19 of that report says:
“In the UK, more than half (50.7%) of all total dietary energy from purchases came from highly processed foods, compared to only 10.2% in Portugal and 13.4% in Italy.”
Our diets are so much worse than those of our fellow European nations. We are bombarded with advertising for unhealthy food. In 2017, £300 million was spent on the advertising of less healthy foods, compared with only £16 million a day on fruit and vegetables. We are doing really badly at even getting our five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. Only 31% of adults, and only 8% of teenagers, are achieving that; parents in the room will recognise that challenge.
All these figures are worst for the poorest members of our society. I commend The Times on its excellent health commission report and on some of its recommendations. It thinks it is outrageous that some of these highly processed foods can have “natural” and “organic” on the front of the packaging. That is deceptive and misleading, and many of the big food producers have a lot to answer for. The Times says that all children should learn to cook properly and that those lessons should be inspected by Ofsted with as much rigour as maths and English. This matters. If people turn up to university able only to open a packet and put it in the microwave, they are probably not set for the most healthy life and it will probably cost them more as well.
Children are bombarded with these images. Bite Back, with which I have worked very closely, wants to get rid of the use of cartoon characters and other tactics that appeal to children, which hook our young people into unhealthy food. The Times also says that we should not have just environmental, social and governance for our businesses; it should be environmental, social, governance and health because employers can do their bit as well.
How do we know how many calories we are eating each day? I, as a man, am supposed to eat no more than 2,500 calories a day. For women, it is 2,000. How do we know? The signs in some of the restaurants are tiny. Let us make it easy for people to do the right thing. That is a generally quite a good strapline: make the right thing the easy and affordable thing to do. I salute my local markets in Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable and Houghton Regis, which provide fresh fruit and veg and often at very good prices; I have to say that my supermarkets do so as well. We all know that exercise is important, but I have a little caveat on that: you cannot outrun a bad diet, but exercise is always brilliant for all of us and we should all do more of it.
It was great to hear the speech from the Liberal Democrats because this is not a nanny state, entirely private matter. This is why: children don’t get to choose what they eat. They get fed what their parents give them; what we feed our children really matters. We have to be honest; there is limited supply in the NHS for all of us, so if other people eat really bad food, that means that NHS capacity is being taken up with dealing with type 2 diabetes, cancer, heart problems and other issues. We all have a stake in us all eating well, and I hope we can combine on that issue.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) on securing this important debate. As he said, it affects all MPs because it affects all our constituencies. It affects families across the country.
I am here because I recently visited Putneymead Group Medical Practice in my constituency. It is a really large surgery, which serves 25,500 people and employs 23 GPs. They know what they are talking about; it is an excellent facility. I asked the doctors what the main issues were they were facing, and they said that the main issue was childhood obesity. They were worried that the current state of the NHS meant that it was unable to provide services to combat childhood obesity, and they were also worried about the lack of services for primary school children. Early intervention is very important in tackling childhood obesity, but they were also concerned about secondary education. They mentioned Wandsworth Borough Council provision for primary school children, but that ends at year 6. In secondary school, there is even less provision and support for tackling obesity, and they identified that as a key issue.
Today, two in every five children in England are overweight or obese by the time they finish primary school. That has lasting consequences for their physical and mental health and for their quality of life. The national child measurement programme found that in 2021-22, 10% of reception-age children in England were obese. The proportions were higher among year 6 children, with 23.4% being obese. Something is going wrong in our provision and support programmes for primary school children.
Childhood obesity is a significant concern in my borough of Wandsworth, where more than one fifth of children in reception are overweight or living with obesity. In year 6, that figure rises to 37.7%, which is higher than in the rest of the country. Wandsworth Council has several programmes to tackle the issue. The Health4Life team runs the Mums, Minis and KickStart programmes for primary school-age children and their families. The children’s school food strategy and the campaign targeting takeaways near secondary schools are also having an impact, but that needs to be amplified and supported by having the same programmes across the country. As I said, this support needs to be maintained and to continue through secondary education, as well as through primary. In the United Kingdom, the prevalence of obesity among year 10 children is still 23.4%, so one in four children are still classified as obese—in London, the figure is still 37.4%.
It is essential to continue promoting healthy lifestyles, but there are also significant infrastructure issues. There is an issue around planning and having shops with healthy produce in the right places so that they are easier to access for people who do not have the same transport options as others. We also need to tackle takeaways near secondary schools, which Wandsworth Council is starting to do, and there are elements of good practice that can be learned. In addition, we need to tackle inactivity in schools. Many playing fields have been sold off, which has reduced access to physical education classes in school. I have seen that with my own children, who have gone through secondary school with significantly less access to PE lessons than I had when I was going through school.
There is also the issue of healthy eating and teaching cookery. I pay tribute to a great community organisation in my constituency called Bags of Taste, which teaches people how to eat better for less. It has a really high take-up, and people really enjoy making the kind of food they would get from a takeaway but can cook for less money in their own homes. That is to be applauded and supported.
There could also be much more action taken by supermarkets, and action on advertising unhealthy food. Another excellent programme that I have seen really working, but that is not taken up comprehensively enough, is the Daily Mile. Having started off with a school in Stirling in Scotland, it has been taken up by many primary schools around the country. It is tackling this issue and making a difference.
To conclude, Labour will tackle childhood obesity through a range of measures, including by implementing the 9 pm watershed for junk food advertising, getting kids moving through a mandatory national curriculum with a wider range of physical activities, providing free breakfast clubs in every primary school and taking action to end the promotion of junk foods targeted at children. We will take action. The current obesity figures are a damning indictment of 14 years of Tory rule that have not worked. It is time for Labour.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) on securing this debate. Tackling obesity is preventing ill health; I want to make it very clear that it is not nanny state, because good health provides choices.
We are already looking at these issues through the way we are tackling smoking, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Minister for her proposed actions on that. Smoking is an addiction, and obesity is becoming an addiction—an addiction to food high in fat, salt or sugar. We need similar, world-leading action to tackle obesity. The Obesity Health Alliance has said that obesity is the new smoking.
We have already heard that 30% of adults are obese, and 25% of children starting school are either obese or overweight, so we need to take serious action. The food giants are making us addicted to food that is high in fat, salt and sugar, so we need to tackle that in the same way we are tackling smoking.
Obesity causes cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The reason the food giants are spending huge amounts on advertising chocolate, crisps, biscuits and ice cream—much of which is marketed at children—is that those products make them huge amounts of profit. I am not against profit, but I am when it comes at the expense of people’s health, and particularly the health of our children.
A recent study by the University of Oxford shows that, for seven of the top 10 global food manufacturers, two thirds of their food and drink sales in Britain came from unhealthy foods. In 2022, it was estimated that the biggest manufacturers spent £55 million on online adverts for food and drink products associated with childhood obesity. I have no doubt that that did not decrease in 2023, and I do not think it will decrease this year either.
In addition to the marketing, the packaging of unhealthy food is designed to appeal to children, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) implied. In a way, the issue is similar to the way disposable vapes are marketed to children. That is another issue my right hon. Friend the Minister is tackling, but we need to sort out the way unhealthy foods are marketed to children too. Children and young people do not ask to be bombarded with the ads they see time and time again, yet they are being bombarded—they cannot escape them at all. That is why Government action is needed, and needed now. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to update the House on the progress being made to implement the measures in section 172 of, and schedule 18 to, the Health and Care Act 2022 on the advertising of less healthy food and drink and to ensure that we are on schedule to deliver those messages.
Going back a number of years, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) mentioned, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the soft drinks industry levy. People at the time said it would not work, but it has; it has cut huge amounts of sugar out of soft drinks across the board. We need to look at how we replicate that measure for other foodstuffs. I am proud that I was a member of the Health and Social Care Committee when it asked for it to be put in place. It is one of the Committee’s great achievements, and we can do even more. We need to apply that type of measure across food and drink production to incentivise healthier food and drink. Manufacturers and retailers want a level playing field, so it is important that we do that.
In conclusion, we need to tackle obesity, which the Government first identified as a priority in the early 1990s in the “Health of the Nation” White Paper. Over 30 years on, we are still only talking about tackling obesity. The health of our nation is running out of time. We need action, and we need it now.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) on securing this debate. In the context of the ongoing Tory cost of living crisis and an increasingly unhealthy population, it is important that it takes place, so I welcome his bringing it to the Chamber. Huge financial pressure and high food prices are forcing families to eat less healthily, getting cheaper calories from unhealthy foods. There is a clear link between deprivation and obesity, which is why tackling health inequalities and poverty are top priorities for the SNP Scottish Government.
We have heard lots of interesting contributions. The right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford touched on junk food advertising, and I discussed that exact issue with the University of Glasgow earlier this afternoon. We need to be incredibly mindful of where, what and when we are advertising; otherwise, we will have an often detrimental impact on health inequalities.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) spoke a great deal about child obesity, which I will come on to. I very much agree with her on that point, but I would welcome an intervention from her on how the Liberal Democrat party’s abandonment of free tuition is impacting household budgets, and thus people’s ability to access healthy foods.
It was hugely welcome that the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) mentioned the Daily Mile, which originated in Stirling. It was nice to hear a non-Scottish Member cast light on a project that originated in Scotland, so I certainly welcome that comment.
Obesity is a problem that is escalating on a global scale, but sadly the effects are being felt severely in Scotland. According to a survey, 67% of adults are deemed overweight and a third of children are at risk of becoming overweight. That same survey found that obesity was more common in households with lower incomes—a correlation we know and recognise all too well. That is why I and my SNP colleagues are consistently calling on the UK Government to take action to tackle the cost of living crisis, improve universal credit and reverse their policies that deny families crucial support.
The Scottish Government do not have the levers to be able to do those things at the moment. They therefore mitigate the bad political decisions made in this place, reducing family household costs by providing free prescriptions, free school meals, free childcare, free period products, free university education and free bus travel for those under 22 and over 60; freezing council tax; providing the young carer grant, the Scottish child payment, and both adult and child disability payments; and mitigating the bedroom tax, the rape clause, the benefits cap and real-terms cuts to social security.
Earlier today I met Professor Iain McInnes of the University of Glasgow, whose project, “Creating Healthier Places: A Place-Based Approach to Research & Partnership”, factors access to healthy foods into its research on 20-minute neighbourhoods. It is a fascinating project, and I urge the Minister to have a look at it—I think she would be just as impressed as I am.
Through the best start grant and best start foods applications, the Scottish Government have also provided over £180 million to low-income families to help with expenses during their children’s early years. The eligibility for best start foods will be expanding so that a further 20,000 people can access support to buy healthy food. Such steps are essential to ensure that support is there for the least well-off families to be able to make healthy food choices.
In my constituency, new data from Cancer Research has shown that 22.5% of four to five-year-olds are overweight or obese—that is four to five-year-olds who are already increasing their risk of serious illnesses. That is not a choice by those children or their parents, but a symptom of families not having the resources to provide healthy options. It is a symptom of 14 years of austerity. It is a symptom of being tied to this broken Westminster system.
I know that the Minister cares deeply about these issues and will give a compassionate and considerate response. I simply urge her to mirror some of the policies the Scottish Government are taking on tackling health inequalities. That is why in Scotland, all pupils in primaries 1 to 5, all children in additional support needs schools, and eligible pupils in primary 6 through to S6 can benefit from free school meals—the most generous free school meals offer anywhere in these isles, saving families—
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) for securing this debate. He has been a strong campaigner for tackling childhood obesity over many years, and I thank him for his remarks today.
As many colleagues have rightly highlighted, the obesity epidemic is a genuine crisis. It will be the next big public health issue that we will all be talking about in a few years. Some 60% of us are now overweight. One in four children in England are now obese by the time they leave primary school. That means that those children are five times more likely to go on to develop serious and life-limiting diet-related conditions in adulthood, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, liver disease and certain forms of cancer. Of course, that means more pressure on the NHS, which, as we know, is already buckling under the weight of demand after years of mismanagement by this Government. It is a disaster for the taxpayer: Frontier Economics estimates the impact of obesity to be £98 billion a year in NHS and social care costs, lost productivity, workforce inactivity and welfare payments.
I thank many Members for rightly focusing their remarks today on the poor food environments in which children are growing up, and what we as policymakers can do about that. In recent decades, action on obesity has overwhelmingly focused on measures to get people to change their behaviours without tackling the structural factors that influence them. We know that that is not enough. For example, 99.9% of us know that it is important to get our five a day, most of us can tell each other what a healthy diet looks like, and every week there seems to be some new fad diet. The bottom line is the nation’s waistline: Britain is getting fatter.
It is therefore disappointing to see the Secretary of State say that she believes the priority for preventing obesity is to give people information about nutrition with no measures to fix the food environment. It appears to be at odds with her views on tobacco, where the Government have rightly taken up measures to further protect children from tobacco harm. She does not believe that measures to inform children about the dangers of tobacco are alone sufficient to solve that issue, so why does she believe this for obesity? If giving people more information is the solution, can the Minister explain why obesity rates are twice as high in our poorest areas than the richest?
Labour believes that every community in the UK should be a healthy place for children to grow up, learn and play. Businesses need a healthy workforce to drive economic productivity and sustainable growth. It is the Government’s job to make the healthy choice the easy choice. There was a moment in 2020 when it looked like every party across the House believed this. The Government brought forward the 2020 obesity strategy, welcomed by doctors, parents and health charities, and as the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, it received cross-party support.
The strategy contained evidence-based measures to begin to fix the food system by stopping our children from being bombarded with junk food adverts as part of a major commitment to halve childhood obesity by 2030. I would like to ask the Government today what has happened to that commitment, since they kicked that flagship policy into the long grass, delaying the policy for the next Government to deal with in October 2025. Are the Government still committed to halving childhood obesity by 2030, and what have they done since delaying the junk food advertising policies?
The need for action has not gone away, as we have heard today. The health of our children is in a dire state, and it is getting worse. It was once thought that it was essentially impossible for children to develop type 2 diabetes so early in life as a result of their diet, but as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, we are now seeing thousands of cases of children developing the condition, with more every year. Nearly four in 10 children with obesity are estimated to have early stage fatty liver disease, and tooth decay remains the single largest cause of hospitalisations for young children in England.
The Government assure us that the regulations on junk food advertising were delayed merely to give industry more time to prepare. If this is the case, why have the Government refused to bring out the supporting secondary legislation for these regulations, which are now months overdue? Surely the Minister agrees that it would help the industry prepare for these regulations to have this detail available to them now. Industry will want to tackle the structural drivers of ill health and be led by evidence, not ideology. That starts with delivering the measures the Government have failed to implement to protect children from junk food.
We will restrict adverts for foods high in fat, sugar and salt in favour of healthier options. We will improve children’s diets by finally implementing the 9pm watershed for junk food advertising on television and ban paid-for advertising of less healthy foods in online media. Tackling health inequalities is a central part of Labour’s health mission. We will not resort to the tired excuses that would blame families in Blackpool for having poorer health than someone in Banbury. Instead, we need to focus on making healthy food more affordable and accessible. Schools will have a role and responsibility within that, which is why our fully funded breakfast clubs in every primary school in England will serve healthy and balanced food to embed healthy habits and boost children’s concentration and development.
The Government undertook some assessments of the health impacts of the national school breakfast programme when it was running. It would be really good to hear what some of the evidence was. We heard from schools that it improved pupil behaviour, their readiness to learn, social skills and their eating habits. To conclude, I want to leave Members with a statistic to reflect just how stark this issue is. Not only are our children fatter than their peers in other European countries, but they are actually shorter than their European peers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) on raising this important issue. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. There is no doubt that this country faces an obesity challenge. I am reassured by the contributions from everybody that none of us underestimate the scale of the task ahead.
As others have said, two thirds of adults in this country are overweight or living with obesity, increasing their risk of many serious diseases. Tackling it head on is not just the right thing for patients but makes good economic sense too. Obesity-related conditions cost our NHS £6.5 billion directly every year and the cost to wider society is a staggering £57 billion. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, some estimates put it at over £90 billion.
My great passion is for giving every baby the best start for life. There is no doubt that prevention is not only kinder but much cheaper than cure. Food given to babies and young children helps establish food preferences at an early age, so it is vital that we build healthy eating patterns as soon as possible.
Nearly one in 10 children starting primary school are already living with obesity, doubling to nearly one in five by the time they leave. Growing numbers of children with excess weight are, as hon. Members have said, developing health conditions once rarely seen in childhood such as high blood pressure. Every child needs an environment that helps them to thrive and reach their full potential. Of course, that is easier said than done. There is no single solution, no magic bullet to solve the problem. That is why we are delivering an ambitious programme with four strands: first, we are supporting families to make healthier choices through more advice and better information. That starts at the very beginning of life with our national breastfeeding helpline for parents who need support. The Start for Life website is a rich source of helpful advice.
We are backing family hubs with £300 million so that new mums and dads have the best advice, including on children’s nutrition, with one-stop shops across England. Weaning is a critical time for establishing healthy eating, so we are working on voluntary industry guidelines to reduce levels of sugar and salt in commercial food and drink aimed at children up to 36 months. We have begun a four-week period of engaging with industry to make sure we get that right.
For older children, families and adults, we provide a range of materials, tools and apps to encourage eating better and moving more. That can all be found on our Better Health website. I encourage all hon. Members to recommend it to their constituents.
I am proud of action that we have taken to mandate calorie labelling on websites and delivery apps for all large restaurants, cafés and takeaways. We have prohibited the promotion of less healthy products at key selling locations to help people stave off impulse buys, because we all know that people are not making those choices consciously. They are unconscious choices being hugely promoted by incredibly strong advertising and marketing. We know it can be very challenging for some families to make healthier choices, so we are investing over £200 million a year on three health food schemes: healthy start, the nursery milk scheme and the school fruit and vegetable scheme.
Secondly, we are promoting more physical activity, which helps people maintain a healthier weight. The Government are investing over £600 million in school sports over the next two years via the PE and sport premium and School Games Organiser network so that children can get more active. We also have the Couch to 5K and Active 10 apps to promote everyone getting more active.
The third measure is supporting those already overweight or obese to achieve and maintain a healthier weight. We have delivered a free NHS weight loss app, and local authorities are funding local weight loss services from their public health grants. The NHS provides a digital weight management programme and many specialist services. We are now exploring ways to increase access to the newest weight loss drugs for more people who are eligible.
Fourthly—a really critical point, as lots of right hon. and hon. Members have raised—is our work with the food industry itself. Sadly, there has been a long-term trend towards producing and marketing foods high in calories, saturated fat, salt and sugar—a race to the bottom. We will reverse that trend. Our soft drinks industry levy has already made huge strides in bringing down the sugar content of soft drinks by almost half between 2015 and 2020, removing a staggering 46,000 tonnes of sugar. Our voluntary reformulation programme requires all sectors of industry to reduce levels of sugar, calories and salt in the everyday food and drink that people buy. If we can see this through, consumers will have many fewer calories in their diet without them having to consciously change what they eat.
Although the salt and sugar reduction programmes have brought some progress, there is much more to be done. The calorie reduction progress report published this month showed little change in calorie levels between 2017 and 2021. I have asked industry to meet the reduction targets for calories and sugar by the end of 2025. We will leave no stone unturned if they do not live up to our expectations.
I am pleased to assure the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) that we remain committed to introducing further advertising restrictions to reduce the marketing of less healthy foods to children. We will also bring in restrictions on volume price promotions, such as three for the price of two, on less healthy foods in October next year, and we will back local government in using its powers to support a healthy local food environment.
Obesity is a significant challenge, not just in the UK but globally. We all have our part to play. I have personally been engaging with industry throughout my career, from the Treasury, to the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Business people say they want a brighter future for all our children. I plan to make sure that they deliver on that.
Sir David Evennett
I thank everyone who has participated today in a very constructive way. That is the way we should all be addressing such an important issue. I particularly thank the Minister for her excellent response. We have had some really good issues raised by colleagues on all sides, and by the Minister.
I look forward to us all doing something to make sure that the crisis of obesity is overcome. It is so important, particularly for our children, but also for adults, and for quality of life. I am grateful for Members’ participation and for the ideas that have come forward, which we will look at and consider. I know the Minister will take them away, and I particularly thank her.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered tackling obesity.
Written Statements
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Children and Young People: Mental Health Support
(8 months, 4 weeks 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 Government have provided additional funding so that 24 early support hubs across England are able to help children and young people receive quicker mental health support. Hub Name Constituency ABL Health Bolton South East, Yasmin Qureshi Base 25 Wolverhampton South West, Stuart Anderson Brook Young People Truro and Falmouth, Cherilyn Mackrory Brent, Wandsworth and Westminster Mind Cities of London and Westminster, Nickie Aiken Centre 33 Cambridge, Daniel Zeichner ChilyPep Barnsley Central, Dan Jarvis The Children’s Society Torbay, Kevin Foster The Children’s Society Gateshead, Ian Mearns CHUMS Charity Mid Bedfordshire, Alistair Strathern Family Action Hackney South and Shoreditch, Meg Hillier Isle of Wight Youth Trust Isle of Wight, Bob Seely Lancashire Mind Chorley, Lindsay Hoyle Mancroft Advice Project (MAP) Norwich South, Clive Lewis Noah's Ark Centre Hallifax, Holly Lynch No Limits South Southampton Test, Alan Whitehead Onside Worcester, Robin Walker People Potential Possibilities Erewash, Maggie Throup Sheffield Futures Sheffield Central, Paul Blomfield Spring North North Blackburn, Kate Hollern Warrington Youth Zone Limited Warrington South, Andy Carter YMCA St Helens St Helens South and Whiston, Marie Rimmer Young Devon North Devon, Selaine Saxby Youth Enquiry Service Wycombe, Steve Baker YPAS Liverpool, Riverside, Kim Johnson
The Government are taking the long-term decisions needed to make our healthcare system faster, simpler and fairer. Mental health support for our young people is a key part of that.
We announced in October 2023 that £4.92 million from HM Treasury’s shared outcomes fund would be available to support hubs and an evaluation to build the evidence base underpinning these services.
Following evaluation of excellent commercial tenders from hubs across the country, I am very pleased to be able to let you know that the Government are now providing an additional £3 million, meaning a total of 24 hubs will receive a share of almost £8 million in 2024-25. This is more than double our original target of funding 10 hubs, and organisations across the length of England—from Gateshead to Truro—will now benefit.
This investment in frontline services means that thousands of children and young people will receive earlier, open-access mental health interventions in local communities.
Crucially, alongside boosting 24 hubs, the funding will also enable us to evaluate the impact of the services and inform any potential expansion of the model in the future. The evaluation aims to report its findings by summer 2025.
As this new investment shows, we want to intervene earlier to prevent children and young people from developing severe or enduring mental health conditions. That is why we are also continuing at pace with the roll-out of mental health support teams to schools and colleges in England. There are currently around 400 mental health support teams in place across England, covering over 3 million children or around 35% of pupils in schools and colleges, and we are extending coverage to at least 50% of pupils in England by the end of March 2025.
I know that we still have a long way to go to ensure that all young people struggling with their mental health get the support they need at the right time, but today’s new investment is a positive step to support children and young people’s mental health, and one that should be celebrated.
[HCWS 293]
Operation of the Terrorism Acts in 2021: Independent Reviewer’s Report
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
In accordance with section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006, Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has prepared a report on the operation in 2021 of the Terrorism Acts, which was laid before the House on 7 March 2023.
I am grateful to Mr Hall KC for his report and have carefully considered the recommendations and observations included within. I am today laying before the House the Government’s response to the report (CP 1022). Copies will be available in the Vote Office and it will also be published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS294]
Grand Committee
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Coronavirus and Influenza) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Evans of Rainow
That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Coronavirus and Influenza) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, these important regulations were laid before the House on 10 January 2024 and I am grateful to be leading the debate on them.
In autumn 2020, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and following a public consultation, the Government introduced several temporary amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to support the deployment of Covid-19 and flu vaccinations. The instrument we are debating today seeks to amend the temporary provisions in the Human Medicines Regulations—Regulations 3A, 19 and 247A—in order to maintain these provisions and support the ongoing delivery of Covid-19 and influenza vaccinations.
I will briefly set out what each of these regulations does. Regulation 3A enables trained healthcare professionals or staff under the supervision of healthcare professionals to conduct the final stage of assembly, preparation and labelling of Covid-19 vaccines, without requiring additional marketing authorisations or manufacturers’ licences, provided that vaccines are supplied under NHS arrangements or by suppliers of medical services to His Majesty’s Armed Forces. The measure also allows for the reformulation and reassembly of authorised Covid-19 vaccines without the need for additional marketing authorisations.
Regulation 19 has enabled Covid-19 and flu vaccines to be moved safely between premises by providers operating under NHS arrangements or suppliers of medical services to His Majesty’s Armed Forces without the need for a wholesale dealer’s licence. Regulation 247A provides a mechanism to expand the workforce who are legally and safely able to administer a Covid-19 or flu vaccine without the input of a prescriber, using an approved protocol. Regulations 3A and 19 have sunset provisions, which mean that they will cease to have effect on 1 April 2024 unless they are extended. Regulation 247A is permitted for use only during a pandemic.
These regulations play a vital role in both the Covid-19 and the flu vaccination programmes. The measures have helped enable Covid-19 and flu vaccines to be safely deployed at speed and scale. They have also ensured that there is sufficient workforce available to administer vaccines.
The Government are committed to protecting people who are most at risk of Covid-19. We are guided by the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in our approach. While for most people Covid-19 is thankfully a much less serious risk than it was when these regulations were first enacted, vaccines remain the most effective line of defence for those at greatest risk from the Covid-19 virus. In the latest autumn vaccination campaign, more than 11.8 million Covid-19 vaccines were administered by NHS England in the period after national bookings opened on 11 September last year. In addition, over 18 million flu vaccinations were administered in England during the latest autumn campaign, with over 4.5 million people receiving their flu and Covid-19 vaccinations at the same appointment.
Given the continuing importance of these vaccination programmes in protecting public health, the Government have engaged widely to determine whether to retain the provisions in the Human Medicines Regulations beyond their current period. Following initial engagement with key stakeholders, including NHS England, the Government ran a public consultation, from 7 August to 18 September 2023, on proposals to temporarily extend these regulations until 1 April 2026 while a permanent solution is developed. For Regulation 247A, this also involves removing condition A from the regulation, which requires there to be a pandemic. This proposal was based on feedback, including from NHS England, that without these regulations the Covid-19 and flu vaccination services would be negatively impacted and could not continue to be delivered at the scale required. Overall, from the 220 respondents to the consultation, a high level of support was shown for these proposals across all nations.
For Regulation 3A, 89% of respondents agreed that the regulation should be extended. The flexibility provided by this provision continues to play an important role in the Covid-19 vaccination programme due to the supply chain arrangements and the way in which the vaccinations are packaged. Covid-19 vaccinations are not available as a pre-filled syringe and so each vaccine administered continues to require final-stage preparation before administration to patients. The consultation found that the flexibilities have allowed for the safe assembly and preparation at the pace and scale required within the programme. It also found that Regulation 3A improves the operational delivery of Covid-19 vaccines through a safe and effective framework, increases efficiency within the system and allows for delivery at scale, in turn helping to improve access and more effectively using the workforce.
There was also a high level of support in the consultation response for the proposal to extend Regulation 19, with 91% agreeing that this regulation should be extended. Many respondents had commented that, due to vaccines being more easily moved between sites, vaccine wastage had been reduced, helping to reduce the environmental impact of our vaccination programmes—something that we are obviously keen to encourage. At the same time, these regulations were found to have brought about a more efficient use of resources and improved patient access to vaccines, including through co-administration. As I mentioned, 4.5 million people had both their Covid-19 and flu vaccinations at the same time during the last autumn campaign.
For Regulation 247A, a similarly high level of support was seen in the consultation responses: 82% agreed with the proposal to remove condition A from the regulation, which requires there to be a pandemic to be used, and 82% also agreed that this should be time- limited to April 2026. Many respondents cited that Regulation 247A provided a safe and effective mechanism to improve the delivery of Covid-19 and flu vaccines during the pandemic. The measures were also found to have played an important role in reducing workforce pressures, facilitating an increase in the capacity to deliver hundreds of millions of Covid-19 and flu vaccinations and releasing qualified healthcare professionals to deliver other care across the system.
The temporary amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations have been and continue to be vital to the successful delivery of the Covid-19 vaccination programme. To not extend these provisions would have a significant impact on the delivery of current vaccination programmes. Without these provisions, some NHS vaccination activities would need to cease, which would likely have a negative impact on the uptake of these vaccinations.
Therefore, the Government propose to temporarily extend the provisions provided by these regulations to 1 April 2026, while a more permanent solution is developed. In the case of Regulation 247A, the Government also propose to remove the requirement that there should be a pandemic or imminent pandemic when the medicine is supplied. I beg to move.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the instrument seems entirely sensible and I suspect that many of us who have come here to debate it will join in a chorus of approval. I had anticipated that some people might have been here to talk about the evils of emergency regulation, which we are, in a sense, extending today, or even the evils of vaccination programmes—we would have had a lively debate around that. However, it seems that we are only going to be talking about the specific matters before us in the regulations, which is helpful.
It begs the question, which the Minister opened up in his introduction, of what the Government’s plans are for the longer term. The Government essentially face a choice: they can decide to have a single-tier system for the regulation of vaccination programmes, or a two-tier system, of which there are two variants.
The single tier would be that the additional flexibility that has been introduced should apply to all vaccines all the time. I can see that there might be a case for that. The Minister has explained why the Government feel confident that lifting some of the requirements on preparation and licensing for warehousing et cetera has been beneficial. That begs the question: if it is beneficial here, could that be safely changed for all vaccines all the time? Those are the first two parts of it—Regulations 3A and 19(4)(a) to (4)(c).
The second regulation the Minister referred to was Regulation 247A on who can deliver vaccines and making the most of the workforce. I can see that there may be a case for one of the following variants of the two-tier system. The first would be to have a set of criteria to decide when an epidemic is sufficiently serious that we are willing to introduce the extra flexibility. That would be a pandemic-targeted measure. If the Government are thinking in those terms, I hope that we can get on with it rather than waiting until we have a pandemic and going back to having emergency legislation.
If we have a choice between pre-planned legislation and emergency legislation, I think we in this House would always prefer pre-planned. We have a known unknown; we do not know what the new pandemic might look like, but we know that we are likely to get something that requires a mass vaccination programme. If there are criteria for when that programme would kick in in an emergency epidemic situation, it would be helpful if the Minister could give some indication of the Government’s thinking on that.
The second model would simply be that, when a vaccination programme is too big, we have an expanded workforce. The inclusion of influenza takes us into that territory. The influenza vaccine is not in response to a pandemic; influenza is an annual epidemic. Essentially I hear the Minister to be saying that we could not deliver all the flu vaccines we want to deliver without the relaxed model that the pandemic opened up for us in relation to the personnel who can deliver vaccines. If that is the case, it would make sense to get on with it and say that the criteria are that, once we need to deliver more than X million vaccines, we will move to the regime where a larger range of vaccinators can deliver them. It would make sense to do that in a planned way rather than as a reactive measure.
I want to raise another point with the Minister, which I hope he might be able to help us to think about. Do the Government have research under way into the different approaches? Whenever we are thinking of vaccination programmes—I am firmly in the pro-vax camp, if there is such a thing—overriding all this is that patient safety remains critical. If you support vaccination, you are very strongly motivated to make sure that the evidence is there to prove that it is safe.
Through the pandemic we were all part of a wonderful experiment. This is probably the single best-recorded health event in human history, which enables people to study all the different variations. I was jabbed by a soldier in uniform, by my GP, and by a pharmacist. We have had an incredible array of different models for delivering vaccination, not just in the UK but in lots of other countries. My assumption is that clever academics and epidemiologists are studying the cost benefits of all those different models and that that information can be used to inform which future models we want. I hope that the long-term successor regime we will have after 2026 will be informed by that. Does the Minister have any insights into that, and can he give us any pointers, or at least assure us that this kind of research is taking place, so that when we finally settle on a post-2026 regime it will be informed by the evidence?
I am thinking of the debate yesterday and looking across at the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. When I am talking about post 2026, perhaps I ought to direct some of my questions to the Labour Front Bench as well. This year, I might get into the habit of saying, “The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron”. If they have any thinking on the post-2026 vaccination regimes, it would be helpful to hear that.
Those are my points. Can the Minister give us any insights into the Government’s thinking about whether they are tending towards a single-tier regime with more flexibility for all vaccinations, or a two-tier regime based on the criteria of emergency or simply of scale, so that vaccination programmes larger than X are delivered in a different way from smaller vaccination programmes?
There is also that question about the research. I would like some assurance that we are trying to get some kind of silver lining from the cloud of Covid by taking all the wonderful data we have collected and ensuring that the future efforts we have to make are informed by our experience of the efforts of those incredible teams of vaccinators of all sorts who have been working busily on these programmes over the last three years or so.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, our health and care staff, scientists and others in public services, and those who volunteered, did so much to keep the public safe and to vaccinate millions across the country as quickly as possible to save lives and drive down cases of Covid-19. They finally allowed us to end lockdowns and reclaim our lives, and I pay tribute to them all.
I thank the Minister for setting out today the provisions of these regulations, which are to update legislation pertaining to the movement and supply of Covid-19 and influenza vaccines. The changes, as he said, seek to extend the sunset clauses of Regulations 3A and 19 to 1 April 2026 and to alter Regulation 247A to extend its provision, also until 2026, instead of the current restriction on its use to being only during a pandemic. Extending these provisions, which will also allow the NHS to continue to use an expanded workforce, is important to continuing to allow the deployment of safe and effective Covid-19 and influenza vaccines at the pace and scale required to keep us all protected. The draft regulations aim to build on the work of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout across the country, and we certainly support them.
As the Minister said, the consultation last year confirmed that the provisions have found considerable favour with stakeholders in the health and care sector. Regulation 247A appears to have reduced workforce pressures while increasing flexibility in the workforce and providing opportunities for career progression. On all fronts, that has to be a good thing.
I note that the impact assessment highlights the positive expected value of these regulations and concludes that vaccinations are a powerful and beneficial tool in tackling viruses and diseases such as influenza and Covid-19. The impact assessment also refers to the work to move towards a permanent approach, which will likely alter these provisions again in the future. Can the Minister provide noble Lords with more detail about the progress the department has made in its planning for a more permanent approach?
The important matters of vaccine take-up, hesitancy and misinformation have of course come to the fore of late, given the recent measles outbreak across the country. All these matters have impacted in that too few have been protected against a potentially deadly virus. I recently asked the noble Lord, Lord Markham, as the Minister in the Chamber, about using pharmacists to vaccinate against measles through the delivery of the MMR vaccine, which he welcomed. I wonder whether the Minister today could undertake today to let me know what response the department gave to my suggestion. I appreciate that I had directed that question to the noble Lord, Lord Markham, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to assist, even if it is after this debate.
The Government have been called on to extend this winter’s Covid vaccination booster programme to 12 million people in the 50 to 64 age cohort. Can the Minister explain why the provision was not extended to that age cohort? What is the assessment of the impact of this on the health of both that group and those beyond it? Can the Minister share any details about whether and when Covid-19 vaccinations will be available privately?
Last winter, influenza admission rates were 2.6 times higher for those who live in the most deprived areas than for those who live in the least deprived areas, while Covid-19 admission rates were 2.1 times higher. The rate of emergency hospital admissions for influenza was 1.6 times higher for black British people and other minority ethnic groups than for white ethnic groups. What are the Government doing to address these inequalities?
Finally, can the Minister confirm what the Government are doing to tackle the vaccine misinformation that continues to be shared so widely across the country? As I said, we support this draft statutory instrument so that we can ensure the supply, and improve the take-up of, safe and effective Covid-19 and influenza vaccines at the pace and scale required.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords; in closing, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this debate. We always have healthy questions and, I hope, answers in this Room.
Extending these provisions will ensure that the important flexibilities established by these regulations are maintained, thereby supporting the continued safe and effective deployment of Covid-19 and flu vaccines to the pace and scale required. The Government will continue to work with system partners to consider fully a long-term mechanism to support the delivery and administration of Covid-19 and flu vaccines. This process is already under way; any new measures will of course be subject to public consultation. However, in the immediate term, given the high level of support expressed in the consultation, there is an ongoing need to support the continued safe and effective supply, distribution and administration of Covid-19 and flu vaccines by maintaining the existing provisions provided by these regulations to April 2026.
Let me answer to the specific questions that I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. They asked what the longer-term plans are for these regulations. It is important that we retain current flexibilities to continue to protect those at greatest risk, but we agree on the importance of long-term solutions, working with the system partners to undertake a fuller consideration of long-term plans. We do not want to pre-empt that process but can confirm that we will be informed by a full consultation, including in the House. We will certainly have opportunities to discuss this issue at length.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, talked about his experience during Covid, as I presume most of us in this place experienced. He mentioned that he had injections from a solider, a nurse and another person, indicating that he had three injections. I remember, from my experience before I came to this place, how successful it was. It was a very British experience: it was in a community hall, with which we are all familiar, and a car park. We all queued in the rain, very British-like, ready to go in. We were met and greeted by volunteers; that was the first thing I noticed. The local CCG banners were around; it was very orderly and very dignified—very British. From what I remember, there was no soldier; they were NHS personnel, clearly identified, and we were all sifted through. The lessons that I took from it were that it is local but also national, and it is about volunteering as well. We have to work together on this, with government, local NHS provision and good vaccine provision working together, but you are reliant on volunteers to do it. In my experience, it worked very well.
As for who can deliver the vaccines and the flexibilities, as I indicated, in my experience and that of the noble Lord, it is healthcare professionals who deliver them. We discussed this yesterday in the Chamber, and the noble Baroness mentioned pharmacists. It is clear that other qualified and well-trained individuals, under supervision from healthcare professionals, can and should be able to do this. The lesson learned is that you can extend the number of individuals under supervision —who are very well trained—to make sure that there are no bottlenecks and you can open it up. That is the big lesson we can take from Covid.
This was introduced after the initial planning and preparation for a flu pandemic in 2016 so, on the noble Lord’s point about preferring to have pre-planned systems—the known unknowns, as he said—we have to be mindful of the unknown unknowns. We planned for influenza, not Covid-19. We in this House and elsewhere try our best to plan for the future but it is difficult. However, we can certainly learn from that and, as the noble Lord said, this has been well documented for the Government and the nation. So we have to learn the lessons from the planning for influenza from 2016 to 2019—only three years. God forbid that we have another pandemic, but we hope we will know about that. It is about making provision so that we can extend the workforce to deliver those vaccines.
On the specific question that the noble Baroness asked my noble friend Lord Markham, I will endeavour to get a specific answer if she has not already received one. She talked specifically about MMR, which we discussed previously. Some communities are perhaps vaccine-reluctant, for whatever reason. We mentioned that, in the black and ethnic minority communities, social deprivation has a lot to do with it in certain areas of the country—inner cities—as does misinformation.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned disinformation, which we have talked about before. Social media has a positive effect on our lives but, unfortunately, it is very easy to develop conspiracy theories from it. The Government are committed to tackling Covid-19 vaccine misinformation. At a national level, the Government, NHS England and UKHSA work together to create a range of personalised and accessible communications from trusted sources to maximise awareness, understanding and confidence in vaccines. At a local level, the NHS works with community leaders to design bespoke materials and services suited to their local populations, which may include outreach initiatives aimed at improving confidence and trust in the vaccines.
The conspiracy theories come from all sorts of places. The vaccines are perfectly safe. There may be occasions when individuals have allergic reactions to them, but this does not mean that people should not be vaccinated or that your children should not be vaccinated for MMR. I am afraid that one of the battles of the 21st century is trying to make sure that that disinformation does not have a detrimental effect on our children.
On what the Government have been doing, over 149 million Covid-19 vaccination doses were administered in England between December 2020 and 2023. This has saved tens of thousands of lives, significantly reducing the pressure on the NHS and allowing the economy and society to reopen. Since 11 September, when the latest autumn booster programme commenced, more than 11.8 million Covid-19 jabs have been delivered, providing vital protection to those at greater risk of severe illness.
To summarise, I believe that the long-term plan is to give that flexibility proactively. We cannot predict the future, but we can certainly learn from Covid-19, from 2020 to 2022, that the ability to expand a vaccine and its administration is critical, getting it in the right place at the right time. On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, about hard-to-reach communities, it is about communication and going through community leaders, but it is also about having the wherewithal so that people are not suspicious of going to a local community hall, where they will be welcomed by volunteers perhaps and injected by the appropriate people. We hope that can wear down this reluctance to take up life-saving vaccines.
Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veterans Relief) Regulations 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veterans Relief) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these two sets of regulations are made each year to set the national insurance contributions—NICs—rates, limits and thresholds and to update tax credits, child benefit and the guardian’s allowance. First, the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veterans Relief) Regulations 2024, which I will refer to, if I need to, as the social security SI, sets the NICs rates, limits and thresholds of a number of NICs classes for the 2024-25 tax year with all limits and thresholds remaining fixed at their existing level. The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the National Insurance Fund, if required for the same tax year, which is a transfer of wider government funds to the National Insurance Fund, and for the veterans employer NICs relief to be extended for a year until April 2025. The scope of the regulations under discussion today is limited to the 2024-25 tax year.
NICs are social security contributions. They allow people to make contributions when they are in work and to receive contributory benefits when they are not working—for example, after they have retired or if they become unemployed. NICs receipts fund these contributory benefits, as well as supporting funding the NHS.
I will begin with NICs for employed and self-employed people. The primary threshold and lower profits limit are the points at which employees and the self-employed start paying employee class 1 and self-employed class 4 NICs respectively. At Autumn Statement 2022, the Government announced their intention to maintain the primary threshold’s alignment with the income tax personal allowance, with both rates being fixed at £12,570 until 2028.
Fixing the primary threshold at £12,570 does not affect an individual’s ability to build up entitlement towards contributory benefits, such as the state pension. For employees, this is determined by the lower earnings limit, which will remain at £6,396 per annum or £123 per week in 2024-25, and for self-employed people by the small profits threshold, which will remain at £6,725 in 2024-25. Fixing these thresholds will mean that more low-earning working people will gain entitlement to contributory benefits and build up qualifying years for their state pensions.
The upper earnings limit, the point at which the main rate of employee NICs drops to 2%, and the upper profits limit, the point at which the main rate of self-employed NICs drops to 2%, are aligned with the higher rate threshold for income tax at £50,270 per annum. It was announced previously that these thresholds would be fixed until April 2028 as part of the Government’s commitment to supporting the public finances.
These decisions are starting to pay off, with inflation falling, growth more resilient than expected this year and debt forecast to reduce. This makes it possible to return some money to working taxpayers, while keeping the public finances on track. As part of the Government’s long-term plan to grow the economy and reform the tax system, we are cutting taxes for 29 million working people. From 6 January 2024 onwards, the main employee rate of national insurance contributions was cut from 12% to 10% and, from 2024, the main rate of class 4 NICs for the self-employed will be reduced from 9% to 8%. These cuts have already been legislated for.
At Autumn Statement 2023, the Government also announced that, from 6 April 2024, self-employed people with profits above £12,570 will no longer be required to pay class 2 but will continue to accrue and receive access to contributory benefits, including the state pension. Those with profits between £6,725 and £12,570 will continue to get access to contributory benefits, including the state pension, through a national insurance credit, without paying NICs as they currently do. Those with profits under £6,725 who choose to pay class 2 NICs voluntarily to get access to contributory benefits, including the state pension, will be able to continue to do so.
Turning to employer NICs, the secondary threshold is the point at which employers start paying employer NICs on their employees’ salaries. At Autumn Statement 2022, the Chancellor announced that this threshold will remain at £9,100 in 2023-24 and will be fixed at this level until 2028. This supports the public finances while ensuring that the largest businesses pay the most. The employment allowance, which the Government raised from £4,000 to £5,000 in April 2022, means that the smallest 40% of businesses with an employer NICs liability pay no employer NICs at all. The employment allowance supports our smallest businesses to grow by helping them with employment costs. The thresholds for employers of employees eligible for NICs relief—the relief for employers of under-21s, under-25 apprentices, veterans and new employees in freeports and investment zones—have also been fixed in these regulations at their 2023-24 levels.
The majority of national insurance contributions are paid into the National Insurance Fund, which is used to pay state pensions and other contributory benefits. The Treasury has the ability to transfer funds from wider government reserves into the National Insurance Fund. The regulations also therefore make provision for a transfer of this kind, known as a Treasury grant, of up to 5% of forecasted annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the National Insurance Fund, if needed, during 2024-25. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund. The Government Actuary’s Department report, which was laid alongside these regulations, states that the Treasury grant is not forecast to be required in 2024-25, so it is being legislated for as a precautionary measure, because the Government consider it prudent to make provision at this stage. This is consistent with previous years.
The regulations also make provision for the NICs relief for employers of veterans to be extended for a year until April 2025. This measure means that businesses pay no employer NICs on salaries up to the veterans’ upper secondary threshold of £50,270 for the first year of a qualifying veteran’s employment in a civilian role. This relief is part of the Government’s commitment to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran and it is intended to further incentivise employers to take advantage of the wide range of skills and experience that ex-military personnel offer.
I will refer to the second statutory instrument, the Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2024, as the “tax credits SI”. The Government are committed to delivering a welfare system that is fair for claimants and taxpayers, while providing a strong safety net for those who most need it. These regulations will ensure that the benefits for which Treasury Ministers are responsible and that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs delivers are uprated by inflation, in April 2024. Tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance will increase in line with the consumer prices index, or CPI, which had inflation at 6.7% in the year to September 2023. Uprating by the preceding September’s CPI is the Government’s typical approach.
In summary, the proposed legislation fixes all the limits and thresholds for NICs at their 2023-24 levels for the 2024-25 tax year. It makes provisions for a Treasury grant, extends NICs relief for veterans’ employers and increases the rates of tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance in line with prices. This legislation enacts announcements from the Autumn Statement and previous fiscal events. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a couple of brief points about child benefit. While of course I welcome the inflation-proofing after all the speculation there has been about it, it is important to put on record that it still represents a cut in the real value of child benefit since 2010, according to the Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am honorary president. Even allowing for this uprating, child benefit needs to rise by 25% to restore its real value.
I can remember when child benefit was introduced. I was working at the Child Poverty Action Group at the time, and child benefit replaced personal tax allowances as well as the family allowance. The Conservative Party then accepted the argument that child benefit should be thought of as, in effect, a tax allowance for children and treated the same as personal tax allowances. An increase in the real value of child benefit now could represent an effective way to target a tax cut on those below the tax threshold, whose needs are the greatest. Given that there is all this speculation about tax cuts, that would be my recommendation.
I realise that this is not part of the SI that we are debating, but the speculation that the Chancellor is also looking, for the Budget, at the high-income charge on child benefit is relevant. The threshold has not been uprated since the charge was introduced in 2013, so fiscal drag means that a growing number of basic rate taxpayers are now affected, whereas it was originally intended purely for those who are considered better off. Could the Minister give us an update on the numbers who have been pulled into the charge—perhaps not now, because I recognise that she may not have the figures here, but in a letter, because it would be good to know where exactly we are at?
Personally, I would like to see the end of the high-income charge on child benefit, because it compromises important principles of universality in child benefit and of independent taxation, as the Women’s Budget Group pointed out. At the very least, the threshold should be restored to its original value. I hope the Minister will convey that message to the Treasury.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak first to the draft social security contributions SI. Let me say at the outset that we support this instrument. However, we regret the announcement in the 2022 Autumn Statement that all NIC rates that are in line with income tax will be fixed at the 2023-24 levels until 2027-28.
This instrument is simply part of the long and damaging freeze of all the main personal tax thresholds across the entire period of the OBR forecast. HMT’s policy paper of 21 November 2022—Income Tax Personal Allowance and the Basic Rate Limit, and Certain National Insurance Contributions Thresholds from 6 April 2026 to 5 April 2028—is relevant here. The paper notes the fixing of thresholds up to and including the 2027-28 tax year, after which the default position is that they will rise by CPI inflation. It then goes on to say:
“This measure is expected to bring 92,000 individuals into Income Tax and 55,000 into paying NICs by 2027 to 2028”.
It also asserts:
“This measure is not expected to impact on family formation, stability or breakdown”.
These are very strong assertions. Can the Minister set out the evidence for them?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, in the 2022 Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced that national insurance contribution thresholds that are in line with income tax will be fixed at their 2023-24 levels until 2027-28. As the Office for Budget Responsibility pointed out at the time, the freeze to national insurance thresholds and limits meant that
“all the main personal tax thresholds are now frozen in cash terms across our entire forecast period”
through to 2027-28.
Those freezes to allowances, limits and thresholds provide the context for the debates that we now frequently have about the rising tax burden. As Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, the changes made at the 2023 Autumn Statement
“won’t be enough to prevent this from being the biggest tax-raising parliament in modern times”.
The fact is that, after 25 tax rises in this Parliament alone, the tax burden remains on course to reach its highest-ever level at least since the Second World War. One of the central reasons for that is the freeze on income tax and national insurance thresholds through to 2027-28. This fiscal drag means that, on average, personal taxes will go up by £1,200 per household even after the 2% cut to national insurance.
To take one example, the impact of the Government’s freezes to thresholds on low and middle earners is stark. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, mentioned, consumer finance expert Martin Lewis recently said that, even with the reduction in national insurance, people on incomes of between £12,500 and £26,000 will be worse off, looking at this year in isolation, as a result of threshold freezes and fiscal drag. Does the Minister agree with Mr Lewis on that point?
The Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations set the annual rates of working tax credit and child tax credit and the weekly rates of child benefit and guardian’s allowance for the coming financial year. Amid a damaging cost of living crisis, we support the increases, as any help for people who are struggling in the face of persistently high energy, food and housing costs is particularly needed. It is welcome that these social security payments are being uprated by the usual amount, September’s inflation figure. Months of uncertainty about the Government’s plans caused enormous anxiety at a time when household budgets were stretched to breaking point.
My noble friend Lady Lister spoke expertly about child poverty, as she always does. We know that 8 million households received their final means-tested cost of living payment this month. That support has been critical for millions across this country, including many children. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could say what assessment the Government have made of the impact that the end of the cost-of-living payment will have on levels of child poverty.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate today. I will try to get through as many questions as possible—there are definitely one or two to which I do not currently have the answer, but I will do my best.
Turning to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I recognise that she has been working in the field of child poverty, child benefit and child benefits more broadly for a long time and brings with her an awful lot of expertise. She focused very much on child benefit. I would say that child benefit is just one of many interventions that the Government can and do make to help families. There is a range of different supports, and she will have seen that at spring Budget 2023, the Chancellor announced that the Government will extend the free hours offer so that eligible working parents in England will be able to access 30 hours of free childcare per week for 38 weeks per year from when their child is nine months old to when they start school.
So it is not only about cash payments which come in the form of child benefit; and it is also the case that, looking at where we are now compared with where we were back in 2010, for example, we have made progress on poverty. The Government feel that the best way to get people—and children in particular—out of poverty is by living in homes where people are able to work. We know that there are now just under 1 million vacancies, and our approach is very much to try to get people into work, particularly full-time work, to reduce the risk of poverty. That is why our intervention in childcare is so important. We know that in 2021-22, children living in workless households were five times more likely to be in absolute poverty after housing costs than those where all adults worked. The latest available data shows that in 2021-22, there was only a 5% chance of children being in absolute poverty after housing costs where both parents worked full time, compared with 52% where one or more parents in the couple was in part-time work only. That is why our focus on all sorts of different interventions to support the family is really important.
The latest statistics show that, in 2021-22, there were 1.7 million fewer people in absolute poverty after housing costs compared with 2009-10, including 400,000 fewer children. We are heading in the right direction but, of course, we must continue to do further work in this area. I welcome the work that the Government have done on universal credit: it is a very good set of reforms that endeavours to support people when they need it most to help them back to work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned the high-income child benefit charge. I am pleased that she agrees about the principle of individual taxation—I know that many people would like to put it on household income, but that would mean a change of thinking at the Treasury about how one taxes individuals. The adjusted net income threshold of £50,000 ensures that the Government support the vast majority of child benefit claimants. I will write to the noble Baroness if I have information about how many lower-rate taxpayers have been pulled into that area—but we are talking about a threshold of £50,000, which is a fair amount of money.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked a number of questions, some of which I caught but some of which my brain did not quite catch. I will write to him, but, on the Treasury grant, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government are just being prudent by including it in the statutory instrument. At this moment, the Government Actuary report forecasts that the balance of the NIF will be £80.9 billion at the end of 2024-25, which is a significant surplus.
The GAD also projects that the NIF will be in overall surplus until at least 2028, but the balance can fluctuate because it will depend on economic factors and policy changes—for example, what might happen with increases to the state pension. The Government have increased the state pension by 8.5%, in line with inflation and the highest element of the triple lock. So I will write to the noble Lord on the threshold at which the Treasury would intervene—but we are not expecting to at this moment in time. We monitor the balance of the NIF very closely and we stand ready to include a top-up grant, should we feel that the forecast for that particular year gives the impression that it might be needed.
The noble Lord talked about veterans. The Government obviously keep all taxes and reliefs under review. We have decided to extend this for another year, and the cost of that extension is approximately £5 million for the next year. But it is also fair to say that the Government regularly conduct research and evaluation as part of their role in keeping policies such as this relief under review. When an evaluation is complete, it will be published in due course and decisions can then be taken at that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, mentioned the current economic climate, without mentioning the unprecedented economic shocks that the UK economy has had to weather. Of course, the response to this was often deemed to be insufficient by the party opposite, so I am not entirely sure where we would be had it been in power. I suspect that we might be in an even more sorry economic state, because we are now turning a corner. We are absolutely seeing really positive change in our economy, and I believe that will continue.
It is worth looking at the broader impact of the freezing of the NICs threshold, alongside income tax. Quite frankly, when many people get their payslips, they just look at how much money they gave the Government. They do not necessarily focus on whether it is NICs or tax; it is just money they do not have and cannot spend because the Government are spending it for them.
But, since 2010, the Government have improved the lot of lower-earning people. We have nearly doubled the personal allowance since 2010, and it is 30% higher in real terms. That ensures that some of the lowest earners do not pay income tax. Indeed, around 30% of people do not pay income tax at all. This has also meant that it is estimated that over 3 million people will be taken out of tax by 2023-24, compared with the threshold rising in line with inflation from 2010-11. So the Government have increased the thresholds by more than inflation over a very long period of time, which has really benefited the lowest earners.
Given these unprecedented economic shocks, the Government have had to take difficult decisions, which I believe are bearing fruit. I hope that other noble Lords can recognise that. It remains the case that a UK employee can earn more money before paying income tax and social security contributions than an employee in any other G7 country. Let us not fall into the trap of thinking that we are massively overtaxed in this country.
As I say, we see the economy turning a corner and inflation falling. We hope that we can return some money to taxpayers, because I agree that it is not a comfortable feeling knowing that, in the past, we have had to raise taxes to help the nation get through the unprecedented economic shocks that we have weathered. However, now that we are in slightly sunnier uplands, I hope we will be able to do more in future. I will write with further responses to questions which I have not covered but, for the meantime, I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2024.
Bank of England Levy (Amount of Levy Payable) Regulations 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Bank of England Levy (Amount of Levy Payable) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations will ensure the implementation of the Bank of England levy following the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which made provision for the replacement of the cash ratio deposits scheme with this levy. Currently, the Bank of England’s monetary policy and financial stability functions, including work on resolution, international policy, financial stability and strategy, and risk and monetary analysis, are funded by the cash ratio deposits, or CRD, scheme. Under the scheme, banks and building societies with eligible liabilities greater than £600 million are required to place a proportion of their deposit base with the Bank of England on a non-interest-bearing basis. The Bank of England invests these funds in gilts and the income generated is used to meet the cost of its monetary policy and financial stability functions.
However, due to lower than expected yields from gilts, the CRD scheme has not generated sufficient income to fully fund the Bank’s policy functions. The shortfall has been funded by the Bank’s capital and reserves. Alongside this, the scheme has led to higher than expected deposit sizes and a lack of certainty for deposit payers.
Following a review of the scheme, the Government set out their intent to replace the CRD scheme with the Bank of England levy. This will provide greater certainty to firms on their contributions, create a simpler and more transparent funding mechanism for the Bank and ensure that the shortfall in funding is addressed moving forward. Sections 70 and 71 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 amend the Bank of England Act 1998 to make provision for the replacement of the CRD scheme with the Bank of England levy.
The instrument under consideration by the Committee today makes provision for the eligible institutions that do not have to pay a levy, how the cost is apportioned between the eligible institutions that do have to pay it and how appropriate adjustments will be made for years in which there is a new levy payer. The instrument does not set the overall amount of the levy. The Bank determines which of its policy functions will be funded by the levy and the amount that it reasonably requires in conjunction with the funding of those functions for the levy year.
Under the regulations, the new levy year will begin on 1 March 2024, to align with the Bank of England’s financial year. An indicative timeline for the levy year is included in the Bank of England’s levy framework document. This sets out that the first invoice will be issued to firms in July 2024, with payment due in August 2024. This payment will cover the 2024-25 levy year.
Under the levy, for each year, the Bank of England will estimate the amount it needs to meet its policy costs. It will add any shortfall from the previous year and deduct any surplus. This is the anticipated levy requirement. The Bank will require institutions to submit data about their eligible liabilities and will usually take an average of the data provided between 1 October to 31 December in the previous year to calculate an institution’s eligible liabilities.
If an eligible institution has an average liability base up to and including £600 million, it will not pay any levy that year. If the institution’s average liability base exceeds £600 million, it will obviously pay the levy. This is the same as under the CRD scheme, therefore ensuring that the levy is fair as only the largest institutions, which benefit most significantly from the Bank’s monetary policy and financial stability functions, will pay. The costs that an institution will pay under the levy will be apportioned according to the size of the institution’s eligible liabilities, meaning that larger institutions pay a larger share of the costs. This is the same as under the CRD scheme and ensures that there will be no relative winners or losers under the new levy.
If an institution did not meet the threshold for paying the levy in the previous year but it does for the current year, the regulations stipulate that this firm will be treated as a new levy payer. The SI allows the Bank to treat new levy payers differently so that they contribute to the estimated policy costs for that specific year, and do not have to contribute to any shortfall from the previous year or gain any benefit from any surplus. This is a fair and proportionate approach.
This SI delivers a fairer and more transparent funding mechanism for the Bank of England’s policy functions. The regulations have been widely consulted on and the levy is supported by financial firms. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, it is obviously unacceptable that the Bank of England should be making a loss on its supervisory activities regarding the banking sector. We are happy to support this SI’s correction of that situation.
Before we allow the Bank to charge companies more, should we not ask ourselves whether there are any efficiencies that could or should be made in the Bank’s supervisory routines and systems? Could the Minister say whether the Bank has asked itself that question? If it has, perhaps the Minister could tell us what the answer was and how it was arrived at. If it has not asked the question, why not?
We note that the consultation on the levy produced only one relevant response—from, we assume, UK Finance. This response made five points; the Bank addressed four. The first was the rate of selldown of the Bank’s gilt portfolio. The concern appeared to be that this selldown would significantly increase the Bank’s costs and therefore the levy required. The Bank seemed to think that this was not an issue, but its explanation seemed very complex. May I ask the Minister for a “beginner’s guide” explanation? Is the industry right to worry about the levy increases potentially arising from a gilts selldown and, if not, why not?
The second point raised in the consultation response seemed the most important. The respondent suggested that the non-bank financial institutions, NBFIs, could in future be added as eligible levy-paying institutions in Schedule 2ZA to the Bank of England Act 1998. These NBFIs certainly seem large enough to be added. At the Managed Funds Association Global Summit in Paris in May last year, it was estimated that NBFIs now represent about 50% of global financial assets.
Addressing this point, the Bank simply says that the formal review referred to in paragraph 14.1 of the EM
“is expected to include assessment of which institutions are regarded as eligible to pay the Levy”.
I note the words “is expected to”. I also note that this review is five years away. Is not the growing size of the NBFI sector a reason for the Bank’s supervisory oversight to be much more extensive? Is it not simply unfair that NBFIs should get a free supervisory ride?
The third issue raised in the consultation and addressed by the Bank was the desirability, for planning purposes, of a five-year budget plan to help institutions plan their own budgets. The Bank has agreed to consider what is a perfectly reasonable request, but can the Minister say when it will have a substantive response to that comment from the consultation?
The fourth issue concerned the reference period; the Minister has mentioned this. The Bank concluded that the proposed reference period—the same period used for the PRA levy—is the appropriate one. Speaking of the PRA, can the Minister explain to us how the Bank of England levy and the PRA levy work together, as well as how double-charging is avoided?
Finally, why does this SI contain no coming-into-force date or commencement provisions?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, we fully support the replacement of the current cash ratio deposit and the proposed mechanics of the levy. We therefore support this statutory instrument.
I have only one question, related to the timing of this measure. As I am sure the Minister would agree, providing the banking sector with certainty is essential to securing the confidence needed to incentivise investment in the real economy. Can she therefore provide clarity on when this SI will come into force?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for sharing their thoughts on this SI. It is a simple switchover from one scheme to another, but I recognise that there are points that deserve a bit more insight. I hope that, by the end of my closing speech, I will have an answer to the question about the coming-into-force and commencement date, including why that has not happened.
I turn to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. He made good points about the amount of money that will be spent on these policy functions. I asked the same question. It is clear to me that the Bank of England is independent and sets its own budget but does so in a prudent way. Each year, as I said in my opening remarks, the Bank determines the scope of the policy functions that should be funded and, therefore, what the total levy will be. However, the Bank’s policy costs to be recovered through the levy will require approval by the Bank’s Court of Directors, which is a bit like its board, I suppose, and which is responsible for the efficient use of funds—not only those raised by the levy but across the whole of the Bank’s budget.
The levy will also feature as part of already established arrangements for regular discussions between the Bank and the Treasury covering the Bank’s financial position. The Bank continues to be accountable to Parliament in respect of its finances and budget in various ways, including but not limited to through its annual report and accounts—some significant detail about this will be set out its report and accounts—and through regular public appearances by governors and members of the court before the Treasury Select Committee.
I will now embark on a guide to the cost of transition; let us see how we do. When the Bank moves from the CRD scheme to the levy, institutions will get their deposits back as there is no longer a legal basis for the Bank to hold deposits. Through this, a total of £13 billion in cash ratio deposits will be returned to firms. They will be returned as remunerated reserves as the Bank intends to hold on to the gilt portfolio that it has purchased under the scheme and allow this to roll off naturally. This is the most appropriate course of action; I suspect that that also means it is the cheapest. It means that, during a transition period, the Bank will need to pay a bank rate on the remunerated reserves. This is a policy cost that will be covered by the levy. The cost of the transition between the CRD scheme and the levy per year will depend on the rate at which the legacy CRD gilts mature or are sold. This is because the income available from the legacy CRD gilt portfolio will reduce the amount being recouped by the Bank under the levy.
Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the Grand Committee do consider the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations make changes to key elements of the business rates retention system by actioning policy decisions that have already been taken. The business rates retention system has been in operation for over 10 years. Through it, local authorities keep 50% of the business rates that are collected in their areas, subject to redistribution, with the other 50% being paid over to central government.
Under the system, if a local authority sees its business rates income fall significantly in a year, it can receive protection in the form of a safety net payment. The cost of making safety net payments is met within the system. This is done by levying a percentage of the business rates income of those local authorities whose business rates income has significantly increased.
Such arrangements under the system are governed according to the underlying legislative framework. Each year we make changes to this framework in response to the wider policy environment—for example, following a revaluation or adjustments to the tax. This instrument makes the necessary amendments and, while they are technical, the reasons for them are easily explainable.
Before I go into the details of the instrument, however, I will briefly address why it was withdrawn and re-laid. Unfortunately, following the initial laying of the instrument, there was a need to withdraw and re-lay it to correct a minor error made in its drafting. We did this to ensure that payments are made to councils on the right basis. After this, we were made aware of a risk of delay to the instrument’s progress through Parliament. This could have arisen if the JCSI had queried why we had left cells in a table blank, rather than explicitly setting values at zero. In anticipation of this, we re-laid the instrument with zeros in the schedule to provide greater clarity to the reader. This will ensure that we do not delay paying local authorities what they are expecting. This instrument is the resulting version and I am grateful to all parties for their consideration in making it possible.
I will now focus on the details of the instrument. Several sets of regulations set out the detailed rules which underpin the operation of the business rates retention system. This instrument makes changes to two of them. These are the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) and (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations.
The rates retention regulations provide for the core administration of the system and determine how payments are calculated and then made between local authorities, and between local authorities and central government. The levy and safety net regulations are more particular. They set out, in detail, the safety net and levy mechanisms that I have already mentioned.
I will now describe the reasons that amendments to the regulations are necessary, as well as what they entail. First, we must make changes in response to the 2023 business rates revaluation. As many noble Lords will be aware, revaluation is a key facet of the tax, allowing for changes in the market to flow through to the amounts paid by taxpayers. The reason we need to adjust for revaluations is to avoid abrupt increases or decreases in local authorities’ funding via the business rates retention system. This would otherwise result from the aggregated change in the amounts that local authorities collect from businesses.
The actions we are taking to neutralise the impact of the 2023 revaluation can be summarised as follows. First, we are adjusting top-up and tariff figures—the figures which redistribute income around the system. Secondly, we are adjusting the calculation of levy rates; to recalculate levy rates, we must also restate local authorities’ business rates baselines. These are the share of rates income we expect a local authority to have access to.
The year 2023 was somewhat busy for the business rates retention system. Not only did the revaluation take place, but also Royal Assent to the Non-Domestic Rating Act. I am sure that many noble Lords have fond memories of the debates during its passage through the House. As with most changes made to the workings of business rates as a tax, those made by the 2023 Act impact how the business rates retention system is administered.
The delinking of the small business and non-domestic rating multipliers has the biggest impact on the retention system. Currently, the non-domestic rating—standard—multiplier is equal to the small business multiplier plus a supplement figure. From April this will change as these multipliers are delinked. This means that the two multipliers can be changed independently of each other, and therefore at different rates.
The reason for the significant impact this has on the business rates retention system is because each year we have used the change in the value of the small business multiplier to adjust key figures within the system. Under a system of linked multipliers, the change in the small business multiplier represented the change in the tax rate for all properties. As multipliers will no longer be linked, we have had to identify a new way to uprate these figures. After consultation with local authorities and other stakeholders, we will do this using a new weighted average formula. This calculates uprating figures for each local authority based on the proportion of rateable value on each multiplier in that authority’s area. The instrument applies this new formula to the relevant figures in the regulations. These are top-up and tariff figures, baseline funding levels and the City of London offset.
I have already provided a quick description of what top-up and tariff figures are. For the sake of clarity, I will do the same now for baseline funding levels and the offset. Baseline funding levels are a measure of each local authority’s need. They are uprated each year to ensure that the safety net eligibility threshold, measured as a percentage of the baseline funding level, takes account of inflationary increases. The offset, meanwhile, is a small amount of business rates income outside the system that the City retains, in acknowledgement of its high daytime, but low resident, populations. Alongside delinking the multipliers, the Non-Domestic Rating Act also introduced new or amended existing reliefs for ratepayers—specifically, heat network relief and improvement relief, and doubling the rural relief from 50% to 100%.
Furthermore, we must take account of other tax measures that were not delivered through the 2023 Act —namely, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief for 2024-25, which was announced at Autumn Statement 2023, and the green plant and machinery exemption. The Government compensate local authorities for reliefs and exemptions. If they did not, they would unfairly cost local authorities as their income from business rates would fall. However, when calculating levy and safety net payments, it is essential that we recognise that local authorities have already been compensated for their losses due to the awarding of reliefs and exemptions. Otherwise, some local authorities may receive substantial increases in safety net payments despite already receiving compensation or may underpay the amount of levy on growth that they owe. This instrument makes sure that the appropriate compensation given to local authorities is included in levy and safety net calculations.
In continuation with the theme that 2023 was a year of change for the business rates retention system, the year also saw the Government transfer the power to grant certain types of relief from billing authorities to mayoral development corporations in Hartlepool and Middlesbrough, following a request from the Tees Valley mayor. Given that authorities receive a share of business rates income in their area, authorities could lose out from the relief awarded if the mayoral development corporation took up those powers. While we have already provided for billing authorities to be compensated, now we are extending the compensation to major precepting authorities.
Lastly, we are making a change to the levy and safety net calculations for the Greater London Authority. The share of income which we will use to calculate levy and safety net payments going forward for the authority is its 20% share. This is its share under the 50% rates retention system. Using its 20% share in this calculation brings it into line with other increased rates retention authorities.
To conclude, it would not be a mischaracterisation to describe these regulations as technical. Nevertheless, they pick up wider policy changes and, in doing so, make several important updates to the administration of the business rates retention system. It is very important that these changes are made to the system so that authorities retain the income from it that they are anticipating and on which they have budgeted. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction. The Liberal Democrats support these technical changes. I do not know how we could oppose them without having a very detailed understanding of all the complexities of the changes that the Minister has outlined today. As she said, the purpose is to ensure that local authorities receive the correct payments from business rates, which are a very important source of income for local authorities.
This is indeed a very technical SI, and the formulae for calculating the redistributive mechanisms are also very complex, as I have read in the paper that we are considering. However, it seems to me that the greater the complexity, the greater the likelihood of unintended inequities creeping in. So my first point to the Minister is this: the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“There is no, or no significant, foreseen impact on the public sector”
and that the intention is to
“minimise the impacts on local authorities as far as is practicable”.
Now, as the Minister will know, local authorities are in very challenging financial times, so every penny in the council coffers will make a difference. Can the Minister put parameters on
“as far as is practicable”?
Are we talking thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds? I hope it is not millions. What are the parameters that the Government have used for describing
“as far as is practicable”?
I appreciate it will never be absolutely precise, because it is so complex.
The Minister will appreciate that business rate income is a very important source of funding. On the other hand, councils have a responsibility to ensure vibrant high streets. The result of that is councils wanting business rate bills to be reduced to help retailers. There were some changes in the last piece of legislation to which this SI refers to do that. It was reported last year in the Times, and referenced on Report on the Bill, that some retailers have business rates bills that are equal to or higher than their rental costs. That cannot be right. It leads me to suggest that root and branch reform of the business rates system is urgently needed.
Part of the solution to this gross unfairness is the way that the existing system overly favours online retailers that operate from very large warehouses. An example could be Amazon. The Minister will repeat that the Government have adjusted business rates so that these giants of the retail world pay a bigger share towards the local services they use, but these changes were minimal, resulting in a drop in the financial ocean for large online retailers. For example, it cost Amazon £29 million when its business model is in the billions. Yet the system still overwhelmingly favours online retail, despite government commitments in the levelling-up Act to reinvigorate the high street.
A radical change to create a fairer balance between what is known as “bricks and clicks” would go a long way to achieving what the Government are committed to doing—and which I support—as regards the high street. So can the Minister provide any hope at all that such a change is somewhere on the agenda? It is a key lever in reinvigorating our high streets and ensuring that major online retailers pay a fair share.
The Minister in response may point to small business rate relief. She would be absolutely right that many small shops have 100% rate relief, but that just further emphasises the point that I make. Any system that relies on substantial reliefs and complex redistribution mechanisms while failing to capture income from completely new business types—the online businesses—is ripe for fundamental reform.
I appreciate that this has gone slightly off-piste but, when we are considering the redistribution of business rates, which are a very important element of local government funding, it seems to me that we should use any opportunity we can to remind the Government that, to achieve some of their key objectives, a fundamental reform of business rates is absolutely essential. However, I support the technical changes that are introduced by this statutory instrument.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a serving councillor on Stevenage Borough Council and Hertfordshire County Council. I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument and I am very grateful for her explanation of the relaying of it, which was informative.
I suppose that this instrument is necessarily complex and technical in content, but, if we look through it, we see that in many ways it demonstrates exactly how far business rates—or non-domestic rates, as we have to call them—have got from their objectives. They are intended to ensure that businesses make a contribution to the communities that allow them to thrive, to link them with the people and public services of their local area. They should recognise the differentiation between small, start-up and local businesses and the multinational corporates, when in fact non-domestic rates sometimes penalise them in inverse proportion to their ability to pay. They should also ensure that areas wishing to improve, increase or regenerate economic activity are able to vary the business rates to incentivise according to local circumstances.
Looking through the pages of mathematical formulae and complex calculations in this SI, I say that it would not be surprising if any average business doing so felt that we had somewhat lost the plot. The complexities of the system do not really benefit most councils, either, although we appreciate the funding that comes from them. For example, my borough raises over £61 million in non-domestic rates but, after all these calculations and the turning of the Government’s sausage machine, we get around £4 million of that—in spite of having three of the most deprived wards in the country.
So we need to refocus business rates back on to what they were intended to do. That is why they are part of Labour’s plan to support the vast majority of businesses in this country that are SMEs. They employ 16.7 million people and boost our economy by £2.4 trillion; they breathe life into our high streets; they deliver services that make our life easier: and they provide the goods we need to thrive. While SMEs welcomed the support they got during Covid, many of them now feel neglected as they struggle to survive the cost of living crisis, the recession and the complexities of this business rates system, which can seem utterly overwhelming, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, set out.
Labour’s plan for small businesses will be an important milestone in recognising their value to the economy and the essential role that they have in ensuring the economic growth that we need. We will undertake a fundamental reform of business rates, which will reshape this antiquated system and refocus it on business not bureaucrats’ objectives. We want to make sure that bricks-and-mortar businesses do not continue to pay disproportionately more than their online competitors. We want to take the burden from high streets and the businesses that sit at the heart of our communities, such as the local café that makes our morning coffee, the mortgage broker on our high street who went above and beyond to help you get your first home, the plumbers who come out of hours when you have water pouring through the ceiling. We want a new system that incentivises businesses to invest, rather than discourages them doing so. Our plan for business rates sits within a comprehensive plan for small business, which tackles all the issues that our many conversations with those businesses have told us are key to their future.
We had the chance to speak on the wasted opportunity to revise non-domestic rates during last year’s debates on the Bill, as the Minister said. We recognise that, for now, this technical paper is necessary to put in place the mechanism for the current system, so we will not be putting forward any formal objections, but I have some questions for the Minister. Can she comment any further on the Government’s plans to shift the current disproportionate burden of non-domestic rates taxation from small local businesses to online corporates or, potentially, on alternative forms of income for local government, including an e-commerce levy, with the funding retained by local government?
The retailers that we know and love on our high street, such as M&S, Boots, WHSmith and small, local businesses, seem to have a dramatic penalty in the business rates system over big online retailers such as Amazon. The current top-up and tariffs system is now outdated and, in view of the extraordinary cuts to which local government has been subjected, it often penalises areas of deprivation just because areas around them may be more economically vibrant. Can the Minister comment on what recent assessment has been carried out on the validity of the tariffs and top-up system?
What progress has been made on the Government’s promised consultation on business rates avoidance and evasion? The LGA, for example, has called for a review of exemptions, such as where businesses happen to be located on farms, and further clamp-downs on business rates avoidance, along the lines of those introduced in Wales and Scotland, to ensure that the rules on reliefs, such as empty property and charitable relief, are applied fairly.
The Minister knows that the LGA is also in favour of giving councils more flexibility on business rates reliefs, such as charitable and empty property relief, and the ability to set their own business rates multipliers or, at the very least, to set a multiplier above and below the nationally set multiplier. Have the Government given any further consideration to those proposals? Lastly, could she comment on the glacial speed of the appeals process, which distorts council finances and reserves, as councils often have to hold funds for not just months but years while they wait for the outcome of business rate appeals?
As I said, we understand that this instrument is necessary to move forward non-domestic rates for this year, but we hope that there is an understanding that sticking plasters, even complicated and technical ones such as this, are the problem and not the solution.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses seated opposite for their contributions. A number of questions came up. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and, I think, also the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked about complexity. We accept that the administration of the system has become necessarily complex over time in response to all the changes to policy and tax that have happened. This will be an ongoing thing. Whatever the system is, as changes happen, it becomes more complex. While every mechanism cannot be made accurate pound to pound, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would like, we minimise the risks to the system from any major changes that would affect a local authority’s budget as much as possible. Of course, we are always happy to talk to local authorities if they feel that they have a problem with their business rates.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, in my opinion, the provisions in the instrument are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order increases relevant state pension rates by 8.5%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May-July 2023. It will also increase most other benefit rates by 6.7%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2023.
The order commits the Government to increased expenditure of £19 billion in 2024-25. It ensures that state benefits maintain their value relative to the increase in the cost of goods and services. It means that most state pensions will gain value relative to that increase. Indeed, the proposed increase to state pensions would be the second highest on record—second only to the increase last April.
This will meet the Government’s commitment to the triple lock, benefiting pensioners who are already in receipt of basic and new state pensions, and younger people who are building up future entitlements as a foundation for private saving. It will raise the level of the safety net in pension credit beyond the increase in prices, and it will maintain the purchasing power of benefits to help with additional costs arising from disability.
For those receiving support linked to participation in the labour market, the Government announced a range of employment and conditionality measures at the Autumn Statement. These measures maintain and improve work incentives. This allows us now to strike a balance in support of those who are in low-paid work, who are looking for work or who are unable to work by linking the increase in the rates of universal credit to the increase in prices.
I will now address state pensions in more detail. The Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension are uprated by the highest of the growth in average earnings, the growth in prices or 2.5%. This will be 8.5% for 2024-25, in line with the conventional average earnings growth measure. As a result, from April 2024, the basic state pension will increase from £156.20 to £169.50 a week, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £203.85 to £221.20 a week. All additional elements of the state pension will rise by 6.7%.
The Government are committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes. The order therefore also increases the safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee by 8.5% from April 2024. For single pensioners, this means it will increase from £201.05 to £218.15 a week, and for couples it will increase from £306.85 to £332.95 a week.
I turn now to universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance. The Social Security Administration Act 1992 gives the Secretary of State discretion on whether to increase the rates of benefits such as these, which are linked to participation in the labour market. Given the employment and conditionality measures I mentioned earlier, he has decided to strike a balance in support by also increasing the rates of these benefits by 6.7%, in line with the increase in the consumer prices index.
As a further measure to reinforce work incentives, the monthly amounts of universal credit work allowances will also go up by 6.7% from April 2024. They will increase from £379 to £404 a month for those also receiving support for housing costs, and from £631 to £673 a month for those not receiving support for housing costs. Noble Lords are aware that these are the amounts a household can earn before their universal credit payment is affected if they have children or if they have limited capability for work. The 6.7% increase will also apply to statutory payments, such as statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory sick pay.
I turn finally to benefits for those with additional disability needs and those who provide unpaid care for them. The rates of personal independence payment, disability living allowance and attendance allowance will increase by 6.7% from April 2024, in line with the increase in the cost of goods and services. As we have debated previously in other contexts, the Government recognise the vital role played by unpaid carers. This order also increases the rate of carer’s allowance by 6.7%, from £76.75 to £81.90. Unpaid carers may also access support through universal credit, pension credit and housing benefit. All these include additional amounts for carers, which will also increase by 6.7%. For a single person, the carer element in universal credit will increase from £185.86 to £198.31 a month. The additional amount for carers in pension credit and the carer premium in the other income-related benefits will increase from £42.75 to £45.60 a week.
In conclusion, the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024 implements the Government’s commitment to the triple lock. It provides for a real-terms increase in the value of the safety net in pension credit, it maintains the purchasing power of benefits for additional disability needs and for people providing unpaid care to people with those needs, and it strikes a balance in universal credit by maintaining both work incentives and the purchasing power of benefit income. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I of course welcome the inflation-proofing of benefits and the temporary lifting of the local housing allowance freeze in April, but—I fear this speech is a series of “but”s—I find it, frankly, insulting to those affected. I should say that the Minister is not included in this but, from the Prime Minister down, the uprating is constantly lauded by Ministers as a record amount, an additional support, as if it represents a great act of generosity which somehow justifies the lack of action on a number of other fronts. The inflation-proofing of benefits should be the default position, avoiding the months of speculation, fuelled by government sources, that have caused considerable uncertainty and anxiety for benefit recipients in and out of work.
Moreover, there is a number of reasons why the increase in line with inflation is far from generous. The Resolution Foundation points out that the uprating will do no more than restore benefits to their real value on the eve of the pandemic. While there were flaws in the cost of living payments, which we discussed last year, their loss now means that many households on universal credit will be worse off in cash terms. The foundation estimates that the typical household in the poorest quarter of the working-age population could face an income fall of 2% next year. The following year, on current assumptions, private renters will face a further freeze in the local housing allowance, which, according to Citizens Advice, is an important factor in the increase in the number facing a negative budget—that is, where income does not cover essential spending.
There is also the prospect that the uprating could coincide with the abolition of the household support fund, which has acted as both a lifeline and a sticking plaster for the holes in the social security safety net. I know that the Minister can say nothing more than that this is kept under review, but local authorities, charities and potential beneficiaries need a bit of certainty, rather than to wait for the Budget, which is only a month before the outcome of this review takes effect. I really do not understand how he can tell me in a Written Answer that the Government do not have robust data on the number of English local authorities that have closed their local welfare assistance schemes which, in his answer to my earlier Oral Question, he prayed in aid, should the household support fund be scrapped. Surely, such data should inform any review of the future of the fund. As it is, we know from End Furniture Poverty that at least 37 authorities have closed their scheme.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. In her usual meticulous manner, she made a series of detailed points. I will just make a couple of relatively straightforward points on pensions.
There is a touch of unreality about this discussion, because I received notification of my increased state pension last week and there was nothing in there to suggest that it was subject to any further parliamentary process. Should we vote it down today, my hopes based on the notification that I had from the noble Lord’s department will be shattered. However, I suspect that we are not going to turn this down today.
I have two points. First, a lot of the coverage of this increase said that state pensions would be increased by 8.5%. I discovered that it was not actually 8.5% and might be something else only from reading the small print. The press are mainly at fault for that. I found no significant story in a national paper explaining the distinction between the 8.5% increase for the new and basic state pensions and the 6.7% for everything else.
The everything else is not trivial: it is all the additional pensions that people earned while they were in the state second pension, the retained rights that they received when the new state pension was introduced and the additional pensions that people gained because they deferred their state pension. A particular surprise to me was the 10% increase that pre-2016 retirees receive. The additional pension, the 10%, is increased by only the lower figure rather than, as I would have logically thought, the higher figure. It includes the graduated retirement pension from the Boyd-Carpenter scheme. So significant amounts are increasing and, I dare say, by only 6.5%. I say “only” because that reflects the rate of inflation. I think saying it is increasing only in line with inflation is a fair assessment of the situation.
To a certain extent, it is the fault of the press, but I think the department has a responsibility to produce greater clarity on this issue. In moving these regulations in the Commons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Work and Pensions said:
“The draft order will increase relevant state pension rates by 8.5%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to July 2023. It will also increase most other benefit rates by 6.7%”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/24; col. 929.]
To the non-expert observer, I am sure that would suggest that all the state pension was going to increase by 8.5%, and I suggest that that was reflected in the press coverage. However, I defy the department to produce a single person whose entire benefit is just the new state pension or the basic state pension. People are bound to have some other increases, even if it is only the graduated pension scheme, so no one gets 8.7%. I thought at one stage I was going to tell the Committee what my increase was, but then I realised that with a simple bit of algebra noble Lords could work out what my state pension is, and I do not want to mention it in this debate.
Look at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the Autumn Statement when he announced these increases:
“The government will … continue to protect pensioner incomes by maintaining the Triple Lock and uprating the basic State Pension, new State Pension and Pension Credit standard minimum guarantee for 2024-25 in line with average earnings growth of 8.5%”.
There is no mention that there is this large chunk of pension that will be increased only in line with inflation. It annoys me each time, and Members of the Committee have been the recipients of my annoyance on this occasion.
The other point I wish to raise has already been raised by my noble friend Lady Lister—the delay in payment. I spoke about this at some length last year, and it has not changed, but I thought that on this occasion it is worth quoting, as my noble friend mentioned, Nigel Mills MP speaking in the Commons. He is chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Pensions. He described it as a “crazy process” and said:
“We have to use September’s inflation for an April increase in benefits, and we have to have an uprating order quite a while after the Chancellor has announced it in the Budget. The Work and Pensions Committee recommended that the Government bring these orders before the House earlier than February, so I commend the Government—we are still in January”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/24; col. 932.]
So down the other end they got it in January, but we did not get it until February and the important point is that pensioners will not get the increase until April. That system of a September/autumn announcement and April increases has, in effect, subsisted for 40 years despite all the developments in maintaining records and the computerisation of systems.
I was glad to hear my noble friend suggest that some further thought is being given to this. In the interim it would be reasonable, to the extent that the effect of the increase could be from 1 January—although it is not possible to start the payment until April, because of the systems—for us to give the underpayment for the first three months of the year as a lump sum, at the beginning of April. I think that everyone would love to receive that.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, we too welcome the uprating of benefits and will support today’s SI but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, there are ever-rising numbers in poverty, as drawn to our attention by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s 2024 report on poverty, published a short while ago. According to its previous report, around 20% of the population were in poverty in 2020-21—around 13.4 million—of whom 7.9 million were working adults, 3.9 million were children and 1.7 million were pensioners. Poverty among people on universal credit remained high at the same time at 46%, it said,
“despite the temporary £20-a-week uplift and a resetting of Local Housing Allowance”
to better reflect the level of rents in an area. Poverty rates remained highest in the social and private rented sectors
“and much higher for households including a disabled person or an informal carer”.
The cost of living crisis is having a major effect on poorer families. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s cost of living tracker found the following shocking results in October 2022, across the poorest fifth of families: six in 10 families were unable to afford an unexpected expense; over half were in arrears; around a quarter were using credit to pay bills; and more than seven in 10 were going without essentials. The report found that there are elements in the benefit system that increase poverty, such as the two-child limit on income-related benefits, the benefit cap, the five-week wait for the first payment of universal credit and unrealistic debt repayment deductions. Will the Minister say what plans there are to reassess the impact of these measures? I have not been doing my job in this area for some time, yet I recall that, when I was, these measures were constantly raised as causes of poverty that need to be addressed.
The report finds that the level of benefits is inadequate for people to afford the basic essentials, which is a damning finding. It also urges a resetting of benefits that would ensure that income cannot fall below these levels through debt repayment deductions or repayment of advances. This is essential for people on benefits as a proper safety net, not just during the cost of living crisis but for anyone who is on benefits. When will a full assessment take place of the efficacy of universal credit as an adequate safety net for those who need it? What is the Minister’s response to these findings?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order and all noble Lords who have spoken. As he has explained, the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order will increase most working-age benefits in line with CPI. We too welcome this instrument, because of course we want to see social security keep pace with prices, particularly at a time of spiking inflation and economic instability. That used to be the norm among both Labour and Conservative Governments, of course, but the past decade has seen a marked change.
There were of course the years of shame between 2013 and 2020, when most working-age benefits and tax credits were either frozen or uprated by small amounts, such as just 1%. Although today we are back to uprating mostly by CPI and occasionally by earnings, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, once again that uprating has been preceded by a period of speculation, which is deeply unhelpful. I can assume only that this is driven from somewhere inside the Government, because it happens too regularly. The speculation suggests that maybe this year the uprating will not be by the full amount or maybe will not happen at all.
As my noble friend mentioned, that speculation causes real stress and worry for people who depend on benefits and tax credits to survive. I begin to wonder: is it a strategy to allow Ministers the option of either freezing benefits or not uprating them fully so that, if they then finally do the right thing, people are supposed to be suitably grateful? As my noble friend Lady Lister pointed out, it is good that benefits are being uprated, but it is not an act of unusual generosity; it is simply a decision not to cut the value of benefits during a cost of living crisis.
This instrument, as we have heard, also increases the state pension by earnings in line with the triple lock. I accept the distinction that my noble friend Lord Davies helpfully made. The rates of basic and new state pensions will rise by 8.5%, as will the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit and the higher rate of widows’ and widowers’ pensions in industrial death benefit. However, this does not apply to a number of the others. I will be interested in the Minister’s response to that. In particular, can he explain the position on the deferred state pension? If someone chooses to defer their state pension and the pattern is that the deferred amount is uprated by CPI rather than the triple lock, are they made aware of that? When people make a decision about deferral, do they understand the consequences?
I had some other questions on pensions and pensioners but I was entirely thrown by the decision to separate these two instruments this year. Most years, we do them together in a single block, so I wrote a wonderful speech waxing lyrical and weaving in pensioners and old age, but now here I am. I shall come back, if the Minister will indulge me, to a couple of more general questions on pensioners when we come to debate the next instrument.
The context for this year’s uprating, as my noble friend Lady Lister expounded in some detail—aided ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke—is absolutely brutal. I will not repeat the extensive critique that my noble friend made or her unpacking of the economic climate in which so many families are living, but it is brutal. The basic fact is that there are now more than 4 million children living in poverty. There are 400,000 more children living in poverty now than when Labour left office in 2010.
One of the things that bothers me about this is that, whenever somebody raises this, the Minister—I know it is in his brief—will at some point in the response use the line that the Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty. Yet, clearly, the facts speak for themselves: more than two-thirds of children who live in poverty have parents in work. Something in that picture does not work. It is something that all of us in politics must address.
We in Labour have been looking at what we would do. We have a plan to give people a better life, so that they are able to make ends meet and have a good start for their children. We are looking at making sure that there is a breakfast club in every primary school and at giving people access to cheaper energy and an insulated home. We will reform universal credit, jobcentres and employment support so that people can get a better job with better pay. We will also have a child poverty strategy. Can the Minister tell the Committee in his response what the Government’s strategy is? What is their plan to do that? Other than simply declaring that work is the best route out of poverty, what is the Government’s plan to deal with the challenge of child poverty today? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this short debate. Before I attend to the number of questions asked and subjects raised, I would like to say at the outset—I normally do this but, today, I give special feeling and meaning to it—that this Government really do fully recognise the challenges facing people across the country due to the higher cost of living.
Although inflation is trending in the right direction, with the Bank of England now forecasting a fall to a target rate of around 2% in three months’ time, I acknowledge that pressures on household budgets very much persist. I saw this for myself in a recent visit to the Earlsfield Foodbank. The Government are not complacent about such matters; I hope noble Lords will recognise that the Government have taken action on a number of fronts to address these concerns, which were raised by a number of Peers—four, to be precise—this afternoon. I may not be able to answer all the questions but I will do my very best.
Let me start at the outset—I do not think I have done this before—by saying that, although I acknowledge the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I am generally disappointed that every single item was a negative. I am disappointed that nothing she said seemed to support what we have done in these regulations or what we are trying to do. We really are trying. There was a long litany of faults coming from the Government: that the uprating was not enough; on the loss of the cost of living payments; on the freeze in the LHA, which is all for the future as we do not like where we stand on that yet; on the household support fund; and on the benefits cap review, including why it was not being done.
The noble Baroness is right to ask questions but I say gently that there is no mention of the genuine headwinds that all Governments have been facing. This Government have not been alone in the experiences of the pandemic and coming out of it, as well as of the war in Ukraine. There was no indication of these whatever. It is a bit disappointing. I know that the noble Baroness will understand why I have said these things but I thought it would be worth mentioning them.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt but I started by saying that I welcomed the inflation-proofing. That is a positive. I then warned him by saying, “All the ‘buts’ are coming, I am afraid”, but it was in the context of welcoming.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I appreciate that from the noble Baroness. We have undertaken a number of debates together; I hope that she did not mind me mentioning it.
However, questions are questions; I will start by attempting to answer one of them. After each uprating, household income will go down by 2% because of the ending of the cost of living payments. At the moment, the Government have no plans to extend the cost of living payments past the 2023-24 round of payments. Responding swiftly and decisively to the cost of living pressures has been a key priority for the Government. Over the past two years, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to supporting the most vulnerable by providing one of the largest support packages in Europe. Taken together, support to households to help with the high cost of living is worth £104 billion over the period 2022-23 to 2024-25.
As was mentioned earlier, reducing inflation and growing the economy are the most effective ways to build a more prosperous future for all. This Government are committed to halving the rate of inflation; they have pretty well achieved that. However, to be helpful to the noble Baroness, an evaluation of the cost of living payments is under way. This seeks to understand their effectiveness as a means of support for low-income and vulnerable households. This will be made public when it is ready.
The noble Baroness mentioned the household support fund. She probably second-guessed my answer, which is that this is kept under review in the usual way. It has been used to support millions of households in need with the cost of essentials. For example, 26 million awards were made to households in need between 1 October 2021 and 31 March 2023. More than £2 billion in funding has been provided to local authorities via the household support fund since it began—that is, October 2021. More than 10 million awards were made between 1 October 2022 and 31 March 2023.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked why we are not going to increase the benefit cap. She cited the fact that the Secretary of State has an obligation to review at least once every five years. We believe that there has to be a balance. The benefit cap provides a balanced work incentive and fairness for hard-working taxpaying households, while providing a safety net of support for the most vulnerable. She will know that the Government increased the level significantly from April 2023 following the review in November 2022. The proportion of all working-age households capped remains low, at 1.3%, and these capped households will still be able to receive benefits up to the value of gross earnings of around £26,500, or £31,300 in London. For single households, this is around £15,800, or £19,000 in London.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about benefits levels and how to measure them. There is no objective way of deciding what an adequate level of benefit should be as every person has different requirements depending on their circumstances. However, we will spend £276 billion through the welfare system in Great Britain this financial year, including around £124 billion on people of working age and their children. Over the past two years, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to supporting the most vulnerable by providing one of the largest support packages in Europe, which I mentioned earlier.
The national living wage, which I also want to mention, is set to increase this April by 9.8% to £11.44, on top of the increase in April 2023 of 9.7%. This represents an increase of over £1,800 in the annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage, and it is expected to benefit over 2.7 million low- paid workers.
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 15 January. It is a routine and quite technical annual order and is usually debated alongside the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024, which we have just finished discussing. Unusually, this year, we are running the orders one after the other, as determined by the Whips’ Office. I hope the Committee will agree that this order is not considered too controversial.
The order sets out the annual amount by which the guaranteed minimum pension—the so-called GMP, which is part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension earned between April 1988 and April 1997—must be increased. This year, occupational pension schemes that provide GMPs are required to increase GMPs earned during that period which are in payment by 3%.
I start by giving a bit of background on GMPs. They were created to help employees save income for their retirement but in an affordable way. The state pension used to be made up of two parts: the flat-rate basic state pension and the earnings-related additional state pension. The flat-rate basic state pension was funded through national insurance and paid at the full rate to those with sufficient qualifying years of national insurance contributions, or pro rata for those with a partial record.
The second part of the state pension, the additional state pension, was linked to a person’s earnings. The higher earnings-related national insurance contributions applied to both the employee and the employer and built entitlement to an additional state pension, based on the employee’s earnings. The intention was to ensure that as many people as possible were able to save towards an earnings-related work-based pension that would supplement their basic state pension in retirement.
The additional state pension was introduced in 1978. At the time, many employers were already offering their employees a workplace occupational pension through their own scheme. Therefore, having both an earnings-related additional state pension and a company occupational pension was seen as dual provision. It was overly complicated and potentially unaffordable for employers and employees.
The then Government therefore decided to deal with this through the system of contracting out and the associated provision of guaranteed minimum pensions. Between April 1978 and April 1997, employers sponsoring salary-related schemes could contract their employees out of the additional state pension through membership of the company pension scheme, as long as that pension scheme paid its members a guaranteed minimum pension as part of their occupational pension from the scheme.
The idea was that, rather than paying additional national insurance to the state, people would instead build up a similar amount of occupational pension through their workplace pension schemes. This was the guaranteed minimum pension. It was broadly equivalent to the additional state pension foregone, and it set a level below which the occupational pension could not fall. In return, both the scheme members and the sponsoring employer of the scheme paid lower national insurance contributions. Most schemes provided pensions above this set minimum, with many providing pensions that were significantly higher. The pensions provided above the GMP have their own rules; however, the GMP provides a useful minimum benefit for members. I think that covers the relevant background to the order, which may be familiar to the Committee, and I hope this gives a sense of what was happening at the time and why the order is still important.
Moving on to the order itself, the GMPs increase order relates specifically to members who were contracted out of the additional state pension between April 1988 and April 1997. The order provides these members with a measure of inflation protection for the GMP element of an occupational pension scheme built up between 1988 and 1997.
As your Lordships may be aware, legislation states that when there has been an increase in the annual level of prices, as measured at the previous September, the order must raise the GMP element of an individual’s occupational pension that was earned between 1988 and 1997 by this percentage increase or 3%, whichever is lower. As September 2023’s consumer prices index figure was 6.7%, this means that the increase for the financial year 2024-25 will be 3%. The cap of 3% for GMPs earned between those years aims to achieve a balance between providing some measure of protection against inflation, while not increasing schemes’ costs beyond what they can generally afford.
The cap provides schemes with more certainty, allowing them better to forecast their future liabilities, which is important when they are considering their funding requirements. If there were no limit on the increases, the higher costs could put unreasonable pressure on schemes, which could put their future viability at risk. The cumulative effect of high increases every year could be significant.
A point that has been raised previously, including in the debate last year, is the suggestion that requiring schemes to index post-1988 GMPs was introduced only to save the taxpayer money, as the indexation on earlier accruals was achieved through an uplift in the state pension. A central reason behind why the Government made this decision is that contracting out has always been about the state and the private sector working together, and that having a set amount of indexation paid for by the scheme, with additional protection provided by the state, is a sensible balance.
Let me explain how that system works. When inflation is above 3%, as it currently is, most people with GMPs earned between those years—1988 and 1997—who reached state pension age before 2016 will receive the same inflation protection as if they had not been contracted out. This means that most people who reached state pension age before April 2016 will receive a top-up of 3.7% this year through the additional state pension. In other words, they will receive 3% from their occupational pension scheme and the remainder as a top-up through the additional state pension.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I feel obliged to make a contribution. As I said last year, if I was on “Mastermind” my specialist subject would be the GMP. I was waiting to pounce on the Minister if he missed anything out, but he provided a very comprehensive— I leave it to others to judge whether it was a clear—explanation of the system that applies.
The only thing I want to add is that, post 2016, retirees lose out on these increases and some of them are very angry about it. However, as the Minister indicated, they gain in other ways. The continued accrual post 2016 more than compensates for the loss of these increases—except, that is, for those who retired in the year 2016-17, because they did not get any additional accrual that counted towards their pension. I pointed that out at the time when the Act was going through but, as happens all too often, nobody listened.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I thank the Minister for his explanation, which was indeed very clear on a fairly complicated issue. We support this order but, at the same time, I would like to use this opportunity to raise some issues relating to pensions.
First, I welcome the Government’s support for retaining the triple lock. Although there has been a reduction of the numbers, there are still 1.7 million pensioners in poverty and the value of the state pension is still lower in the UK than in comparable countries.
The next thing I would like an update on is: what has happened about the large number of pensioners who are entitled to pension credit but do not take it up? Some of us had frequent meetings with the Minister’s predecessor about this. There were many suggestions as to how awareness could be raised and the potential benefits of the scheme promoted among poorer pensioners. Can the Minister update us on what measures have been taken to improve take-up and what level of success the campaign has achieved to date?
We also welcome the measures to expand auto-enrolment by giving powers to end the lower earnings limit and increase the eligible age range. Can the Minister provide us with a progress report on the implementation of these measures? Are the Government planning to review the rate of contribution, which quite a few people say is too low?
Have the Government taken any action on the pensions gender gap? The average pension for a woman aged 65 is one-fifth of a 65 year-old man’s, and women receive £29,000 less in state pension than men over 20 years. This deficit is set to continue, with all else being equal, closing by only 3% by 2060. What is the Government’s response to the embedded unfairness in this system? Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made in the Government’s plans to streamline tax administration, perhaps to enable low-paid workers, who are typically women, to receive pensions tax relief on their contributions?
A lack of awareness of the value of pension assets and pension complexity, as well as the increasing number of online divorces, has led to many divorced women having no pension savings at all. Women’s pension rights are much harder hit than men’s by divorce, so has any progress been made to ensure the fair sharing of pension benefits after divorce? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order, and I thank all noble Lords who spoke. I say to my noble friend Lord Davies that, if I were ever to go on “Mastermind”, this would definitely not be my specialist subject. Every year I have to revise it afresh, and every year when I pick it up it is as though I have never seen it before. It is a little like the content of my physics A-level, which I could hold in my brain for the duration of the exam but which then disappeared, having left no discernible effect for the rest of my life. So I actually thought it was an incredibly clear explanation, and I commend the Minister and all those who helped him to present it—I am very impressed.
My idiot’s guide to what this does is that it tells pension schemes the percentage by which they need to uprate GMPs built up between 1988 and 1997. Some years, having done the reading, I dug deep into the technicalities of this, but this year I will ask just two rather simpler questions about it. First, I think I mostly followed the question about how much is the total benefit of uprating between different components, so how many, if any, pensioners will see below-inflation increases in their pensions as a result of the 3% cap?
Secondly, last year, I raised the way DWP deals with those who have GMPs who may have lost out when the new state pension was introduced in 2016. As we have discussed before at this stage, in 2019, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reported on its investigation of two complaints and said that the DWP had failed to provide clear and accurate information on the issue, despite being warned, with the result that some people were not aware that they might need to make alternative provision for their retirement. The ombudsman recommended that DWP should
“review and report back its learning from our investigations”
and that, in particular, it should improve its communications on the issue.
It was August 2021 when DWP finally produced a factsheet in response on GMP and the effect of the new state pension. Last year, I asked the Minister two questions about that. First, what was the DWP doing to draw the existence of the factsheet to the attention of those who might need to know it was there? Secondly, how many people had successfully applied, or indeed applied at all, for compensation since the ombudsman’s report? I did not get any answers, either on the day or in the letter afterwards—as far as I could see.
I have been back since and crawled through the correspondence between the Select Committee and successive Pensions Ministers, of whom there have been a number. I commend the committee for its diligence in this matter. Finally, in a letter from Paul Maynard, the Minister, to Sir Stephen Timms, dated 9 January this year, I found this sentence:
“We received 50 requests for further information (between 12 August 2021 and 31 December 2023) from people who responded to the GMP factsheet”.
There was then a breakdown of those requests. But how will those figures be updated in future? Does the Minister think that 50 requests in nearly two and a half years is enough, or does it perhaps suggest the need for more proactive communication, of the kind for which the Select Committee has been calling for some years?
With the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, I would like to ask a couple of questions more broadly relating to pensions. The first is a factual question. We were due to have the latest release of national statistics on the state pension two weeks ago. They came out as part of the quarterly DWP benefit statistics release, but they seem to have been suspended. Can the Minister explain why?
On the question of pensioner poverty, also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the Minister will know, because I say it periodically, that the last Labour Government saw a marked fall in pensioner poverty, which unfortunately then started to go into reverse when this Government came to power. Now, one in six pensioners are living in poverty. Our success was largely down to the introduction of pension credit, which ensures pensioners get a minimum level of income plus passported benefits.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said, take up is key. In January, statistics were published which looked at benefit take up. They suggest that for the financial year ending 2022, an estimated 63% of families entitled to pension credit received it. That was 3 percentage points lower than the financial year ending 2020. That suggests that there was a brief rise, but it has now gone back down to 2019 levels. Given that the Minister and his predecessor have got up and talked about how successful the pension credit take up campaign has been, have I read that correctly? Is the annual level of take up in fact going down? Please can the Minister explain that to me?
We also need to do what we can to boost the incomes of future pensioners. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, again mentioned the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No.2) Bill, which received Royal Assent with cross-party support, giving Ministers the power to abolish the lower earnings limit for contributions and reducing the age for being automatically enrolled from 22 to 18. On 18 September, the Minister told us that:
“If the House agrees to final passage today, the Government will look to play their part by consulting on how to implement the expansion of automatic enrolment at the earliest opportunity, which I hope gives some idea of the timescale to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. We hope it could be later this year. We will then report to Parliament about how we intend to proceed in accordance with the provisions in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 18/9/23; col. 1201.]
When these regulations were debated in the Commons on 31 January, my honourable friend Alison McGovern asked when this would be happening and when these provisions would be put in. The Minister Paul Maynard responded thus:
“I would love to give her a date for when she will see that; “in due course” is never a good answer to give at the Dispatch Box, but I am afraid that it is the answer at this stage. However, I am pursuing this within the Department, so she has my personal pledge I am pushing it as hard as I can”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/24; col. 949.]
Having pushed as hard to get that Bill through, with cross-party support, does this mean it has been kicked into the long grass? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the three Peers who have spoken in this debate which was even than the previous one. I say at the outset that I appreciate the general support for these regulations. Regarding the GMP increase order, it is always helpful to be aware from the outset that your Lordships are generally supportive of what it sets out to do. Occupational pensions schemes help provide members of their scheme who have a GMP accrued between 1988 and 1997 with, as I said earlier, a measure of protection against inflation eroding the value of their pension.
At the outset, I will also give a very brief response to what was not really a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, about the triple lock. We are pleased to confirm that the triple lock remains in place. I do not think that there was a question there, but I acknowledge that point.
There were a number of questions. I shall start off by answering in no particular order some questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. As to the very specific question of how many people who contracted out will be worse off because of the loss of GMP indexation through the state scheme—he particularly mentioned 2016-17—people who reach state pension age after April 2016 will be entitled to the new state pension and will receive up to 3% from the scheme on their 1988-1997 GMP, which he will know. When looking at the reforms in the round, people may not lose out in aggregate terms because, in effect, indexation has ended for people reaching state pension age from 6 April 2016. This is because the transitional rules of the new state pension can be particularly advantageous for people who have been contracted out.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I just want to understand that response. It does not sound like very many. I presume what the Minister is trying to say to the Committee is that, having looked at the denominator of how many people might expect to be eligible and how much they might get, that number does not feel disproportionate. Is that what he is saying?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes—that is absolutely right. Let me see whether there is any further information that I can get to the noble Baroness on this niche matter. If I am wrong, I will write, but I will certainly write anyway. I am coming towards the end of my remarks; I have only a couple more questions to answer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked where she might find the latest state pension statistics. As she may know, they are available on Stat-Xplore, but only up to May 2023. The release of updated statistics due to be published on Tuesday 13 February 2024 was suspended, as the noble Baroness alluded to in her remarks. This delay results from issues with the internal processing of state pension data after it was sent for analysis from the “Get your State Pension” system and has an impact only on statistics that are not yet published. State pension statistics previously published on Stat-Xplore in November 2023 remain reliable. Work is under way to remediate these issues, and we will publish the suspended state pension statistics as soon as we are able.
The noble Baroness also asked about the status of the auto-enrolment extension Act’s powers and the consultation. The Government remain committed to expanding the benefits of AE to younger people and helping all workers to save more for their retirement. This is why we supported the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023, to which the noble Baroness alluded. To cut to the quick, we intend to conduct a consultation on the detailed implementation of these measures at the right time and in the right way. That is probably not in line with what my colleague in the other place said—“in due course”—but our commitment stands to implement in the mid-2020s.
With those remarks, I will, as ever, check in Hansard that I have attempted to answer all the questions asked. The Committee should be reassured that, if I have not done so, I will write. In the meantime, I thank all three Peers for their interest.
House of Lords
Gender Pay Gap
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to speed up progress on closing the gender pay gap.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the gender pay gap has fallen by approximately a quarter in the last decade. It was a Conservative Government who introduced gender pay gap reporting, building on the robust equal pay protections already in the Equality Act. This has motivated employers to look at their pay data and improve workplace equality. To accelerate progress we have supported legislation to enhance flexible working, extend redundancy protection for those on maternity leave and introduce carers’ leave.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer and particularly welcome the flexible working initiative. Given those endeavours, have the Government made any assessment of how quickly we might bring forward the expected date of 2044 for getting to equal pay? I invite the Minister to support the Labour policy that we should enshrine in law a full right to equal pay for black, Asian and ethnic-minority people, and disabled people, phasing this in to help employers. Does the Minister think that is a good idea?
Baroness Barran (Con)
In response to the noble Baroness’s first question, as she understands very well, a number of factors influence how quickly the gender pay gap will decline. Obviously, there is so much research now on the value of a diverse workforce and how that improves profitability and competitiveness; we hope it will accelerate. In relation to ethnicity pay gap reporting, the noble Baroness will be aware that this gap is 2.3%, much smaller than the gender pay gap. We are working on promoting our guidance on how to address this through employer groups. In relation to disability reporting, following the successful court action we are reviewing our responses to the consultation.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the value of any employee should be based on the contribution that they will make to the organisation, not what they were earning before? Research by the charity Fawcett found that 61% of job applicants asked about previous salary history said that it damaged their confidence to negotiate a better salary. Does she not agree that this requirement bakes in gender, race and disability inequality and prevents people on lower salaries ever making the salary strides they need?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Those were some of the questions we explored in our pay transparency pilot, which looked at the impact of requiring employers to put salary information into their job recruitment advertisements and not asking about previous salaries. We plan to publish the methodology for that so that employers can adopt it. We will also do more work to look at the challenges of implementation.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister share my concern about the gender pay gap in pensions, which just accumulates in historical terms to create a very serious problem in the future?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Last June, DWP published an official measure of the gender pensions gap, which is currently 35% in private pensions. The reforms that we brought in will mean that 3 million women will benefit by more than £550 per year by 2030 and that the gender pensions gap will equalise by the early 2040s—more than 10 years earlier than under previous legislation.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, following the previous supplementary question, I think the Minister was referring to achieving equality in state pensions. The big problem—and what is leading to most of the gender pension gap—is the difference in the caring responsibilities, with most unpaid care undertaken by women. The Minister is correct that the Government have identified the problem; can she give a commitment to come up with a worthwhile solution?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I have already said, the Government are working on a number of different aspects of this. Obviously, a critical part in relation to maternity leave—and the impact that, as the noble Lord rightly says, one can see on the gender pay gap —is our huge commitment to expanding the childcare offer, so that no women will be unable to return to work for lack of childcare support.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have just produced a list of employers that paid below the minimum wage, in some cases for many years. Does this not show that we need stronger enforcement powers and more people checking that employers are doing their duty and paying their workers correctly?
Baroness Barran (Con)
If I have understood correctly—forgive me if I have not—the noble Lord is potentially conflating different things. Obviously, the minimum wage is a legal requirement, and the equal pay legislation addresses the same in relation to gender and other aspects. What we are seeking to do, through enabling activities around flexible working, for example, but also maximising transparency and celebrating the success of employers that have a truly diverse workforce, is to use multiple levers to get to the same goal.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, since we have made such progress in dealing with the gender pay gap, might we also turn our attention to trying to persuade employers of the importance of helping parents, most of them women, who have taken time out from their careers to bring up children, to get back into the workforce with the same status at which they left it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Part of that is about the time it takes for working parents to get back into the workforce. Our commitments—starting this April and building up, so that there will be 30 hours of free childcare for every family with a child nine months old and above—will be crucial for achieving that.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
There is mandatory reporting —although there needs to be more—but when are the Government going to get tougher about taking proceedings against companies that do not report in their annual report or ensure that the Equal Pay Act is committed to? No companies are really being taken to court on this issue, so the Government need to step up on this.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am more than happy to take that back to the department. The mandatory reporting applies to companies with more than 250 employees. I was not aware of the cases that the noble Baroness refers to, but I am happy to pick that up.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the right to request flexible working has made major strides for women since it was introduced, but what if companies of a certain size were also required to include possible flexible working options in their recruitment when advertising for these posts? The Minister may be aware that a recent trial in Zurich led to a massive one-third more women being hired for senior positions. Does the Minister agree that a similar trial in the UK would be worth undertaking?
Baroness Barran (Con)
A number of businesses offer flexible working from day one, and obviously there is a legal duty to do so from 26 weeks’ employment. As all noble Lords will recognise, we have seen a tremendous change in patterns of work following the pandemic, particularly flexibility between the workplace and home, and there is an increasing natural adoption of those approaches.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the gender pension deficit, is it the case that, when women are getting divorced and may not have legal advice, they are not taking the correct decisions—for example, they assume that the former matrimonial home is the largest asset—and not getting the pension split on divorce? Could we have some data to illuminate that and better communication to women in those situations?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As ever, my noble friend makes a very good point. I would be happy to meet her afterwards to explore how we could make that a reality.
Avanti Trains
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they next expect to meet Avanti Trains to discuss payments made to the company under the service quality regime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, officials regularly meet Avanti to discuss its performance against service quality regime targets and how it will make improvements for passengers and to the customer experience. To date, no payments have been made to Avanti under the service quality regime. The evaluation to determine the first service quality regime performance fee for April to October 2023 is currently under way.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, at a recent internal meeting at Avanti trains, various slides were produced for its management? I have some of them with me at the moment and I shall quote from them. Managers joked about receiving “free money” from the Government and performance-related payments being
“too good to be true”.
The presentation went on to say that the Department for Transport supports the firm and added:
“And here’s the fantastic thing!—if we achieve those figures”—
that is, the Government’s punctuality figures—
“they pay us some more money—which is ours to keep—in the form of a performance-based fee!!”
Does the Minister accept that this is a situation where the Treasury takes the revenue, the passengers take the strain and the directors take a bonus for providing the worst train service in the UK? This is not a policy; it is lunacy.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
As I referred to in my opening response, no payments have been made to Avanti under the service quality regime thus far. The department considers the comments from the leak to be a very serious issue, and expects the highest standards of culture and leadership from Avanti’s operators and senior management. We are extremely disappointed by the tone expressed in the leaked presentation. Officials have met their counterparts at First Rail Holdings, Avanti’s parent company, and spoken to the managing director to convey the seriousness of this issue. The Rail Minister has also met the chief executive of FirstGroup.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, if the House were sitting for five days next week and the Minister had Questions every day, and he arrived six minutes late on Monday, eight on Tuesday, 10 on Wednesday, 12 on Thursday and 14 on Friday, with the remarkable phrase, “I apologise for my lateness to arrive at the Dispatch Box and hope it does not disrupt the House too much,” one of two things would happen. We would have a whip-round for an alarm clock for him, or the Chief Whip would be looking for a new Minister, because that is accountability. Is nobody holding Avanti trains responsible? Those times I have given to the House are times of trains being late that do not qualify for any payment whatsoever. The long-suffering public are putting up with this day in and day out. Does the Minister think I am overegging it? The 9.35 for Euston was 21 minutes late in this lunchtime.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The decision to award the contract to First Trenitalia was contingent on the operator continuing to win back the confidence of passengers, but as with other operators, it is a combination of things. Its train crew issues are linked to its continued lack of driver overtime and ongoing industrial action. There are many issues that contribute to this. It is not always the operators’ fault.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, last week, the Government launched a draft rail reform Bill, which they claimed would put one organisation in charge of all the railways. It is pretty obvious that that organisation will be the Government. How will that actually improve the appalling service that Avanti is still giving, in spite of the Government actually being in charge now?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. We are committed to reforming the railways, and we are getting on with delivering improvements for passengers, freight customers and the taxpayer now. Rail reform remains a priority for government. Our priority for the next 12 months is delivering the improvements I just mentioned, and we are focused on collaborating with the sector to lay the foundations for a reformed industry, taking more of a whole-system perspective within the current legal framework.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister remember that Parliament passed a minimum-service requirement in the context of strike action? Is it the case that, if there is bad weather, Avanti or any other rail company can order a fleet of taxis to ensure that passengers complete their journey, but if there is a strike, no alternative transport can be so ordered? Will the Minister look into this to ensure that the Act that Parliament passed is followed to the letter?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I will certainly have a look at that.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord Snape for his tenacious pursuit of Avanti’s inferior performance. However, it is not just Avanti; Govia Thameslink regularly fails two-thirds of its performance measures. The industry is in a mess. Why do His Majesty’s Government not initiate legislation, already in draft, to create Great British Railways; or even better, call a general election and hand over this mess to a properly mandated Government?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The noble Lord asks about the Govia Thameslink Railway service. The new service quality regime was introduced in 2023, and the targets set for that period were drawn from the best available information at that time. We have been able to review and evaluate the outcomes of a standard set in 2022-23, with new levels for 2023-24. The department regularly discusses and reviews performance with Govia Thameslink Railway, and its service quality regime results have improved year on year. We will continue to hold it to account to deliver further improvements for passengers.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, a number of times in this short session, we seem to have had it suggested that somehow the Avanti staff are to blame. I suffer along with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, regularly on that Manchester Piccadilly to Euston route. The staff are wonderful; it is not the driver’s fault if they are eight minutes late, or the fault of the person bringing you a cup of tea if they are 40 minutes late. The problem does not lie with the Avanti staff, who are working under incredibly difficult conditions. Can the Minister join me in expressing support for those staff in the work that they are doing under very trying circumstances?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I absolutely agree with the right reverend Prelate. I travel from Wales on the GWR system. Yesterday, we were an hour late arriving at Paddington. The staff are very good, and they keep us informed as to what the issues are. As I have said previously, the issues are not always the operators’ fault; they are very often to do with infrastructure.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
The Minister referred to improving standards from Govia Thameslink. However, in the first year of the current contract, it failed on seven of the nine targets, which were then reduced and loosened. When the Minister says that it has improved, has it improved against the new, looser and lower targets, or has it actually improved its service to customers? Secondly, on reaching those targets, its leadership is entitled to a massive £23 million bonus. Will it achieve that on the lower targets that the Government have set?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The noble Baroness asks several questions there, and I would answer by saying that the targets are proportionate to the level of investment agreed with the business plan for any given year.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
On service levels, do the Government share the concerns of the RMT union about Avanti’s proposals to withdraw cash payments from its catering services? This move shows scant regard for those older and poorer passengers who use only cash. Does the Minister agree with me that it would be far better for customers to have the option of cash and card for catering services?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
That really is a matter for the operator; it is not for government to decide that particular issue.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, LNER generally performs significantly better than Avanti, but it is now proposing to reduce the hourly service from Berwick-upon-Tweed to a two-hourly service and lengthen journey times. How is that the improvement in passenger experience of which the Minister spoke?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I must confess that I am not aware of that, but it is something that I shall take back to the department and look into.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, why will the Government not just publish the contracts that we have with train operating companies? When I travel on Avanti back and forward, on every journey there is somebody in the carriage I am in who knows something about the contract, and I can tell you that the Government do not come out of any of those conversations well. Are all these contracts different for different train operating companies, so that they can compete with each other—because they do not seem to be? Why do the Government not just come clean and tell the people who are paying for all this nonsense what the contracts state that have been made on their behalf?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The Government are very conscious that it is taxpayers’ money; they keep that in mind. As to publishing contracts, again, that is something that I would have to take back to the department.
Post Office: Executive Remuneration
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government on which dates since 1999 they exercised their right as the sole share- holder of the Post Office to (1) approve, or (2) disapprove, the executive remuneration policies and amounts.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
Under current arrangements, the Government, as shareholder, approve the targets underpinning executive performance pay. Targets are typically approved on an annual basis as these schemes are usually revised each year to ensure that targets are up to date. The Government also approve CEO and CFO remuneration, in principle before their formal appointment. For the CEO, this was provided in June 2019 and, for the CFO, in January 2015. Such approvals have historically been made in line with the Government’s guidance on senior pay in the public sector at the appropriate juncture.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is shameful that year after year, the Government approved remuneration of Post Office directors boosted by a higher bottom line number and inflated by theft from sub-postmasters. Why has none of that so far been clawed back, and why have the Government approved bonuses for Post Office directors for appearing at the Horizon inquiry?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point. I think we all agree that this is an extremely distressing situation for the postmasters involved. A committee hearing is going on in the other place, which I believe we will discuss later this afternoon. I reassure all Members of this House that the Government never approved the bonuses for the section relating to co-operation with the Horizon inquiry. Frankly, the idea that you should reward executives for performing their duty is surprising, and we certainly did not confirm those bonuses. That is a very important point. The second important point to make is that the executives, as I understand it, have paid back the portion of the bonus relating to that, but that does not change the fact that we need to review how Post Office executive remuneration functions. There has been a number of different reviews of the governance of that, and the Government are taking significant note of them.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister’s Answer just now was very interesting, given that the Post Office Limited: Shareholder Relationship Framework Document says at paragraph 7.6 that
“the remuneration of all Board members will require approval by the Shareholder”,
and remuneration that exceeds the threshold must also be approved by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Can the Minister say what bonuses were approved after 2015? Have any additional approvals been required by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury since 2015? If the Minister does not have this information, I would be grateful if he wrote to me with it.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
Again, I am very grateful for this challenge; it is a very important discussion to have. The Government are responsible for setting remuneration for the board, while the bonuses that I think the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, was referring to relate to the Post Office executives, so we should separate the two. Both still need to be investigated—absolutely. I do not have the specific answer to the question relating to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but I will be delighted to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, either the Post Office is an independent arm’s-length organisation, or it is one for which the Government are fully responsible. Does my noble friend agree that the Post Office Horizon scandal shows that never again should Ministers refuse to answer questions relating to a body in which they own all the shares?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I pay tribute to my noble friend for the astonishing work he has done on this great travesty. I am very grateful to him personally for driving this agenda, and I agree in principle with some of the comments he has just made. There seem to be an air gap between arm’s-length bodies, the Government and Ministers. It is very important that this situation allows us to review exactly how the principle of arm’s-length bodies functions, in the sense that it does not mean they are entirely out of Ministers’ or the Government’s remit and our lines of inquiry. Noble Lords would expect that of us. They remain within reach, and the inquiry will allow us to have a significant investigation into how culture and practices can be improved in the governance of such institutions.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister said—well, as he implied—it is an absolute disgrace that people should be paid a bonus to turn up at a public inquiry. I am afraid it is not good enough for him to say that the Government did not approve it, because if they acquiesce in it, in practical terms they are giving their approval. So, will he take measures to disapprove of that payment? If he is not prepared to do that, I can tell him that, since retiring as a Minister, I have been at 16 public and other inquiries—so can he tell me who I write to for payment?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for submitting his claim for attendance at public inquiries. He is absolutely right. I have to be careful with my language for many good reasons, but the idea that we should reward staff for attending an inquiry of such seriousness did seem clearly out of kilter with how the governance should have functioned at the time. Two reports have been written, the Burton report and the Simmons & Simmons report, both of which are very clear on the governance of paying Post Office staff; that the remuneration committee should have clearer direction and more resourcing; and on how the department’s policy team should interact with the Post Office. The fact that there were not necessarily enough personnel in the department overseeing some of these arrangements is now going to be reviewed very clearly.
When the Horizon inquiry moved on to a statutory footing, the idea that you should reward people for attending what was effectively a quasi-judicial environment was of course a bit bizarre. It certainly would not happen in any other environment going forward. There are huge lessons to be learned, not just for one party or one Government but for the body politic and the institution of our bureaucracy, so that we do not have bureaucratic indifference. Ministers have the opportunity to take responsibility for doing the right things and to take an active part in organisations that perhaps we felt should be completely ring-fenced and separate. I do not believe that that is the right thing to do.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I should declare an interest as chairman of a public company. The Government and the regulators insist that public companies have proper arrangements for malus and clawback, so that bonuses which have been paid to people who did not deserve them can be clawed back. Does the Post Office have such a system in place? If not, why not, because the Government insist that everybody else should have outside the public sector?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My noble friend raises a very good point. I am aware of people’s frustration over the longevity of the processes, but Sir Wyn Williams’s review will be extremely important in informing us about what has happened. I agree with my noble friend’s point: long-term incentive plans should be as common in public sector bodies as they are in the private sector. I encourage that when looking at how we review governance in these sorts of organisations.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, a recent Post Office board meeting refers to a “toxic culture of disbelief” persisting at the top, including a continuing view that some postmasters and postmistresses were guilty as charged. Until the Post Office is taken out of the compensation process altogether, nothing will change. The Minister knows that one of the advisory board’s recommendations is to do exactly that. Have the Government made any recent assessment of the impact of the Post Office’s involvement on the delivery of the compensation scheme? Also, regarding the last question put by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the answer is yes—the Government do have a clawback mechanism.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that point. On the reference point at the end, I assume that we are awaiting the outcome of the inquiry, which is only right, so that we can ensure that the right things are done at the right time in the right way. I am also grateful for the prompt regarding the Government taking over the entire management of the compensation system. There is a great deal of demand for that—half the compensation processes are managed by the Government, and they have been effectively delivered. It is not for me to make such commitments, but it is clear that these discussions are going on within government to give people confidence that we are trying to do the right thing for those who have suffered so much.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, the person who was appointed to the board by the Government—what was his or her job?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am not sure I fully understand the noble and learned Baroness’s question.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
Do forgive me, my Lords. Perhaps it relates to the chairman or the independent director, and it is a good point in terms of the governance of these arms-length bodies and non-commercial government companies. It is right that we review how governance functions. We all want to hear the results of the review and then work out ways to ensure that these organisations can operate with the independence they need, but with the right level of ministerial scrutiny and oversight. Ultimately, we are accountable to everyone in this House and the other place. Noble Lords and all parliamentarians need to know that we are doing our job without a high degree of interference but are accountable. That is very important, and more will be said in the future.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is it not encouraging that my noble friend Lord McNicol has already started answering questions from the Dispatch Box? Does that not bode well for the future?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
In this instance, I would be delighted if the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and I swapped places. He would be welcome to take on answering the rest of this Question, but I am afraid it has now concluded.
Shamima Begum
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, we are pleased that the Court of Appeal has found in favour of the Government in Shamima Begum’s appeal against the decision to deprive her of British citizenship. It would be inappropriate to comment further, given the potential for further legal proceedings. The Government’s priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the UK.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry but that does not get us very far. Will the Minister confirm that Shamima Begum must still be regarded as innocent, although she has said that she is willing to come back to this country and face trial? Furthermore, will the Minister confirm that it is very likely that, at the age of 15, she was trafficked away from this country to Syria? Will he finally confirm that, in the wider context, many of our partners—the United States, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands—have all repatriated women and children.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Home Secretary’s powers to deprive an individual of their British citizenship are used sparingly, but they have existed in law for over 100 years. The British Nationality Act 1981 provides for the current deprivation power; Section 40(2) allows the Secretary of State to deprive any person of British citizenship should they deem it conducive to the public good to do so, but the law requires that this action proceed only if the individual concerned would not be left stateless. All decisions are made in accordance with the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. I cannot comment further on the specific case.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, Shamima Begum went to Syria as a child, but for several years as an adult she lived under the murderous, brutal, ghastly anti-Semitic regime of Islamic State. She may have had some coercion in her marriage, but she was married and had three unfortunate children, all of whom, sadly, have died. Does my noble friend think that the majority of people in this country believe that such a person, who has shown through her actions that she despises this country, its people, its values and its morals, should be given back her citizenship?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I go back to my earlier Answer: it would be inappropriate to comment further on this specific case given the potential for further legal proceedings.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, when I was Home Secretary, I was told on a number of occasions that I could not take such action if it left someone stateless. I think that was confirmed by what the Minister said in his qualification. I do not hold a candle for Shamima Begum, and have never been known as a sympathiser of Islamist practices or beliefs, but is it not inappropriate and illegal to remove someone’s citizenship if it leaves them stateless? I would like a yes or no answer, because I may have been told the wrong thing when I was Home Secretary.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord is right. The Home Secretary has the power to deprive any British national of citizenship status on conducive to the public good grounds, providing that such action does not leave the individual stateless. In this case, the Court of Appeal found for the Government on all grounds.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, there is a strong impression that citizenship has now become a matter of judicial ping-pong, which is clearly unsatisfactory. My noble friend mentioned the British Nationality Act 1981; that is nearly 50 years old, and a lot has changed in this world since. Should we not have a fresh look at the meaning, rights and responsibilities of citizenship in this country, and is not this Chamber the best place for that debate?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend raises some very good points, which I am happy to take back to the Home Office. I reiterate that this power is used very sparingly and only in conducive to the public good circumstances.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
To pick up on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about other British citizens in the Syrian camps, are the Government thinking of reviewing how other countries are taking back their citizens or do they refuse to consider it? If so, why?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Government keep all these tragic cases under careful review. Where there are compelling circumstances, we will of course look at them again. Decisions on the return of British unaccompanied minors and orphans to the UK, where feasible, and subject to national security concerns, nationality and identity checks, and so on, are made on a case-by-case basis.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that one reason why there is a call for people to be brought back to this country to stand trial in our courts is that the alleged offender—in this case, she was an appellant—has access to her own advisers and expert witnesses have access to the alleged offender to assess matters such as trafficking? SIAC commented on the distinction between its position and that of the press, which somehow gained access to her.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful that the noble Baroness brought up SIAC—the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. It ruled that the legislation should be construed as requiring the Secretary of State to seek prior representations from an individual, but that in Begum’s case the failure to do so did not change the outcome or invalidate the deprivation decision. The Court of Appeal has ruled that, in fact, the legislation does not require the Secretary of State to seek representations prior to making a deprivation decision. I take the noble Baroness’s point, but SIAC’s ruling was clear.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to ask about the counter-extremism strategy. One in five people arrested for terrorism-related offences are now under 18, up from one in 25 in 2019. That is a worrying trend. The Government have failed to update their counter-extremism strategy for eight years now. Will they now commit to updating that cross-governmental strategy, with particular focus on preventing extremism in young people?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we discussed that subject at some length last week, when talking about anti-Semitism, and of course the situation has evolved somewhat since then. I take the noble Lord’s points, but refer to some of the things that have been done and put in place by the Government on youth engagement and schools and education. For now, I will take his points back to the Home Office, but I cannot update him further.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the primary function of His Majesty’s Government is national security and the security of citizens in this country? In this case, Shamima Begum being of concern to national security was a point made as to why the decision went against her. Furthermore, while I have sympathy for her as an individual, I spent last week with Andrew Drury, a filmmaker who has spent much time with her; he has described her in detail as untrustworthy and as showing no remorse for what she has been doing in her time out there. As such, with the primary function here being national security, does my noble friend agree that this is the reason that British citizenship is being withheld from this individual?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend raises some interesting points. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State can deprive someone of British citizenship only where he considers that it is conducive to the public good to do so. That includes consideration of the need to protect all UK citizens, both in the UK and abroad. Once again, I will not comment on the specifics of this case.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the Rwanda scheme, which plans to export legitimate refugees, a natural extension of this scheme, which makes those accused of terrorism someone else’s problem by depriving them of their British citizenship?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I would not use a term such as “export”. I point out to the noble Lord that the asylum seekers he is talking about have arrived in this country illegally from a safe country—a point that often gets neglected to be made by certain Benches. I have explained the justification. Do we expect other countries to take responsibility for UK-grown terrorist threats? No, we commit to working closely with our partners to reduce the risk that is posed to us, collectively, by foreign terrorists.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am not very good on the rules of your Lordships’ Chamber—I admit that—but I would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, raising gossip here in the House is not appropriate. Furthermore, Shamima Begum has been rendered stateless by this Government’s decision, simply because Pakistan says she has never lived there and never been a citizen—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Sorry—I make mistakes. She is in fact stateless now.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid that I have to say again to the noble Baroness that the Court of Appeal found for the Government on all grounds.
Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 10 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 26 February.
Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 January and 1 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 26 February.
Israel and Gaza
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Development and Africa in another place on Israel and Gaza. It reads as follows:
“Let me begin by reiterating Israel’s right to defence against Hamas. We condemn the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023, Hamas’s use of civilian areas, its continued failure to release hostages and its ongoing launching of attacks into Israel. We are equally deeply concerned by the humanitarian situation in Gaza, with tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed and injured.
The most effective way to end fighting in Gaza—the absolute focus of our diplomatic efforts right now—is to agree an immediate humanitarian pause. This would allow for the safe release of hostages and a significant increase in the aid going into Gaza. Crucially, it would also provide a vital opportunity to establish the conditions for a genuinely long-term and sustainable ceasefire without a return to destruction, fighting and the loss of life. That is a position shared by our close partners. It is an outcome that we believe is in reach right now and we urge all sides to seize it.
Many people may ask, including some in this House: why call for a pause and not an immediate ceasefire? We do not believe that doing so, hoping it somehow becomes permanent, is the way forward. Simply calling for a ceasefire will not make it happen; there is a different and better way to stop the fighting permanently —push for a pause and then in that pause secure the sustainable ceasefire that can hold for the longer term without a return to the fighting.
The British Government have set out the vital elements to achieve a lasting peace: the release of all hostages, the removal of Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel, Hamas no longer being in charge of Gaza, the formation of a new Palestinian Government for the West Bank and Gaza, accompanied by an international support package, and a political horizon which provides a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution. Once we secure a pause, we will need to take action on all these elements to create irreversible momentum towards peace.
Meanwhile, I want to stress that Britain and our partners continue to do all we can to alleviate the suffering. We have trebled our aid commitment this financial year and we are doing everything we can to get more aid in and open more crossings. Last week, Britain and Jordan air-dropped life-saving aid to a hospital in northern Gaza. Four tonnes of vital supplies were provided in the air drop, including medicines, fuel, and food for hospital patients and staff. The Tal Al-Hawa Hospital set up by the Jordanian armed forces is located in Gaza City and has treated thousands of patients since the start of the crisis.
Women are bearing the brunt of the desperate humanitarian situation in Gaza today. Many thousands are pregnant and will be worrying about delivering their babies safely. That is why over the weekend we also announced £4.25 million-worth of new funding for the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency in response to an appeal for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This new UK funding will help make giving birth safer and improve the lives of mothers and their newborn babies.
It is clear, however, that the flow of aid needs to be rapidly and significantly scaled up. We have reiterated the need for Israel to open more crossing points into Gaza, for Nitzana and Kerem Shalom to be opened for longer, and for Israel to support the UN to distribute aid effectively across the whole of Gaza. The Foreign Secretary’s representative for humanitarian affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Mark Bryson-Richardson, is based in the region and is working intensively to address the blockages preventing more aid reaching Gaza. We also continue to urge Israel to limit its operations to military targets and to avoid harming civilians and destroying homes.
We have also expressed our deep concern about the prospect of a military incursion into Rafah and its consequences. Over half of Gaza’s population is sheltering in that area, including more than 600,000 children. They have nowhere to go, and the Rafah crossing remains vital to ensure that aid can reach the people who so desperately need it.
The path to a long-term solution will not be easy. Ultimately, a two-state solution is the best way to ensure safety and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Foreign Secretary underlined this at the G20 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Rio last week, and the Prime Minister and all ministerial colleagues will continue to press for this in all their engagements with regional partners, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu. We welcome the prospect of further normalisation agreements between Israel and Arab partners. We are committed to supporting their enduring success and to supporting efforts to ensure that normalisation delivers benefits for the Palestinians as well.
Our long-standing position remains that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process. The Palestinian Authority has an important long-term role to play and will need continued support from us and our partners, but it must also take concrete steps on reform. The Palestinian people need a technocratic and effective Administration who can win the confidence of the people of Gaza. We stand ready to support the Palestinian Authority to achieve this aim, following the announcement of the Prime Minister’s and previous set of Ministers’ resignation yesterday.
We also remain concerned about the situation in the West Bank, and have taken action in response to extremist settler violence.
Let me end by repeating our commitment to finding a lasting resolution to this conflict that ensures that Israelis and Palestinians can live in the future with dignity and security. The goal of our diplomacy in the Middle East is to see an end to the fighting and to create a permanent peace based on a new political horizon for the region, and we will continue working tirelessly to make this happen. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement; when I left the other place to come to the Chamber, the debate was continuing.
It is sad, but since the last Statement, there has been another month of intolerable conditions, civilian deaths, famine and disease in Gaza, and of course another month of hostages’ families in Israel living in complete anguish. The ICJ said that Israel must take measures to ensure humanitarian access; last week, the World Food Programme suspended its operations in northern Gaza; and MSF said:
“We no longer speak of a humanitarian scale-up; we speak of how to survive even without the bare minimum”,
and that bare minimum is having a disastrous effect, particularly, as the noble Lord said, on women and girls, and especially on children. Children are now suffering hugely from malnutrition, which has not only an immediate impact on their health but even much longer-term impacts, which will last throughout the rest of their lives.
Today, in the other place, in his response to Minister Mitchell’s Statement, David Lammy mentioned the report from the Association of International Development Agencies, which said that visas for 100 humanitarian workers in Gaza and the West Bank have expired or are about to expire, with no humanitarian visa renewals since the outbreak of the war, leaving many workers facing deportation at a time when Palestinian people need them most. Last week I met a worker from Action Against Hunger who had to leave Gaza. No NGO wants to break visa conditions. They will comply with regulations. They do not want to put their workers at risk. It leaves them particularly vulnerable.
Andrew Mitchell acknowledged the problem in his response today, but it is not clear what specific representations have been made to the Israeli authorities for an automatic extension of these visas on humanitarian grounds. They had been extended before, so why not now? I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Government will make the strongest possible representations to ensure that these visas are extended or renewed.
Minister Mitchell also mentioned, as the Statement did, the increase in aid, particularly this month—the air drops and more trucks going through—but what assessment have we made of that increase and what further increases are needed to meet the horrific conditions that are currently applying in Gaza? Can we assist in further air drops? Are there possible sea routes through? Can we use some of the Jordanian crossings as well as aerial routes?
I have said before that Israel must comply with all the measures set out by the ICJ—and must do so now. In the other place, Kit Malthouse asked what steps the Government are taking to enforce the ICJ’s interim ruling—not condemning or discussing but enforcing. He asked specifically about Rafah. Do His Majesty’s Government believe that a full-scale Rafah offensive would be consistent with the ICJ ruling? I do not believe that anyone in this House thinks that it would be, so I hope the Minister can respond to it. Minister Mitchell said that
“the rulings of the Court are binding and must therefore be respected”.
We need some clarity on the sorts of messages that we are giving to the Israeli Government with regard to a possible assault on Rafah.
Obviously, we are getting to a very delicate position, particularly with some of the talks that are going on the moment. David Lammy said in the other place that
“it is through diplomacy, not debate in Westminster, that we will ultimately secure an end to this war”.
The talks in Paris over the weekend appear to be making some progress. Minister Mitchell said that he was “neither optimistic nor pessimistic” but that the Government were completely committed to ensuring that the talks are successful. I hope the Minister can tell us exactly what we are doing and particularly what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is doing, to ensure that we are working with our allies to do our utmost to ensure that those talks are successful.
I think that most people in this House agree that both sides should stop fighting now and all hostages should be released. We also agree, when talking about a two-state solution, that we need—as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said earlier this month—to work with our international partners to give hope to that process and to move towards recognising a Palestinian state—not wait for the end of the process but give hope so that talks and negotiations can succeed. Does the Minister agree—because David Lammy made this call—that there is an opportunity for the Government and the Opposition to work together to support that diplomatic process to deliver a two-state solution?
I suspect that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, agree with many of the things that I have said. I hope that in the debate next Tuesday we can focus on some of these issues. I believe that this is a time when, for once, we should put politics aside, and I hope that the Government and the Official Opposition, who genuinely share the same aspirations and positions, can work together, so that we can—as David Lammy called for—put out a joint statement calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. I hope the Minister agrees with that.
In terms of the talks that are currently ongoing, I hope that we will be able to have some positive news when we debate this issue next Tuesday, but I know the Minister is not in a position to give definite answers. I hope that he will remain committed, and I know that he has been working tirelessly on this issue, to ensuring that we can achieve peace and security in the Middle East.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, does not wish this to become partisan, but I remind the House that in these Statements there are not just His Majesty’s Government and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition; the Liberal Democrats also have an opportunity to raise a few questions. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, I will raise some questions on aid and will press a little more on the question of a two-state solution and the international context.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, has talked a lot about aid, but I wonder whether the Minister could say a little more about what tripling aid means. Tripling sounds great, but what does that mean in practice? What does
“Four tonnes of vital supplies”
actually mean? What percentage of people who have been displaced in Gaza are actually being fed through the aid that is coming through? What percentage of people in Gaza are without food and clean water at the moment? Getting a sense of the real numbers is important.
Clearly, we support the Government in trying to get as much aid in as possible, but, like the Official Opposition, we are calling for a ceasefire. Can the Minister say a little more about why His Majesty’s Government seem so reluctant to say that there should be a bilateral ceasefire, which would appear to be the most effective way of ensuring that aid can get through and providing an opportunity to negotiate for the return of all the hostages?
In particular, I note that Minister Mitchell in the other place talked about a two-state solution and said that His Majesty’s Government’s position is that
“we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process”.
Can the Minister tell us how the Government will know when it is most conducive to the peace process? Is there some thinking in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about what that would actually mean? Can the Minister tell us a little more about His Majesty’s Government’s sense of a pathway towards a two-state solution, and what he, and particularly the Foreign Secretary, will be saying to Israel and to the Palestinian Authority about ways towards that?
Finally, in all the penumbra of the situation in Israel and Gaza there is the spectre of Iran in Yemen, Iraq and Syria and on the border with Lebanon. Have His Majesty’s Government given any further thought to proscribing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and what assessment have they made of the wider security situation, particularly on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for their questions.
I first put on the record my thanks to the noble Lord; he mentioned talking as one. Your Lordships’ House, the other place and indeed this Parliament have shown that when it matters on key issues, we do come together, as we have done on Ukraine. There is very little between the approach of both His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Government.
I will continue to brief directly. The noble Lord will be aware that a number of His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench have come to see me; I have updated them regularly. I have also had an opportunity to update the leader of the Liberal Democrats directly at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and to help to facilitate direct engagement as well. It is important that both the Israelis and the Palestinians know that we are fully engaged in our approach.
I will first say that both I and my noble friend Lord Cameron are fully immersed in this. Indeed, just prior to arriving in your Lordships’ House, I was with him discussing this very issue. We are very much engaged on the current live discussions. There is a trailing in the media. Of course we want an immediate stop in the fighting. It goes without saying. We can play on— I have said this from the start—whether it is a pause, ceasefire or cessation, but we need to make sure that the fighting stops and that the conditions are there to allow for it to stop on a permanent basis. We do not want any loss of life. If there is a legacy that we can provide to those 1,200 Israelis who lost their lives and to the now thousands who have lost their lives in Gaza, it is ensuring that on this occasion, the end means the end, and that we build that sustainable peace and deliver the two-state solution that everyone wants.
Picking up on the specifics, I should say that some progress is being made on the negotiations. I talked to the lead negotiator and the Deputy Foreign Minister of Qatar on Saturday; he updated me on some of the specifics, including the challenges that remain. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary has been directly engaging with the Israeli Government. When he met Prime Minister Netanyahu, of course the conversation was wide-ranging, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins. We also land the quite specific points about the importance of the UN operations and all the different agencies on the ground there, notwithstanding some of the issues. We have rightly had concerns raised about UNRWA, but we have been working through that to ensure that other agencies get the support they need and, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, the visas to operate. We use every opportunity to make that very clear. To be frank, the Israeli Government themselves also recognise the importance of that humanitarian support. International humanitarian law is important, and Israel’s obligations under that as a state are very clear.
In terms of success—the optimism or the pessimism— I am an eternal optimist. I always say that, in the most challenging situations, you look for that silver lining, to see how we can actually focus and amplify that hope so that we can get a result. That is where both I and the Foreign Secretary have been fully focused.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned the hostage families. A week or so ago, together with the Prime Minister, I met the hostage families at No. 10. They also had other meetings while here in London, which the UK Government facilitated. That again shows the point of the noble Lord, Lord Collins: our diplomacy is important. We must ensure that we leave no stone unturned and no door unopened—both for the families, to give them the support they need, and to ensure that their loved ones are returned. Meeting with the hostage families is always heartrending. I have met several of them several times over, and we will continue to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the areas of aid and humanitarian support. I will run through some of the specifics. We are asking Israel to ensure the safety of aid convoys; to ensure that the UN has people, vehicles and equipment, and fuel within Gaza; to open the crossings, Kerem Shalom in particular, seven days a week; to remove restrictions to ensure greater consistency on goods; to allow unencumbered access to aid coming from Jordan; to open the Ashdod port as a route for aid to reach Gaza; to open the Erez crossing to allow direct access to the north of Gaza; and to restore water, fuel and electricity connections.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about specifics. To take one example, the £4.25 million of aid to which I alluded will ensure that the UNFPA—the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency—can support 100,000 vulnerable girls and women in Gaza. I hope this gives a sense of the specifics on which we are focused.
The Government are pursuing a five-point plan with key partners to ensure the release of the hostages and the scaling up of aid, to which the noble Baroness referred. We are sometimes seeing a double-digit number of trucks going through on a daily basis. This is not enough. The target has always been 500 to 600 trucks. This remains part and parcel of the current agreement which we hope will get over the line and ensure that the bare minimum of 500 to 600 trucks going into Gaza is fully realised.
The issue of working with key partners remains live. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary was fully engaged at Munich. There will be a follow-up meeting on which I will update noble Lords appropriately. I have also again been in the Gulf, where I met with representatives of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We are also looking at a third element—reconstruction. We are asking every country, whether a partner in the region or our traditional partners, to say what they can do in this respect. We are seeing Qatar play an important role in hostage negotiations. There are those who can step forward and provide support for reconstruction. Countries such as Egypt are playing a vital role in influencing the Palestinian Authority: we have seen developments here. This is a collective effort. We need to ensure that we as a House and we as a Parliament speak as one and that our partners are working to the same plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, alluded to the debate next week when I am sure we shall return to specifics. We want this situation to stop immediately. Whatever term we use, it has to be sustainable, but it can be sustainable only if both sides agree to it. There are those who have influence on both sides. We have strong relationships both with the Palestinians and, importantly, with Israel, which allow us to make these quite specific points. I have met civil society leaders in Israel. I last visited Israel in November and hope to do so again very shortly. No one wants this conflict to continue. Let us not forget that there are people from both the north and south of Israel living in the centre of the country because of the existing situation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked about the north of Israel and Lebanon. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary and I visited Lebanon together. We made a specific offer to the Lebanese army to ensure that we see a scaling down of the current rise in attacks from Hezbollah and of the conflict with Israel. We want to ensure that the Lebanese army moves in, and that the Hezbollah grouping moves north of the Litani river. Quite specific conversations are happening in this respect. As ever, I will update both the Front Benches and specific noble Lords on this issue, beyond the official Statements, as we regularly do.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister rightly included among the vital elements for a lasting peace the removal of Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel and Hamas no longer being in charge of Gaza. How are we to achieve these aims unless Israel continues its military campaign?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point. He will know that the Israeli army is one of the most sophisticated. It has said that its operation has moved into a new phase in which it can focus on specific military targets and on where it sees that some of the missiles which continue to be launched on Israel are targeted. It has also made quite public declarations that it wishes to protect the civilian population. The Government feel, as the noble Lord will recognise, that Gaza is a small strip of land. There are currently 1.2 million people in Rafah. We have made the point to Israel that specific provision for the number of civilians in Rafah—particularly women and children—is an important consideration. I fear that a ground offensive without these provisions will result in a humanitarian catastrophe.
Lord Swire (Con)
Can my noble friend tell me how he reconciles Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recently articulated vision for post-conflict Gaza and the possibility of a two-state solution?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will know from his own time at the Foreign Office that the current Prime Minister and Government of Israel do not articulate the two-state solution. However, it is the long-standing position of successive British Governments and, as I have again articulated, it is our firm view and that of the US, key partners in Europe and key partners in the region that the two-state solution is the only solution that will provide the sustainable security, justice and peace that are equally deserved by Palestinians and Israelis.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has repeatedly referred to the need for a sustainable peace and a two-state solution, with which virtually everyone must surely agree. The Foreign Secretary has made clear that that will inevitably include the recognition of a Palestinian state. I would like the Minister’s response to a significant but unfortunate development in the last 10 days that makes a two-state solution that much more remote: the statement by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who we have long known from his actions has no intention of recognising or accepting a Palestinian state, making it plain and explicit that Israel’s control over the West Bank will remain indefinitely and that he is totally opposed to a two-state solution. As that means violating international law, among many other things, can the Minister tell us in concrete terms, in pursuit of a two-state solution, what representations the Government and the international community are making to the Israeli Government, but specifically to the Prime Minister, as to how on earth he expects to achieve a sustainable peace in the Middle East if the Palestinians are constantly denied a homeland?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I think I have made our Government’s position clear: it needs to happen. The Palestinians deserve a state, and that is what we are working on. My noble friend Lord Cameron articulated the important issue of recognising Palestine at the appropriate time within the process that is currently under way. It does not need to happen on day one, but nor does that mean it will happen at the end of the process. It is important that we work with key partners, and the issue of recognising Palestine, including at the UN, is part of that process. It is not just the United Kingdom that has articulated that very clearly to Israel but our key partners and, importantly, the United States. The noble Lord will have heard Secretary of State Blinken be very clear that the United States rejected Mr Netanyahu’s proposals for Gaza, including security buffers. We share that position. Equally, we will implore and advocate. The noble Lord is quite right: the existence of Israel and a future Palestinian state is enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions and constitutes international law. That needs to be abided by.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Pannick’s question raises an important tension in the Government’s position. It is hard for the Minister to maintain both the laudable position that there must be no future for Hamas in Gaza, and that its capability to repeat the 7 October atrocities must be removed, and the position that the only way to a sustainable ceasefire is if both sides agree.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I do not think there is a contradiction per se. First and foremost, Hamas has kidnapped Israeli citizens. As challenging as it may be, we need to ensure that, when it comes to a negotiation, those people who can deliver an outcome that we all desire—the release of the hostages —are pressurised, advocated upon and implored. That is an important bridge that the Qataris are providing. We are clear that, for the here and now, that first pillar that needs to be delivered—hostages being released and aid going in—depends on Hamas agreeing to it. We are very much focused on that. I have mentioned the important role of Qatar and, for that matter, Egypt.
Equally—and I think this is consistent—Hamas does not believe that Israel should exist. That is totally incompatible with the position of not just the UK but many countries around the world. There is a need for a reality check here: terrorism does not result in recognition as a state. We have seen in our own British history that violence is never the means to the end. The only times when organisations such as the PLO and the IRA made real progress was when they recognised that an armed struggle is no longer valid. Hamas does not believe that, which is why we believe it cannot be part of a future Palestinian Administration.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has hit the nail on the head, has he not? He suggests that Hamas does not accept the right of Israel to exist, and the Israeli Government do not accept a two-state solution. When two combatants will not agree on what, as my noble friend has said, is the only solution—a two-state solution—surely the inexorable logic is to pick up on the word that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, used: enforcement. Is it not the case that the only way we will get a peace settlement in the Middle East is by the international community enforcing its will on these two combatants in a way that we have not yet considered?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure my noble friend that we are considering all elements. When we look at the two combatants, as he described them, Israel is a recognised state with international obligations and is important as a partner and friend. We remind it of its obligations. Those with influence over Hamas are reminded that violence is never a means to an end. Enforcement means we ensure that every lever of our diplomacy, every lever we have working with our international partners, is used on both sides to ensure, first and foremost, that the fighting stops; secondly, that we build the process to ensure sustainable peace; and, thirdly, that it is understood that there will be no future peace unless we have two nations that recognise not only their own sovereign right to exist but, equally, that the people and citizens of those two countries must enjoy equal rights, security and justice.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is intolerable, but I want to ask the Minister about the role of UNRWA in all this. UNRWA was certainly in league with Hamas in many of its recent actions, and on 7 October. Now it seems to be playing a role in preventing aid getting across. I heard today, for example, that it was preventing forklift trucks appearing at crossings to allow the transfer of goods. It was also stopping the world food agency getting food in, which Israel is trying to promote. UNRWA is playing a bad game. What does the Minister think of that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
UNRWA has been severely challenged over the reports and allegations made against specific members of UNRWA staff. In that regard, I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that the UN acted quite decisively on the individuals whose names were shared by Israel with UNRWA. I do not agree with the noble Lord on some of the specifics of what these individuals were doing. From speaking with the Palestinian Authority, I understand that they had an important role in Gaza in providing support. I am not aware of the specific report about forklift trucks that the noble Lord raises. I will certainly look into that.
As I said earlier, we are fully supporting the wider UN effort. The noble Lord will know that the Secretary-General and former French Foreign Minister Colonna are conducting an investigation into the specifics of UNRWA and its future. It is important that the concerns that we and our international partners have raised are fully mitigated before we look at any future funding and support for UNRWA.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept some well-earned thanks for the tireless efforts that he and the Foreign Secretary have made in recent days? But I think he is saying now—perhaps he will confirm this—that, for any short-term pause or ceasefire to be sustainable, it needs to be anchored in a medium to long-term diplomatic negotiation about Israel and Palestine and their respective statehoods. Does he not think that the position he has spelled out this afternoon risks once again slipping back into a situation in which Israel, which we all recognise as a state, declines to recognise Palestine as a state, and the longer-term negotiations therefore get nowhere?
Would it not be better to think in terms of a situation in which all participants in the negotiation for a long-term solution—not just Israel and Palestine; it would certainly need to include all the Arab states around—recognise from the beginning that they are talking about two states and that the only point of the negotiations is to determine their mutual relationship in peaceful coexistence?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. He has also demonstrated his insights as a very distinguished former diplomat. I can assure the noble Lord that is exactly what we are doing. I mentioned the immediate, the medium and the long term. These are all pillars that we are currently working on. I assure the noble Lord that it is not just our traditional partners; we are working very much with key partners in the Gulf; we are working with those countries which have peace agreements with Israel—namely, Jordan and Egypt—but also, importantly, the Abraham accord countries, which are also playing an important role. Our approach is that every country, every nation across those pieces, from the negotiations to the delivery of the two-state solution ensuring peace and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians, whatever equity they can bring to the table, they should bring it now, so we can determine the plan and work to a single process, which involves, as the noble Lord says, all key partners, the Israelis and the Palestinians, but also all those who long for, as we do, a sustainable peace now to ensure stability and security for the whole region.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the concept of a two-state solution must be more than an empty slogan. I recall some years ago even Prime Minister Netanyahu appeared to accept the concept. Obviously, Israel must have security guarantees, and presumably the new Palestine state must be demilitarised with proper guarantees, but how does the noble Lord see the next steps? The two-state solution can only come about as a result of a step-by-step movement. What are the immediate steps in prospect?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I think I have already stated what the immediate step is. Before we can go anywhere in terms of the political horizon, we need the fighting to stop; that must be the first part of the delivery of this process, and that is exactly where we are focused—in terms of those who have influence over Hamas, but also we are working very closely with Israel to create the conditions to allow the hostages to be returned and for aid to enter Gaza on the scale that is now needed to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. That is needed now. However, we fully accept that there will need to be reconstruction, there will be a need to ensure sustainable amenities and there would also need to be security guarantees for Israel. I assure all in your Lordships’ House that is exactly the kind of conversations across the piece that we are having, not just with the Israelis and Palestinians but also, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, with key partners in the region, who also want to see for their own citizens security and stability in the region.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, practically every Government from outside that is taking an interest could quite easily agree on the path that my noble friend has been describing, leading to a two-state solution and a permanent ceasefire. The difficulty is there seems to be not the slightest prospect of Hamas ever agreeing to accept the continued existence of Israel and not the slightest chance of a Netanyahu Government agreeing to a two-state solution, which they would regard as giving Hamas a victory for its 7 October activities—and they probably have the majority of the Israeli population at this present time agreeing with them at least on that. As noble Lords have indicated in earlier questions, the only way that anyone can foresee the kind of agreement that my noble friend has been describing being reached is by some sort of enforcement mechanism being applied from outside. A peacekeeping mission would need to be established to try to ensure that it does not all collapse and go back into calamity in a very short time. I realise that that is a big proposition, which could never happen unless the US Government began to take an interest in that kind of intervention. Have the British Government considered that kind of approach? Have we ever raised it with our American allies? Is there any prospect of getting together with the Arab states to contemplate such a thing? Otherwise, although we wish every success to the present activities, I cannot believe that many people listening to this are optimistic about their success.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend will know from his time in government that there are details that are currently under way with regard to securing what is necessary for Israel and providing it with security guarantees. That will constitute a presence beyond the Israeli Army that is currently in Gaza that has the confidence of the Palestinians within Gaza, but, importantly, has the security guarantees that Israel needs. We are working on that.
On the specifics, of course we are working hand in glove with the Americans. My noble friend will have seen the Secretary of State’s repeated engagements in the region, and we are complementing those. This is very much a coherent effort. If I may personalise this, in my almost seven years at the Foreign Office I have never known a diplomatic effort of this nature that is so intertwined with key partners—not just traditional partners, such as those within the EU and of course the US, but our key partners in the region that are playing the important role of ensuring that the Arab presence on security will be acceptable to the Palestinians. I cannot go into more detail, but I assure my noble friend that we are very much seized of that.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I thank the noble Viscount. The Minister and other noble Lords have spoken about getting humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. That is the first thing that needs to be done. How will we in the UK, the US and others get that aid to the people of Gaza and not let it be taken from them by Hamas to store in its tunnels and feed to its workers? I am not reassured that that aid, when and if it comes, is actually going to get to the people of Gaza. I invite the Minister to tell us how the international community can achieve that.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Obviously, the situation in Gaza is fluid, but there are processes that we have to go through that include Israeli checks as the aid goes into Gaza, so there are mitigations in place. Until we get a full assessment of Gaza, it will never be possible to establish what the needs are, but we are hoping that the pause will lend itself to making the needs assessment and the security assessment that are necessary. Perhaps we will hear from the noble Viscount now.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I thank the Minister. I want to ask a practical question about the desperately needed humanitarian aid. Like me, other Members of this House may have seen the video footage of the air drop that was made to the hospital in northern Gaza of UK aid in co-operation with the Jordanian air force. Can the Minister assure the House that this is the type of practical activity that will continue for as long as necessary, bearing in mind that, although he said earlier that hundreds of trucks were needed every day, this type of targeted assistance, which, as I understand it, went directly to where it is needed, will continue for as long as possible?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I can make that assurance to the noble Viscount. To pick up on the previous point, such aid deliveries could not be achieved unless they were co-ordinated with Israel. The UK Government are seized of what we need right now. We are working on maritime and air access, and I emphasise access through operational points at the border, particularly Kerem Shalom, which is six lanes wide and was made for the very purpose of ensuring that aid could be delivered expeditiously into Gaza. I am sure I speak for every noble Lord, irrespective of where they are on what is understandably a highly emotive situation: we are on the brink of a humanitarian crisis and we need to ensure that we use all the levers and every method possible to make sure that aid reaches those who most desperately need it.
Post Office Horizon: Compensation and Legislation
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, victims of the Fujitsu Horizon scandal have lacked justice for more than 20 years now. Lives and livelihoods were taken away, victims were told that it was only them and were not believed, and little progress has been seen until recently. Better late than never is little consolation, especially when, in numerous cases, the victims are no longer with us. Nonetheless, the Government’s progression of the legislation to rightly exonerate those wrongly convicted is welcome and I commend the work that has been done to get us here. I also appreciate the regularity with which the House has been updated, and the Minister has come here to answer our questions. The legal work needed to make this legislation happen will require cross-party work and support, so I urge the Government to continue in the manner that has brought us here.
I turn to the Statement. What further details can we expect on the legislation being tabled, and when? Do the Government have a timeline for the exoneration to be fulfilled and for full compensation to be delivered to all those who deserve it?
Our legal system played a huge part in this scandal. Time and again, the courts believed the Fujitsu computer rather than the individual sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. As my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton has asked on many occasions—and I am sure he will again today—when will His Majesty’s Government look at overturning the premise that it is for the individual to prove that the computer was wrong rather than the opposite?
Many postmasters and postmistresses have waited far too long for redress. As we all know, justice delayed is justice denied. Dealing with that point, will the Minister tell us whether there will be an opportunity within the legislation for the 66 postmasters who have died, and the four who have committed suicide, to have their convictions overturned and quashed? Surely it is only fair for their families to also have justice and closure.
Looking at the reach of the legislation, is there a specific reason why it does not cover Northern Ireland? As we know, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister has said that she supports the Government’s line of approach, calling it the fastest and most equitable legislative solution. Would it not make sense to apply it directly across Northern Ireland? On a similar note, would the Minister update your Lordships’ House on conversations that the Government have had with their Scottish counterparts regarding overturning convictions that took place under the Scottish jurisdiction?
I would also be keen to hear whether any prosecutions were made using data from the precursor to Horizon, Capture? Did any sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses lose money due to Capture failings? If so, surely these should also be included in the scope of the legislation.
I turn to the legal ramifications. The Statement makes it clear that a precedent will not be set for the future regarding the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature, but that is easier said than done. In future, what is to stop this case being treated as a precedent where Parliament can pass law to overturn judicial decisions?
In the case of other similar scandals, would not the Government consider taking a similar approach, especially as some people are asking whether we consider that this example could be relevant in other historic or other worthy causes? I would be particularly keen to hear what specific safeguards the Government are putting in place to protect this stance, and what advice they have received to provide them with the appropriate assurances regarding their approach.
On a slightly separate note, the Government have now confirmed with the Post Office that no investigators involved in this horrendous scandal remain working for the Post Office. This is progress, but can the Minister provide us with an update on progress not on the Wyn Williams statutory inquiry but on the Government’s own investigations?
Finally, last Monday the Business Secretary told the other place that
“while Mr Staunton was in post, a formal investigation was launched into allegations made regarding his conduct, including serious matters such as bullying”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/2/24; col. 474.]
Today, Mr Staunton told the Commons Business and Trade Select Committee that it was Nick Read, not him, who was the subject of the misconduct inquiry. Can the Minister confirm that that is correct and, if so, where it leaves the Secretary of State?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing this Statement to be debated in your Lordships’ House. We welcome its direction of travel.
Everything that could be said about the horror and unfairness of this scandal has been said, but we need to remind ourselves, as the noble Lord did, of the crushed human lives that sit beneath this issue. The move to quash these wrongful convictions at the point of the forthcoming Act’s commencement without the need for people to apply to have their convictions overturned is welcome, and the fact that it is being designed to reduce or eliminate the bureaucratic application process is promising. But clearly we need to understand it.
To qualify for this, as I understand it, there is an understandable list of criteria that have to be met, including the offence, the contract that people had, the timings, their exposure to Horizon, technology and other things. Here I have concerns. Can the Minister confirm that it will not be Post Office Ltd that will be sifting through who qualifies to have their conviction overturned? Experience has shown that it cannot be trusted; it has neither the good faith nor the processes to do this effectively and efficiently. But even if it is removed from this part of the process, it is Post Office Ltd that owns and controls most of the documentation and information that is needed to decide who qualifies for exoneration. As such, the upcoming legislation must include a duty on POL to provide documentation within a timeframe, with sanctions if they do not.
There is an overall communications issue that needs to be engaged with around those victims—what is happening to them, and how is the process going forward? If people who believe that they should be on the exoneration list are not on it, we need to know what the appeals process for them will be.
Of course, once their convictions are quashed, then we move into the compensation zone. Minister Hollinrake agreed yesterday that compensation has been delivered too slowly—I think we can all agree with that. We welcome the Minister’s comments about attempts to speed up payments, but it is clear that having three separate schemes and five different classes of victims has been a nightmare for those victims when it comes to getting through the system, and they have not been helped by Post Office Ltd—quite the opposite.
The chair of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, Professor Chris Hodges, speaking on the radio today made it clear that in his view POL should be completely removed from the role of processing and setting compensation payments. We agree, so can the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s intention? Of course, as the noble Lord said, this announcement covers only England and Wales, so we need to know intentions in respect of the two remaining countries. As the noble Lord asked, what is happening in Scotland and Northern Ireland? We understand the issues around devolved authorities, but what is the timing going to be and when could we see it?
There is also the issue of those who have been convicted in relation to the Capture system. Kevan Jones MP has been very clear on this, and we would like to know where that is going to go and how fast it is going to move, as with people who paid back sums to avoid the scandal that the Post Office was hanging over their heads. How will they move into the compensation zone? It is still not clear.
When will the legislation happen? The Minister talks about a July Royal Assent, which was my understanding. Given the sell-by date of this Parliament, that is running things a little fine. If possible, we need to move much faster.
As the noble Lord said, this legislation is unprecedented, and we will need time to get into the detail of what the Government are proposing. Your Lordships’ House needs time properly to assess both the effectiveness of the legislation and its constitutional implications. That is not to hold it up, but it is to do our job properly. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House when it will be tabled in the Commons and when we are likely to see it here? We need time for proper scrutiny, but let us get on with it. Victims are dying, victims are in financial need and victims need closure.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for participating in all these debates and of course my two opposite numbers for their comments in their opening statements. Without me going through a great grandstanding point, it is better if I address each individual point, because that will allow me to clarify the situation as it stands.
I share the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, about the cross-party support: we have all come together to ensure that these people are properly compensated, and we have come up with an extremely bold and unique mechanism for exonerating those who were wrongfully convicted. I am very grateful to my colleagues, and I think I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Offord in this House and Minister Hollinrake, who has done an exceptional amount to progress this entire process. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him.
The further details of what needs to be worked out following the quashing of convictions Bill that we hope to introduce as soon as possible cover a range of issues, some of which have been raised today. The details of eligibility are certainly something that we need to ensure we get right. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised the principle of linking the appeals process to people who feel they should be on this list but are not included. I can say that it will be the Government who, in effect, compile the list of people who are eligible, according to the criteria. We set out the criteria very clearly in the Written Statement yesterday and they seem to me entirely logical. Clearly, you have to have been prosecuted by a certain prosecutor, such as the Post Office or the Crown Prosecution Service; you clearly have to have worked for the Post Office between certain dates; and I believe the evidence has to be linked to the Horizon scandal and to certain specific crimes, such as theft or fraud. I have looked carefully through the list, and it seems to cover key areas that we are trying to cover. However, there may be individuals who feel that they should be eligible for their convictions to be quashed but who may not necessarily fulfil the specific and very narrow criteria, so these are the sorts of details that I believe we will have to work on. We look forward to developing those as the time comes.
The principle around the devolved nations was raised and is very relevant. As noble Lords will understand, they are different legal systems, certainly in Scotland. I know that my colleague, Minister Hollinrake, met his counterparts yesterday, or over the last few days certainly, to progress what we believe will be a logical replication of this concept. I am not aware of any decision on the part of the devolved nations to change the principles that are operating, but of course it is up to them. We very much hope that they will follow our suit.
I agree that the situation of the postmasters who were convicted and have since passed away is indeed terrible, but the convictions will be quashed automatically through the Bill and by the sheer nature of the individuals’ eligibility. This is not the same as applying for compensation; postmasters will not have to apply to have their conviction quashed. The whole point about this sweeping Bill and why it requires, as both noble Lords have said, considerable scrutiny is that all convictions will be quashed en masse at the moment it becomes an Act. That is an important point; the families of anyone who is deceased will know that their conviction has been quashed and they will have that relief.
I agree that the entire tone regarding the speed of compensation has changed dramatically over the past two and a half years. I am very grateful to Minister Hollinrake for the work he has done to ensure, most importantly, that interim payments can be made before final payments. He recently increased the payments for those who have been convicted to £400,000, which gives people the immediate payment they need before they decide to take the next step. There are also substantially increased fixed offers; the record so far is quite significant: 78% of claims have now been paid and there is a clear focus on ensuring that all offers are fully completed within 40 working days in 90% of cases for the GLO scheme.
The comment was rightly made about the number of different compensation schemes. As a Minister answering questions on this, I want to get the facts right. It is clear that there are many different pools and mechanisms for making sure that people are fully compensated. There is a great historical tale as well, which further complicates things. The Government are very aware of this; we have been doing a huge amount to make sure that people have interim payments, that there is no playing with the detail when it comes to compensating them, and that we are forward-footed in assisting postmasters in making claims. We are reviewing how the payments processing is operated, particularly in those cases operated by the Post Office. As I said in Questions, this is not a decision to be taken by me, but it is obvious that all these points remain under constant review. We want people to be compensated; the Government have allocated an enormous amount of money to ensure that they are so that there is no discussion about quantum and people can be properly compensated. As soon as the Bill goes through, I would expect a significant number of new compensation claims to be made. To claim their compensation, people will have to sign a form saying that they are eligible and have not broken the law, which is a sensible measure to take.
Finally, this is a significant and wholly unprecedented move. I am grateful to be joined by my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, who is a greater legal expert than me and is keen to make sure that his wise counsel is included in this process. This House will have the opportunity to debate in detail this unprecedented and unique situation. However, it is absolutely the right thing to do, given the historic tale, the sheer quantum and the clarity around the falseness of these convictions in so many cases. I hope that all noble Lords will agree and support the Government in executing this crucial move.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the advisory board, which is now meeting not exactly in continuous session but every few days.
The Post Office itself is under investigation by the police. Is it not quite inappropriate for the Post Office to express any view as to the correctness of overturning convictions and is it not quite wrong, coming back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for it to have any position or play any part in the compensation process?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend and pay tribute to his work. The Post Office will not play a role in deciding the correctness of the overturned convictions in the Bill; that will be a matter for the Government. The statement about the Post Office paying compensation is well heard. I am grateful for that and I hope I have made the point that the Government continue to look into it. Having said that, the Post Office has paid a very large quantum of compensation payments—several thousand, I think. It would be extraordinary if the team there were not completely aware of the need to ensure that they get this right, I hope including significant cultural change. There has been a wholesale change of individuals on the board of directors since 2021 and 2022. Currently, the important thing is to get the compensation payments paid and, in parallel, review how the process is working.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, because of the moral imperative, when I was Secretary of State for Defence, in 2006 I amended the Armed Forces Act with two clauses to pardon 309 of the 346 shot at dawn for cowardice. The evidence suggested that most of them were suffering from PTSD and the records for the rest were poor. I was told that this would be a slippery slope and that I would undermine military justice by so doing, and historians told me that I was changing history. Military justice has survived and is just as robust as before, and on the “Today” programme I said to a historian that I was not remaking history but making it. Ministers are making history now, absolutely rightly, because of the moral imperative.
The Post Office’s lawyers, who were responsible for a number of these convictions, have tried to influence Ministers. I have not seen the letter, but I understand from the way in which it has been reported that they said
“it is highly likely that the vast majority of people who have not yet appealed were, in fact, guilty”
because there were
“clear confessions and/or other corroborating evidence of guilt”.
From what I have seen of the way in which these interrogations were conducted, it is no wonder that some of these people confessed. They had this evidence from the Horizon system rammed down their throats and were told what the consequences would be if they did not confess. It seems to me that these confessions are pretty poor and I cannot think of any other evidence that could corroborate the false information that this system was producing. I do not see the argument here.
The Government should look very carefully at these cases before exoneration or quashing the convictions. As I understand it, the Minister said that they will ask people whose convictions are quashed to sign a statement that may later cause them to be prosecuted for fraud. We should not leave anyone with that hanging over them. We should check all these cases and see exactly what Peters & Peters is talking about, because I cannot think of anything that was not poisoned by Horizon.
Finally, my noble friend raised this crazy presumption that computers always produce the truth. When will we do something about this in the laws of evidence in this country?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for those points. I was reminded of his making of history in an unprecedented and wholly unique way only a few years ago. I think he will agree that that was the right thing to do then and that this is the right thing to do now. It does not set a precedent; these are truly specific circumstances. I agree with him about the principle around the confessions. The excellent and important TV series powerfully demonstrated the relevance of this point; in a number of cases, people seem to have been given ultimatums to accept an admission of guilt for a lower level of penalty. It is right that this legislation, when it becomes an Act, will exonerate all those who fulfil these criteria.
I push back on the principle that each of the cases should be reviewed in the detail that the noble Lord suggested, because the whole point is that we want to move with a sense of pace. It has been widely reported—and, I am sure, discussed among everyone who has been following the case—that it is certainly possible that some people who have committed a crime will be exonerated. It is the Government’s view—I call on the legal experts in this House in saying this—that the clear uncertainty on which the evidence was based would impact the retrials. I would have assumed that, if there was a retrial for each case, the baselessness of the evidence being used would mean that, even if those people were guilty of committing a crime, they would probably be exonerated in many instances. It is not simply around the technical element of the necessity; it is the fact that we want to move fast, and we want to exonerate these people who are aging—in many instances, sadly, some have already passed away. It is the right thing to do, and it sends a very clear message that this country and our two legislative Chambers want to redress a significant wrong.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said that this is unprecedented, which of course it is in many respects. However, we are seeing a number of examples at the moment of the state finding it very difficult to deal with its failures, so I wonder whether we can be reassured that some lessons are being learned. In May of this year, we will see the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s report, which will be devastating. It would be even more devastating if the victims of those events experience the same problems that we are debating today and that we have debated around Windrush and Grenfell. Can the House be reassured that discussions are taking place in government to ensure that that does not happen?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord for that point. I agree in many instances. Governments—or the state, as he rightly said; this is not party political or individually associated —and large bureaucratic machines find it difficult to accept fault. I think that there are fears of precedent-setting and financial conversations. Indeed, for those in the wrong, quite rightly there are the principles we are debating today—with significant cost to the citizenry of this country, as well as the reputational damage and other issues we have inflicted on the individuals, both those involved and those who have suffered the consequences.
Unquestionably, there will be—and rightly so—a significant discussion about how arm’s-length bodies of this nature are managed by government departments and Ministers, and how those Ministers are then called to account by Parliament. The issue, probably over the last 30 years or so, has been a culture of creating more and more arm’s-length bodies, the virtue of which seems to be their so-called independence. At a time when there should have been higher degrees of scrutiny, the culture was the issue, not necessarily the governance processes, because the governance is there in many instances. In the case of the Post Office, the Government is the only shareholder, so they were clearly in the line of slight; of course, the Post Office was also being heavily subsidised by the Government. In many instances, the structures are there, but the culture around the so-called ability for Ministers to interfere or take a greater degree of scrutiny, interest and responsibility has been reset. I think there is a significant view that a review of how those governance processes work in a cultural sense is absolutely right. We should be aware of the chilling power of bureaucratic indifference—we certainly are; it is something I take very seriously in my own role.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I speak from the experience of a former MP who represented a number of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. There were two in particular in my constituency who, with hindsight, we know were wrongly accused, but they simply handed their leases in and left. Their lives were turned upside down and ruined. Across the whole country, there must be many more in that position who have not appeared on the department’s radar screens. Can the Minister say what can be done to help that cohort? How can we find ways of stopping them being ignored? Can he find a way of including them in the scheme?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend. Absolutely, we can compensate only people who come forward. In the different pools, a large number of people who have been identified have not submitted claims for compensation yet. That makes some of the data look as though we have not been responding, when that is not in fact the case. We are here to respond, we are keen to respond, money has been allocated to respond, and we want to make sure that we do the right thing and redress those cases.
My ask to all Members of this House, if they have former constituents, neighbours or people of their association whom they believe should be entitled to compensation, is to ask them to come forward. There is no final date. The closing date has been removed— I think there was supposed to be a closing date in August this year. Clearly, we do not want this to go on for ever; we want people to come forward and get the compensation that is right. I press people to spread the word.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, notwithstanding what I said at Question Time, the Minister has been really helpful in all his replies. I wonder whether he can help me with another. When I was a lot younger, the Post Office and the railways used to run extremely well and they were run by people who had been in the industries all their lives; they knew everything about the Post Office, how it worked, the problems and so on, or about the railways or others as well.
These people were paid reasonable salaries but not hugely differently from the people who worked on the ground. What we have now is chief executives or chairmen who move from industry to industry and then to something else—if you look at Nick Read, he has been at Tesco, Vodafone, HBOS, Lloyds and Thomas Cook. They are supposed to bring the experience from one into the other but they are entirely different kinds of organisations. Then they get paid a salary of £415,000 and a bonus of £455,000. Something has gone wrong. I heard Nick Read give some evidence today and it was not very impressive. We have these people—mostly men, by the way—who move from company to company, getting bigger and bigger salaries and bonuses. Should something not be done about that?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to carry on in my position, at least until the end of this Statement. I am glad he has such halcyon memories of the railways when he was a younger man; I am not quite sure when that was.
We need to be aware of something which has struck me in the discussions around this. There is naturally a sense of reflection over the salaries paid to senior executives in an organisation such as the Post Office which is going through such a traumatic time, and the view that we want to punish the current executive leadership. While that is a very natural instinct, we want the best people possible running the Post Office today. It is an intensely complex situation, not just in terms of compensation and the issues around the Horizon scandal but running 11,000-odd Post Offices around the country and all the issues around that. What is important is that we get value for money; if the Post Office was making a great profit, everyone was happy, all the staff were delighted and we were not in this situation, we would be extremely pleased, probably, to pay the chief executive more than he is currently paid.
It is not necessarily about the quantum; the point is the governance around how salaries and bonuses are fixed. There was a question earlier in this House about long-term incentive plans compared with short-term ones. In the financial services sector, where I come from, you are paid your bonuses over three, five and often more years, which is considered to be quite onerous but I think it has resulted in changes in behaviour. It is absolutely right that we should look at these sorts of plans for these highly paid executives in these public corporations.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest as UK chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group. Can my noble friend update the House on the prospects of securing a significant contribution to the financial redress from Fujitsu? Of course, Fujitsu is a Japanese company but in this context this is consequential upon its acquisition of ICL during the 1990s.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for raising that point. I think it has been widely publicised that Fujitsu has apologised for its role in this —as one would expect and hope—but has also accepted a moral responsibility. It has also suggested that it will look to see how it will participate in this process and my colleague Mr Hollinrake has been very clear that this overall envelope of compensation to postmasters is not to be borne solely by the Government. Clearly, there is an ongoing inquiry. This is an extremely complicated process to comment on at this stage but the tone of what my noble friend is suggesting chimes completely with the Government’s view.
Lord Fox (LD)
To build on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in his reply the Minister talked about the remuneration of the executive team, but actually the sharp end of the Post Office is the people working behind the counters—who we all see when we are getting service from the Post Office. This can be nothing but a demoralising series of news for those people. Their morale within that business is really important, as they work for a company that has been so vilified publicly and hauled through the mud. Does the Minister think that the executive team, the evidence of which we saw today, is the team that can rebuild the morale and the spirit within the Post Office, which will be needed to deliver the sort of turnaround that the Minister was talking about?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for those comments. I should say that the Government have full confidence in the CEO and in the board whom we have appointed over the last two to three years. I am told they are extremely grateful for the services of the government representative and the UKGI representative. There are two postmasters, who I think are elected to the board, so it is a diverse board that represents the interests of the Post Office. Its members are not tarnished, as it were, by previous activities, and they have been doing a good job in responding to what can be described only as a crisis.
I echo the noble Lord’s points. The Post Office personnel are the absolute core of the business, of many communities and of this country, and it is agonising to see them put through so much distress. I agree with the comment made, I think by a colleague of mine, that in some respects the sheer greatness of our Post Office staff around the country has been magnified by this event, and I am sure that more of us will use our local services when we get the opportunity. This has also drawn a lot of attention to the needs of the postal service around the country, the conditions that its employees work in and the opportunity to improve them, with more recruitment and more people entering the Post Office service. I totally support the noble Lord’s aim; it is a magnificent organisation in its principal core ambitions of delivering great service to communities. The people who work there should be celebrated, and we certainly do that.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
May I come back on a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about the declaration that is to be signed by those whose convictions are overturned? I am not sure that I understand this declaration. If you have signed accounts which you know to be wrong and yet you have had your conviction for false accounting overturned by the Court of Appeal on the basis that it is an affront to justice, do you sign something saying you have not committed false accounting when maybe you have? I do not understand this declaration.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for raising that point. The signing of the form saying that you are innocent is not to do with the conviction being quashed but is in order to receive compensation. The Government do not think that it is unreasonable, and I hope noble Lords would not think it is unreasonable, that there is an element of a threshold for people to say that they were not guilty of a crime and that they deserve their compensation. The nature of the application alone should probably cover that. It is a very sensible move to make, and I do not think it distorts the process. However, clearly, these are live conversations and we will have them in more detail.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
Just to be clear on that as we go into the last few seconds, with regard to the quashing of the convictions, is it the case that the individual postmasters or postmistresses who received judicial sanction will not need to do anything for their convictions to be quashed, as the signing is purely to do with compensation?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
Absolutely. In conclusion, the Bill will immediately exonerate everyone whose conviction is being quashed. It is not a requirement to apply to have your conviction quashed; the Government will draw up their list. Detail has been raised about how people could appeal if they feel they should be on the list and are not, and there are clearly some details that need to be worked out about how that process will work. It will happen the moment the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. It is absolutely the right thing to do, it is our intention that it will happen before the end of the Summer Recess, and I very much look forward to all sides of the House supporting us in that move.
Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2023
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 December 2023 be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has the highest welfare score in the G7, according to the world animal protection index, and some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. This Government are determined to maintain our position as a world leader in animal welfare. These regulations will make an important contribution to the ambitious animal welfare reforms that have taken place since this Government came to power.
It is estimated that up to 5,000 primates may be being kept as pets in England. When we called for evidence in 2019, we were appalled by what we found. Some primates were being kept in bird cages; others were being fed junk food. These animals suffer and can be left malnourished, aggressive and malformed. The Government are introducing these regulations to provide the additional protection necessary for primates that are not kept in zoos but in domestic or other private settings, by requiring primate keepers to have a specialist licence to keep them. They will, in effect, ban people from keeping primates as household pets by ensuring that they are not kept in environments, such as people’s homes, that fail to provide for their needs. Primates have specific welfare needs, and this SI means that people will no longer be able to keep primates as household pets—that is, in their homes—in the same way that they might keep a pet dog or cat. Instead, private primate keepers will need to satisfy enforcement authorities that they can meet the zoo-like standards we have licensed for.
The Government consulted on the proposed prohibitions on keeping primates, and the introduction of a licensing scheme in England, in 2020 and 2023. Over 98% of responses to the Government’s consultation exercise in 2020 and over 97% of responses to the subsequent consultation in 2023 expressed overwhelming support for a bespoke licensing system for the private keeping of primates.
This SI is brought forward under Section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The licensing scheme it introduces will set stringent rules to ensure that only private keepers who can provide high welfare standards akin to those provided by licensed zoos will be able to keep primates. The SI outlines how applications for primate licences are to be made, how local authorities are to determine whether to grant a licence application, and how licences are to be renewed, varied or surrendered. It provides local authorities with powers to issue rectification notices and to revoke or vary primate licences.
Individuals who currently keep or intend to keep primates in England will be required to have a primate licence from 6 April 2026. Primate licences will be issued by local authorities only to individuals who can meet the welfare standards set out in the regulations. Anyone keeping a primate in England without a required licence will be committing an offence under Section 13(6) of the Animal Welfare Act and will be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term of up to six months, an unlimited fine or both.
Keepers will need to apply for a private primate licence from the local authority. Licences will be valid for a maximum of three years and will be granted only after a satisfactory inspection conducted by the relevant authority. Licence holders must undergo re-assessment to renew their permission to keep these animals. Inspections will assess record-keeping, provision of emergency arrangements, care and maintenance, environment, physical health, nutrition and feeding, behaviour, handling and restraint, transport, and breeding. Guidance will be provided setting out the detailed welfare standards to be met.
The Government have noted concerns about the welfare of primates whose keepers fail to meet licensing conditions but are not persuaded that a grandfather clause enabling existing owners to keep primates without complying with these conditions is best for the animals, as such a provision would sanction the keeping of primates in poor conditions.
This SI has a transitional period and owners will have approximately two years to meet the licensing requirements, reach compliance or make alternative arrangements for their primates. Before then, my officials will engage with local authority and rescue interests to work through the practical impacts of the SI and determine how they might be supported to meet potential future demand for their services.
I am more than happy to take any questions from noble Lords.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
At end insert “but regrets that the draft Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2023 seek to implement through secondary legislation proposals that were previously contained in primary legislation; notes that they do not ban keeping primates as pets, and that they lack a grandfather clause; and calls upon His Majesty’s Government to put in place policies that appropriately support the rehoming of surrendered primates.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument. We on these Benches have been consistently campaigning for a ban on the trading and keeping of primates as pets. The Minister outlined a number of reasons why this needs to happen. The RSPCA found that primates kept in domestic settings were often isolated, could be kept in cramped and inappropriate housing such as parrot cages, and were weaned much earlier than would be natural, causing behavioural problems later in life for infants separated from their mothers.
The Monkey Sanctuary in Cornwall has reported that every pet primate it has rescued came to the sanctuary with behavioural problems such as rocking, pacing, obsessive grooming and biting themselves. Many primates also present with metabolic bone disease and tooth problems linked to vitamin deficiencies caused by poor diet, lack of sunlight and being weaned too early.
At the end of last year, we were pleased to see that, following consultation, the Government announced that:
“Keeping primates as pets will be banned under new legislation … improving the welfare of thousands of animals”.
In response to that consultation, 98.7%—4,500 people—expressed support for a ban on the keeping, breeding, acquiring, gifting, selling or otherwise transferring of primates, apart from to persons licensed to keep primates to zoo-level standards. So it is a bit disappointing that the regulations do not ban the keeping of primates as pets, but instead introduce a licensing system for primate keepers. To draw proper attention to this fact, I have tabled my amendment to the Motion, as it is important that the Government are clear and honest about what the legislation actually does.
I shall lay out our concerns relating to these draft regulations, including a number of issues that could be dealt with via accompanying guidance to the regulations. But first, I thank the RSCPA, the Born Free Foundation and other animal welfare organisations for sending us helpful briefings.
Before I look at the SI in detail, can the Minister confirm in respect of the proposed licensing system that anyone with an animal welfare-related conviction will be excluded? It is important to have that clearly outlined.
There are clear concerns that the Government have backtracked on proposals to include grandfather rights in the regulations, which would enable those who currently own primates to keep them under the previous standards. What will happen in two years’ time to the thousands of primates currently being kept by private individuals who will not meet the licensing requirements, given that there are no provisions for these animals in the regulations?
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I declare my past and present connections with the RSPCA.
I welcome this SI, but I am sad that it does not go further. I should have liked to have seen a straight ban on the keeping of primates by private owners. If not, there then has to be a whole series of regulations, rules and guidance to try to ensure that standards are sufficiently high. You could cut all that out if you just said a straight no. That is not what we are faced with this afternoon, though I am grateful for small mercies.
I have been and remain very worried about the impact of unnatural conditions on the keeping of primates, which will continue for a couple of years. It is impossible for the bulk of private owners to provide the kind of natural setting which is suitable for these animals.
Even more importantly, they are social animals. They live naturally in groups. In many cases, owners have only one. To me, that is positively cruel. It is the equivalent of solitary confinement for a human being. We all know the impacts of solitary confinement on the psychology and health of people; I believe that it is equally bad for primates. That is a very real concern which I hope can be overcome by the regulations. But will they insist that people have groups of animals? I suspect not, so one of the difficulties will remain.
I do not want to go into detail on the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has already made. I have considerable sympathy with her criticisms. I too am extremely puzzled as to why the breeding of primates is allowed. For me, if flies in the face of what this SI supposedly wants to do. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why he thinks this is a good idea. Furthermore, I would have thought it will ensure that animals continue to be kept ad infinitum. It is a great puzzle to me.
I am equally puzzled by the point that exhibitions will be allowed. What exhibitions? That sounds more like a circus to me. What possible reason can there be to have animals in exhibitions? It is absolutely absurd. I am sorry to be so firm with my noble friend, but I do not like it and I do not approve.
Then there is the problem of enforcement. Rules and regulations are fine, providing they are adhered to strictly. Here we have an added problem. The instrument sets out all sorts of excellent arrangements as to the amount of space allowed and all these other details, but we do not have the guidance before us to indicate how this would be worked out in practice. It is a continual complaint of mine that, when people bring forth the principles of things, we do not get the details, which are absolutely essential. I worry about this considerably.
We then, of course, have the particular worry of the implementation—the interim period, if you like, when I think after 6 April 2026 people will either need to have a licence or be asked to give up their animals. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, already indicated that this could cause a real problem in practical terms. I too press my noble friend the Minister on exactly how the Government propose to deal with this. Will they, for example, set up special sanctuaries? I do not think there will be enough to do the trick, as at present. I should be happy to hear from my noble friend if I am wrong on that, but I suspect there will be a very real problem with implementation.
For that reason, I too would have preferred what is called a grandfather clause, whereby existing owners could keep the animals for the rest of their natural life. Those conditions may not be ideal, but we have to balance that against the possibility of what will happen in practice if they are all flooded on to the market at once, if I may put it that way, and whether their conditions would be any better. If my noble friend can assure me that that will not be so, then I will worry less about the absence of a grandfather clause.
I both welcome this and am disappointed by some aspects of it, particularly considering the absolutely remarkable ability, with modern technology, to see animals in their natural habitat through films and through sound. Why on earth would anyone wish to keep them in artificial conditions, which will be at best adequate and at worst appalling? I really would wish to go further, but as I say, I accept the SI for want of anything better.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register, particularly my role as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I apologise that I may well repeat many of the excellent points already made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Fookes, but they bear repetition. I hope the Minister will take them into account, answer them and perhaps address some of them in guidance.
I broadly welcome these regulations, which were a major feature of the kept animals Bill, which was, of course, withdrawn. As has been explained, they concern the keeping of primates by private individuals, but they do not ban such keeping; rather, they license it. As has been stated, primates have very complex welfare and social needs, which are likely to be very difficult to meet in a domestic environment. There has previously been non-statutory guidance, but this legislation strengthens the necessary safeguards for the welfare of kept primates.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I can see that this SI is well motivated—both from an animal welfare point of view and for the Government to deliver on a promise. The problem is that it does not deliver on that promise, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said—I enjoyed her speech and agree with her.
When we look more closely at this SI, we see that it is deeply weird. For example, I think a lot of people in England would not even know whether it was legal to own monkeys or other primates any more. We had an excellent briefing from nine animal welfare bodies, including the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, which gave us quite a lot of pointers to the gaps in the SI that need to be filled if we are going to take animal welfare seriously.
The Government say that they are fulfilling their manifesto promise, but all they have done is rebrand pet primates as zoo animals and the owners as “specialist private primate keepers”. These pet primates must be kept at zoo-level standards. I would imagine that most pet owners would be horrified at the concept of keeping their dogs and cats at zoo-level standards, but when we look at what zoo-level standards are, it begs the question of why all animals should not be kept in such conditions. The rules require a suitable diet, access to fresh water, hygienic standards, registration with a vet, monitoring for illness, being kept in suitable premises and structures, play space, appropriate levels of temperature, and animals to be kept in appropriate social groups—actually, that is going to be quite hard for most of our new specialist private primate keepers.
I can see only two things in the legislation that separate these zoo animals from well looked-after pets. The first is that you are not allowed to play with or handle them and, secondly, there is a lot of additional bureaucracy, which will be quite difficult to fulfil. Therefore, the Government have not actually banned keeping primates as pets; they have banned people from playing with their primates or pet monkeys and required them to pretend that they are zookeepers instead. That does not fulfil the manifesto promise, which is hugely disappointing. However, for want of anything better—although I will vote for the regret amendment, which, quite honestly, is the least that we can do—I can see that the measure is going to pass this House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to put a couple of questions to the Minister, as she was kind enough to invite us to do. I declare my interest that I am an associate of the British Veterinary Association. It did not issue a briefing, but I have looked at its website and it supports the original thrust of the consultation, which was for a ban. As recently as December last year, when it posted its position on its website, it was in favour of a ban. Why have the Government and the department moved away from a ban to licensing, as in the regulations today?
Is the Minister in a position to say exactly how many primates are kept as pets? The noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred to a figure of 5,000, but I do not know whether that is an authoritative figure or a guesstimate.
The thrust of the regulations looks very much at licensing becoming the responsibility of local authorities. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said about the difficulty of identifying which professional would be best placed to make sure that the conditions in which the primate was to be kept were appropriate. The Minister will be as aware as I am of the severe constraints under which local authorities are operating at this time, so I wondered what the thinking was behind putting in place a licensing scheme rather than a ban—and it would be helpful to know the total number of primates that we are talking about.
Lastly, when I chaired the EFRA Committee in the other place, we took a lot of evidence on the import of illegal dogs, dog smuggling and boiler-room breeding of dogs. I wondered why we have before us a very worthy statutory instrument on animal welfare and keeping primates as pets, but we do not seem to have tackled those other issues, which are a source of great concern and anxiety to the British public, of illegal dog smuggling and boiler-room breeding, often in inappropriate sheds, in people’s homes.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I want to follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, about the possibility of exportation to Scotland when the licensing scheme is set up, as it will be, in England. It is quite a serious issue, as we have seen with XL bully dogs. I wonder whether the Minister’s department has been in touch with the authorities in Scotland to draw their attention to what is going on so that they are fully aware and can make their own assessment of the risk.
Some primates are kept as pets in Scotland, and I happen to have met two of them on separate occasions when they were being taken for walks. It is not as if it is an entirely English practice; there are certainly some instances north of the border, although I do not know how many there are. It is important that the two jurisdictions work together on this system without the disparity that is apparently coming because the regulations apply only to England.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I declare my interest as working in the veterinary field, and obviously I am keen on animal welfare.
I too welcome the statutory instrument. It is a step forward for the improvement of primate welfare. If enforced, the new licence standards will discourage possible new owners from keeping these animals. A total ban on keeping primates as pets would be a far preferable outcome, but that is not what we are being offered today.
In my view, there are limitations on this, and I support the regret amendment. The time limit of two years is excessive. For an animal to be kept under those unacceptable conditions for that length of time is not particularly good, especially if an inspection has been done and someone has been given two years to implement that, as under Part 3, Regulation 15(2)(a) and (c).
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her very thorough introduction to this regret amendment. I am grateful to her for the chance to debate the issue in more detail. I refer to my interests as set out in the register.
The Government carried out consultations in 2020, when there were 4,516 responses, with 98% of respondents expressing support. Further consultations were carried out from 20 June to 18 July 2023, when there were 643 responses, mainly from those involved in looking after primates, animal welfare charities, individuals who were known to already keep primates as pets and members of the public. On this occasion, 97% of respondents were in favour. The regulations will come into force on 6 April 2026. Given the high level of support from the consultations for these measures, why are the Government not implementing them sooner than April 2026? Is this due to the guidance not being published until the spring of 2024, to which local authorities, as the EM says,
“will be required to have due regard”?
I would like some clarification from the Minister, please. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has referred to the lack of guidance.
The regulations are due to be administered by local authorities, which will inspect and grant licences, either by a veterinarian or by another suitably qualified and competent person. Nearly all Members have referred to this. Given that the Government do not really know just how many primates are being kept by private keepers, I am slightly alarmed at the impact on local authorities.
Paragraph 12.1 of the EM says that there will be
“no … impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.
However, it also says:
“There are between 1000 and 5000 primates being held as pets … and the majority of these are held by private keepers”.
For the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that information is in the Explanatory Memorandum. There is a world of difference between 1,000 and 5,000. This is a huge number of very sensitive animals potentially being held in inappropriate circumstances, with the Government not having even an approximation of how many there are, let alone a precise number. Does the Minister believe that there are sufficient veterinary and other professionals capable of dealing with the numbers and complexities of the licensing regimes being proposed? The noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, have referred to this.
Primates currently comprise 502 extant species, which are grouped into 81 genera. These range from gorillas, orang-utangs, chimpanzees and baboons down to aye-ayes, loris and lemurs. Each is very different, requiring different treatment, diets and housing. The actual instrument gives extremely detailed restrictions and conditions on how primates are to be kept. This makes it obvious that the keeping of a primate by a private individual is difficult, if not impossible—quite rightly so.
Most primates are very social animals and need the company of others of their species. If not allowed to roam free in the countries of their origin, they should be kept in licensed zoos, whether private or open to the public. Only in these circumstances can we be sure that the stringent provisions of this SI will be enacted and that primates will be able to enjoy a life as close as possible to that which they would have enjoyed in the wild. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has made reference to this.
The RSPCA is concerned that insufficient thought is being given to what will happen to the animals belonging to those primate keepers who do not receive a licence to continue to keep their pet. As has already been said, there are not innumerable spaces in animal welfare organisations or primate sanctuaries to manage the resulting flow of primates following the implementation of the SI. How are the Government going to ensure the welfare of these primates, which they have indicated should be kept in zoo-level standards?
I turn now to the issue of fees. Regulation 13 states that a local authority may
“(a) charge a fee in respect of any application relating to a primate licence under this Part; (b) charge a fee in respect of any inspection which it must or may arrange under this Part”.
This gives the impression that local authorities are free to set their own fees. That is good, but we could end up with dozens of different sets of fees up and down the country. There is also likely to be a different set of fees depending on the size and number of primates involved. While I welcome that local government itself will determine what the fee will be to cover its costs, some sort of yardstick would be useful. It is unlikely that local authorities will have veterinarians on their payroll, so they will have to buy in the services of the relevant qualified person both to inspect to grant the licence in the first place and to carry out routine inspections in the future to ensure that the terms of the licence are being adhered to. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to this. No one in this Chamber is under any illusion about the state of local government finance. With populations increasing and social care under pressure, to be asking local authorities to take on yet more duties without providing the finance to cover them is unacceptable.
The instrument also has a section on rectification notices, and allows two years for steps to be taken to comply with licence conditions. This is far too long for a primate to be kept in conditions that do not comply with the licence granted. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has referred to this. This might relate to poor diet or lack of space or stimulation, or it might relate to public safety. Does the Minister agree that the time for compliance for the rectification notice should be much shorter than two years?
I fear that I do not agree with others about a grandfather clause and allowing animals to stay with their keepers until the end of their life. This is a long time to be living in great misery.
Finally—others have referred to this point—paragraph 39 of Schedule 1, dealing with restraint, states:
“No primate may be handled or restrained except … insofar as … it is necessary for the purposes of an exhibition activity.”
Paragraph 42 says:
“No primate may be transported unless … it is necessary for the purposes of an exhibition activity”.
This gives the impression that a primate may be transported for the purposes of performing in front of others, and the public. Can the Minister say what is meant by
“for the purposes of an exhibition”
because, as written, it is extremely worrying? The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, raised this, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes.
I remain concerned that, unless these measures are implemented quickly, some primates will live in unsuitable conditions, without the company of their fellows, and be miserable as a result. Although it is not perfect, I support the general thrust of this SI.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in support of her amendment, and to other contributions in today’s debate, and I have been struck by our shared commitment to act to improve the welfare of privately kept primates. It is important that we do act.
We introduced this SI in response to a call for evidence and consultation exercises that confirmed the extensive mistreatment of privately kept primates. Some of this evidence was, frankly, horrible and highlighted primates being kept in poor conditions, in small enclosures or birdcages, and suffering from fractures or misshapen bones. It is absolutely right that the Government take action to address primate welfare in non-zoo settings.
It has been encouraging to note that the strong response to the consultation exercises has been to welcome the Government’s decision to put a licensing scheme in place for the keeping of primates to address their specialised needs. It has also been encouraging today to note support from across the House for our objective of improving primate welfare. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to state clearly the Government’s view. I recognise her and other noble Lords’ concerns and will seek to address them now.
The amendment suggests that the SI does not ban the keeping of primates as pets. I have explained in my opening remarks that that is essentially incorrect. The vast majority of animals kept as pets in this country do not need to comply with the kinds of licensing conditions contained in this SI. This is not semantics. Primates have particular welfare needs that cannot be met by keeping them as household pets, and this SI seeks to end that practice. Those currently keeping primates in birdcages and in other wholly inappropriate conditions will no longer be able to do so. Only those people keeping or wishing to keep primates who can demonstrate compliance with the licensing conditions and welfare standards to the satisfaction of enforcement authorities will be able to keep primates privately. These conditions are stringent and are the kinds of measures that would not apply to household pets.
The noble Baroness’s amendment also regrets the absence of a grandfather clause, as was raised by a number of other noble Lords, and advocates government policies to support rehoming. Given the evidence that we have about mistreatment of primates, the Government do not believe that continuing to allow private primate keepers to retain primates in poor conditions is the best thing for these animals. Future rehoming and surrender arrangements are very important concerns, of course, but the Government do not believe that the answer is to allow suffering animals to be kept as they are. Instead, this SI provides a two-year period before the requirements come into force to provide keepers time to comply with the requirements. Until we license, we will not know the scale of primate keeping, but I can assure the House that we will continue to work closely with rescue and rehoming charities to monitor the impact of the SI on rehoming activity, and to respond accordingly to evidence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked whether we might consider keeping a register of primate specialists. I shall certainly take that suggestion back to the department. I can confirm that this legislation applies only to England. If you have a criminal conviction for animal welfare issues, you will not be eligible for a primate licence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and others asked about the licensing conditions that must be met. The primate licence will be issued only to those who can meet the welfare standards set out in the regulation. Those standards are akin to the standards that licensed zoos must meet and include requirements such as microchipping, local authority inspections and record-keeping. They also include minimum welfare requirements, such as emergency arrangements and requirements regarding care and maintenance, nutrition and feeding, physical health, environment, behaviour, handling and restraint, transport, and breeding.
Lord Trees (CB)
Is the Minister confident that suitably qualified persons can appropriately inspect and monitor the enforcement of these regulations for primates?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Lord asks a very good question. One reason for the two-year lead-in is to give us time to assess the qualifications that are needed and put the appropriate training in place to ensure that we can fulfil that obligation.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his careful and considered response to the many questions and issues raised during the debate. Particular concerns were expressed about breeding and exhibiting. I listened to the noble Lord’s explanation, but I still do not understand why people would need to breed or exhibit. The key thing that came through from the debate, for me, was that noble Lords support a complete ban rather than the licensing that has come through. The consultation responses supported a total ban, the Government appeared to support a complete ban, and as I say, all noble Lords who spoke in this debate supported a total ban, so I still do not understand why that is not what the Government brought forward, as it was what we were all expecting. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Northern Ireland
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty welcoming the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, re-affirming the importance of upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in all its strands, acknowledging the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts, and recognising that, consistent with section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before I start, I put on record my personal tribute to the late Lord Cormack, who died suddenly over the weekend. Many noble Lords will know that Patrick was a very distinguished chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place and took a huge and highly informed interest in Northern Ireland affairs. He was hugely supportive of me, both as a new Member in this place in 2016 and subsequently as a Minister, even when we disagreed on certain issues. His contributions to our debates on Northern Ireland will be sorely missed.
The humble Address welcomes the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland; re-affirms the importance of upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement 1998 in all its strands; acknowledges the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts; recognises that, consistent with Section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,
“executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in”
His Majesty; and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast agreement in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.
We have now seen the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, following the publication last month of the Command Paper Safeguarding the Union. I know I speak for most noble Lords in welcoming these extremely positive developments, after Northern Ireland had been without a devolved Government for two years. Indeed, Northern Ireland has been without a devolved Government for some five of the past seven years. We have already seen what can be done when the political parties are back in government, working together to deliver for those who elect them. Aided by the £3.3 billion of funding provided by the UK Government, the Executive have already decided to allocate over £685 million to allow conversations to commence between employers and trade unions in relation to public sector pay.
The Government’s significant, fair and generous spending settlement will also allow the Northern Ireland Executive to stabilise public services, better manage public finances, increase opportunities for improved infrastructure and investment and pave the way for the transformation of public services. We now look forward to working with the new First Minister and Deputy First Minister and all their ministerial colleagues in the Executive to deliver these shared objectives, and eagerly await a sustainability plan for Northern Ireland’s finances, including proposals for revenue raising, following the discussions that took place between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the political parties on these issues at Hillsborough Castle prior to Christmas.
I move this humble Address today to welcome the return of devolution and honour the Government’s commitment in the Command Paper to provide a mechanism for Parliament to affirm its support for the Acts of Union, and outline that there is no basis in the Belfast agreement for joint authority arrangements with the Government of Ireland. The UK Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement in its totality is unwavering. As I have said many times in your Lordships’ House, the agreement is the bedrock of all the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland during the past 26 years. Part of the genius of the agreement, for me, is that it accommodates different aspirations while allowing people to work together for the good of the whole community—something I hope we will now see on a sustainable, long-term basis.
The restoration of the strand 1 institutions is therefore welcome news, and I am hopeful that we will soon see the North/South Ministerial Council and other strand 2 implementation bodies return to full operation, alongside the meetings of the British-Irish Council and British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference that are already scheduled to take place in the coming months. It is this three-stranded approach—this delicate, careful, interdependent balance —that will honour the spirit and letter of the agreement, providing a fitting tribute to those who, some 26 years ago, helped deliver the agreement that is, as I have just said, the foundation of so much peace and stability in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for his contribution and role in delivering that agreement in 1998.
To be clear, this Government will always uphold the long-established three-stranded approach to Northern Ireland affairs, meaning that internal arrangements for the governance of Northern Ireland, including any potential reforms to the institutions, are for the Northern Ireland parties and the UK Government to decide. This humble Address also rightly acknowledges the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts. The Government are clear that the new arrangements committed to in the Command Paper, including the UK internal market system, ensure the smooth flow of trade across the UK. Our determination to ensure that that happens was demonstrated when we enshrined the unfettered access of qualifying Northern Ireland goods to the whole UK internal market.
The final part of this humble Address relates to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are explicit that any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would require the consent of a majority of its people. The UK Government are absolutely clear that there is no basis to suggest that, at present, a majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the United Kingdom. Our position is therefore straight- forward: Northern Ireland has a bright and prosperous future within the union for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish it. As a Conservative and Unionist Government, that is something we warmly welcome.
What we cannot countenance and will not consider is what some have described as “joint authority”—a vague and frankly ill-defined concept that would see the UK and Irish Governments somehow exercise joint sovereignty over a part of the United Kingdom. That will not happen, either de facto or de jure. The agreement sets out two constitutional futures: Northern Ireland as fully part of the United Kingdom or wholly part of a sovereign, independent united Ireland. There is no third way. The UK Government are absolutely clear that the consent principle of the Belfast agreement governs the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We will not countenance any arrangements that are inconsistent with that. It follows, therefore, that Northern Ireland is not some kind of hybrid state. It is, under the consent principle, clearly and unequivocally an integral part of the United Kingdom.
My central motivation is to make Northern Ireland work and flourish, and to do so for everyone, regardless of their community background or ultimate political aspirations. That requires fully functioning devolved power-sharing institutions, with locally elected politicians taking decisions over local matters, accountable to a local Assembly. I once again welcome the decision of the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, to return his party to Stormont, backed by the legislation that has now been passed in both Houses of Parliament. As local representatives work again in the interests of the people who elected them, we remain committed to building a brighter, stronger and more prosperous future for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and that is what this humble Address affirms and delivers. I beg to move.
Baroness Hoey
At end insert, “; but regrets that, in a manner inconsistent with Strand One (5)(d) of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, cross-community consent remains disapplied for the Article 18 procedure, as it relates to Articles 5 to 10 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, and further regrets that the continuing effect of the Protocol is to over-ride and suspend the provisions of Article 6 of the Acts of Union 1800.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I move this amendment to insert what I see as some honesty into the humble Address and to make clear what the legal and political reality is, because it is quite different from the words in the Government’s humble Address.
I accept that this humble Address, solemn as it is, has no legal status; we are neither changing nor making legislation. It does not alter one word of the protocol or its effect on the Belfast agreement. However, if we are sending this from your Lordships’ House to His Majesty King Charles, it is important that we get it right and make it honest. I am trying not to be too legalistic, but I want to refer to legal judgments and specific provisions because it is important to have on record for the future some material that confounds many of the claims made by the Government and, sadly, by the DUP leadership. This may well be the last time we have an opportunity to put all the arguments on the record.
Almost exactly a year ago, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said in the other place that the Supreme Court had issued a judgment, and that the protocol has subjugated Article 6 of the Act of Union. He continued that it also changes a key part of the Good Friday agreement,
“which is the need for cross-community consent on matters of import to the people of Northern Ireland … These are the things that need to be addressed in UK law to restore our place within the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/23; col. 892.]
This humble Address pledges fidelity to the Belfast agreement and to the foundational importance of the Acts of Union. The two issues that Sir Jeffrey said had to be addressed—his words, not mine or anyone else’s—were the disapplying of cross-community consent in a manner inconsistent with the Belfast agreement and undoing the subjugation of the Acts of Union. That is what he said was necessary to restore Northern Ireland’s place in the union. Yet cross-community consent remains disapplied and Article 6 of the Acts of Union remains suspended. Noble Lords are asked to support a humble Address which does not say that. Instead, we are urged to play along and say that the Belfast agreement has not been changed and the Acts of Union are not still vandalised.
I listened last night to the debate in the other place. Sadly, I again heard the leader of the DUP attacking the very people he stood with over years of campaigning and protest—the people he now says talk nonsense, who do not know facts or history and have not read the Acts of Union. This latest attack on other pro-union people who, incidentally, he refuses to debate with in public, is based on a claim that such persons urged restoring the Acts of Union. It seems that now, perhaps after spending some time with the Northern Ireland Office—too much time—anyone who thinks that are fools. Whoever would suggest such a ridiculous thing as restoring the Acts of Union, our foundational constitutional statute?
The problem for Sir Jeffrey is that on 21 July 2021, he said in Parliament:
“what does the Prime Minister intend to do to fully restore the Act of Union for Northern Ireland and remove the Irish sea border?”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 971.]
As I said earlier, he stood before on platforms all over Northern Ireland with myself, Jim Allister, Ben Habib, Jamie Bryson and many others campaigning in pursuit of that objective. Furthermore, he actually wrote a foreword to Jamie Bryson’s book on the Acts of Union, commending it to fellow unionists.
Being blunt, the only person who seems to have U-turned on all this is the leader of the DUP. His outburst on the Acts of Union is, I believe, about covering his U-turn. He is making efforts to create a puff of smoke around the Acts of Union to conceal the reality that, far from undoing the constitutional damage to that foundational legislation, he now accepts and implements it and thinks that, by talking nonsense about tariffs in 1801, everyone will be confused.
In October 2022, the DUP leader also said:
“Some lay great emphasis on cutting the number of checks on goods”
moving from GB to Northern Ireland. He continued:
“If that were to happen they say all our problems would be sorted … The truth of course is that the checks on the Irish Sea border are the symptom of the underlying problem, namely that NI is subject to a different set of laws imposed on us”.
That is very different from the Sir Jeffrey Donaldson in 2024. I hope that he will reflect on his comments. There is nothing wrong with changing one’s opinion; there is nothing wrong with people changing their views. I respect people who do that if they say it with intellectual honesty rather than lashing out at those who have not changed and have remained true to their principles. He clearly wanted to get the Assembly back, and that is fair enough, but you do that by being honest and straightforward with people, not trying to do a deal with the Government to produce words that are meaningless.
Of all the deceptions in the humble Address, those concerning the Acts of Union and the Belfast agreement are probably the most insulting. It pledges support for the Belfast agreement “in all its parts”, meanwhile omitting that the core cross-community consent safeguard found at Strand One 5(d) of the Belfast agreement and given effect in Section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 remains disapplied for the Article 18 protocol vote later this year. What is really meant by the words about upholding the Belfast agreement in all its parts is the Belfast agreement as constitutionally vandalised by the protocol and framework.
The previous government claim was that the cross-community consent mechanism applied only to devolved issues. That was the Government’s defence, but it is wrong on many levels, and I want to put why on record. Most fundamentally, if the cross-community consent mechanism was never applicable and we are all so misguided, why did the Government pass regulations to disapply that which never applied anyway?
Another part of what seems to many people to be duplicity is that the cross-community mechanism applies to a matter to be voted on by the Assembly. There is no limitation as to only matters which are devolved or within legislative competence. That is obvious from paragraph 107 of the Supreme Court judgment in the challenge to the protocol that I and others were involved with. The Belfast agreement is not upheld at all; it has been made subject to the protocol—in this instance Article 18—and gives way to it.
We have come full circle. We were told that the protocol was about protecting the Belfast agreement in all its parts, but now we are celebrating an altered Belfast agreement, with safeguards disapplied to the detriment of unionists in order to protect the protocol. It is shameful, and what was so disappointing to me was that neither the deputy leader nor the leader of the DUP in the other place highlighted this most obvious deficiency. That is of profound concern.
I turn to the next bold claim in the humble Address, which is
“the foundational importance of the Acts of Union”.
I believe that the Command Paper, and the way the DUP leadership presented its endorsement of it, is an exercise in deception on the Acts of Union. No other word describes it. It said a lot, much of it inaccurate, about the Acts of Union but then tried to convince everyone that black is white. It said that we must believe that the Supreme Court did not say what it said, close our eyes and pretend that the Acts of Union are not subjugated and in suspension. We must delude ourselves that we are all confused and there is no conflict between the protocol framework and the Acts of Union, and that if there is then we should embrace it because if we do not—most bizarrely of all—tariffs might be brought back on Bushmills whiskey.
I do not like the word “subjugation”, but it is not my word. It was first used not by unionists or loyalists but by this Government in their written and oral submissions to the Court of Appeal, in which they said that the Acts of Union were subjugated. This argument was accepted and repeated in the judgment of the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court. People sometimes get annoyed when I refer to subjugation of the Acts of Union, but I am using the Government’s words, or at least their words prior to their U-turn. We are now supposed to believe that the interpretation that the courts and all of unionism applied to Article VI of the Acts of Union was wrong and instead embrace the new inventive interpretation which amounts to nothing more than meekly accepting the fundamental change to our constitutional status, while pretending otherwise.
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson now puts his case—in a way much different from what he said on platforms prior to partnering with the Northern Ireland Office to sell his deal—on the basis that we cannot restore the Acts of Union because that would mean putting them back to 1801 and, as I said, there would therefore be tariffs on, for example, Bushmills whiskey. This sounds good symbolically and gets a good headline, but in substance it means that, because the Acts of Union have changed before since 1801, there is no issue. If you make this case, you must be willing to embrace the changes to the Acts of Union made by the protocol. Why else would previous changes add anything to your argument? When Sir Jeffrey talks about 1801, he is deflecting from the central point. The constitutional damage we have all campaigned on was inflicted by the protocol, and that is the cause of the suspension of Article VI. The fundamental issue is whether that has been undone.
Let me put it simply, as this question must be responded to. Quoting the court, Sir Jeffrey talked about the subjugation of Article VI of the Acts of Union, which he said must be addressed to restore Northern Ireland’s place in the union. That has not been addressed. As it obviously has not, how can anyone claim, using his test as a measuring stick, that his deal restores Northern Ireland’s place in the union? That has not been answered by Sir Jeffrey or the Minister. Amid all this spin, there is a very simple question: as a matter of legal reality, the Acts of Union remain subjugated and in suspension—in the court’s words, not mine—so are the Government now willing to accept that as a legitimate change to the Acts of Union?
What we mean by restoring the Acts of Union is very simple. It means undoing the damage inflicted by the protocol. This has been turned around into a bizarre argument about tariffs on whiskey which is designed to confuse everyone. The reality is that, in 1801, there were no more tariffs or duties to be added to a specified agreed list unless they were equalised. These are known as countervailing duties. In simple terms, Schedule 1 to Article VI of the Acts of Union exhaustively specified certain items that would continue to be subject to tariffs and duties. This was an agreement between what was then Ireland and Great Britain; it was not imposed or agreed with a foreign power.
More fundamentally, it was designed to be transitional. As such, under the Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1879, Schedule 1 was repealed. There have been no tariffs since. Contrary to the attempts to confuse and mislead people, doing exactly what Sir Jeffrey called for—repairing the damage done to Article VI by the protocol—would not, as if by magic, cause to spring back to life Schedule 1 and its list of tariffs abolished in 1879. It is silly and beneath such an experienced and eminent political leader, as well as others, to say such utter nonsense designed to create confusion because he will say nothing on the substance of the point around the Acts of Union.
The Acts of Union, prior to the protocol, remained in force. In the words of Lord Justice McCloskey, the intent of Article VI from 1801 was “unmistakable”. Yet now, listening to some senior members of the DUP and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, we are all supposed to believe that everyone has just fallen into one big misinterpretation, including our courts. The notion that, if the subjugation of the Acts of Union were lifted and the damage of the protocol undone, somehow Schedule 1, which was repealed in 1879, would come back to life and there would be tariffs on Bushmills whiskey—which would really upset the honourable Member for North Antrim—is complete and utter nonsense.
I will also address the claim in the Command Paper that the Supreme Court did not address the inconsistency between the Acts of Union and the protocol, as Ministers have said time and again. Yes, it did. It expressly proceeded on the basis that there was an inconsistency, as upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal before it, the highest courts in Northern Ireland. This is set out clearly in paragraphs 54 and 64 of the Supreme Court judgment. It confounds emphatically the claims of the Government. The most remarkable thing is that the Government accepted there was such an inconsistency and did not cross-appeal to the Supreme Court. Now they are trying to tell us something different. The inconsistency was held by the courts to be: first, the continued application of EU law; secondly, the ongoing fetters on trade; and, thirdly, Northern Ireland having privileged access to the EU single market, the price of which was our exclusion from being a full part of the United Kingdom internal market.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, who is in his place, has said repeatedly in this House that the Acts of Union have been changed before. That is quite true, but the basis of his argument, as with Sir Jeffrey’s new position, must be that, because they were changed before, the present change should not offend unionists. Sometimes he seems to be urging us to embrace it. If he wants to deploy that argument, he should be honest about what it means: accepting the constitutional damage to the Acts of Union inflicted by the protocol. It means accepting that change on the basis that the Acts of Union have changed before. That is what some, including the noble Lord, have said. We should be honest about that.
It has also been said that EU law was never one of the DUP’s seven tests. Members of the DUP answered that pretty strongly in our last debate. An MLA called David Brooks set out last week in the Belfast News Letter that it was never a DUP test. That is really odd, because the leader of the DUP said in October 2022 that the core issue was EU law, and he said it again in February 2023 in an interview with Tracey Magee of UTV. The very first of the DUP’s tests was directed to the Acts of Union. You cannot restore the Acts of Union without removing EU law, because EU law is the most fundamental breach of them. It is very simple. A mention of restoring the Acts of Union cannot be anything other than a commitment to end EU law; otherwise, achieving such restoration would be impossible.
Practically everything I have said has been lifted more or less directly from the court judgment, which I hope many noble Lords will read, because it is clear that they are inconsistent with the Acts of Union.
If there are those who are willing to forsake the fundamental principles of the Acts of Union—as determined not by me but by the courts—in favour of the arrangements giving effect to the protocol, they need to be clear about what that means. What is happening here is something quite different, aided and abetted by the Northern Ireland Office: to evade the political costs for accepting the recasting of Article 6 of the Acts of Union by pretending—yes, pretending—that it is not happening at all.
This is important, and I have gone on about it —although I have not gone on as long as Sir Jeffrey did yesterday—because I want to get it on the parliamentary record that I and others here have not engaged in this con trick, for that is what it is. That is why I have said what I have said today and why I tabled the amendment to draw out this debate. In the weeks and months ahead, we will see all the glitter fall away. Unionist people and people in this House and elsewhere in Parliament will see what has been tricked, pulled and put out to deceive people. No matter how hard those who have participated in this and have gone along with it may wish it not to be so, there will be a political cost to pay, because they have been warned.
All this, as well as being in the courts, was also agreed to by the independent lawyer, the former Attorney-General John Larkin, in his published legal advice. There has not been one single piece of legal advice produced, by the Government or the DUP leadership, to support the increasingly bold claims that they have made—I wonder why not.
I will conclude. The Acts of Union remain suspended. The cross-community consent mechanism central to the Belfast agreement remains disapplied. The Irish Sea border remains. The green lane, for which you are required to provide information for customs purposes to obtain authorisation to trade a little more freely in your own country, remains. The red lane, which operates on the basis of an at-risk category over which the EU has a veto, and which catches a significant amount of material and goods that go nowhere near the EU, remains. EU law continues; it is law that we did not make and cannot change. The protocol, in all its core aspects, remains in full force and continues to reign supreme. The only thing that has changed over the last year are the views of the DUP leadership, who now seem to accept all those facts and have returned to Stormont to implement them. If we are going to address His Majesty the King, we should tell him the truth. I beg to move.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I begin by joining the Minister in paying tribute to the late Lord Cormack. I had the pleasure of serving with Patrick Cormack in the other place for many years. Indeed, from 2005 to 2010, he was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee; in that capacity, he contributed much to Northern Ireland debates. I sat on the same Bench as him, across the aisle, and we shared many conversations. He had a deep and abiding interest in Northern Ireland and its people, and we will miss his contributions on Northern Ireland. I did not always agree with him, as I am sure that other Members did not, but he always put his case eloquently, passionately and sincerely. We send our condolences to his family at this very sad time.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for moving the amendment standing in her name. Certainly, if she pushes it to a vote, I will be voting with her in the Lobby, since it is merely factual and adds the reality of the situation to the humble Address. I share the view that it is important that this Parliament sets out the full facts, as we now have them, with the Windsor Framework/protocol in place. I think that this is the seventh humble Address to be moved in this Parliament, apart from humble Addresses after a Queen’s or King’ Speech, and I had the pleasure of moving one of them in this House in March 2023. My humble Address would have had the effect of annulling the building of the border control posts and of doing something practical to remove the Irish Sea border. I regret that this humble Address does not do that.
I want to begin by celebrating the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Today, that union is strong and endures. Those who want to abolish Northern Ireland are failing—and that is how the campaign, sometimes styled for Irish unification, should be characterised. It is about the abolition of Northern Ireland and the removal of part of the United Kingdom; it is a negative campaign. The people who advocate it wish to eliminate and tear away the citizenship of the majority of the residents of Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom.
On the other hand, the case for the union is positive and enduring, and that is even more so today in a changing, uncertain and dangerous world. We are part of the sixth-biggest economy in the world, part of a kingdom still with vast influence, through both hard and soft power, and part of a country that stands four-square behind the cause of freedom and democracy across the world, as we have seen in Ukraine and other places, and has the ability to do things about it. This country still matters in the affairs of the world, so we want to remain part of that United Kingdom. This is not just about trade matters or the economy; it is a matter of our birthright, citizenship and identity.
It is because we value the union so much that I come to today’s debate with such a sense of concern. The humble Address before your Lordships’ House is part of the reassurance package, if we can call it that, promised by the Government to unionists in the deal—Command Paper 1021, where it is set out that this would be the mechanism used to provide reassurance. But the reality is that Command Paper 1021 retains the Windsor Framework/protocol with all its inherent anti-unionist contents. This is where words collide with reality, and where propaganda collides with the facts.
There is nothing in this humble Address that changes anything in relation to Northern Ireland or that undoes the damage done to our constitutional position as part of the United Kingdom by the protocol. We saw the same last week when we debated the statutory instruments—the legislation promised in the deal. Not one of the six or seven provisions in the regulations debated last week alters the superstructure of the Windsor Framework/protocol. It of course affects the smoother operation of the Irish Sea border and the application of EU jurisdiction over a large part of our economy in Northern Ireland, but it does not go any further than that.
It is ironic that it is claimed that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast agreement, according to the contents of the humble Address, and yet the Government have abdicated their own authority and responsibilities and granted full authority to the EU to make laws over significant parts of the economy of Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom. It is ironic in the extreme to acknowledge
“the foundational importance of the Acts of Union”,
while doing absolutely nothing to repair the modification or suspension—or, as we have heard, “subjugation”; that is the word used by the court—of those Acts of Union as set out in the judgments of the Court of Appeal and, subsequently, the Supreme Court. It is astounding that we are supposedly reaffirming the importance of upholding the Belfast agreement in all its strands, while at the same time undermining the cross-community consent requirements on which the Assembly and the institutions were set up—I have referred to that consistently: the Article 18 vote which comes at the end of this year on the applicability of the protocol; I will come on to that in more detail shortly.
Looking at the main elements of the proposed Address, it states first that
“joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast … Agreement”.
Of course, that is nothing new; that has always been the case. I welcome the fact that the Government stress the importance of maintaining the three-stranded approach to the affairs of Northern Ireland, because very often in recent years they have not respected it. One remembers a former office-bearer in the Northern Ireland Office, the Secretary of State as he then was in 2020, who was very keen to involve Simon Coveney, the then Irish Foreign Minister, on virtually every announcement that was made, including those internal to Northern Ireland. However, given that, in March last year, the Government had the audacity to argue that the Windsor Framework removed any sense of an Irish Sea border and actually protected our constitutional position, it is clear that the words in front of us must be subject to great scrutiny. The Government have in reality accepted a form of joint authority. How have they done that? By actively legislating for the EU to have the power to make law in some 300 areas in Northern Ireland.
I have here that legislation—sometimes we just talk about these things, but every page in my hand contains law after law from the European Union that applies directly to Northern Ireland. There are hundreds upon hundreds of EU laws, and not one of them is subject to any democratic input from anyone elected in Northern Ireland. Legislators in the Irish Republic have had, and enjoy, greater power than anyone in Northern Ireland in respect of those laws. So when we talk about joint authority, let us recognise the reality of the situation that faces Northern Ireland today. In this area covered by the protocol, colonial status is exactly what we have as far as those laws are applicable. We will hear arguments about the Stormont brake and how the pipeline of EU law has been stymied. However, I challenge the Minister or anyone else in this House to show me anywhere in law where the Stormont brake applies to any single one of those laws in Annex 2 of the protocol, because it does not. That is a matter of fact and a matter of law.
Then we come on to the part of the Address about
“acknowledging the foundational importance of the Acts of Union … including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts”.
There has been a lot of distraction, misrepresentation and revision of history in relation to arguments around the Acts of Union, particularly by the Government and others. We should revert to the only opinion that matters, stripping away all the technicalities and arguments. The only opinion that matters is that of the Supreme Court, not of some commentor or lawyer, however distinguished, or politician or government spokesman. This is a Supreme Court case, let it be remembered, that was brought by the leaders of unionism in Northern Ireland, including the then leader of the DUP. That fact, and the fact that the Supreme Court saw fit to hand down a judgment in the case, demonstrates that this is not academic or esoteric but a real and significant issue.
The Supreme Court said at paragraph 65 of its judgment that
“article VI is modified to the extent and for the period during which the Protocol applies”.
In paragraph 67 it talks about Article VI being subjugated. Again, these are not our words, but the words used by the Supreme Court. We need to contrast those words with the words in the humble Address, which do not bear comparison to the reality of what was outlined by the Supreme Court. If the Government were serious, they would seek to undo the constitutional damage. But there is nothing in the legislation last week, or here today in the humble Address, which does that.
Then we come to
“the importance of upholding the Belfast … Agreement … in all its strands”.
As we have heard already, the Belfast agreement—as amended by the St Andrews agreement and amended after sufficient consensus of support from both the unionist and nationalist sides—has, of course, been upended by the protocol/Windsor Framework. The most pertinent example is the one outlined in the amendment before us: the continuing application vote in the Assembly later this year, which is to be carried out by a simple majority vote. That is the only major vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly subject to a majority vote; every other major decision taken by the Northern Ireland Assembly is either a cross-community vote or susceptible to being turned into one through a petition of concern.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, outlined, this was voted on in a debate in December 2020, in Committee, which both she and I attended. That Committee was attended by two of the most prominent architects of the Belfast agreement, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the late Lord Trimble, who both railed against it as a severe breach of the Belfast agreement which they had negotiated. Yet the Government proceeded in a clear and flagrant breach of the principles which are supposed to underpin power-sharing in Northern Ireland. Many who supposedly champion the Belfast agreement are content, it seems, to turn a blind eye to—or worse, actively connive in—the disapplication of cross-community safeguards when it suits them. This cannot stand. This is not right.
The removal of cross-community voting is not only fundamentally wrong in this case but creates a very dangerous precedent for unionists. For almost 100 years, we have been told that majority rule was unacceptable in Northern Ireland, and for the last 50 years it has been beyond the pale as far as government structures in Northern Ireland are concerned. But if it is acceptable to permit a reversion to majority rule on something as fundamental as the protocol, with all its economic and constitutional implications, then it is very hard to argue that the same majority voting rule should not apply to other areas of operation within the remit of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is the danger here. We have already heard the siren calls and we will hear more. I am afraid the argument against it has been gravely weakened by those unionists who accept the provisions in relation to the Article 18 vote later this year.
What is going on at present is a full-blown effort by the Government to paint a one-sided picture of real events as far as the Windsor Framework is concerned. There is an all-out PR operation to put the most favourable gloss on the operation of its provisions. It is seen, for example, in the refusal to answer Parliamentary Questions in a proper way. The Government appear embarrassed to set out unpalatable truths, so they are economical with the reality and hope people will not notice.
Of course, we remember a time when Ministers in this place and in the other place came to the Dispatch Box to advocate and argue for a radically different approach, which would have removed foreign laws. They enthusiastically backed that approach. Now, they equally enthusiastically back a position which surrenders sovereignty over parts of the Northern Ireland economy and way of life, and creates customs borders within the United Kingdom, where Northern Ireland is subject to the EU customs code and in the EU single market for goods and agri-food products. A necessary consequence is that there is an Irish Sea border, so that goods are not in free circulation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland still. As a result of Article 8 of the protocol, we are under EU VAT rules and, under Article 10, subject to EU state aid rules for the entire economy.
Yesterday in the other place, when the Minister was challenged in relation to VAT, he said that it was time to move on. Ministers do not want the details to be exposed but they need to be continually raised, highlighted and challenged. Unless they are called out consistently as being unacceptable, it will all become more and more embedded. If we settle for and champion the current position then there is little hope of getting the change we need in the future.
We demand equal citizenship in Northern Ireland. We do not demand it in some arrogant way. We demand it as our right as subjects of His Majesty the King, and we demand that those rights should be restored as quickly as possible. We have been uniquely disfranchised and we need to ensure that those wrongs are put right as soon as possible.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. I endorse his celebration of the union from this side of the Irish Sea; it is as important to us that Northern Ireland be part of the United Kingdom as it is to people in Northern Ireland to share that common membership of the union with the other component parts.
I also echo the noble Lord’s tribute to Lord Cormack. Unlikely though it may seem, I owe a great debt to Lord Cormack, who chaired my leadership campaign when I stood for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 1997. Although we differed on some issues, as is often the case we shared far more in common than meets the eye. He was a great parliamentarian, a great unionist, a great Conservative and a great Christian, and may he rest in peace.
I welcome the terms of this humble Address, and I hope that the reductions in border checks are as substantial as is claimed in the government document Safeguarding the Union. If they are, I congratulate the DUP on having secured those improvements. However, it raises a few questions. We were told that the Windsor Framework would make trading between Birmingham and Belfast just like trading between Edmonton and Edinburgh. Paragraph 108 of Safeguarding the Union says that 4 million more movements will now be covered by UK food safety laws, not EU laws, resulting in the
“scrapping of costly veterinary certificates and checks”.
Therefore, either the Windsor settlement was oversold or these new arrangements are being oversold. If the former, the DUP’s decision to withdraw from Stormont achieved more than the UK Government were able to achieve at the time of the Windsor settlement. Clearly, these changes are of benefit to the whole of Northern Ireland—to all communities in Northern Ireland. I would have thought they would have been welcomed by all parties, admittedly somewhat shamefacedly as far as the other parties are concerned, because they neither sought nor even believed it possible or desirable to achieve modifications of the protocol, which they wanted enforced, it would seem, in all its rigour.
In a week when we have seen the other House bow to threats of violence, we should pay tribute to the DUP and the unionists in that they secured these improvements by constitutional means. That is all the more so because the whole reason we are in this position —the whole reason why the Government agreed to try to have a border in the Irish Sea rather than in the natural place, between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland—was republican threats to blow up or shoot anyone who enforced checks at that border. Shamefully, the Irish Government waved around pictures of a blown- up customs post, dating from decades ago, to try to persuade their European colleagues to insist that there be no border within Northern Ireland and that we had to have one in the Irish Sea. In fact, the EU’s insistence that it would need border checks to maintain the security of the single market was entirely bogus.
For entirely other reasons, I was reading the European Commission White Paper, Completing the Internal Market, which it published in 1985, ahead of the measures to create the single market. At that time, member states had different SPS rules—different veterinary rules, and so on—and they used to enforce them at the border with border checks between Germany, France and other countries within the European Union. Naturally, the European Commission did not like that, and it proposed to abolish these border posts within the European Union, despite the fact that these different standards would persist on different sides of the border. It wrote:
“As a further … step towards the objective of abolishing internal frontier controls by 1992, all veterinary controls (live animals and animal products) and plant health controls will have to be limited to the places of departure, and controls of veterinary and plant health certificates made at the places of destination”.
Indeed, the Commission recognises that it is possible to maintain the security of its member states without controls at the border by doing so at the point of dispatch or the point of arrival. That is what it proposed then, and it could equally have been applied in Northern Ireland, should have been applied, and could be applied in future if the present arrangements do not work out satisfactorily.
I would like the Minister to confirm the following. It is not clear from the language in Safeguarding the Union that the arrangements we are now talking about are all under the protocol. The protocol has not been abolished, rescinded or removed from our law; it is part of our law. It allowed changes to be made by agreement within “the committee”, consisting of two people, one from Britain and one from the European Union, and that, essentially, is what is being done. All these changes are being done under the protocol.
At the risk of boring the House, I will repeat what I think we ought all to remember: that the protocol is intrinsically temporary and transitional. That is not my view, but the view of the European Union at the time of the negotiations. Noble Lords may recall that Theresa May said in her Lancaster House speech that she wanted to negotiate a future trade arrangement between Britain and Europe at the same time as our withdrawal arrangements under Article 50. The European Union said that that was not possible. It could not do it even if it wanted to, because Article 50 does not provide a legal base for negotiating trade agreements. Trade agreements with non-member states can be negotiated by the European Union only under Article 234. Therefore, we had to leave first before it could negotiate trade arrangements with us. How come, then, that we reached agreement on trade arrangements as far as Northern Ireland and the European Union was concerned in the Article 50 withdrawal agreement? The EU said, “Well, that allows temporary and transitional measures, and only temporary and transitional measures, arising from the departure of a member state”. Therefore, the arrangements we entered into—the protocol—are temporary and transitional.
It would be wonderful if what the Government have agreed, and what the DUP has said is at least enough for it to go back into Stormont, works out smoothly and resolves all friction, both economic and political, arising from differences in EU and UK law and the attempt to resolve these via the Irish Sea. If so, we can all carry on and live happily ever after. However, if not—and I fear it may well not work out satisfactorily in the long term—we should remember that we have the right, under the agreement we negotiated with the European Union and its interpretation of it, to say that the protocol was temporary and must be replaced; and obviously, we want to replace it with something satisfactory to the EU, as our neighbour, and which would ensure the integrity of the single market. Therefore, we should adopt the method it proposed and used initially, and which subsequently Sir Jonathan Faull, himself a former director-general of the Commission, proposed as a way of resolving the problems we currently face.
I am glad that some progress has been made, I hope more progress has been made than meets the eye, and if not, alternative possibilities exist for the future.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Lilley, I offer my condolences to the family and colleagues of Lord Cormack. Patrick Cormack was an outstanding political figure, serving as a parliamentarian in both Houses of this Parliament for many years. Before he left the House of Commons, he was chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I remember a visit that he made to Downpatrick around St Patrick’s Day. He read the lesson at the service in Down Cathedral, reflecting on the work of St Patrick that belongs to all traditions. That is the important thing—Lord Cormack was a unifying figure.
I welcome the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, so I welcome that aspect of the humble Address. There are other bits which I also welcome, including the adherence to the Good Friday agreement. Naturally, as a democratic Irish nationalist I believe in the unity of people on the island of Ireland. That is my aspiration; that is my identity; that is where I come from. However, there is a need, and it can happen, for peaceful coexistence between unionists, nationalists and others. That is embodied in the Good Friday agreement because it allows you to be British, Irish or both. It is important that this is totally reflected.
It is important that the institutions that we all voted for back in 1998 have been restored. They have been down more often than they have been operational, but the fact of their welcome was a feature that came out some weeks ago in the poll by LucidTalk and Queen’s University, Belfast, of February 2024. Why? It was because the public were crying out for the resumption of the institutions and for local delivery by local people elected by all of us for delivery and decisions on local services, whether health, education, economy or infrastructure.
That is not something that I view as a celebration. The institutions should never have been collapsed in February 2022 or in January 2017. The fact that the institutions can be collapsed by either of the big parties necessitates the need to look at reform of the institutions to ensure that mechanisms are put in place to prevent this from happening again. The bottom line is that the people of Northern Ireland want stable political institutions in place for the purposes of good governance and for delivering for the people, and they want the people who have been elected to govern and for the opposition—my colleagues in the SDLP—to do their job as well.
I said two weeks ago that I would not be content with the Command Paper because it was a deviation from a previous position, since it represented a unilateral decision-making process between the DUP and the UK Government—although listening here tonight you would not think that it was agreement between the UK Government and the DUP. The message must be clear: “Please cherish all traditions equally”, as required by the Good Friday agreement, which has been the hallmark for negotiations in Northern Ireland for nearly 38 years.
The current UK Government’s approach represents a departure from the GFA and from the Downing Street declaration. I say, not gently but very forcefully, that we all need to revert to the factory settings of the Good Friday agreement—to those principles of consent, inclusion and equality. Northern Ireland is a divided society, with unionists, nationalists and others. That is why it is important to underscore and ensure the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement through the operation of all the institutions in all the strands—the Assembly, the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. That is why I want a renewed commitment from the current British Government to that bipartisan approach with the Irish Government, and I will ask the Irish Government the same. That means a true reflection of parity of esteem, partnership, power sharing, respect for political difference and the consent principle.
When will the next meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference take place to discuss that range of economic, trade, joint working on health and cross-border and, importantly, east-west issues? When will the next meeting of the British-Irish Council on east-west issues take place? When will the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council and the full operation of the implementation bodies take place? I believe in that reset of the principles of the GFA where equality, human rights, equality of citizenship and protection of identity all, within a spirit of partnership, must be reflected.
That type of approach will enable the full benefits of the Windsor Framework to be realised. We have heard so much this evening about the negative side to the Windsor Framework. I have talked to many people in Northern Ireland. One of the results of the LucidTalk/Queen’s University poll showed that the majority opinion on the Windsor Framework is generally accepting or supportive of the arrangements established for Northern Ireland. Why? Because people want to move on. They want economic benefit. They want economic opportunity for their families and associates. We need access to that EU single market and the UK internal market. With the full realisation of the economic opportunities, with stability and political progress, we achieve a more balanced, peaceful reconciliation and shared society.
However, for our region to succeed, we need a significant budget to address the needs of our population. The challenges of health waiting lists, the crumbling fabric of our roads and schools, public sector reform and transformation are all required. People need access to services such as health waiting lists in a more expeditious manner without having to meet countless impediments. Assembly Members and Ministers must face these challenges and implement difficult decisions. While £3.3 billion on a conditional basis was a significant allocation, it presents dangers because some of that is recycled money, the Executive have significant overspends from previous years, and the public sector money, while very welcome, is not current expenditure and that money has to be found for future financial years out of the budget. Money that was earmarked for 10 new integrated schools in the fresh start agreement of 2015 seems to have disappeared and other money is no longer present either because a significant amount is now required for the full education budget. Where is the levelling-up money for Northern Ireland?
I also welcome the €800 million shared island funding from the Irish Government for cross-border infrastructure projects such as the A5, the Narrow Water bridge, Casement Park and the Boyne heritage centre. That demonstrates a clear commitment by the Irish Government to deliver north-south projects and the much-needed bipartisan approach. Maybe in his wind-up, the Minister could advise us on the reform of the institutions. What discussions will the Government have with the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and what analytical work has that committee commenced about the review of such institutions?
I do not support the amendment. I support that part of the Motion that deals with the restoration of the institutions. Much work needs to happen to create that economic opportunity, and that is why it is vitally important that we ensure that the full benefits of the Windsor Framework and the work of the institutions are realised for the people of Northern Ireland.
For me, this debate is about including everything, and the Good Friday agreement with its three-stranded approach, representing the three sets of relationships, affords us the opportunity to deal with that without fear of exclusion, marginalisation or triumphalism. The Good Friday agreement must be our lodestar—our guiding light. Bipartisanship and partnership, with parity of esteem, must be central to all our discussions. That must be the way forward. I defer to my noble friend Lord Murphy on the Front Bench, who was a significant negotiator in the Good Friday agreement and helped to bring forward—along with my colleagues in the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and the Irish Government—that agreement, which was based on that duality of approach, partnership and parity of esteem. That is where we need to be to achieve progress and benefit for all the people, because I firmly believe that both Governments and all parties must work together, committed to bipartisanship, partnership and delivering for all. That is the way forward.
Reference has been made in the other place to the fact that there is no all-Ireland economy. One has to look only at the single electricity market, the agri-food industry which operates on a cross-border north-south basis, the Coca-Cola Company, and animal health, and the island of Ireland is considered a single epidemiological unit. It is a mistruth to say that that does not exist. We must face what are the political realities and the fact that there are many people in Northern Ireland, and all those political identities must be recognised and accommodated. The best way to do that is through the mechanisms and three-stranded approach that already exists in the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I join others in expressing profound sadness at the death of Lord Cormack, whom I was proud to call a friend.
I welcome the re-establishment of Stormont and of devolved government in Northern Ireland. The governance of the United Kingdom is not particularly easy at present, and it is unlikely to get any easier under any Government elected at Westminster. But effective devolved government in Northern Ireland, as in Wales and Scotland—not straightforward, I agree—seems to be an essential part of that overall governance of the United Kingdom.
I note that recent opinion polls in Northern Ireland suggest a certain scepticism about the chances of Stormont surviving until the next elections—due in 2027. I hope those polls are wrong, for there are huge tasks now for the Northern Ireland Executive, working with the British Government, to undertake. Among other things, the NHS waiting list, the education service, public sector pay and the clean-up of Lough Neagh require urgent and sustained attention. I hope now that they will get it.
I am struck by how many new institutions are announced in Safeguarding the Union. I look forward to more detailed information in due course on how they will all work. The proposed east-west council looks particularly relevant in focusing on some of Northern Ireland’s most challenging issues, including those that I have just mentioned. But I note too that the humble Address reaffirms the importance of upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its strands—that too is essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, have said.
It is a great honour to chair the House of Lords Sub-Committee on the Windsor Framework—scheduled, alas, to disappear at the general election. The Windsor Framework has, of course, not been changed by Safeguarding the Union and its accompanying documents, but the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland provides a real opportunity for Northern Ireland’s Executive to have an effective say in its operation. I look forward to working with the newly established committees in Stormont, including the new democratic scrutiny committee.
The Windsor Framework, though unchanged by the new arrangements we are discussing today, is not a fully fledged document—it is, indeed a framework. Nowhere is this more evident than over veterinary medicines, about which the Windsor Framework committee is now conducting an inquiry. That explains why some members of the committee recently spent two hours in a large, drafty barn in County Down with some impressive farmers, veterinary experts and several hundred sheep. I cannot pre-empt the conclusions of our inquiry, but we hope to produce a report shortly. I can say that we found widespread support in Northern Ireland for the proposal set out in Safeguarding the Union to rapidly establish a veterinary medicines working group, provided that the membership is right and includes real knowledge of, and expertise on, Northern Ireland.
That leads me to my last point. Neither the Government of the United Kingdom, nor the Northern Ireland Executive are—now that we are outside the European Union—around the Council tables when EU legislation is discussed and agreed. But much of that legislation will have effect in Northern Ireland and will affect farmers, consumers and businesses. Businesses in Northern Ireland will have access to the single market for goods of the European Union and be part of the internal market of the United Kingdom, and both are a clear advantage. However, a way must be found to ensure that direct first-hand knowledge of Northern Ireland is taken into account while legislation is being prepared, and not just when it has reached its finished state. I hope the Minister, who is still missed in our committee, will give us a reassurance on that point.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, like other noble Lords I particularly welcome the affirmation in the humble Address of the “foundational importance” of the provisions of Article VI, given that we are all aware that these provisions have been partly suspended in Northern Ireland because of the actions of this House and the other place in sanctioning Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
If we agree the Motion, then we will be duty-bound—if we are not to be two-faced about it—to look to for the first opportunity to amend the withdrawal agreement Act, so that these provisions, which are not merely important but of foundational importance, can be restored to the people of Northern Ireland immediately. As Carla Lockhart, the Member for Upper Bann, observed yesterday in another place, you cannot remove foundations, even temporarily, without placing the superstructure that they uphold in jeopardy.
I will dig a little deeper into this point, drawing on the Minister’s letter to those of us who took part in the recent debate on the statutory instruments that give effect to the deal that occasioned the restoration of Stormont, which has in turn occasioned this humble Address. Having commented on economic ties between Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland, the Minister says:
“That is why the Command Paper places specific emphasis on ensuring Northern Ireland has full and unfettered access to the UK’s internal market as well as its privileged access to the EU single market”.
That really is the heart of the proposition—that the deal gives Northern Ireland full and unfettered access to the UK’s internal market and privileged access to the Republic.
However, how this can be the case when, first, all the product that has to travel on the red lane—which includes all inputs into Northern Ireland manufacturing coming from the rest of the economy of which Northern Ireland is a part—is subject to a customs border that is more demanding than that experienced by products travelling from Germany, a foreign country, to England, and secondly, when all the product that travels on the so-called UK internal market system is also subject to the fettering of customs and an SPS border?
Lest anyone should contest the fettered access provided by the UK internal market system, I would direct them to the place the fettering is set out: EU regulation 2023/1128, which amends the EU Customs Code to simplify customs border fettering, and EU regulation 2023/1231, which simplifies the SPS border fettering. I do not question the fact that both these provisions simplify the border fettering, but the critical point is that they do not remove it. If you do not comply with the border fettering put in your way by the misnamed UK internal market system, your only other options will be the red lane or not to cross the border.
Moreover—and this is critical—for so long as we submit to the Windsor Framework, we agree that these matters are ultimately for the EU to determine and that the simplification of the border fettering is enjoyed at its pleasure and could be removed if it chooses to do so, defaulting back to the greater fettering of the red lane, as set out expressly in Article 14(5) of EU regulation 2023/1231.
By contrast, if we look at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, we find no customs or SPS border fettering of any kind. I therefore suggest that the Minister transparently has it the wrong way round. The Government’s arrangements propose full and unfettered access to the Republic of Ireland and, to the extent of the so-called UK internal market system, privileged access to GB, in that while this does not afford us unfettered borderless access to GB, the fettering has been reduced from what would otherwise be the case.
This is a huge problem for unionism because unionists are very clear that our priority is our relationship with England, Scotland and Wales. The South decided to break away from that relationship. That was its decision. We regret it and stand with England, Wales and Scotland in our United Kingdom. In this context, while of course we want the best possible access to the Republic, that has to be subject to the basic unionist imperative—the union—and thus no customs fettering between any constituent part of the union.
The Safeguarding the Union Command Paper has things the other way around, prioritising the relationship with the South and the advent of a border between ourselves and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a nationalist rather than a unionist solution because it sacrifices the unionist imperative. Of course, this all has to be seen in the context of the fact that the purpose of the border is to uphold the integrity of a different legal regime in Northern Ireland. That is the result of our disenfranchisement in relation to 300 areas of the laws to which we are subject, and the enfranchisement of a foreign Parliament. My noble friend Lord Dodds has already outlined specifics in relation to this issue.
In this respect, it is also important to reflect on the Minister’s assurances in his letter that the shortcomings of the brake are acceptable when seen in the context of the additional democratic consent safeguard—the so-called consent motion. The shortcomings of the brake include, of course, that it creates a second-class citizenship in which, rather than having the right to stand for election to make the laws to which you are subject, you have to make do with the right to stand for election to try to stop laws in 300 areas that have already been made for you by a foreign Parliament; and that it does not apply to all EU-imposed law anyway. We have already heard my noble friend Lord Dodds comment on that too.
That assertion simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The so-called democratic consent motion should really be called the “renouncing democratic consent procedure”, because that is, in effect, what it is. If, on the one hand, we humour the proposition that it constitutes democratic consent and treat it as a vote on all the laws made in the last three or four years, that does not work, both because it would be absurd to engage intelligently with three to four years’ legislation with one vote and because a no vote would not result in any of the legislation falling away. If, on the other hand, we treat it as a vote on all the laws to be made in the next three to four years, that does not work, for the above reasons and because you cannot vote on legislation that does not yet exist.
The practical impact of a yes vote will be for an MLA to agree to renounce the rights of his or her citizens to be represented in the making of the laws to which they are subject in 300 areas for the next four to eight years, depending on the scale of the vote. Rather than the so-called consent motion filling the democratic shortfall of the brake, therefore, it merely compounds it.
I am of course aware—and this was mentioned earlier—that there has been debate in recent weeks around Bushmills whiskey, which I say very gently is completely beside the point, and a lot of tosh, to use an Ulster word. You do not have to be an expert on this at all, and I do not profess to be one, but, as anyone who knows anything about the history of internal markets knows, they have become progressively more integrated across the world over time, especially in the case of the United Kingdom because, as the celebrated German economist Friedrich List pointed out, England and the UK invented the internal market.
People did not wake up one morning and say, “Let’s create an internal market”; it evolved over time. Rather than judging attempts to take it from the perspective of what being in an internal market was like in 1802, we have to judge it from the perspective of what it is like now. The relevant point in looking at these matters today is what Article 6 delivers in the 21st century, which we enjoyed through the foundational provisions of Article 6 until 31 December 2020, which Parliament has now partially suspended, and yet which today this House is urged to tell His Majesty is not merely important but of foundational importance.
I hope that we pass this Motion, but let us be clear: if we do, we will then be duty-bound to restore those Article 6 rights, because no Parliament worth its salt can tell its Head of State that certain provisions are of foundational importance in the context of a Motion that is specifically about a people who have been partly deprived by that same Parliament of those same provisions.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to Lord Cormack, as have others in this House. He was a friend of mine. In 2015, I was asked by the then Lord Speaker to chair a Committee of both Houses along with Tristram Hunt, a Member of the other House, on the anniversaries of that year—mainly Magna Carta. It was also the 50th anniversary of Churchill’s death. Lord Cormack was my senior adviser on that committee. He was an enormously well-informed historian, as everybody here knows. He prevented me from making many stupid, callow errors, for which I was really grateful. I extend my sympathies to his family on this very sad day. I will miss Patrick Cormack, as will many others.
I speak in favour of this humble Address. In my opinion, it ends an era of instability in Northern Irish affairs which has existed since the 2017 joint report—an international agreement with the EU, which, for example, had the British Government supporting an island economy on the island of Ireland. It corrects and ends an era of painful instability in Northern Ireland. This had to be done, but it takes time and negotiation is painful. I watched the debate yesterday in the other place. I had the feeling that one was looking at some of the acrimonious debates which have marked our life here for the past six years through the rearview window. I hope that we are moving away from those.
The point was made yesterday and alluded to briefly by the Minister tonight, about the definition of “joint authority”. I agree with the terms that he expressed on this. Yesterday, in the other place, it was stated that we do not have a definition. We have an official working definition. The New Ireland Forum Report from the Irish Government in 1984 states quite clearly that joint authority means shared responsibility by the two Governments for the administration of the affairs of Northern Ireland. It is clear to me that the humble Address closes the door firmly on this prospect. I do not think there is any ambiguity nor uncertainty about what joint authority is. We know what it is. The humble Address is absolutely clear-cut in this respect.
I have a sense that there is still a misunderstanding about what has been happening in the last few years, particularly around the standing of the Good Friday agreement. Members of this House will remember that there was a great dislike of the idea that the United Kingdom might ever tear up an international treaty. Quite apart from the protocol, the joint report of 2017 is also an international treaty. We would never unilaterally tear up an international treaty. Again and again, it was said to be the sort of thing that ill-tempered Putinesque regimes did, but certainly not the United Kingdom. What we witnessed instead was a long struggle in which the United Kingdom has said to the European Union, “You say you are also keen to support another international agreement—the Good Friday agreement. This is an international agreement lodged at the United Nations by the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland, but there are tensions; for example, in the joint report and the protocol. We want to work with you to find the correct balance so that we can get back to something closer to the Good Friday agreement”. The Good Friday agreement states that the UK Government, being the sovereign Government, has a responsibility to deal with the alienation of one or other community. In this case, the alienation over the issues in the protocol is clearly within the unionist community. Every single unionist public representative made clear their alienation on that point.
At the beginning of this Parliament, the first letter that went from the UK Government to the European Union said that they were concerned that it had not got the correct balance of the Good Friday agreement. It was a delicate balance. A long labour to reach that point has now concluded. The important work on the island economy was part of that. The Good Friday agreement in no way mandated an island economy. I was present at some of the key discussions in the late 1990s. I remember the Irish Government, let alone the British Government, talking about co-operation between two economies on the island of Ireland.
I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said about electricity and agri-food. I do not quite accept what she said about Coca-Cola, but I shall come to that. The slide towards something called the island economy is essentially an ideological concept which puts pressure on unionists and has played a major role in the negative public mood in Northern Ireland in the last three or four years. This is not to say that there are not elements of an island economy. The case of Coca-Cola, which the noble Baroness mentioned, indicates a deeper complexity. Coca-Cola has to work with two taxation systems and two currencies. You would not normally call that a simple operation of island economy logic. This is more usually the case. To a greater extent, the Northern Irish economy remains integrated within the UK economy. That the UK Government were apparently committed to working against that was one of the destabilising factors. This is now over. It was essential, as the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper acknowledges.
There are two communities in Northern Ireland which both have rights under the Good Friday agreement. It is impossible to imagine a solution which did not involve some kind of compromise—which this still is. It is not the full achievement of a unionist wish list, nor could it ever be. It is a restructuring, a rebalancing of a previously highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is not the achievement of a unionist wish list, which, to be honest, would not be entirely desirable, given the balance of the two communities and the commitment of the UK Government. There is no point is replacing the alienation of one community with the alienation of another.
I note that Irish nationalists were perfectly happy with the provisions I have talked about concerning the role of the UK Government in facing up to the alienation of one community, when it came to the Irish language Act, which went through in this House and not in the Northern Ireland Assembly. They were very relaxed about that, but there has been much complaint about the Safeguarding the Union document. I understand why there is irritation, but I have tried to explain what it is. It is all about restoring the Good Friday agreement and the centrality of making it work again in future. To do this, the institutions have to be functioning—which they now are.
I will say a few words on the amendment and the issues around the Act of Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, complains, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, complains around irrelevant references about whiskey taxes. Had the proponents of the argument that was put about the Act of Union said at any point that they were aware of the schedule in Article VI which lists all these taxes which provide an Irish Sea border, it would not have been possible in the last couple of weeks for the debate to develop in the way in which it has. Suddenly, it has appeared for the first time that there is an issue, and that Article VI of the Act of Union included a series of what would be called pretty strong Irish Sea border measures. The difficulty would not be felt quite so clearly. It raises the question: had the proponents of this particular argument actually read the full text of the Act of Union? They would not have been vulnerable to what has happened in the last fortnight. They are quite right to say that it is not of itself a decisive point, but they would not have been vulnerable to the point at all had they shown any signs of having read the full document.
In general, I have a feeling that the whole question around the Act of Union lacks any proper historical dimension—any proper respect for the history of ideas. Isaiah Berlin, once said, quoting Immanuel Kant:
“Of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made”.
We are dealing here with the crooked timber of humanity. In the last few days, I have been reading Pitt’s speeches introducing the Act of Union. In general, he calls for equality of treatment for the King’s Irish subjects but then says that there are “unavoidable necessities” which mean “we cannot deliver that”. Straight away we are into the crooked timber of humanity. There is a very important commitment to equal treatment. The Command Paper is an attempt to restore that basic commitment but, for 80 years—or 79, to be precise—there was no equal treatment.
One thing that also frustrates me is the lack of serious discussion of the Command Paper and its historical sections, and the quite trivial level of public debate. It is not just about the history of the Act of Union. It reveals that customs and duties were paid throughout the large life of the Stormont Parliament. Again, this is a function of something else. The Act of Union was designed to create one nation across two countries. It failed. After 120 years, what is now the Republic of Ireland left. The core project failed. On the other hand, it worked in economic and social terms for Northern Ireland, and it emerged that parts of Northern Ireland had been alienated from British rule. Some 120 years later, as Lloyd George put it very precisely in 1920, there is not one people across two islands, there are two peoples on one island.
The Government of Ireland Act comes in at that point. It absolutely specifies that trade is an international matter and not a matter for the Stormont Parliament. We may disagree with that and we may dislike it, but it is absolutely clear. In 1938, when the Anglo-Irish trade agreement was signed, the unionist MPs hated it. They said that it was unequal treatment of Northern Irish businesses. They were completely right in everything that they said in the other place in May 1938, but they also made it clear that it was a matter for this Parliament and we have to accept the will of this Parliament. There is no question of these trade matters being a matter for the Stormont Parliament.
That raises a question: what, therefore, is the pre-protocol status of the Act of Union? It does not have any. At that moment of great challenge, just as a matter of reality, no unionist MP even thought to refer to that Act. Why? It is because they thought the new reality was the Government of Ireland Act, reflecting the fact that there are two Parliaments on the island of Ireland. That is why they do not refer to it, and that is why it is quite difficult to talk about the pre-protocol status of the Act of Union. No unionist MPs seemed to have thought there was any status for the Act of Union at that point.
All this comes down to one thing. For at least 100 years of the union—perhaps more like 120 to 130 years—there was a fairly vigorous Irish Sea border and customs to be paid. The union survived. It tells you something: that the so-called Irish Sea border is not, however defined, and what is intended under Safeguarding the Union is really light compared with the actual provisions that had been the case for more than 100 years of the life of the union. What matters is the political will of the people of Northern Ireland. It is very simple in this respect.
I know it will be said that European law is a separate matter and complicates the issue. Of course it does, but it is also the case that the DUP’s seven tests cannot be made to include European law. When the history is written, the various arguments that they contain something to do with European law will run up against a very obvious problem: “EU law” is a small few words; if you wanted to be explicit about European law it would have been the easiest thing to include them in the seven tests. I know that people will say that this or that other test implies it, but it would have been the easiest thing to be explicit about. This is so obvious that it is an insult to the intelligence of the House to imply anything else. It was obviously a deliberate decision not to mention it in the seven tests. By the way, the idea is that the tests are based on commitments made by British Ministers. They are—they are all based in some way on things that Ministers had said that the people of Northern Ireland should get—but no British Minister said at the time the seven tests were announced, “We’re getting rid of European law”, which is the second reason why there is no possible argument that the seven tests are about European law.
It has also been said tonight that Sir Jeffrey Donaldson is saying some things that he did not say on platforms or during this long campaign. That is true, and a fair point, but the trouble is that people on the other side of this argument are also saying things today that they did not say during this long campaign. It is a game if we get to throwing around quotations. Personally, I do not think we should go there. We should move on. There is a moment now for a new, modernising unionism. I do not know whether the arguments at the weekend in the local press that the centre parties have peaked in Northern Ireland are correct—some of the polling suggests that—but it is certainly the case that a new, modernised unionism has opportunities electorally now that it did not have two weeks ago.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that this humble Address to His Majesty deserves our full and enthusiastic support. It provides an excellent summary of the principles that should guide policy towards both Northern Ireland and British-Irish relations.
It is a great pity that these principles have not been followed consistently over recent years. If they had been firmly upheld at all times, we would have been spared much recent misfortune. The interests of the union would not have been compromised during negotiations over the terms of our withdrawal agreement from the European Union. The Government would have resisted the siren voices promoting their own invention: a fully-fledged all-Ireland economy.
Unionists have always championed cross-border co-operation where it would serve the interests of both sovereign states—difficult though it has been for us to forgive the lack of full security co-operation during the Troubles, when our country had an absolute right to expect it from our neighbour. When I worked for Airey Neave in the late 1970s, I think I spent more time on this issue than on any other.
I hope that the principles that this House is endorsing through this humble Address will be noted and remembered in Dublin. Firmly and consistently applied, they will avoid future misunderstanding. The words “joint authority” should be banished from the political vocabulary. The concept is wholly incompatible with the stability and prosperity of Ulster.
The principles, summarised in the words of the humble Address, are fully and faithfully reflected in the Government’s recent Command Paper, Safeguarding the Union, which naturally looms large in this debate. What a remarkable document it is, even though it is not written in the clear, straightforward prose for which British official publications were once renowned. Control of its drafting should have been placed in the hands of my noble friend Lord Caine. He knows how to expound policy in clear English, as his speeches in and outside Parliament demonstrate. Audiences in the United States in particular have benefited from listening to him.
One reason why the Command Paper is remarkable is that it commits Ministers and officials to a huge amount of extra work. They will be rushed off their feet if the document’s many pledges and promises are to be implemented in full. They will also be adding to the labours of businessmen and many others who will be needed to assist the Government’s bold programme of action.
We are promised an outburst of feverish official activity: 24 separate initiatives are summarised in paragraph 43 of the Command Paper which, it states, are to be
“delivered according to an agreed timetable”.
It would be good to have details of this timetable. I cannot find them anywhere in the Command Paper. The list of new initiatives includes new UK Government structures, new UK Government-Northern Ireland Executive structures, an independent monitoring panel, a new internal market assessment in the regulatory impact assessment process, a strengthened independent review of the Windsor Framework underpinned by a statutory duty, the establishment of a new body to be known as “Intertrade UK”, and a UK east-west council which, among other things,
“will drive engagement aimed at developing and sharing existing clusters of excellence”
and
“scope the establishment of a Northern Ireland Hub in London to provide an increased opportunity for Northern Ireland stakeholder engagement”.
The Government’s hectic programme of promised new work does not stop there. There is much more. We can look forward to a “turbocharged Enhanced Investment Zone”, a horticulture working group, better road connections with Great Britain—though there does not seem to be anything about better air services—investment in ports, a twinning programme for schools, a series of papers which
“will evidence the mutual benefits of Northern Ireland’s place in the Union”,
and a review to increase awareness of the Northern Ireland defence sector.
That is by no means a comprehensive list of the measures that are now to unfold. Even on the last page of the Command Paper the cascade continues. We are told that
“a UK Government Sports Minister will visit within the first month of a new Executive to discuss with the Executive how to take forward the prompt and effective delivery of the Sub-Regional Football Stadia Strategy”
My noble friend Lady Hoey once held the post of Sports Minister. I hope the present incumbent is acquitting himself with the same vigour—a vigour which, as all her speeches show, remains undiminished.
While wondering a little sceptically whether all that has been promised in the Command Paper will actually be accomplished, every unionist in Northern Ireland itself and elsewhere must rejoice that so much action is now contemplated to safeguard the Union, and all of it will benefit the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, whatever their political persuasion.
The numerous commitments that have now been given will enable the Government to carry conviction when they set out, as they undertake to do on page 72 of the Command Paper, to make
“unashamedly ... the positive case for Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom”.
Yet it should never have become necessary for a Government drawn from the Conservative and Unionist Party to make such a declaration. Robust defence of the union should be their unchanging core characteristic. Sadly, it has not been. That is what happens when someone such as Mr Boris Johnson is given charge of our country’s affairs. The Conservative and Unionist Party has ground to make up.
We unionists will not go far wrong if we stick to the precepts of the great Lord Castlereagh, the principal architect of the Act of Union, who gets a mention in the Command Paper. At the time of his death in 1822, the Duke of Wellington’s brother described Castlereagh as a man whose life had been
“most favourable to all the just views and interests of our Roman Catholic fellow subjects, and most practically beneficial to the general welfare, happiness and prosperity of Ireland”.
The new spirit of zeal which the Command Paper is designed to instil into the Government of Northern Ireland is not yet apparent here in London. I recently had the great good fortune to become a member of the European Affairs Select Committee’s Sub-Committee on the Windsor Framework. Ministers are, at the moment, taking far too long to reply to the urgent matters that the sub-committee brings before them. When replies do come, they tend to be incomplete or evasive. We are fortunate to have a chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who constantly reminds Ministers of their duties to us.
I end where I began by praising the words of this humble Address. It might perhaps have been even better with the addition of an extra sentence. Would it not have been appropriate for us to express our thanks to His Majesty and members of the Royal Family for their unswerving commitment to all the people of Northern Ireland, and for their contribution to British-Irish relations? A list of the engagements they have carried out in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic would be of formidable length. So many communities of all kinds, and so many individuals within them, will have cause to remember the interest that a royal visitor took in them, often assisting them in circumstances of grave distress. It is a record of service that has undoubtedly meant a great deal to that portion of our country for whose greater stability and prosperity we must all strive.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, those who have shown a keen interest in Northern Ireland affairs understand that the protocol that was foisted upon the people of Northern Ireland caused real damage to stability in our Province, even though it was heralded by many in this House as positive and something that should be embraced by all. It was claimed that the protocol was seeking to safeguard and preserve the core principles of the Belfast agreement, but in fact it had the opposite effect.
The lesson from these past years is the necessity to have a consensus in a divided community—not the usual pandering over the years to republican demands but a genuine consensus from both unionists and nationalists at every juncture. It has been the convention of Stormont since 1972, some 26 years before the Belfast agreement, that controversial decisions cannot be made on a majoritarian basis. Indeed, the use of majoritarian votes, which are to be returned in November, was peddled as the republican excuse for the Troubles and was abandoned.
How have we got to where we are today? With the protocol having caused such damage to Northern Ireland’s constitutional position within the United Kingdom, and indeed to our economy, it was modified by the Windsor Framework—another short-term fix seeking to cobble together something that would, it was hoped, pull the wool over the eyes of unionists and allow normal programming to proceed.
The Democratic Unionist Party laid before the people of Northern Ireland seven solemn tests. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, may not know this, but we do know what those seven tests really mean. It was by those tests which any deal would be measured, and I have not deviated from the true spirit of those tests. The Government have now got the Northern Ireland Assembly up and running, and, personally, I believe that is all they really cared about. But those who are unionists by conviction must constantly hold this Government’s feet to the fire.
We would be foolish to accept mere promises or empty rhetoric from this Government, recognising that successive Governments have broken promises to the people of Northern Ireland in the past. In recent debates, Members of this House warned us that, if we did not accept what was offered in the Windsor Framework, we would be heading to joint authority between London and Dublin. That was the big stick that was wielded over our heads. Yet in the other place yesterday—this is amazing—the Alliance Member of Parliament, Stephen Farry, said
“I too am happy to put on record that I do not believe that joint authority is part of the Good Friday agreement”.
It is amazing that he did not share this statement with his colleagues in this House. Of course, we need to note that he acknowledges this now, when the Assembly has been restored. It was good enough for his friend the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, to threaten us with this during the debates in this House, as if it was included in the Belfast agreement. Indeed, they are all coming out of the woodwork now, for the shadow Secretary of State Hilary Benn MP, in yesterday’s debate in the other place, also said
“it is simply a fact that the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 do not provide for joint authority with the Irish Government over what happens inside Northern Ireland. That is also acknowledged by the Irish Government”. —[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/24; cols. 63 and 74]
However, we all know that the Irish Government have sought to interfere in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, even telling us that the basis on which the Assembly operates should be changed. We all know that there are those who want the principle of consent to be done away with, and any unionist who enters into such negotiations to that end would be surrendering to a full-blooded republican agenda in Northern Ireland.
The humble Address that has been moved by the Minister is supposed to give the unionist people of Northern Ireland reassurance and comfort. But when one delves into its substance, one has to ask: does it? It reaffirms the importance of upholding the Belfast agreement of 1998 in all its strands, and I welcome the desire expressed. However, on examination, do the current arrangements have that effect? Do they not rather place them in jeopardy, such that they should be changed as a matter of the greatest urgency?
The heart of that agreement was cross-community consent, but that has not been upheld. The consent principle was heralded as a bedrock of the agreement of 1998 and was respected from 1998 until 2020. The Belfast agreement is a treaty in international law that states that any change in the status of Northern Ireland must only be with the consent of the majority of its people. But at the behest of the European Union, there has been a change to the voting arrangements in the Assembly. Since 1992, votes and issues that have been contentious could not be decided on a majority basis, but the Minister knows full well that arrangements that undermine the principle of consent have already been put in place. The Windsor Framework directly violates the consent principle—even though this humble Address states the opposite. It involves far-reaching constitutional change transferring 300 areas of law to a legislature including the Irish Republic but excluding the United Kingdom without the prior consent of the people of Northern Ireland; nor do the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland have any power to change them. There has been much talk of the Stormont brake as the way to stop the EU juggernaut in its tracks, but where the Stormont brake applies we have to accept that the Assembly has the demeaning right only to try to stop laws that have already been made for us by a foreign Parliament—so much for consent and democracy.
Through the determined efforts of my colleagues, some important changes have been made, but a few words in an humble Address to His Majesty will not undo the serious damage that has been done to our constitutional position within the union. This Government’s surrendering to the demands from the European Union has undermined our relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. In many areas of our lives, we are termed legally as “a third country”—not as an integral part of the United Kingdom. Our current arrangements may technically be acceptable from the vantage point of the way our dualist system approaches international law, but they are not remotely acceptable in terms of an humble Address which implies that we are fully compliant with the requirements of the Belfast agreement, when nothing can be further from the truth—at least be honourable enough to tell the people the truth.
Let us not forget that this Address is not an address to anyone but an humble Address to His Majesty the King, and, as such, Parliament has a particularly developed obligation to speak the truth. Therefore, it must be pointed out that rather than respecting the Belfast agreement, which we are constantly reminded is the binding international law, we have since 1 January 2021 flouted it, and we continue to do so. Rather than standing up to the EU, our Government have simply abandoned the principle of consent and in November of this year, Northern Ireland will be travelling back in time for its first majoritarian vote on a matter of great controversy for over 50 years. That vote cannot be regarded as a vote in one job lot on all the laws imposed in the last four years. Quite apart from the fact that you cannot deal with four years of legislation in a single vote, a no vote would not result in the repeal of those laws; it is actually a Stormont vote to cede power for a period of years to a group of states including the Republic of Ireland and excluding the United Kingdom and would be the most controversial vote in the history of Stormont. Of course, we know that, as usual, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance Party et cetera will all be delighted to slavishly obey their masters in Europe.
There is no doubt in my mind that, no matter how flowery or honeyed the words uttered in this humble Address or in the assurances given, we in Northern Ireland have in a number of areas been detached from the mainstream British economy, and that can be rectified only when 300 areas of law are removed and brought under the control of our local elected assembly, when the principle of consent is restored as proposed under the Belfast agreement, and when the Irish Sea border is dismantled and Dublin’s interference in our internal affairs ceases. We as unionists have a positive case to present, but we must honestly admit there is much more work to be done to arrest the undermining of the union and stop the eroding of important aspects of our constitutional position within our precious United Kingdom. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, were to press her amendment to a vote, I would certainly join her in the Lobby.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, I rise in praise of the humble Address today and join other noble Lords in recalling with pleasure the memory of the late Lord Cormack. He touched many of our lives in this House—mine included, because he was a proud son of Grimsby, a Grimbarian in the local parlance, where he ran for Parliament in 1966 in a massive losing campaign against Anthony Crosland. I ran many years later in 1997 and he taught me many good lessons, not least the virtue of losing graciously. I hope that it does not strike too partisan a tone in this House tonight to say that we both derived tremendous pleasure when, for the first time since 1935, a Conservative was elected there in 2019 as part of the tumbling of the red wall.
I also wish to express my appreciation for my noble friend Lord Caine and his efforts as these labours with the Windsor Framework and its outworkings come to a conclusion. Though principally a matter for the Cabinet Office and for the FCDO, much of the burden has fallen on him in this House and not always in easy circumstances, as indeed was the case with the legacy legislation which he shepherded through here. He is of course the institutional memory of the Conservative and Unionist Party on the Front Bench, along with my noble friend Lord Lexden, and I pay tribute to him in this context.
Our business tonight focuses on the humble Address, principally the Windsor Framework and its outworkings, as I have said. Perhaps the most important commitment in the Belfast agreement is that of the two Governments in the British-Irish agreement—one of many endorsed by the parties to the agreement—to respect the legitimacy of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland to maintain the union. The Command Paper, Safeguarding the Union, which sets out the measures to maintain the union, is entirely in line with that core principle and commitment in the Belfast agreement.
In 1998, my late friend Lord Trimble negotiated the Belfast agreement. One of his key concerns was ensuring that what was termed Strand Three, or the east-west links, was not exclusively about London-Dublin but rather was balanced by links that included and recognised Northern Ireland, thus strengthening its place within the union under that Strand Three. Few unionists, me included, appreciated his concerns at the time, but time has vindicated his approach.
Time has also vindicated his focus on winning the incorporation of the British-Irish Council alongside the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference within that overall Strand Three route. Again, that demonstrates that the east-west arrangements set out in the Belfast agreement were not merely confined to relations between the Republic and the UK but played an important part in the UK Government’s arguments that the protocol was not protecting the Belfast agreement. That is a far-sighted achievement on the part of my late friend Lord Trimble. I am sure that he would now be an enthusiastic supporter of the east-west council and would be pleased by its association in the Command Paper with the British-Irish Council, which he fought for 26 years ago.
My late friend Lord Trimble’s other great success in 1998 that influenced the outcome of these recent negotiations was his refusal to countenance any reference to the all-island economy in the Belfast agreement. When Theresa May agreed the September 2017 joint report, with its acceptance of the application of EU law in Northern Ireland to “support … the all-island economy”, Lord Trimble was stirred to action. Writing in June 2019 a paper for the Policy Exchange think tank, which I work for, he wrote that the all-island economy was
“politically and ideologically motivated, not pragmatic. It is also not consensual — and it is consent that is the true underpinning of North-South co-operation”.
His efforts led to the removal of any reference to the all-island economy from the revised protocol in October 2019. I am glad to be able to say that the Government will remove the requirement for Ministers to pay due attention to the protection of the all-island economy in relation to goods. Thus is the last mention of the all-island economy removed from our statute book. I know how pleased he would have been that the long push-back that he initiated against giving any legal acknowledgment to the concept of an all-island economy is now to be completed.
I reiterate that I applaud the Government for being so forthright in demonstrating their commitment to maintaining the union, the maintenance of which continues to have the overwhelming support of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. Their actions are therefore entirely consistent with the principle of consent, which, as indicated earlier, remains at the heart of the Belfast agreement.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I want to pay my respects to Lord Cormack, who was a great friend to me from the time when I first went to work for the House magazine, where he was a senior editor. He was kind to me then and when I came into this House many years ago. We had many great conversations about Northern Ireland as well as about the Catholic Church and the Church of England. He used to call me a cradle Catholic—which at the time, until I got a bit happier about it, used to infuriate me—but I really loved Patrick and I am sorry for his family. We in this House will miss him deeply.
I welcome the debate tonight on the humble Address, which I support. I am proud to sit on the Windsor Framework Sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who has been very patient with us over the years in guiding us through many discussions and visits to Northern Ireland. I will not repeat the words that we heard from my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, but the committee has been treated badly in terms of replies to letters we have sent to Ministers, responses from civil servants and attendance by Ministers. That has been a disgrace. It is all in writing and we know what has happened, but it is important that that is repeated yet again today—without going through the litany that the noble Lord kindly put to the House.
I congratulate the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. I hope that, with support, they will be able to continue to take Northern Ireland through to its next stages.
I reaffirm the importance of the Good Friday agreement, with all its strands. Not only is the agreement important to the future of Northern Ireland; it is also important for the future of other peace agreements. The Good Friday agreement has lasted longer than any other peace agreement, and that is because it was also signed by women. Women were part of that agreement—they were at the table—and will continue to be part of such agreements. It is vital that this Government continue to promise that women will be at the peace table, especially now that we are looking at Ukraine or Palestine and Israel, because we have seen what women bring to it.
What they brought as part of the Good Friday agreement was the promise of investment. That has come not only from the EU but, thanks to the American Government and the work of Senator Joe Kennedy III, from companies coming to Northern Ireland not only from Ireland itself but from around the world. That has helped the economy, and the peace, of Northern Ireland. When people have work and money in their pockets so they can support their families and themselves, that makes a difference. That investment must continue for the future.
That brings me to the British Government and the Northern Ireland economy. They must put money into the health service because at present we know that a number of operations, especially for children, are being done in Ireland itself, and we are grateful to the Irish Government. The Erasmus+ programme for students from Northern Ireland is also being funded by Ireland itself.
Further, we should have money into education. We have just seen in the last few days that the integrated education programme has been cut. Again, that is vital to peace in Northern Ireland. As a Catholic, I can see why it is important that we have integrated education in Northern Ireland in particular and in other countries in the same situation. I look to the Government to replace that money for integrated education. A huge amount of money needs to be given to the schools of Northern Ireland, where repairs are needed.
My noble friend mentioned levelling-up money. A lot of work needs to be done on levelling up, as well as repairs on housing estates. If you go and see those, you will see that it is not fair to expect people to live in some of the accommodation that they are living in. For the peace to continue, the Government must put money into health and education, as we agreed in the Good Friday agreement, and must continue to encourage investment from outside. That is why I remind us what it involves for the UK. Continuing to reaffirm the European Convention on Human Rights is also vital.
We welcome the return of the devolved Government, the Assembly and the Executive, and we welcome the belated return of the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland, which have been too long not there to give leadership to the people of Northern Ireland. They must endure. That is of course in no way contrary to the great importance of the joint working and full co-operation between the UK and Irish Governments.
The Acts of Union 1800 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 obviously continue to apply. They are the elements of the sovereign Parliament that will remain good law until they are amended by Parliament. It must be clear that they are not entrenched nor constantly fundamental. What Parliament has done, Parliament can change. That might be academic at the moment but may not always be so. A future Parliament will represent the public in future years. No section of opinion has a permanent or indefinite veto or stronghold in relation to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland or otherwise.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Motion moved by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, regarding the humble Address being presented to His Majesty. The Motion deals with a number of issues: the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland; reaffirming the importance of upholding the Belfast agreement, even when the Government have driven a horse and cart through it on occasions; the whole issue of the agreement—which is not actually in the agreement—of joint authority; and acknowledging the fundamental importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article VI of those Acts.
As I say, the debate in this House is welcome. Any debate that highlights the economic benefit of the union has to be welcome. However, I say to the House, as I have said here before, that neither Parliament nor the courts ultimately decide Northern Ireland’s future. It is the people of Northern Ireland who will decide our future in the United Kingdom. Our job as unionists is to continue to persuade the majority that they are better off in a United Kingdom. We can bring all the Motions that we want concerning the union economically and socially, and that is all very good, but we are the custodians of the union now and in the future.
It is very important that we address some of the issues. Certainly, I am proud of Northern Ireland for delivering the terms of a growing manufacturing industry. I will give an example. Right now, one in three aircraft seats in every aircraft across the world is manufactured in Northern Ireland. Every Airbus wing includes components manufactured in Northern Ireland. We also have a growing world-class creative industry, as is evidenced by the number of new films and television series that are being produced in Northern Ireland. These are all growing the economy.
We have a talented workforce. The costs of establishing a business in Northern Ireland are roughly 40% lower than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As a result of recent negotiations, we have won further access to the UK internal market. As our economy grows, further support for the union will also grow. That is a very important point to make.
I believe that delivering effective government for our people is necessary. Working alongside this Parliament now and in the future, we must continue to ensure that Northern Ireland will benefit and play its full part alongside England, Scotland and Wales in the long-term future growth of this United Kingdom. On these Benches, we will continue to loudly campaign to champion policies that will benefit and support families and businesses across Northern Ireland and all parts of this United Kingdom.
As a devolutionist, I want devolved government to succeed in Northern Ireland. I want to see decisions taken on education, health, the economy and many other issues. Decisions that impact the lives of people are best taken at local level in Northern Ireland. We all know how direct rule worked in the past. We were there. Direct rule Ministers flew into Northern Ireland, flew out of Northern Ireland, and made decisions over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland with no accountability whatever. Direct rule did not work and was not best for Northern Ireland. I know from speaking to many Ministers in those days that they really did not want to take the decisions. They were continually saying, “These are decisions that should be taken by local Ministers”, and rightly so.
I welcome the recent efforts by the Government, working alongside my party, to find a way forward on issues surrounding the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework. Leadership is about making the difficult decisions. We can all stand on the sideline and make the easy decisions, but then, when you are in the heat of the kitchen, you have to make the decision. I believe that my party leader and my party were right to make the decision that they made to get back into the Assembly and work the Assembly, but it is work that is not finished. Let us continue to work with this Government to keep their feet to the fire in all of the issues that have been mentioned tonight.
For unionism to prosper in the decades to come, it must be inclusive. Unionism must maximise its potential. We can get there by making Northern Ireland work as a full and equal part of this United Kingdom. For Northern Ireland to work, our Government need to work as well. The system of devolution in Northern Ireland is far from perfect. In many areas, there needs to be improvement, but it must always be on a basis that can command cross-community support. When they are operational, for all their problems—and there are many problems that this Assembly and Executive are going to have—the Stormont Assembly and Executive are accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. They are there to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. That is an important point. They should now get on with the job and deliver for the people.
It is very clear that power sharing works only with consent across the community. Indeed, cross-community consent was the very basis of the agreement that so many claim to understand and champion. The arrangements within the Northern Ireland protocol did not have the consent of the unionist communities. My colleagues here in this Chamber argued that particular point for months and years, to the point that we felt at one time that nobody was really listening. We said that the protocol did not have the support of the unionist community. While others called for its implementation, dismissing the concerns of unionists, my party continued to work to find a way forward.
I can remember that we were told by some noble Lords in this Chamber that this was an international agreement and just could not be changed. We would just have to suck it up and get on with it. We were able to go in and negotiate a change to the protocol, which ended up as the Windsor Framework. It still did not go far enough to do what was needed to be done, but we proved the point that, as we argued in this House, when it came to an international agreement, yes, it could be changed. That is important.
I also welcome InterTrade UK, which will cover not only the availability of goods in Northern Ireland but trade across the UK—between Scotland and England, England and Wales, and so on. This welcome development will, I hope, encourage greater investment, co-operation and trade within the United Kingdom. Here in the United Kingdom, we have a market in the region of 60 million people. It is the second-biggest market in Europe, and we should be selling more of our own goods to our people across this nation. It is the responsibility of us all to develop and enhance stronger bonds and links across this United Kingdom.
I welcome too the monitoring committee, the east-west council and the new provisions on rest-of-the-world products. The Government’s commitment to stand by Northern Ireland in the absence of a resolution on veterinary medicines is also to be welcomed. That is a very important point to make in this House, because veterinary medicine has become a big issue here and in the other place.
My party has often been blamed for many of the problems that flowed from the Government’s unforgivable move when the protocol was initially implemented. It is regrettable that, on that occasion, government promises were not kept. We were let down by the Johnson Government—by a Prime Minister who told us that there would be an Irish Sea border over his dead body and then, to add insult to injury, came to Northern Ireland and said that publicly. But he went a step further, telling the business community when it asked what to do about all the paperwork relating to the Irish Sea border, “Send it to me and we’ll tear it up and bin it.” You can understand why unionists mistrust this Government—and it had taken a long time to build that trust. I am not sure whether that trust is fully instilled in us yet, as a party and a Government. I hope that it is, and that we can move on from those days.
It is my hope that Stormont is now back up and running and that, with the continued work on the remaining issues and with these new measures agreed, Northern Ireland can start moving forward again as an important part of this United Kingdom. My colleagues here have rightly raised a number of issues and concerns, and I hope the Government will take them on board and deal with them. My colleagues have a right to hold those concerns, and it is only right that the Government try to address them. That would be an important start.
The case for the union is a compelling one. Maintaining the union is the responsibility of us all. All those who value and respect our United Kingdom, across all its parts, must seize the opportunity before us to promote and safeguard it for future generations.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the Motion on the humble Address before us this evening. I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The economic and cultural ties that bond the various parts of this nation are unmatched. Developing strong links across these isles and our open UK markets have brought huge benefits to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for decades.
Unionism in its simplest form is a desire to remain part of the United Kingdom family. Inside this union, everything we have built together is the source of three centuries of mutual co-operation, work and prosperity. We share not only a currency union, a language and common standards; we are socially integrated too. Our strongest cultural bonds, interests, histories and values are the ones we share right across the United Kingdom. A strong United Kingdom, growing together, is in all our interests—now and long into the future. We have a duty to continue working to protect and strengthen the bonds in the United Kingdom.
I contend that there has never been a more important moment to discuss strengthening these bonds than now. For long-term peace, prosperity and growth to continue, all parts of the United Kingdom must play a full and equal part in its future development. That future development needs to include Northern Ireland. We must continue to work together across all corners of our United Kingdom to strengthen these bonds.
Since the outset of the United Kingdom Government’s negotiations with the European Union, my noble friends and I warned that the European Union had the potential to inflict significant economic damage on one part of the United Kingdom and thus on our sovereignty. Fundamentally, the root cause of the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol and Windsor Framework arrangements is the continued application of EU law in Northern Ireland—in particular, its covering all manufacturing of goods in Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they are being sold in the United Kingdom or to the European Union.
The protocol/Windsor Framework arrangements have been deeply regrettable. There are numerous examples of sea border checks disrupting businesses, and we have seen the damage done as a result of economic barriers being erected between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Businesses have regularly faced, and many continue to face, obstacles. The volume of trade movements across the Irish Sea has been falling since the imposition of the Irish Sea border. It has been clear for some time that haulage companies based in Northern Ireland whose business model is predicated on being part of the United Kingdom economy face real hurdles in terms of cost implications and bureaucracy.
The numerous trading difficulties resulting from the protocol have highlighted the need for further steps to be taken. It is regrettable that a Motion such as today’s is even necessary. The Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework certainly did not respect the foundational importance of the Acts of Union. Of course, I welcome the recent efforts to find a solution to the issues surrounding the Northern Ireland protocol. There has undoubtedly been some little progress made. I welcome InterTrade UK and provisions aimed at easing trade friction, including the monitoring committee, the east-west council and the new provisions relating to rest-of-world products. However, much work lies ahead, and these issues have been far from adequately addressed.
I recognise that some decisions have been made that will smooth the operation of trade which impacts businesses in Northern Ireland. There will, I understand, also be a reduction in some checks, and this too is to be welcomed. However, it is also very clear that an economic border remains in place and that ultimately, the European Union has the final say in many significant areas. Paperwork will continue to be required for customs purposes, and already we see border posts being built in Northern Ireland ports. Northern Ireland will continue in many ways to be treated as an EU territory. Many questions remain and we will continue to engage with the Government on all of these. Indeed, under Article 12 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which remains unchanged, the EU can direct UK authorities at ports.
It is clear that we have not yet arrived at a point where friction is completely gone and there are zero checks and zero paperwork for goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland continues to adhere to the EU customs code, and 1.9 million UK citizens remain disfranchised. Northern Ireland Ministers and Assembly Members in Northern Ireland will be expected by law to adhere to and implement laws being made in Brussels and Strasbourg—not here, not in the other place, and not in the devolved Assembly at Stormont. Friction and barriers therefore remain between parts of the United Kingdom. These barriers are not solely economic. They are constitutionally significant, because laws and diktats identical to those imposed on Northern Ireland govern trade in the Irish Republic. Northern Ireland therefore remains in dynamic alignment in many areas not with the rest of the United Kingdom but with the EU and therefore with the Republic of Ireland.
My party is a devolutionist party. We want to see governance in Northern Ireland which works and which operates on the basis of consensus. There was no consent within unionism for the Northern Ireland protocol or for barriers being implemented between parts of the United Kingdom. Problems that still exist with the protocol/Windsor Framework mean that the rights of the people of Northern Ireland have not yet been fully restored. If Northern Ireland citizens and businesses are to be treated as equal to our fellow Britons elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the constitutional integrity of the UK internal market must be fully restored. To arrive there, we must respect and fully restore the Acts of Union for Northern Ireland, and fully, not partially, remove the Irish Sea border. Attaining the changes needed will require further legislation, further efforts and co-operation. I hope and trust that the Government will provide an update on the timetable for this work. I also ask the Minister for an update on a timetable for Northern Ireland setting its own VAT rules.
For those of us who value our place in the United Kingdom, safeguarding and protecting Northern Ireland’s long-term place inside the UK internal market and inside the union is the most important responsibility we have. Northern Ireland remains governed by a swathe of EU laws we cannot legally change. Further EU regulations will still cause Northern Ireland to diverge from the rest of the United Kingdom in a number of areas. We must continue to work to address these outstanding issues.
The rights of the people of Northern Ireland under the Acts of Union have not been fully restored. While I welcome some government promises and future legislation, I feel there is some way to go before we can say that these issues have been adequately addressed. We are committed to continuing to raise these issues and to working with other noble Lords, the Minister and the Government to resolve the issues. The work must be about delivering on the commitments given to fully protect Northern Ireland’s place within United Kingdom. I desire to see a thriving Northern Ireland where all communities are at peace with one another and enjoy the benefits of being an important part of this United Kingdom.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, one of my mistakes—and I have made many as Primate of All Ireland—was the occasion when I invited the late Patrick Cormack to visit St Patrick’s cathedral in Armagh. I prided myself that, having shown many visitors round that sacred building, I had very little to learn. Within 10 minutes of the start of our tour, I had lost myself completely. He knew dates, facts, figures, measurements; he knew quotations, he knew the names of my predecessors, right back to St Patrick. I felt ashamed of my stance on that occasion.
That was only one part of a very long friendship I had with Patrick. It started when he was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee; it endured the variations leading to the Downing Street Declaration; it endured disagreements; it endured the situation when the new Bishop of Lincoln was introduced to this House and said of himself “I am the other Bishop of Lincoln”. For Patrick was wrapped in his faith, his church, his beliefs and love of this building. I am so glad tonight to have heard the frequent references to him. I believe, had he been spared, he would have been sitting at the end of that Bench, because Northern Ireland was very much engraved on his heart, rightly or wrongly. I will miss him, and I think, in its own way, Northern Ireland will as well.
Tonight, I believe, is, in its own way, a turning point. We have heard numerous references to disappointment and to failures of the document we are discussing, worries about its long-term effects and that much is needed to be done, even now, to make it acceptable and worth while. But tonight’s debate would not be taking place had it not been for one simple fact: Stormont is back—Stormont, with its shortcomings, its failures, yes, and its history. I speak as the grandson of a member of the former Lord Brookeborough’s Government all those years ago. With all its failures, with all its shortcomings, Northern Ireland has got its Stormont back.
Despite all we have listened to and the sincerity with which it has been expressed by those who have had to pay a great price politically for taking the stance that they have—let us acknowledge that—my belief tonight is that this place of so much history, back in operation, can represent a turning point in so much of the other problems that we know exist.
We can talk about Brexit, Europe, former Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State—we can go on all night, and at one stage tonight I felt that we might. We can go on listing the various shortcomings and giving thanks to those who have brought us to the point at which this local Administration or Government—call them what you will—will tackle local issues, but the fetters on allowing them to do so must be removed. That is up to the British Government.
We heard tonight about some of those difficulties, but I will concentrate in only a few words on one aspect of how I see the current situation. I think of our young people. I think of those at university and school, for whom much that we endured and came through is only a page in a history book. Not for them the endless funerals, the endless explosions and the endless suffering, but they are a part of us who are here and have come to this point in the history of Northern Ireland. Whether for the politicians or for those of us who, like me, knelt beside many bedsides and stood beside many graves, today could be a turning point.
The phrase I want to put on record is this: look forward. Learn from the mistakes and hurt of the past but, in God’s name, look ahead for the sake of the generation of Roman Catholic, Protestant and non-believing young people. Look ahead and give them the opportunities that history has bequeathed to them.
I have often said in debates on Northern Ireland in this House that I respect the efforts made by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, in having to deal, time and again, with the vicissitudes of Northern Ireland life. I am glad that tribute has been paid to him on several occasions tonight. I do so again, because we have been blessed, despite the shortcomings of policies that have annoyed us, by the personality and sincerity of Jonathan Caine. I want to voice that personally and on behalf of many others who are not here.
My experience of Northern Ireland has been to share the frustration of so many ordinary, decent people of all religious faiths or none that we seem to be blundering from one so-called failure or let-down to another. Now we believe in our hearts that there is the chance to move forward as part of the United Kingdom and, with our Scottish, Welsh and English colleagues, to build new understandings, sympathy and strength from our united front to face, in a very troubled world, the issues facing the next generation.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
Follow that, my Lords. It is always a privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who always speaks with such authority, common sense and passion, and this evening he surpassed himself.
I, too, will begin by paying tribute to Lord Cormack. He was incredibly kind to me when I was a new Member of this House. He always looked on in a benign, almost school-teachery way. I found myself agreeing with him rather more often than I would have expected, as we would nod to one another during some of the debates on Northern Ireland and Brexit. His contributions were based on experience and common sense and were always extremely well judged. He will be sorely missed. I, too, from these Benches pass on our condolences to his family.
This has been a wide-ranging debate about identity, with some anger and passion. There have been some very good historical speeches; it is always dangerous to highlight some in particular, but I particularly enjoyed the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bew. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, also brought an element of common sense and pragmatism. I even found myself agreeing with elements of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, which was a refreshing change.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
Never again, no.
The context for the debate, both in this Chamber today and in the other place yesterday, is the extremely welcome return of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, which we have already debated in this Chamber on several occasions. I, too, once again place on record my gratitude to the Minister, who has personally led the way so often on taking the stalemate forward. The deal was supported by the leadership of the DUP—although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, for those listening to today’s debate it has not always been apparent from the DUP Benches—and holding this debate was in fact part of that deal.
It is understandable that noble Lords from the DUP feel extremely strongly that they have been let down; there were some powerful speeches on that. They feel that they have been let down on several occasions since Brexit, perhaps particularly by the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. They feel that they have been lied to and that, rightly, some of the past agreements to try to get over the impasse have been ever so slightly overspun; the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, spoke rather marvellously on that point.
This erosion of trust has led many to feel that their place in the union was not as secure as it once was. On the other hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, made clear in her very strong speech that she feels that not enough has been done to give recognition in the Command Paper that there is another point of view. She even went so far as to say that she felt that it has deviated from the principles set down in the Good Friday/Belfast agreement.
On the deal itself that helped to take us to this position, I thank the Minister for his letter yesterday evening, which was still slightly short on the detail as to how some of the structures will work in practice, such as the east-west council and InterTrade UK. Instead of repeating my questions, I place on record just that I look forward to reading the guidance eventually and seeing the Minister’s future replies on these matters.
As other noble Lords have said, I hope in many ways that, following this debate, we can begin to move on. With the return of a functioning Assembly and Executive, we can begin to focus on solutions and practical alternatives, as well as vital issues for ordinary people in Northern Ireland, such as health, education and the economy. Northern Ireland has tremendous potential, with its access to trade and opportunities that other parts of the UK can be quite envious of.
The second part of the context of the debate is the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is a union made up of four separate parts, each with their own distinct and powerful histories. At present, it just so happens that all four parts of the United Kingdom have different political leaderships from different political complexions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, hinted in his speech, making this work, as somebody who believes strongly in devolution, has not always been easy. In fact, respect and consultation are not all that they have been. Now that the Assembly and the Executive are back, I hope that the Minister will be able to concentrate on the consent and consultation mechanisms between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom to make sure that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are properly and fully consulted in a timely manner.
On a personal level, I have very much benefited from the union. I am a Scot whose father was born in Enniskillen in Northern Ireland. I have a UK passport and an Irish passport. I left Scotland in 1990 and have since lived in London and Broadstairs in Kent and in the past lived in Brussels. I am strongly opposed to Scottish independence and the break-up of the union but do not think that you can simply declare or legislate to say that the union is a good thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Hay, said in his very positive speech, we have to demonstrate the purpose and added value of the union in the context of the 21st century and the global challenges we face. It is up to all of us who believe in the union to make sure that it is fit for purpose and that people see its added value.
The third element of the context of our debate this evening is the reaffirmation of support for the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and all its strands. Many noble Lords present this evening—including obviously the noble Lord, Lord Murphy—were personally involved with negotiating that agreement. There are also many here this evening who personally experienced violence during the Troubles, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, reminded us so powerfully of the importance of remembering the past as well as looking to the future.
However, it is important to acknowledge there is now also a generation in Northern Ireland who have grown up since the signing of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement—people who have personally never known that violence. They have known only the more prosperous and peaceful times in Northern Ireland. That generation have a different world view from many of the noble Lords who have spoken here this evening. Sense of identity is changing in Northern Ireland. As my noble friend Lord Alderdice said when we last debated these matters on 13 February:
“there is an emergent third community, which has a very strong view about things and which is not partisan unionist and not partisan nationalist. It takes a view that what we want to do is to find what is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 13/2/24; col. 227.]
It is also worth recalling that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was agreed at a time when the United Kingdom was still in the European Union, and the European Union played a very important role in providing the context for the negotiations towards peace. It remains an incredibly positive and important document. It is an agreement that has been used across the world as a positive example of how a peaceful settlement can be brought about. However, the agreement is not set in aspic. Like all documents based on a series of compromises, it has to be a living document which changes and adapts to the changing circumstances in which we find ourselves. The very fact that we have had five of the last seven years—as the Minister reminded us—without a functioning Assembly and Executive shows that there is a need to revisit whether there are ways to bring about greater stability to the institutions. As I mentioned earlier, there is now also a sizeable alternative view, perhaps mostly represented by Alliance in Northern Ireland. That is another area where I believe we should look at some elements of reform.
A lot has happened since the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement but it is still, I believe, an inspirational document. I was looking at it again at the weekend just to remind myself of the text. It is worth recalling that paragraph 3 of the declaration of support states:
“We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships within Northern Ireland, between North and South, and between these islands”.
In recent years, some of this sense of mutual respect and trust has been eroded but I sincerely hope that, for the sake of Northern Ireland, we can begin now to see a return of these values. To quote the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, it is welcome that Stormont is back and for the future generation we should celebrate that.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, on occasions such as this. She, like others, made reference to Lord Patrick Cormack. I want to put on record my thanks for his friendship over the years. I knew him for approximately 34 years, and the last major occasion I was with him was when he showed me around Lincoln Cathedral. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said, I could say nothing at all. It was a wonderful visit. We will miss him as a great man—a good Christian man—and may he rest in peace.
We should also thank the Secretary of State, and particularly in this place the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for the work that he has done over the last months in bringing about the restoration of the institutions. I also want to give my best wishes and congratulations to Sir Jeffrey Donaldson on the work that he has done. I fundamentally disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on what she said with regard to him, and as a consequence, if these matters are put to a vote later, the Opposition will oppose the amendment but support the Motion.
Much reference has been made to the Good Friday agreement. As your Lordships know, I played some part in that, both in chairing the talks on Strands One and Three and in partly writing those parts of the agreement. It is good that the humble Address refers to the Good Friday agreement in all its parts. That is the point: when the Assembly and the Executive were not functioning, the other strands ceased to exist. Therefore there is no north/south ministerial body and no British-Irish Council. It all goes—it all collapses. If there ever was a breach of the Good Friday agreement, it was the collapse of the institutions, because they are central to it now.
I understand the reasons why that happened over the last couple of years, and a number of Peers today have indicated, in great detail and with great passion, why they still feel that things are not right. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, talked about compromise, and ultimately that is what this is. The Good Friday agreement was a compromise, but we had to do it for it to get through. No one can get everything they want.
Let us look at those three strands. On Strand One, no one has really mentioned the issue of money but it ought to be mentioned and a question asked to the Minister about it. It is absolutely wonderful that the Assembly is up and running and that the Executive are functioning again, but they have huge challenges, particularly in the health service and other public services. I therefore hope that the financial arrangements in the agreement will hold, and that the difficulties currently described by the Executive can be dealt with.
It was great too to see the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister together on the very day that the Assembly was restored—two women, incidentally, leading the people of Northern Ireland. It was a great picture. I agree with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, that it was a turning point, and we have to take advantage of that. The noble Lord, Lord Hay, quite rightly gave a very optimistic speech—and why should we not be optimistic? The institutions are back and the politicians are hard at work. Yes, there are difficulties and problems, but we have to look not just to the present but to the future in all this.
On Strand Two, there is no question in my mind that it really was not talked about at all during the negotiations over the last number of months. In fact, in the Command Paper, which was nearly 80 pages, I do not think you will see a reference to a nationalist issue. I know that the reason for the negotiations was to ensure that the unionist community was reassured—of course I understand that. However, we have to remember that progress is impossible in Northern Ireland—this is the whole basis of the Good Friday agreement—unless you are able to embrace everybody, all the 2 million people who live in Northern Ireland, whether they be nationalists, unionists or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, others. My noble friend Lady Ritchie made it absolutely clear that this is a vital aspect which the Government must address.
The noble Lord, Lord Godson, rightly referred to Strand Three and the work of the late David Trimble. In some ways, it was the least controversial of the areas we discussed in respect of the Good Friday agreement, but in another it was one of the most important, because it referred to the east-west relationship. I would like the Minister to reflect on that and to come back to us as soon as he can on the interrelationship between the institutions set up by Strand Three—the British-Irish Council in particular, and, of course, the new east-west body and the intertrade body. Where do they link in?
The point the noble Lord, Lord Godson, rightly made was that Strand Three was not just about Northern Ireland; it was about Scotland, Wales, England, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. That is reflected also in the work of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, the only body in these islands which continues to bring all those parliamentarians together and has done over the last three years, because it is not an institution of the Good Friday agreement. It meets soon in County Wicklow, and I am convinced that when the members meet, they will rejoice that the institutions are now up and running.
I again quote the noble Lord, Lord Hay, as a former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, because he has made a very important point. We can debate until the cows come home the Act of Union and the significance of all the different agreements that have been made, but only one thing matters: the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. It is nothing to do with Acts of Parliament or anything else; it is about what the people of Northern Ireland desire. There is no immediate appetite for Irish unification. There may be in the future—I do not know—but it is up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide that: the principle of consent.
There is much talk of the 1998 Act, which I took through the other place a long time ago. That rested solely on the will of the people. That is why the Irish constitution was changed. Parts 2 and 3 went because they laid claim to Northern Ireland. That has gone. It is up to the people. Equally, parity of esteem is so very important. Sometimes that has been forgotten over the last couple of years. We must ensure that political stability is addressed by all political parties and by the Government in Northern Ireland, and that at some point a system is devised making that stability permanent. We have to do that.
I finish with one statistic. When I went to Northern Ireland in 1997, 3,500 people had perished in the most terrible way over the previous 20 or 30 years. In his speech yesterday in the other place, Jeffrey Donaldson referred to the fact that last year, not one person was murdered in a sectarian attack. That is the measure of the change in what has happened to the people of Northern Ireland in terms of peace. We must now ensure stability as well.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I rise to close the debate on this humble Address and thank all those who have participated in it. I am grateful to noble Lords who have directed kind words to me as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, particularly my noble friend Lord Godson and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, whom it is always a huge pleasure to hear speak on Northern Ireland affairs.
At some point during the discussions this evening, I was reminded of the late Willie Whitelaw’s quip about déjà vu all over again. We have gone over quite a lot of this territory as recently as a fortnight ago, when we debated statutory instruments, so with the leave of the House I might not refer to every single issue that has been raised; otherwise, we risk being here until midnight. There were a number of references to Bushmills. Duties or not, I look forward to enjoying one in about half an hour.
As I said in my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House some years ago, and as my noble friend Lord Lexden knows all too well, I am, and remain, an unapologetic unionist, steadfast in my belief that the best future for Northern Ireland will always be as an integral part of a strong and prosperous United Kingdom. We are, as a number of noble Lords reminded us, the most successful political and economic union in the world—something on which most noble Lords in this House will agree. I strongly endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, my noble friend Lord Lilley and many others about the importance and value of the union of the United Kingdom.
I also want to very briefly address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Of course, we recognise that there are people in Northern Ireland who hold a different view and desire a different constitutional outcome, and the agreement is very clear in respect of the rights of everybody in Northern Ireland to parity of esteem and equity of treatment, no matter their political aspiration. We believe strongly in upholding that.
The debate this evening has reiterated our unwavering support for the union. We have reaffirmed the importance of upholding the Belfast agreement in all its strands. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, was right to remind us of—as I said in my opening speech—the interlocking nature and interdependence of those three strands.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked me about future meetings of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. It is due to meet in the spring and work is in progress in that respect. The British-Irish Council is, I think, due to meet later in the summer—normally around June or July. The North/South Ministerial Council is a Strand Two matter, not one for the UK Government, but I hope it will meet very shortly.
We have acknowledged in the debate the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article VI of those Acts. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bew, I have not yet consulted the speeches of Pitt the Younger during the passage of the Acts, but he has inspired me to maybe look more closely at some of the aspirations that he and Castlereagh set out at the time.
We have also, importantly, recognised that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast agreement in respect of the UK and Irish Governments. The noble Lord reminded us of the New Ireland Forum. I will not necessarily repeat the words used by Mrs Thatcher at the time but I have strong sympathy with them, just as I do the views on the subject raised by my noble friend Lord Lexden.
The regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, which was supported by some noble Lords behind me, pertains to the requirements for passing a consent vote on the application of the Windsor Framework and its purported effect on the Acts of Union more generally. I note that the noble Baroness’s amendment is very similar to a manuscript amendment she moved in Committee on the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill, long before the changes set out in the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper.
The noble Baroness followed quite closely a number of the arguments that were made in the court cases that took place on these issues. I gently and politely remind her that the applicants lost on all three counts in every court in the land, which she seems to have omitted during her comments.
In our view, very clearly there is no trade border, by any reasonable or sensible comparison with any other trade border in the world, for goods moving within the UK internal market. That will become clearer with the introduction of checks coming from the EU, including Ireland. I welcome the contribution of my noble friend Lord Lilley on these matters; as I say, we are confident that the changes that we have made to the protocol, through the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper, will ensure the smooth passage of trade within the United Kingdom.
Of course, if issues arise over the course of implementation, there are structures in place with the EU to try to address those matters. My noble friend will know that my views on the original protocol are almost identical to the ones set out by my noble friend Lord Lexden. I regard the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper as significant improvements on what was a particularly disappointing outcome back in the autumn of 2019. Obviously, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but we are confident that the new arrangements will work to ensure the smooth passage of trade throughout the United Kingdom and the internal market.
In the Government’s view, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, overlooks the reality of the changes we have made. In addition, we believe that the law is now crystal clear that the Windsor Framework is without prejudice to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. The provision we made in law through the instrument that became law last week includes the Acts of Union; we are clear that the Windsor Framework fully respects that. Our position on these matters is set out very clearly in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, as I have said before. In summary, the Government believe that those Acts of Union continue to have effect today and have not been undermined.
The changes we have made now mean that the law contains important new statutory protections for any independent review of the framework to be taken forward. Those protections will ensure that a review is taken forward within one month, responded to within a set period, and that its recommendations are given proper reflection, if a consent vote is not passed on a cross-community basis. These changes we have made reflect the Government’s commitment to seeking agreement that is as broad as possible in Northern Ireland, and to ensuring that action is taken, if that agreement is not forthcoming. I reiterate that commitment once again to all noble Lords.
The Government must therefore disagree with the regret amendment, which does not reflect the reality of the statute book today or the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper, which ensure the smooth flow of trade across the United Kingdom. In the coming weeks and months, the Government will continue to deliver commitments made under the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, and continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly Members to improve the lives of people living in Northern Ireland.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jay, whose committee I had the privilege of serving on for a period of time, my noble friend Lord Lexden, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and others, asked about implementation. I cannot give precise timetables, but I commit, where possible, to keeping the House updated on some of the new bodies that are proposed. A reference was made, I think by my noble friend Lord Lexden, to the Sports Minister; I can confirm that that visit is taking place imminently. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made reference to trying to involve Northern Ireland in the evolution of new EU laws; there are UK-EU joint bodies established, which will enable Northern Ireland’s views to be fed in at an early stage. I hope that reassures him.
My noble friend Lord Lexden, in a characteristically wise and scholarly speech, referred to one aspect not included in the humble Address, which is the contribution of His Majesty and members of the Royal Family to life in Northern Ireland. I want to put on record my complete agreement with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend.
I will pick out just one moment. I was present in the Lyric Theatre in 2012 when the late Queen shook the hand of Martin McGuinness. During the same visit, she also crossed the road in Enniskillen from the Anglican cathedral to the Catholic chapel. These both demonstrated her amazing ability to bring people together. I know that this commitment is shared by His Majesty the King, who is hugely devoted to Northern Ireland.
The hour is late. We have heard a number of impassioned speeches, not least from the Benches behind me, but also from right across the House. They echoed points made in this Chamber on a number of occasions in recent weeks. I do not for one second doubt the sincerity with which a number of noble Lords have expressed their concerns—in some cases, their opposition to the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper and, in certain cases, the decision of their party leader to return to devolved government. They are, of course, entitled to their view, which I entirely respect. However, I do not believe that this view represents a majority either within unionism or across Northern Ireland as a whole. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, referred to some polling that has taken place on these matters. It is not a view shared by this Conservative and Unionist Government—or, I should add, by this staunchly Conservative and Unionist Minister, who believes that we now have the right basis for moving Northern Ireland forward.
I very much agree that now is the time to move on, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and others pointed out. We must look forward. In this respect, I commend the speech by the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party in the other place yesterday evening. As Sir Jeffrey made clear, the Northern Ireland of today is vastly different even from when the Belfast agreement was reached 26 years ago. Unionism can no longer rely on the electoral map being coloured orange and green and on its in-built majority. The Northern Ireland of today is, as has been pointed out, one of competing minorities in which the task for those, like me, who cherish the union and want to see it thrive is to reach out and win friends across traditional divides and across generations.
I will be expressly clear once again: Northern Ireland’s position is based on consent, as many noble Lords have pointed out. The task for those of us who want to see the union prosper is to consider how we broaden support for Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the world as it is today, not as it might have been in the past. I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. Central to all this is making Northern Ireland a stable, peaceful and prosperous place for everyone who lives there, regardless of their community background or political aspirations. As the noble Lord, Lord Bew, pointed out, I very much hope that we are now entering a new era of stability in Northern Ireland.
In moving this Motion on the humble Address, His Majesty’s Government firmly believe that, with the arrangements now in place, along with the restoration of devolved government and the generous £3.3 billion financial package for the Executive, together with other financial contributions such as the Peace Plus £700 million-plus, we have an opportunity to make that vision for Northern Ireland a reality and to move Northern Ireland forward. In so doing, we guarantee Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of this great United Kingdom.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it was appropriate in this debate to hear so much about Lord Cormack. I hope that his family will have been in some ways helped by so many people saying such warm words about him. I served with him for many years on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I found him to be someone who always liked people to say what they thought and to speak out.
I remember going to Crossmaglen with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It was the week of Remembrance Sunday. Lady Hermon and I were wearing our poppies. One or two of the members of the committee suggested, as we drove into Crossmaglen, that it might be a good thing for us to take our poppies off. Lord Cormack was very clear that we should be able to wear our poppies. After the meeting, a lady came up to Lord Cormack and me and said, “Thank you for wearing your poppy. We couldn’t wear ours around here”. That made me feel that Lord Cormack was genuinely interested in people in Northern Ireland. As we all know, he will be greatly missed in this House.
I thank everybody who has spoken. I was particularly pleased that five Members who are not from Northern Ireland spoke. I welcome that very much, because in most of the debates I have been involved with here over the past couple of years there has been only one, perhaps—sometimes not even one. Even if I did not necessarily agree with everything they said, I welcome the contributions of those five: the noble Lords, Lord Lexden, Lord Lilley, Lord Godson and Lord Jay, who chairs the very important committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.
I particularly welcomed the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, speaking, because we go back many years to when he chaired the Friends of the Union—a very good organisation. The work he did then is still bearing fruit. There might be a need for him, even at this late stage, to regenerate the Friends of the Union, because it gave the Northern Ireland diaspora in Great Britain a way to be involved. Of course, the Irish embassy is brilliant about doing that for the Irish diaspora, but there is nothing to help people from Northern Ireland living in Great Britain. You could go to the Irish embassy practically every week and there would be some kind of reception. There is nothing like that here.
I also welcomed what the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Dodds, said about the reluctance of Ministers to give proper Answers when we ask Questions. It is even more important that the committee on the Windsor Framework gets answers correctly, quickly and fully, but when noble Lords themselves put in Questions we get back the same Answers on practically everything—the kind of waffle Answer that does not actually answer the question. That means that we simply have to keep asking. I am very pleased that that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, raised that as well.
It is very interesting that, apart from a little bit at the end from the Minister and from our eminent historian, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, no one actually contradicted anything in my amendment. Nobody took it on or said it is wrong. I have to take from that, given that anyone who mentioned the amendment supported it, apart from in terms of the detail, such as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and other Members on the Benches opposite, that it is absolutely correct, right and true.
There is no point trying to bring up all these warm words about looking to the future and progress. Of course we all want that for Northern Ireland and its people, but if Stormont is coming back, as it has, it must do so on the basis of honesty and truth about the protocol. Many of these new things and new ideas that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, referred to about bringing Northern Ireland closer and supporting the union are very good and welcome, but the most important, simplest thing—yes, it is simple—would be for our Government to stand up for our own people and say that the protocol is not right for part of our country. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, held up the number of laws that are being put on us by a foreign body that we have no say in whatever. How can that possibly be right?
So I am very pleased, in a way, that we have put all this on the record. It will be read in the future—not just my speech but everybody’s speeches, and people will be able to judge what is happening. All the warm words and all the waffle do not change a single fact. I have a great deal of time for the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and I know his interest in and general support for the union; but it is very interesting that he never, ever answers the question about consent. He was against it at the time, so it is a difficulty for him, but he never answers the question why the Government had to change the issue of consent. This is the one important thing to be on the basis of a majority vote and not cross-community consent. It is quite outrageous—and quite outrageous too that we never get a proper answer. Of course, we do not get a proper answer because there is no answer. There is no justification whatever other than pressure, presumably from the Irish Government and from the European Union.
I end by saying again that I am pleased that everything is on the record. I again thank all Members for speaking, particularly those who are not from Northern Ireland. In light of the fact that this is going to His Majesty the King—I am sure he will read Hansard—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.