House of Commons
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 months, 3 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
Business before Questions
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
The Government recognise the urgency of the issue and are committed to progressing the work as quickly as we can. For that reason, we have appointed an expert group to advise the Cabinet Office on detailed technical considerations. On Monday in the other place, the Government committed to bring forward an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill on Report, with the intention of speeding up the implementation of the Government’s response to the infected blood inquiry.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My constituent Mark Ward, a haemophiliac, contracted HIV after being given contaminated blood at the Royal Free Hospital. He was 14. He is now 54, and it is four and a half years since he gave evidence at the inquiry and a year since the initial recommendations came out. It is a scandal, is it not, that the Government were forced to give in by a defeat in the other place? Frankly, the Government have been complicit in people’s lives continuing to be lost. How long before compensation will be paid? What date should I give Mr Ward? How many people’s lives will be lost while we wait for the Government to get into action?
John Glen
There are 54 working days before the report is published on Monday 20 May. The Government have committed to respond to it within 25 sitting days, but I will do everything I can to bring forward as substantive a response as possible as soon as possible after that date.
Alex Davies-Jones
My constituent Gerald Stone, a victim of the contaminated blood scandal, is 80 years old. He is in and out of hospital and is having to take morphine for the insurmountable pain he suffers. After bravely giving evidence to the public inquiry and the public seeing that story, his lifelong neighbours began to question whether it was safe to live on the same street as him and even went to the police. Victims such as Gerald deal with the physical and mental consequences every day, but one query he has for the Minister is the figure of 30,000 potential claimants, which has been disputed regularly and is one reason for the hold-up in providing justice. Will the Minister provide clarity on that figure?
John Glen
I am trying to ensure a comprehensive response as soon as possible. That is why we have appointed Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery to head up a team to advise on how to implement the recommendations of the report. I am doing that as quickly as I can. There are issues around eligibility, the severity of disease and its progression, and so on, which I need to be sure on so that I can address the challenges that exist. With respect to the 30,000 figure, I cannot give a number from the Dispatch Box, but I will ensure that the Government response, when it comes, will be as comprehensive as possible, to give some assurance to the hon. Lady’s constituent.
Kerry McCarthy
ITV is now set to produce a drama about the contaminated blood scandal, following the success of “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”. As we know, thousands of people have been affected by the scandal, including my constituents, Catherine, who lost her husband in 2005, and Margaret, who lost her husband Bill in 2021. Bill was a local councillor. I knew him very well. He was an absolutely lovely man. He was also a trustee of the Haemophilia Society. Some people, including Bill, have been fighting this battle for 40 years. Why has it taken us this long to get to this point? Will it really take a TV drama to make the Government finally act?
John Glen
I am aware of the comments about a TV drama, but I am concerned to ensure that we build on the decision of this place on 4 December with respect to the Victims and Prisoners Bill. That Bill is working its way through the other place. Committee will finish on 12 March, so Report stage cannot happen before 15 April. Listening to the testimony of the hon. Lady and of those in the other place, whose nephews and husbands died as a result of contaminated blood, has made me more determined to ensure that the Government’s response is as comprehensive as possible and that it meets the expectations of everyone in this place and of the country at large.
Dame Diana Johnson
I think the Minister is a good man and is trying to do his best, but this is the biggest treatment scandal in the history of the NHS. We have had six years of a public inquiry. The Government have now had the recommendations on compensation for 12 months. I understand that the Minister has not yet met anyone infected or affected, or taken any soundings from any of the campaign groups. Now, we hear in a written question this week that his expert group were not allowed to know the names of those people or to have the minutes of those meetings or of any of the workings that are taking place. Does he understand that, after decades of cover-up and criminal activity, the lack of transparency with which the infected and affected are being treated is totally unacceptable?
John Glen
I explained to the right hon. Lady when I met her on 6 February, and again when I spoke to her on 8 February, the context of Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery’s appointment. As she knows, Sir Brian recommends that eligibility for compensation includes those with hepatitis C, HIV and all chronic cases of hepatitis B.
On the right hon. Lady’s question about engagement with the groups, I am very keen to engage when the Report stage happens in the middle of April. I will then work on plans to engage with as many groups as possible across the United Kingdom, building on my conversations with representatives of the devolved Administrations on 6 February.
Grahame Morris
Since the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry were announced, another 82 victims of the scandal have sadly died. I note what the Minister said about the appointment of Sir Jonathan Montgomery as chair of the experts offering technical advice on the compensation talks, but may I express the anger of one of my constituents, who is a victim of the scandal, about that appointment? He has asked me to ask: what confidence can victims have in the compensation process when an individual who is linked to pharmaceutical firm Bayer—a company that supplied infected blood—and chairs the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which was at the epicentre of the scandal, is advising the Cabinet Office?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The appointment of Sir Jonathan Montgomery was compliant with all the processes, similar to those used for the appointment of Sir Robert Francis and others. I recognise the concern expressed around Jonathan’s involvement with Bayer. That ceased at the end of October last year. He was part of an independent advisory group—not making executive decisions—for the pharmaceutical company. In the other place, the noble Baroness Brinton described Sir Jonathan as a “well-respected ethicist”. He has been asked not for further recommendations, but to advise the Government on the implementation of the recommendations made in the report. I hope that is helpful.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Like other Members, I have constituents and friends who have been profoundly affected by the scandal, through both hepatitis and HIV. I recognise that my right hon. Friend is working extremely hard to come up with a solution to move the conversation forward, but can he update the House on any conversations he has had with the Treasury on delivering compensation as swiftly as possible once it is available?
John Glen
Conversation about this is taking place all the time across Whitehall. That will continue at pace as we move towards the 20 May publication. My determination is to bring forward as substantive a response as possible on the compensation issue as soon as possible after that. Obviously, those conversations happen over time, but I undertake to update the House at the next opportunity when there is something substantive to say.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
In his second interim report, of 5 April 2023, Sir Brian Langstaff set out:
“I recommend that a compensation scheme should be set up now and it should begin work this year.”
Now we are into the next year, 2024, and the scheme has not been set up. We have no timetable from the Government on when work will begin. The Minister does not need to wait until 20 May for the final report. Can the Minister tell the victims’ groups, who have waited for so long, whether he has persuaded the Chancellor to include the funding for the scheme in next week’s Budget, and when will the first substantive payments be made?
John Glen
I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot pre-announce aspects of the Budget, but his general point about urgency is one that I hear, as I said to him when I met him before the February recess. As I also explained, Report stage in this place on 4 December left us with legislation that was not fit for purpose, which is why further changes need to be made. Those changes are being made as urgently as possible.
On Monday of this week, the Government committed that on Report in the other place, we will bring forward the appropriate amendment to enable that arm’s length body to be created with the legal functions and UK-wide remit that is necessary. I have been working closely with Earl Howe, meeting with him as the Bill has gone through the other place. However, I cannot announce aspects of the Budget in any form—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
To date, we have received over 70,000 applications. We are committed to ensuring that as many veterans as possible know how to apply for a card: we have launched a national promotional campaign to raise awareness of the card’s availability, and over the next few months, we will continue to work with the charity sector and others to ensure as many people as possible know about the card and its benefits.
Virginia Crosbie
Veterans in my constituency of Ynys Môn, such as the brilliant Mark Davis who served our country for many years, are now eligible for a veteran card. Can my right hon. Friend confirm how veterans such as Mark Davis are being told about that card and how to get one? Diolch yn fawr.
Johnny Mercer
A significant program of work is going on at the moment to make sure everyone is aware of the card. This has been the No. 1 ask of the major six military charities in this country for some time, and I encourage everybody who is eligible—who has served and is a veteran—to apply for their veteran ID card, which opens up a whole gamut of services. We have completely transformed what it means to be a veteran in this country. Those services are available: you can get help with so many issues. Please do apply for your card, and slowly, we will make this the best country in the world to be a veteran.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, I thank the Minister for his very positive response. He will know, of course, that people in Northern Ireland are joining up to serve—whether it be in the Army, the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force—as they have done over the years. Beyond the Battlefield, which I hope the Minister will visit shortly, is one of the organisations that helps veterans. Does the Minister hold any statistics on how many service personnel from Northern Ireland have applied for veteran ID cards?
Johnny Mercer
I do not have those figures to hand, but Northern Ireland traditionally has a higher representation of service personnel. I was in Northern Ireland two weeks ago, and I was impressed with some of the services, but to be honest, Northern Ireland is not where I want it to be in terms of veterans’ affairs. We are looking at all options for how the Office for Veterans’ Affairs can really lean in—while mindful of the fact that health, housing and many other things are devolved—and make sure that the standard that we now see in England for veterans’ care is replicated across the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I congratulate the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the Ministry of Defence on its achievements with the roll-out so far, although it is probably fair to acknowledge that there is still some way to go. Is it not quite surprising that the veteran ID card cannot be used for the purpose of ID in a UK election? When does the Minister hope to put that right?
Johnny Mercer
The ID card is the first phase in a multi-phase operation to ensure that that objective can be achieved, alongside a whole load of other objectives. The challenge is digitising 13 million veterans’ records to ensure that we have an accurate picture of veterans. Getting the ID card out was the first phase, but of course, the ambition is to ensure that the card is used for all sorts of purposes, including the one that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The landmark Procurement Act 2023, which this Government passed last year, will deliver simpler and more effective public sector procurement and help small and medium-sized enterprises across the country secure a greater share of that expenditure, which totals approximately £300 billion every year. The Act includes a new duty on contracting authorities to have regard for the particular barriers faced by SMEs and consider what can be done to overcome them.
Mark Pawsey
Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. There are 5.5 million of them in the UK, making up over 99% of all businesses and 61% of private sector employment. However, currently only a fraction of 1% offer their goods and services to the public sector. Could the Minister say a little more about the work that is being done to encourage more of them to enter tender processes?
Alex Burghart
I would be delighted to, because the Government are entirely committed to ensuring that SMEs get a bigger share of that pie. The latest published SME spend figures show that UK small businesses received £21 billion of work, which was an increase of £1.7 billion on the previous year’s figures. That is the highest since records began, and the fifth consecutive year that Government work won by small businesses has increased. Crucially, that is before the effects of the Procurement Act kick in.
Peter Aldous
As my hon. Friend has said in his reply, the Procurement Act is I hope the solution to many of these problems, but it is not due to come into force until the beginning of October. Can he confirm that it will definitely come into force then, and that the necessary secondary legislation is in hand?
Alex Burghart
I am pleased to be able to report that, despite the fact that this is complex legislation that requires workstreams in a number of areas—not just secondary legislation, but learning and development for those working for contracting authorities, and a new online platform that will make procurement much easier and better for both those supplying services and those procuring them—we are on track to meet our targets.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Steve Baker)
The Government are delivering a programme of engagement with stakeholders across all sectors in all parts of the country, and with key European Union trading partners, to ensure that goods continue to move across the border. We have not identified any specific risk to the cross-border flow of goods.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister may not have identified risks, but businesses are certainly very worried about potential delays and costs. Alongside the “not for EU” labelling issues, the Food and Drink Federation estimates that there will be an extra £250 million a year in costs. So I challenge him: is he really saying there will be no extra costs for our hard-pressed constituents as a result of all this extra bureaucracy?
Mr Baker
We are not saying that, no, but I would say to the hon. Member that appropriate import controls are fundamental to ensure that we can protect the UK’s food supply chain, our food and farming industries, and our natural environment from biosecurity risks. The border target operating model will have very little impact on most of our fruit and vegetable imports, which have been classified as low risk. As he presses me, I would say to him that inflationary impacts on food for consumers will be at most less than 0.2 percentage points over a three-year period, and we have published the methodology online. Of course, no one should ever be cavalier about the cost of food, but I am sure he would agree with me that 0.2 percentage points over three years is a small figure.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I am absolutely astonished—I really am astonished—at the complacency about the impact on UK food bills, because the Government’s own projections say that this border scheme will cost UK businesses some £330 million per year, while the British Chambers of Commerce has highlighted charges for EU goods coming into the UK. What assessment has the Minister made of the full inflationary impact of these measures on UK food bills, and with further checks due to start in April, what preparations are in hand to prevent a repeat of the chaotic scenes at our ports that we have seen before on this Government’s watch?
Mr Baker
Alas that there are disease outbreaks in the European Union and alas that food is circulating that does not comply with EU standards. I hope to protect the people of Wycombe and the whole United Kingdom from unsafe pork and chicken, and to ensure that we do not end up vulnerable to things such as the horsemeat scandal. As I understand it, the Labour party wishes to revert to the regime we had when we were an EU member state by aligning with the EU on sanitary and phytosanitary matters. I remember very well the horsemeat scandal that arose, and I do not want to see anything like that occur again.
I would just point out that an outbreak of African swine fever would be a fundamental threat to the viability of our pig industry. Foot and mouth cost British businesses £12.8 billion, at 2022 prices, in 2001. The cost of ash dieback is forecast to be £15 billion to the UK. I think we need to take seriously the need to protect our borders and the need to check these medium to high-risk products, and that is what this Government will responsibly do.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Have the Government made any assessment of the additional cost to SMEs of these changes—the red tape they have had and will have to wrangle with—and how many businesses will go under as a result?
Mr Baker
We are not expecting businesses to go under as a result of this, but I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I just gave: it is vital that we protect our borders. The reality is that there are risks to public health from food and we need to make sure that we are not cavalier about these checks. It is vital that we protect our borders and protect the public, and that is what we are going to do. We are continuing to engage with businesses, we expect there to be very few problems, and we will work our way through. There is no question of being cavalier: we have been working very carefully to consult stakeholders and make sure there have not been great problems.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
The Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the Ministry of Defence launched a new service in January to allow veterans to apply for their cards. Since then, 1,259 veterans have applied from Cornwall and 2,793 from Devon.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister, my fellow Devon MP, for his answer. It is very encouraging to have had positive feedback from veterans in Torbay about the simplicity of applying online, but one question comes to mind: what work is being done with local authorities that encounter veterans through services such as housing to encourage them to apply online or make an application if they have not done so?
Johnny Mercer
That is a good question and I cannot emphasise this point enough. Obviously, this is my responsibility as the veterans Minister, but it is also the nation’s duty to look after these people. We need local authorities to understand what is available to look after these people. We have armed forces champions in local authorities now and I want to see that role taken seriously. There are multiple pathways specifically for veterans through health, housing, employment and a number of other topics, but clearly it is incumbent on all of us in public life to understand what is available for veterans so that when we find one in need, they get the world-class help they deserve.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Government’s “Cross-Government Fraud Landscape Annual Report 2022” includes data from the first year of the Government’s response to the pandemic. The report suggests that in 2020-21, Government Departments and arm’s length bodies reported a total of £124.6 million of detected procurement fraud. The same report showed that at the end of March 2021, some £88.2 million of fraud and error had been recovered within covid-19 schemes. Since then, crucially, further funds have been recovered and the Government will continue to update the House as fresh data becomes available.
Justin Madders
When people think back to the sacrifices they made during the pandemic, the greed associated with the personal protective equipment scandal really jars with them, so will the Minister commit to following the Labour party’s lead and appoint a covid corruption commissioner to chase down and claw back every penny of taxpayers’ money that was wasted?
Alex Burghart
This Government take PPE fraud extremely seriously. To remind the House of the figures, 1.8% of expenditure on PPE was lost to fraud at a time when there was the most extraordinary public crisis in several generations and we were competing in an extremely overheated international market. To date, we have recovered more than a quarter of that 1.8% and the fight to recover more continues. PPE procurement is subject to ongoing contract management controls, active dispute resolution and recovery action. The law is on our side and we are using it.
Sarah Edwards
The covid procurement scandal upset many people, and rightly so. I spoke with a fantastic local business in Tamworth, Wearwell (UK), which was manufacturing PPE as part of the regional procurement but was cut out of the process during the pandemic. The UK must be prepared in the event of another pandemic, and British manufacturing offers a greater response time and a more stable supply chain. When will we return to regional procurement to ensure that local businesses are prioritised when providing PPE for the nation?
Alex Burghart
I welcome the hon. Lady to what I think are her first Cabinet Office questions. She is right to draw attention to the fantastic textile manufacturing that exists in the region in which her constituency sits. She will have heard me talk about the Procurement Act 2023, which was passed last year and will make sure that small and medium-sized enterprises, which by their nature are often local enterprises, will have a bigger share of public procurement.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
We have not just had the infamous Baroness Mone scandal; at the time, there were reports of a hedge fund in Mauritius that got a £250 million contract for face masks that could not be used and a jeweller in Florida that got a multimillion-pound contract for gowns that could not be used. The Government had to incinerate billions of pounds-worth of faulty personal protective equipment. That is taxpayers’ money literally going up in smoke. In the pandemic the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), told me at the Dispatch Box
“where a contract is not delivered against, we do not intend to pay taxpayers’ money”.—[Official Report, 23 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 758.]
But taxpayers’ money was spent, wasn’t it? Why was that promise not met?
Alex Burghart
I gently refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I just gave. The fact is that, although problems arose with PPE procurement in this uniquely difficult environment in which officials were working unbelievably hard for the public good, PPE procurement is still subject to ongoing contract management controls, active dispute resolution and recovery action. The fact of the matter is that this Government took it seriously during the pandemic. The Department of Health and Social Care realised the risk of fraud early on, and the Government established a counter-fraud team to counter that threat. We are using all the legal tools at our disposal to get taxpayers’ money back. The House should be in no doubt that the Government’s speed of action during the crisis enabled many lives to be saved and for the country to overcome the covid-19 crisis.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
The Government have successfully reduced inflation by more than half, which will make the cost of living more affordable for veterans along with every other resident in the United Kingdom. We are also getting support directly to those who need it with the £104 billion cost of living package, worth an average of £3,700 a household. In addition, the Government are providing £33 million over three years to better support veterans.
Tonia Antoniazzi
My constituents in Gower, and especially my veterans, want to know whether the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs stands by his comments that food bank usage is a personal choice.
Johnny Mercer
It is important in this place that we do not misrepresent what other Members say. I very clearly said that service personnel who receive subsidised accommodation should not be using food banks. There is no requirement for them to do it, and that is not appropriate. That is what I have said. I have obviously never said that food banks are a personal choice. This is a real opportunity to come here and ask me any questions at all about veterans’ affairs. I suggest we try to raise the debate and actually improve their lives.
Carolyn Harris
With tens of thousands of veterans across the UK forced to rely on universal credit to get by, what is the Minister doing to help veterans in Swansea East and right across the country who are in receipt of universal credit to cope with the increased cost of living caused by this Government’s economic failings?
Johnny Mercer
I spend my entire life visiting veterans who consistently raise with me the help that they get. There are plenty of places for them to go to, whether it is the Royal British Legion or others, that have specific grants. On top of that, the Government have put in an enormous package of help for citizens across the United Kingdom of £104 billion. That is £3,700 a household, and that is just for the cost of living. It is an incredibly difficult time for lots of people across the United Kingdom, but I am comfortable that the Government are doing all we can, and we stand ready to do more.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Esther McVey)
Since 2010, female representation has risen to 29.1% and ethnic minority representation had risen by November 2021—those are the latest verified figures I have—to 6.6%.
Andrew Gwynne
That is good progress, but can the Minister explain why her right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)—Liz of the 50-day reign—was allowed to award her mates for their part in her failure with jobs for life in the legislature? Is she proud of that?
Esther McVey
It is a long-standing tradition that anybody who reaches the height of Prime Minister—irrespective of which party that is for—has a resignation list. The former Prime Minister has appointed accomplished people, and I am quite sure that they will contribute significantly to the other House.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Minister without Portfolio (Esther McVey)
It is a long-standing convention under successive Governments that outgoing Prime Ministers can draw up a resignation list. That has been the case under past Governments from across the political spectrum, and any names proposed are subject to the usual propriety checks.
Steven Bonnar
Political polarisation is more prevalent than ever, but polling consistently shows that voters across the political spectrum are united in their opposition to an unelected House of Lords. The trouble the public face is that this place and this Government do not want to know—they merrily carry on stuffing the House of Lords full of loyal stooges. When will the Government finally take their fingers out of their ears, listen to the public and begin to consider long-required reform of the place through those doors?
Esther McVey
Many people in the other House are probably somewhat insulted by the hon. Member’s words. Many of them are highly accomplished in a variety of specialisms and bring much insight as they scrutinise the legislation that comes from this House.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
Gov.uk is among the UK’s most recognised and trusted digital services. It is constantly monitored to assure and improve the service it provides to its users through data analytics, user research and feedback, while the latest gov.uk strategy prioritises proactively reaching more people in more places.
Wendy Chamberlain
Government processes need to work if our democratic system is to have the trust of our constituents. We know that many people who use Government IT systems to manage their tax payments, national insurance credits or benefits experience errors in how their accounts of money are handled, which is unacceptable. Will the Minister accept that a cross-departmental review of how those IT systems work needs to be carried out so that constituents can trust that the Government are not losing their hard-earned money?
Alex Burghart
I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that polling at the end of last year found that 76% of respondents were satisfied with gov.uk, 78% agreed that they could typically find what they wanted and 74% trusted the information they found. Obviously, we keep all our systems under review, but gov.uk is a trusted brand and it is getting better every day.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
The Prime Minister has been clear that he will lead a Government of
“integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”
He is delivering on that promise. I met Sir Laurie Magnus, the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, in November.
Munira Wilson
A survey published just this week by the Institute for Government revealed that two thirds of the public do not believe that the Government behave according to high ethical standards. I do not think anyone in the House will be surprised by that, given the behaviour we have seen from some—particularly former—Ministers over the past five years. Even in the last few weeks, questions have been raised about potential breaches of the ministerial code by the Business Secretary, and we have seen failure rewarded constantly with outrageous severance payments. Will the Minister finally fully enshrine the ministerial code into law?
John Glen
That matter has been discussed. The Committee on Standards in Public Life did not recommend that in 2021, because it would afford significant authority to a body that is outwith accountability to the House.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
We have expanded the Veterans Welfare Service provision in Northern Ireland and allocated £500,000 to a defence medical welfare service pilot to support veterans’ health and wellbeing in Northern Ireland. On legacy, we are committed to working with the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to ensure that veterans are fully engaged and supported.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What support can veterans expect from the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery?
Johnny Mercer
We are doing everything we can to support veterans who are going through that process. It is essential that veterans are engaged as the commission develops its policies and processes. We are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that legal and welfare provisions are established, to ensure that veterans are supported through that process.
Mr Speaker
We now come to topical questions. I call Barry Sheerman—not here.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
Later today, I will set out how we are putting more artificial intelligence experts at the heart of Government to drive the adoption of AI right across the public sector. We will not only revolutionise services but increase productivity, cut inefficiencies and save taxpayers millions of pounds. Earlier this month, I launched the Pall Mall Process alongside international allies, which will combat the proliferation of the irresponsible use of cyber-intrusion tools that are commercially available. I am determined that the Cabinet Office will lead the way in seizing the opportunities presented by these new technologies, while guarding against the risks.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for his update. Every day this place is combating cyber-security challenges. What action is he taking to ensure that not only this place but the whole of the United Kingdom is safe from Iran, Russia and other hostile elements that want to intrude on our security?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise that risk. We live in a more dangerous and hostile world. I am particularly mindful of the risks posed by hostile foreign states such as Iran. We rely heavily on the National Cyber Security Centre, with which we work closely to ensure the security of Government, this House and the private sector. In addition, I chair a ministerial cyber board, where we constantly challenge Departments to improve their cyber-security—which we are improving, but the risks continue to arise.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
As the Minister has seen, many questions have been asked today on the infected blood scandal. Will he confirm that it is no part of the Government’s decision-making process on the timescale of granting compensation payments to create the fiscal headroom needed for the much anticipated pre-election tax cuts in next week’s Budget?
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
I can confirm that is not the case.
Mr McFadden
Baroness Mone and her husband made a £60 million profit on a £200 million contract for personal protective equipment, much of which the NHS deemed unusable. The couple, reportedly, have had £75 million of assets frozen, but they also have a horse running in Britain’s favourite horserace, the grand national. That is not racing’s fault, but would it not be a grand national disgrace if the owners were able to walk away with winnings while taxpayers are still waiting to get their money back from being sold a mountain of unusable PPE?
Oliver Dowden
The Government continue to take robust action to recover any misused funds. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, both criminal and civil proceedings are ongoing, so there are limited things I can say in respect of the allegations that he has made. As the Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office and Deputy Prime Minister, my remit runs to many areas, but unfortunately not to the outcome of the grand national.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
I would love to come to RAF Valley at some point. I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency before she was a Member; it is a beautiful part of the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to everybody who works in this sector and who steps into the breach and works hard to ensure that those coming out of service with particular needs are supported, and that we look after them in the manner that I want to see.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
In response to the question from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), the Minister stressed the importance of Ministers being accountable to this House, particularly for breaches of the ministerial code, but neither the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests nor the Prime Minister are truly accountable to the House when it comes to the ministerial code—and the Foreign Secretary is not accountable to this House at all. Trust is at an all-time low, and breaches of the ministerial code are rife. When will the Government revise the code to include appropriate sanctions, so that Ministers can no longer break the code with impunity?
Oliver Dowden
The Government continue to keep the ministerial code under review. The Prime Minister of the day has to be able to determine who the Ministers will be in the Government that he leads on behalf of His Majesty. That is an important constitutional principle, but the Prime Minister will not hesitate to take action if there have been inappropriate breaches. On the accountability of the Foreign Secretary, discussions continue on the best way to ensure that this House holds him to account, in the same way that he is already accountable to, for example, Select Committees.
Sir Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
In July 2019, the Minister’s Department issued new guidance effectively outlawing gagging clauses across Government Departments. Does the Department have any plans to extend that to local authorities? I am sure that the Minister would, like me, be appalled that Labour-run Rossendale Borough Council has issued a gagging clause against its elected representatives, backed up by a threat of legal proceedings, because it wants to cover up a £12 million fraud, in which Labour councillors may have been complicit, and about which they certainly have questions to answer.
Oliver Dowden
My right hon. Friend rightly raises some very concerning allegations. So-called gagging orders should not be used in that way, and I undertake to look into the matter on his behalf.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the matter of the enormous contribution of prison officers. They are often under-sung members of our public services, risking their life day in, day out, to protect us all from dangerous and violent criminals. Of course, as Ministers, we have a duty to protect the public purse. We have set out a clear principle on the age of retirement from government roles. We would be reluctant to start varying that for a further group of people, because it is very difficult to draw the line once we start unpicking that principle.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
It has been reported in The Daily Telegraph that the Starmerite think-tank Labour Together has had to pay a fine of just over £14,000 for failing to declare hundreds of thousands of donations. The rationale it gave was that it did not want to name some of its donors. Does my right hon. Friend think that simply not wanting to do something is a reasonable basis on which to break the law?
Oliver Dowden
The short answer is clearly no. Indeed, it really worries me that things have come to a state where the Labour party allegedly did not want to declare donations because of concerns about growing antisemitism. That is a very worrying allegation.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Oliver Dowden
The Government remain committed to ensuring value for the taxpayer across all projects. As the hon. Gentleman highlights, this is principally a matter for DLUHC.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
What is the latest position on a review of the impact of the statute of limitations on the ability of people injured by covid-19 vaccines to bring civil claims? More than 3,000 claims have not yet been dealt with by the Government’s compensation scheme, and people’s ability to begin civil litigation will be prejudiced unless something is done quickly.
The Minister without Portfolio (Esther McVey)
My hon. Friend is a champion and a campaigner on behalf of all those people who have suffered covid vaccine damage. We have met, and I have taken the issue to the permanent secretary to see what we can do, whether it would involve extending the timeframe that he was talking about or not starting the clock ticking until a decision had been made.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
Until this moment I had not thought of drawing up a list, but as the hon. Lady will have heard us say on a number of occasions, artificial intelligence provides a remarkable opportunity to create supplementary capacity and capability for the civil service and the Government. I have been very pleased to pilot a new programme called “red box”, devised by a fantastic young crack AI team, which summarises long documents and makes the work of my private office easier. However, it is enhancing capability, not replacing it.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Steve Baker)
There is absolutely no question of ignoring the advice of experts. Indeed, only yesterday I had relevant meetings to discuss adjacent matters. As I said in an earlier answer, meat is circulating—particularly pork and chicken—that is not fit under either EU or UK rules, and we will continue to take steps to ensure that our borders are protected.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
John Glen
I respectfully reject that characterisation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have spent £400 million of taxpayers’ money since October 2022. The arrangements for the distribution of further compensation payments are obviously being considered at this point, and, as I said during the extensive exchange that opened this questions session, that work is continuing apace, so that I can produce a comprehensive response from the Government as soon as possible.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
John Glen
I met several union leaders a few weeks ago. On 2 October, the Chancellor announced that the civil service would be capped at the levels that were current at that time, which would save up to £1 billion against the trajectory that was then in place. As of September 2023, there were 496,150 civil servants. It is an important Government responsibility to ensure that we have the right number of civil servants performing effectively and efficiently in public service, and we will continue to work on that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What discussions has the Minister had with charities back home in Northern Ireland, such as Beyond The Battlefield and SSAFA, about improving mental health support for veterans who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles? I have extended this invitation in the past, and I extend it again now: will the Minister join me in visiting Portavogie to see the wonderful work of Beyond The Battlefield, which is conducting a project there? We really want to see him there.
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation. I would love to come, and I was in Northern Ireland a couple of weeks ago. Health is clearly devolved, but I made it very clear that I want the same standard in Northern Ireland that we have achieved with Op Courage in England: a single, dedicated mental healthcare pathway for veterans, with 19,000 referrals in its first year. Where were all these people going before that? It is an incredible story. I want to see that standard achieved in Northern Ireland, and we will keep working at it until we do.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
May I ask my hon. Friend what work is being done to ensure that the Government give value for money for the taxpayer when it comes to the Government estate?
Alex Burghart
I am pleased to say that one of our major Government functions, the Government Property Agency, is constantly looking at how we can refresh the Government estate to make sure not just that our offices are fit for purpose and are wonderful working spaces for our excellent civil servants, but that we are not hanging on to outdated buildings that are expensive to run. We are very mindful of achieving value for money in this area.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Interim payments are, by their very nature, interim; they are paid before final payments. Perhaps the Minister might be able to help me to understand. He just said that works are going on at pace, so when will the interim payments, recommended by Sir Brian Langstaff in April 2023, to parents who lost children and children who lost parents be paid before the final payments are made?
John Glen
As soon as possible, and when the Government’s position is clear.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
On the efficiency of Government Departments, I am sure that Ministers want report by inspectorates that are the responsibility of their Department to be produced in a timely manner. Is the Minister aware that the now sacked chief inspector of borders and immigration has produced 15 reports, which have been sitting on the Home Secretary’s desk, in some cases for over a year? There is complete confusion about how they can be published in the absence of the inspector and his deputy. Will the Minister look into that, and give reassurances to the House that these reports will be published in a timely fashion?
John Glen
My hon. Friend raises a very important matter. I will look into it urgently and come back to him as soon as possible.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The experience of the last two years has taught us that energy security is now national security. The more we can generate our own renewables, the less reliant on tyrants we will be. Has the Secretary of State asked the National Security Council to report on the national and energy security implications of the Prime Minister’s decision last year to scale back his Government’s energy transition targets? If he has not, why not?
Oliver Dowden
We continue to monitor energy security, principally through the National Security Council resilience committee, which I chair. I say gently to the hon. Lady that if she is concerned about energy security, why does her party consistently vote against granting new licences for North sea oil and gas, which would enhance our energy security?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Why do this Government think it is right that Church of England bishops in the House of Lords can have greater say on legislation affecting Scotland than the Scottish Parliament, and when will there ever be meaningful reform to the bloated House of Lords?
Alex Burghart
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in a Westminster Hall debate not so long ago, it remains a great pity that the SNP refuses to play in the House of Lords. The fact is that the people of Scotland rejected the idea of an independent Scotland some time ago, and it would have been to the benefit of his constituents and others around Scotland if his party had had the good sense to ask for people to be put in the upper House.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
On the contaminated blood scandal, why have the Government not named the experts?
John Glen
We have given details of the appointment of Sir Jonathan Montgomery, and a number of other individuals are working on clinical and other matters. It is really important that we get on with this work, and we will report back on their conclusions as soon as we can.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
We know that the Cabinet Office is often focused on making sure that procurement contracts go to small and medium-sized enterprises, but can my hon. Friend tell me what work is being done to make sure that female-led businesses get a chance at those contracts?
Alex Burghart
I think my right hon. Friend is referring to social value, which is obviously an important part of our procurement regime. Social value was discussed extensively during the passage of the Procurement Act 2023, and contracting authorities in local areas must pay regard to it.
Business of the House
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 4 March will include:
Monday 4 March—General debate on farming.
Tuesday 5 March—Second Reading of Automotive Vehicles Bill [Lords], followed by motions relating to the shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill, the British Citizenship (Northern Ireland) Bill and the High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill.
Wednesday 6 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Thursday 7 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 8 March—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 11 March includes:
Monday 11 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 12 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Colleagues should also be aware that Thursday 14 March will be estimates day. At 5 pm on that day the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Lucy Powell
I start by paying tribute to Ronnie Campbell and Sir Patrick Cormack. Ronnie was a larger than life character, proudly and staunchly representing his community and his roots. Although Sir Patrick was an MP before my time, I have read the glowing tributes which all describe him as incredibly kind.
I am also incredibly saddened by the news, just announced, that Dave Myers, one of the Hairy Bikers, has died. He was a hugely popular and much loved figure.
I was going to welcome the motion on the risk-based exclusion of Members that we were due to debate on Monday, as the Leader of the House announced last week, but it appears that she has pulled it. This decision will be met with dismay by Members, staff and unions who have worked on it for more than a year. Can she let us know when the motion will return? I note that some on the Conservative Benches had tabled amendments, which reports suggest is why the motion has been withdrawn. Will she confirm that she still supports the motion as agreed by the House of Commons Commission on which we both sit?
I welcome the new funding and protocols that have been announced to enhance MPs’ security and defend our democracy. We have seen a huge rise in antisemitism, Islamophobia, hate and the intimidation of elected representatives, especially since Hamas’s barbaric attack on Israel on 7 October. I put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, and the security services for your leadership. I asked last week, as I have before, for a new cross-party taskforce to address these issues. Can the Leader of the House help to make sure that happens?
We have discussed these issues many times, but does the Leader of the House not agree that it is incumbent on all of us to be mindful of our language and conduct? When we see racism, antisemitism or Islamophobia in our own ranks, we must take action, however difficult the consequences, and we must be clear in calling it out. To that end, I hope she will take this opportunity to say what is very clear for all to see, that the comments of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) about the Mayor of London were racist and Islamophobic. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need to uphold the highest standards of conduct towards one another, and that highly personalised and wrong-headed attacks by sections of the media, or by political parties, towards individual Members only fuel hatred, disdain and those who pose security threats? We must strive to do better.
In an age of social media, the spread of misinformation, disinformation and deep fakes will shape the general election in ways that we cannot imagine, so will the Leader of the House update us on regulation and action to tackle it? The Government watered down the Online Safety Act 2023 and took all of this out of scope, just when we needed it most.
Finally, ahead of next week’s Budget, I want to turn to the economy. Last week, it became official: we are in recession. Most people did not need the Office for National Statistics to tell them that, because they had been struggling with its reality for a long time. Sitting beneath the headline figures was a record the Government do not want to admit: we have seen the biggest fall in living standards since records began—let us just let that sink in for a moment. To emphasise that, GDP per capita has fallen for seven quarters in a row—that means families up and down the country have much less money to spend, the pounds in their pockets worth less.
This total crisis of living standards has the Prime Minister’s name written all over it. He was the Chancellor, and now as Prime Minister he has failed. He has failed to meet his own pledge to grow the economy, and he has failed each and every one of us.
To make matters worse, the Government seem unable to show any understanding or humility. They repeat that their plan is working and that they have turned a corner, but we have not. Alternatively, they blame others for their failure. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury seems not to understand the numbers at all. One Conservative Member blamed the weather and another blamed disabled people. When asked about our failing economy at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister blamed Labour’s policies.
It is the Conservatives’ 14 years of decisions that have led us here and left Britain uniquely exposed, with austerity; political and economic instability; energy insecurity; and the kamikaze Budget sending mortgages and interest rates soaring. After 14 years, people are worse off, taxes are higher, costs are higher and growth is stagnant, and there is nothing the Government can announce next week to change any of that.
Penny Mordaunt
First, let me add my voice to the many tributes that have been paid both to Lord Cormack and to Ronnie Campbell. They were public servants who were thoughtful and committed, both to Parliament and to many other organisations and institutions. I hope that those many tributes bring comfort to their loved ones. I also join in the tribute the hon. Lady paid to Dave Myers, one half of the Hairy Bikers. He brought so much joy to so many people across our country and elsewhere.
The hon. Lady asks me several questions, first about risk-based exclusion. I do not think she has quite processed the full extent of the consequences of what happened last week. The Government gave time to this debate and we want it debated. I am part of the Commission and I want it debated and resolved in this House. Given the current climate and the concerns that hon. Members have raised since the motion was tabled—there have been some serious questions, in particular from learned colleagues—there will be a better opportunity to debate this in the House, and I hope that will be soon.
I am not expecting the hon. Lady to give us any credit at all, as that is not her job. She did not welcome the figures on irregular migration that are out today, which show that our plan is working. She will know that the Budget, which I announced in the business, will be very soon, and I am sure we can all see the progress that has been made and that the Chancellor will set that out in due course.
As for what the hon. Lady says about intimidation, let me repeat what I said last week: this House will not, has not and must not bow to terrorism or intimidation. We are experiencing a new form of an old story. As well as those colleagues slain since 2016, there are others who were murdered and whose shields are on the walls of this Chamber, above the door. There are Members who sit on these Benches who can recall being issued with mirrors to look under their cars in the morning. We are facing a new form of that old threat. It failed then and it is going to fail now, but while we focus on ending that threat, we must not lose sight of the good in our country and what we can all do to help this situation.
The hon. Lady raises the issue of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). I know she will want to hear one word from him, but yesterday he provided us with 1,000 words. I read his piece in the Express and it is some distance from the view he expressed in the original interview. I think what he wrote in the Express is his genuine view. We might have to accept that those 1,000 words are the closest we will get to the one-word apology that others seek. The hon. Lady has understandably chosen to scold him; I would rather ask him to consider all the good he could do, whatever political hue he ends up being, in these particular times with the trust and following he has built up. She asks what action the Government have taken to combat these issues; I point her to the work of the defending democracy taskforce, the work I have done in this place on combatting conspiracy theories and the new systems we have set up.
The shadow Leader of the House is right that we also need to reflect on our own behaviour. I would ask her to consider on whose Benches Members sit who have suggested that we lynch a Government Minister, who have called hon. Members “scum” or who have said
“I want to be in a situation where no Tory MP, no Tory MP, no coalition minister, can travel anywhere in the country, or show their face anywhere in public, without being challenged”.
Which party’s actions have made it more likely that an antisemite will be sworn into this House next week? Which party last week trashed the understanding and foundation of trust upon which this place needs to operate? [Interruption.] The hon. Lady rolls her eyes. I would ask her to consider what she could do to rectify that situation. There are many good people in the Labour party; there are many good people who have also been driven from it. Despite best attempts to knock it off the media agenda or pretend it is otherwise, the strong moral compass we want to see from our nation’s political leaders, especially at times like this, is missing from the Labour party. That is sad and it is shameful.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Following the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House about risk-based exclusion, I am glad that motion is not coming forward next week, as there should be more consideration. It is a matter of record that two major newspapers made sex-based accusations against me, but I was not investigated by the police or as a result referred. It is only arrest that makes a difference. It is absurd and naive to think that were someone to be suspended and get a proxy vote, their anonymity could in any sense be guaranteed in this country or not reported in other countries. This is a serious problem. I am not certain we have found exactly the right way of dealing with it.
Will the Government make a statement next week on revisionism and who is the lead designer of the national Holocaust memorial and proposed learning centre? One of the Government’s nominees as chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation was quoted in the Jewish News yesterday saying that Ron Arad is the person responsible. Every Government comment, from 2016 onwards, has acknowledged quite rightly that the main designer is Sir David Adjaye OM—a name that cannot normally be mentioned because of problems I do not want to go into on the Floor of the House. Could Ministers refer Lord Pickles to the press notices that went out in the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation’s name in 2016, 2018 and every year since, because we must get the facts right and not change them?
Penny Mordaunt
I reassure my hon. Friend that we are listening to the House. Risk-based exclusion and other such schemes are a matter for the House and all Members need to have confidence in those processes. He has successfully put on record his concerns about that aspect of the Holocaust memorial. I will ensure the Secretary of State has heard what he has said, and he can raise it directly with him on 4 March.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
A lot has happened since the Leader of the House and I last faced each other, and I commend her for her intervention in last week’s events. She acted, as she said, to defend the rights of minority parties. That was the right thing to do, but what a dismal reflection on Westminster that the rights of minority party MPs in this place now need protecting and defending. The whole House knows how we got here. At some point we will get to the bottom of what pressure there was, exactly what dealings were done behind Victorian screens, and what “simply urging the Speaker” actually meant. To be fair, some Labour figures were fessing up at the weekend, or perhaps gloating, about their tactics—all because the SNP wanted to debate an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
People might ask why I am not tackling the Leader of the House today on her Government’s economic policies, Brexit or child poverty. We will return to our normal business questions exchanges of course, but at the core of our work as MPs is that all Members and parties must be treated fairly, and seen to be treated fairly. For as long as Scotland sends MPs here, we will expect and demand that. No one party can be allowed to change the rules by bullying. There is not a great deal that the Leader of the House and I agree on, but I know that on this we do. What use can she make of her offices to ensure that we never find ourselves in that sorry procedural mess again, and can she tell us when the replacement SNP Opposition day will be?
Finally, after the giant lobby of Parliament by campaigners yesterday, I must again raise the Government’s repeated delays in delivering full and fair compensation to those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. I know that the Leader of the House recognises the fully justified depth of anger about this. Can she tell us what progress has been made ahead of the Budget to set up the structures of the compensation scheme transparently and in consultation with victims and their families, so that it is ready to start allocating funds at the earliest opportunity?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I understand why people will have to wait for normal combat to be resumed between us. I disagree with one thing that she, and other hon. Members, have said: that this Chamber, and Westminster collectively, did not cover itself in glory last week. I think that the issue has been about the actions of particular individuals and what they have done. Many Members of this House did a good thing last week by standing up to protect the rights, the foundation and the rulebook that we operate on. With regard to those who were caught up in something else, many Members have recognised that that was the wrong thing to do, and that we need to address that. The Government will give the SNP more time to have the debates that it ought to have. I understand that you, Mr Speaker, have commissioned the Procedure Committee to look at the particular procedural issues that happened last week. I understand that the scope of that work is narrow, so it should be done swiftly. I hope that it will be concluded before the SNP has its next debate, so that it can have confidence in how that debate will run.
On the hon. Lady’s final, very important point, we have just heard from the Paymaster General, who is leading on the issue of infected blood on behalf of the Government. She is right that I have very strong views about this, but they are shared by the Paymaster General and all those on the Government Benches. That is why we set up the inquiry, and why we set up the compensation study to run concurrently with it, so that we would not have to wait any longer before people got proper redress. I know that the Paymaster General is working on this very swiftly. He updates me on a regular basis, and we will keep the House informed.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
On the first anniversary of the coming into force of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, I am very concerned to learn that child marriages are still taking place, and that those with safeguarding responsibilities are failing to prosecute. It is my understanding that the relevant authorities are failing to interpret the law correctly, particularly in relation to marriages taking place overseas. Can we have a statement on what further education is required as a matter of urgency, so that all those with safeguarding responsibilities have the necessary knowledge and skills to protect children?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work in this area. She has been an absolute force for good. We would not have brought forward that legislation without her great efforts. She is right that we want to ensure that people—particularly those with safeguarding responsibilities—are taking this issue seriously. She will also know that a private Member’s Bill is looking at the responsibilities of statutory authorities in this regard. I will make sure that the Department has heard the hon. Lady’s concerns on this matter, and I am sure that, given her reputation, they will be listened to.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for our meeting yesterday and for the business statement confirming the timing of the estimates debates for Thursday 14 March. Let me inform the House that applications for those debates must be with the Clerk of the Committee by lunch time on Monday, so we do not have much time to sort this out—so, that is this coming Monday, 4 March, at lunch time. The applications will be before the Committee on Tuesday afternoon at our normal meeting.
May I let the Leader of the House know that I have now received a letter from the Procedure Committee regarding the proposal to change the timings of debates in Westminster Hall? I am hopeful that she will have that imminently.
May I add my penn’orth in memory of my friend, Ronnie Campbell? I have been a Member of this House for only 14 years, but I knew Ronnie for more than 40 years. I will be at his funeral in Blyth tomorrow and will certainly pass on the best wishes of the Members of this House to his wife, Deirdre, and sons when I see them.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Member for delivering our messages at Ronnie’s funeral tomorrow. I also thank him for the helpful advert for the work of his Committee. He will know that we are keen to ensure that the new innovation in the sitting hours of Westminster Hall can be brought into effect and he has my commitment to that. I will also ensure that we are giving him good notice on future timings for his Committee. I am very conscious, as we discussed yesterday, that debates have been moved for understandable reasons—for example the debate on coalmining communities was moved because of important matters relating to Northern Ireland—and we want to ensure that there is time for those matters to be heard.
Sir Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting a dinner for OnSide in your apartments this week. That made me think that it is high time that we had a debate in this House about the contribution that youth zones make to east Lancashire. The centre of that debate, Mr Speaker, will be not the Chorley youth zone, as fine as it is, but the brand-new youth zone that is about to be built in Darwen. The £3.3 million project to help all our young people is supported by this Government as part of our £120 million town deal to transform Darwen.
Penny Mordaunt
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on another success that he has had with his wish list for his constituents? I congratulate everyone involved in that project. These are vital community facilities, and we all send our congratulations and good wishes for this latest project in this area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House for an opportunity to raise this question on freedom of religion or belief. The all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, visited Tunisia last May to highlight some of the issues that are relevant to our all-party group. On Sunday past, a mob in Tunisia burned a synagogue in the city of Sfax. Thankfully no one was injured. Will the Leader of the House join me and others in denouncing this attack and calling for closer monitoring of the issues relating to freedom of religion or belief?
Penny Mordaunt
We again thank the hon. Gentleman for what he does every week, which is to shine a spotlight on the situations that are going on around the world that would not normally get this level of attention. It is good to hear from him slightly earlier in the session this week. As he knows, on each occasion, I follow up with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that our people in-country realise the importance of these matters to us in this place, and I thank him again on behalf of us all for raising them.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
If freedom of the press means anything, it means the freedom to criticise and to oppose. That freedom is in danger if we become the first democracy in the world to allow a foreign Government to buy a national newspaper and media organisation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may be aware that the noble Baroness Stowell has tabled an amendment to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill with cross-party support in the House of Lords to prevent that from happening. Will the Government support or at least not oppose that amendment in the House of Lords? Were it to come to the Commons, I certainly would support it, and I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to do the same. We must prize freedom of the press in this country, and that amendment is our opportunity to do so.
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Having a free press and a competitive media sector is a vital part of our democracy. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has an obligation to intervene in media transactions where there is a public interest to do so. As my right hon. Friend will understand—more than many—that is a statutory judicial process, so it would not be right for me to comment. On his general point, however, he is absolutely right, and there was audible support from across this Chamber for the position that he outlined.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
On 7 November last year, I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, seeking a meeting with me and a cross-party group of local MPs to discuss an issue of concern expressed by our constituents. Following the reshuffle and having received no reply, in December I wrote again, to the new Secretary of State. We have still not had a response, let alone the meeting that we sought. With the NHS on its knees, I appreciate that the Health Secretary must have a full inbox, but does the Leader of the House agree that it is simply unacceptable that after almost four months, Members of this House are still waiting for a Minister to reply to our correspondence?
Penny Mordaunt
Guidelines are clear about the time- frame in which Departments need to respond to Members. As the hon. Lady knows, my office takes that very seriously. We are involved in training the parliamentary clerks in Departments to ensure that they understand the obligations. If she gives me further information, I will follow up on the matter of parliamentary correspondence. I do not know the specifics of the issue that concerns the hon. Lady and her colleagues, but she will know that many decisions are taken locally—I am sure, however, she has already spoken to her board and local commissioners. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what she has said, and she can raise it with her directly in oral questions on 5 March.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware that the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust operates the Queen’s Hospital in my constituency. I praise the staff and the chief executive for all the work that they do to look after my constituents. However, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement about the situation in the accident and emergency unit. Thirty per cent of patients are being seen within four hours, and yet the national average is 5%. That is unacceptable. Will she ask the Secretary of State to visit Queen’s Hospital with me to look at solutions and to discuss how we can serve the constituents of Romford better when it comes to the local hospital and NHS services in the London Borough of Havering?
Penny Mordaunt
I join my hon. Friend in the praise that he heaps on his healthcare professionals, in particular at the Queen’s Hospital in his constituency. He may be aware that the Secretary of State’s predecessor did a piece of work to ensure that we were able to compare the performance of different trusts and different hospitals across the whole UK, so that we can identify where more assistance is needed or whether there are issues with performance and so forth. I will ensure that the Secretary of State hears what my hon. Friend has said today. Again, he may raise it directly with the Front-Bench team on 5 March at Question Time.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
For some time now, I have been in support of a safeguarded assisted dying law for mentally-competent terminally-ill adults with a life expectancy prognosis of six months. I was not always of that opinion—I have had to go on a journey—but have concluded that the evidence is overwhelming that that would be a step in the right direction, and public opinion is now very much in favour of a change in the law. I recognise that there are considerable concerns on the opposite side of the argument, but in the light of the news that the Isle of Man and Jersey are considering a change in the law, is it not time that we in this House have a fresh look at the matter, with a debate in Government time?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her work in that area. She will know that if such matters came to the Floor of the House, it would be on a free vote basis—they are matters of conscience. I very much understand the head of steam that is building behind both sides of the argument. It has been a little while since we have had a debate on that matter. She will know what options are open to her to secure a debate, be it an Adjournment debate or one secured through the Backbench Business Committee, but I will ensure that all relevant Departments have heard what she and other hon. Members have said.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will, like me, have constituents whose water is supplied by Southern Water. After two weeks of obfuscation, reassurance and denial by the company that there has been any pollution incident at Fullerton wastewater works in my constituency, we heard from the Environment Agency yesterday that there has been a significant pollution incident of a level that would be hazardous to human health. Will she help me by providing Government time for a debate about whether Southern Water remains a fit and proper company to be managing water resources in our region? She will know as well as I do that it is not simply wastewater that it cannot cope with; it is not any good at supplying drinking water either.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for leaving the House in no doubt about her frustration and disappointment about the situation with Southern Water. I have experienced similar feelings towards that company. What is particularly disappointing in this episode affecting her constituents is that although massive progress has been made in monitoring storm overflows—we have gone from just 6% being monitored to almost 100%—the quality of that monitoring is critical, and the assurances that she had been given about what was happening and about the type of water being expelled into a river have turned out not to be correct. There are questions for Southern Water and the Environment Agency. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has heard what she has said, and will ask his officials to get in contact with her office.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
We need a fresh statement on the infected blood scandal. My constituent Sue Sparkes was in the House yesterday. She was widowed at the age of 31 when her husband, Les, passed away in 1991 having contracted hepatitis C and HIV from infected blood. The Leader of the House mentioned a “moral compass” in her statement. May I remind her that Members from across this House showed their moral compass when, for the only time in this Parliament, they defeated the Government on this issue? That is why the Government have made the statements that they have—but they are still not paying the full and fair compensation that has been called for by Sir Brian Langstaff. When will the Government make a statement on the compensation, and will the Budget indicate that it will happen immediately?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that question, and I thank all the directly affected people, and those supporting them and the various campaign groups, who took the time to visit Parliament yesterday. I think that we have done the right thing in gripping this issue through the inquiries that we have set up and the compensation study. The hon. Gentleman will know of my interest in this area. I assure him that I get regular updates from the Paymaster General, and I do not think it will be too long before he will be able to come to the House to make further announcements—he is making progress. This is the final stage of the process; it is the most difficult. I know that the Paymaster General is determined to deliver the right outcome for all those infected and affected by that appalling scandal.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The emotional aftermath and devastated lives that are left after violent knife crime have been highlighted in a recent, very powerful documentary titled “Grief”, produced locally in the west midlands by the Express and Star. It is a really poignant reminder of the call for action and awareness, and features the brave stories of two grieving families—two sets of parents, including one from my constituency. I know that the Home Secretary takes this issue very seriously, but can my right hon. Friend provide us with an update on when legislation will be brought forward to deliver a ban on machetes and zombie-style knives?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work she is doing on this issue. I have witnessed that work at first hand, having visited her constituency and met with one set of those parents she mentions—I praise them for all the work they are doing to turn the tragedy that befell them into some positive action. As she has kindly mentioned, the Home Secretary is committed to this issue, and is continually looking at what more can be done. The particular statutory instrument to which my right hon. Friend refers, which was laid before Parliament on 25 January, is currently on remaining orders and is yet to be debated in both Houses, but I think that will happen extremely soon. As she knows, we are making progress on that.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
On 18 January, I raised the case of Pilsworth South landfill in my constituency, which has been giving off an awful smell due to the operator breaching its licence. I asked the Leader of the House whether we could have a debate in Government time about giving the Environment Agency more teeth in relation to matters like this, and I appreciate her writing to the Environment Secretary on my behalf. However, can we have a statement from the Secretary of State on potential prosecutions of operators that breach their licence, so that our constituents no longer suffer from this stench and we can stop the stink?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continued work in this area—my office stands ready to help him on all fronts. As he knows, he can raise this matter directly with the Secretary of State on 14 March, but given that that date is a little way off, I will make sure that the Secretary of State hears what the hon. Gentleman has said today.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Last week, the Government-funded organisation Tell MAMA published its latest data on anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia incidents. That data showed that there had been 2,000-plus incidents in four months—an increase of over 300%. Between that time and now, there has been no statement from the Government on tackling Islamophobia. Last week, there was a statement from the Government on tackling antisemitism; can the Leader of the House clarify to me when the Government will make a statement on tackling Islamophobia, noting those latest data? I am sure she agrees with me, and with every Member of this House, that we should do everything we can to ensure that all our faith communities are treated fairly and equally.
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments —that is a duty on us all. He may wish to know that I have also asked for a meeting with the Government’s envoy for freedom of religion or belief, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and the Minister responsible to look at what more we parliamentarians can do to ensure that all communities and faith groups feel properly supported in these times. I will make sure that the relevant Department hears what my hon. Friend has said today.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I had no intention of coming to ask the Leader of the House a question, but earlier she mentioned the exclusion of Members of Parliament. Just to be clear about the language, what we are talking about is people who have been arrested for sexual crimes being excluded from this estate. She said that we cannot have that debate, and that Members need to trust the process—well, staff also need to trust what happens here. She said that we cannot have the debate because of what happened last week. I have absolutely no idea how what happened last week has anything to do with keeping this building safe; could the Leader of the House elaborate on why what happened last week has got anything to do with something we have been fighting for for five years?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It is because this relies on the trust and confidence that Members have in other Members in this place, but also in the House authorities. The hon. Lady will know that I am part of the Commission. We have brought forward and tabled these proposals, but we also have a duty to listen to hon. and right hon. Members in this place, otherwise such motions will fail. I have to say that there is a very small set of circumstances—I cannot actually think of a set—where this would ever be used, because what would happen, if the House authorities were notified of any issues of concern, is that bail conditions would be applied to that individual, and therefore the process would not be triggered. We are talking about a set of circumstances where there would be some other kind of risk.
It is not an immediate emergency. It is important that we debate these things. It is particularly important to Mr Speaker, upon whom the responsibility for these issues currently falls. Clearly, a process is being proposed that would take that responsibility away from him. I am telling all hon. and right hon. Members that we need to debate these matters, taking seriously the concerns of our colleagues. Just coming to this place, and implying that Members on the Government Benches do not care about these issues is not helpful.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) referred to the issue of foreign state ownership and purchase, and the freedom of the press. I have to say that there have been plenty of times when I have certainly not liked what the press has written about me, or, indeed, about my party or other aspects. However, this does matter for the press—unlike for other industries, where I think it is perfectly valid for there to be ownership or part-ownership by foreign states, and in the past we have encouraged that, going both ways. I think it is vital, if the Government do not have the powers they think they need or are relying on some aspect of some other competition authority, that we put something in place to make sure that the freedom of the press is preserved forever. In particular, I am thinking right now of The Telegraph and The Spectator.
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend makes her point very well, and I am pleased that she has got that on record. A free press, whether nationally or at local level, is a fundamental part of our democracy. If we lose that, we will lose a very great thing that our democracy leans upon. It should be protected. I think hon. and right hon. Members will continue to raise their concerns about this matter, and I will make sure that the Government have heard.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My constituent Marie took ill health retiral in 2010, only to later discover that she needed to wait until she was 66 for her state pension. During that time she received no benefit support, after losing employment and support allowance. She was not advised to apply for the personal independence payment, and she lost her home due to affordability issues. She has been let down by the Department for Work and Pensions at every turn, with an increased pension age without notification, incorrect advice on benefits, and no guidance on qualifying years, leaving her with a reduced state pension. What steps have the Government taken to make sure that the DWP gives everyone the correct advice and support they are entitled to, including national insurance contributions towards the state pension?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this question. Given that the Department’s questions are not until 18 March, I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard his particular concerns and asks his officials to contact the hon. Gentleman’s office.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
My constituents have raised concerns with me about the number of potholes throughout Tamworth. Some are being filled in, which is positive news, but many remain unfilled, and there is a broader need for resurfacing works on roads with higher volumes of traffic and those impacted by heavy goods vehicles. What assessment have the Government made of the adequacy of the funding that has been provided to county councils to deal with our crumbling roads infrastructure?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that, in part because of the particularly bad weather we have recently had, there has been a considerable uplift in money given to local authorities to tackle precisely the types of issues that she raises. Although that money was not strictly ringfenced, we want to be assured it has been spent on those things correctly, and all local authorities are required to place in the public domain, I think on 15 March, what they have done with that money and what repairs they have carried out. It is extremely important that that work is done. We want to ensure that it is being done and has been done, and I am sure the hon. Lady will be able to find out exactly what has been spent and on what.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Leader of the House will have heard my challenge to Cabinet Office Ministers earlier about the worrying uncertainty swirling around the inspectorate for migration, immigration and borders after the sacking of David Neal, and it is disappointing that we have both not had a statement from the Home Office given the urgency of the situation and failed to get the urgent question I applied for on behalf of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The issue is not just the status of the 15 unpublished reports—some unpublished for a very long time—but uncertainty about the status of the inspectorate and whether it can carry on with its current work and reviews, let alone take up its scheduled reviews and address how they will be reported in future, until we have a new inspector, which could take at least six months. Will the Leader of the House urgently get clarification from the Home Office about the working of this very important inspectorate on a very topical issue?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. The Home Secretary will not be at the Dispatch Box for questions until 15 April. I will raise this matter with the Home Secretary on behalf of my hon. Friend and the Committee on which he serves and ask him to update the Committee and this House.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
This weekend the first Romanian weekend school will open in my constituency in St Teresa’s primary school. This will be the first Romanian supplemental school, adding to the weekend schools we have for the wide range of diasporas in and around my constituency. While I am sure my right hon. Friend will welcome this initiative, may we have a debate in Government time on how we can provide more opportunities for supplemental schools for the various diasporas in this country, given the challenges they face in trying to introduce these schools?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question and all who have enabled this school to be stood up. I know he will want to get on record how important this is to diaspora communities. He is an experienced parliamentarian and will know how to apply for a debate and the various options open to him. I thank him for getting his praise for all involved on the record today.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
May we have a debate in Government time on endangered species? Given the party of Disraeli and Churchill is now the mainstream of new-right fanatics and conspiracy theorists, I am particularly concerned about the lesser-spotted one nation Tory. My concern was reinforced last week when the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) told CPAC, the conservative political action conference, that her party was full of CINOs, which means Conservatives in name only. Who does the Leader of the House think she meant?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the characteristically amusing way in which he has raised an important question. He knows I have taken the matter of conspiracy theories very seriously as Leader of the House. We have stood up new services in the Library so that hon. Members can swiftly reassure their constituents on not just the facts of a particular matter but the origin of whatever they might have seen on social media, and very shortly, with the Speaker’s help, we will be launching some training for Members on dealing with this issue. Those are the sorts of things we should all be focusing on.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Does the Leader of the House agree that far from being a major cause of climate change, Welsh farmers, such as Richard Jones from Brynsiencyn, are the guardians and protectors of the Welsh countryside? Because of their dedication and hard work, Wales is as beautiful as it is and able to feed us.
Penny Mordaunt
May I thank my hon. Friend for getting that on record? The Welsh farming community have conducted themselves brilliantly in these difficult and uncertain times for their community and their futures. We know they do an amazing job, and they should be proud of that. Everyone in this place should be proud of that. The plans of Labour’s Welsh Government are appalling and should be objected to in the strongest terms. The Welsh farming community have been doing just that. They have been standing up and fighting, and they deserve our support in doing so.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Today is Rare Disease Day, which is appropriate, given that it is 29 February. One in 17 people are affected by rare diseases or conditions, and they face common challenges, including delayed diagnosis, lack of treatment and poor co-ordination of care. This afternoon, we will be celebrating with our Rare Disease Day reception. It will be a chance to meet, discuss our concerns and exchange views, as well as to celebrate the work done by patient groups to bring this issue to the forefront. Can we have a debate in Government time on addressing the challenges faced by those with rare diseases?
Penny Mordaunt
On behalf of us all, may I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful advert? This issue will affect many of our constituents, and she is right about the particular challenges with research funding, and the ability of patients to access specialist clinicians dealing with these issues is important. I am proud of this Government’s record on our life science reforms, which have enabled experts from around the world, often in different discipline areas, to work together to get faster to solutions in these disease areas. I hope that many Members will be attending the event that the hon. Lady has advertised for us.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
According to a whistleblower allegedly within Openreach, the transition to overhead cabling has on too many occasions appeared to be proceeding without sufficient consultation with key stakeholders and, more importantly, local residents. Regrettably, in my constituency of Southport, it would appear that Openreach has sidestepped its own procedures for gaining community agreement, disrespecting the will of local residents. I call on the Leader of the House to request that the relevant Minister make a statement on these practices by Openreach. It is imperative that we ensure Openreach’s strict adherence to its own policies and legal responsibilities, particularly if those were taken into account when it was awarded the contract. I also urge the Leader of the House to urge the Minister to put a pause on all activity by Openreach where it cannot be confirmed that it has adhered to its own policies and procedures.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend has made some precise asks to protect his constituents and their interests. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he has said. I will write on his behalf and ask that an official from the Department gets in touch with his office swiftly.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has been helpful on the contaminated blood scandal. Can we have a statement from the Government on the issue that has arisen in the last few days, which is that we are not allowed to know who is in the expert group working with the Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) —at pace, I understand—to set out the compensation that will be payable? The written answer given to one Member of this House was that that was for reasons of their privacy. The Leader of the House will understand that there is a huge amount of distrust because of what has happened over the past 40 or 50 years with the scandal. Why will the Government not tell this House and the population at large who is advising them and giving them that expert advice?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising this matter and all the work she is doing on behalf of those infected and affected by this terrible scandal. The Paymaster General has just been at the Dispatch Box. I did not hear all the things he said, but I will certainly ensure he is in touch with the right hon. Lady on these specific points. On other recent personnel concerns, I know he wants to ensure that trust and confidence are retained during this process, while being able to move things swiftly forward. One thing he must balance is precisely that. Everyone in this House wants the matter resolved swiftly. This final piece of work, which is the hardest piece in the whole process, needs to be got on with and done. I know that the Paymaster General does not want that slowed down, but the right hon. Lady is right that we need to ensure that people will have confidence in the outcome.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
We all know how important town centres are to our local communities and how they have been faced with the challenges of online retail and out-of-town shopping. Rugby town centre continues to have a strong independent sector with much loved retailers, and now the Conservative-led borough council is taking the initiative with an ambitious plan for regeneration including residential units and a food, drink and leisure economy. However, to achieve that goal, with all the benefits that will provide to my constituents, it will need support from both the public and private sectors. May we have a debate about how, working together, we can unlock regeneration schemes such as that in Rugby?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for all the progress that he and his council are making on that. Members of Parliament can clearly help with creating the shared focus across sectors to enable regeneration to happen. I know that he is well placed to do that, and he knows that he can also raise this matter with the relevant Secretary of State on Monday 4 March.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
On Friday, victims of rape and serious sexual assault in Scotland will be the first in the UK to have free access to court transcripts under a new pilot scheme. However, the UK Government are refusing to match that in England and Wales, and are only committing to a one-year pilot scheme in which free copies of sentencing remarks will be made available to victims of serious crime. That is not good enough and fails victims like my constituent Juliana Terlizzi, who was charged more than £7,000 to read the transcript of her rapist’s trial. I tabled an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that would have required the Government to provide free access to court transcripts in England and Wales, but they have not listened to our concerns. Will the Leader of the House provide a debate in Government time on the implementation of free access to court transcripts to help get victims like Juliana the justice they deserve?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for asking that important question. It is not just about cost; there is also sometimes difficulty and complexity in knowing how to go about accessing or even requesting particular transcripts. Given that the Lord Chancellor will not be in the House to answer questions until 26 March, I will write on the hon. Lady’s behalf and ask him to update her.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Over the last week, some fairly serious concerns have been raised about the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition and his role in the events leading up to last Wednesday’s deeply disappointing debacle. Might that conduct now form the basis of an investigation by the Committee of Privileges? Will the Leader of the House explain how that that would work?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising concerns, which I know are concerns for him and for other Members. The procedures regarding the Privileges Committee are there for all Members to see. The House must ask the Privileges Committee to carry out any work of this nature. It is incredibly important that any requests to do that follow the rules, and therefore are confidential—that confidentiality is incredibly important to that process—so the first that the House would hear about such work would be from the Office of the Speaker. The rules are there. Clerks of the House can also help hon. Members if they have further questions in this regard. I do hope that the House will be able to move on from what happened, but I do understand fully why people want the facts examined.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House share my concern that the long-running industrial action at the Pensions Regulator needs a speedy response? The Public and Commercial Services Union has put forward a set of reasonable proposals, but it is disappointing that the chief executive, Nausicaa Delfas, will not even meet the union to discuss them. PCS members are taking their second day in the latest round of 12 days of strike action as part of a dispute now into its seventh month. I hope the Leader of the House agrees that we need to find time to have a debate on this dispute to ensure that it can be resolved and to prevent further damage to staff welfare and the organisation’s reputation.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. She will know the options open to her to secure a debate on this matter. She will also be able to raise it directly with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 18 March.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for withdrawing the motion scheduled for Monday, in response to the amendments that I tabled. Will she review the whole situation of risk-based exclusion, taking into account last night’s unanimous decision by the House of Lords to ensure that risk-based exclusion from the House of Lords is triggered only by someone having been charged with a sexual criminal offence that would lead to a sentence of imprisonment in excess of two years? We have one parliamentary estate, so would it not be ludicrous to have different exclusion rules for the House of Lords and the House of Commons?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. Although we might operate under different rules at each end of this Parliament, the principles should be the same. The House of Lords is very different from the House of Commons, so I am less concerned about our diverging in that respect. However, the principles and the outcome of the process need to be the same. Many Members—in particular learned Members—have raised concerns about some aspects of the scheme. I want the House of Commons Commission to bring the matter to the Floor of the House, even if it is not amended, when those matters and reassurances have been addressed. That is very important. People need to have trust and confidence in how that process will work.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), has been in the US peddling conspiracy theories, claiming that the “deep state” brought her down. She stood silently next to Steve Bannon as he called Tommy Robinson a hero—a man whose followers have repeatedly sent me rape and death threats for calling out his inappropriate behaviour in this House. Will the Leader of the House explain why the right hon. Member still has the Conservative Whip?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for affording us all the opportunity to condemn Tommy Robinson and all he stands for. She will know from my earlier answer that I take these matters of conspiracy theories, the erosion of trust and the sowing of fear among the general public very seriously. That is why I have given hon. Members new tools to combat these issues through the very good House of Commons Library. I will take it as a ringing endorsement of this Government’s progress and the fact our plan is working that Opposition Members have been so obsessed this week with the former Prime Minister, and not the current one.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
New analysis shows that the Scottish Government’s policies will lift 100,000 children out of relative poverty and 70,000 children out of absolute poverty in 2024-25—a direct result of action taken by the Scottish Government to eliminate the scourge in our society. The Child Poverty Action Group described the Scottish child payment as a “game changer” in driving down child poverty. Will the Leader of the House make a statement to recognise the importance of the Scottish child payment to combating child poverty? Would she like such a measure to be rolled out across England, so that the poorest children in England can also benefit from that vital support?
Penny Mordaunt
One of the strengths of the Union of the United Kingdom is that we can choose different ways of doing things, often achieving the same outcomes and certainly sharing our objectives. She will know this Government’s record in this area: we have 1 million fewer workless households and, based on recent figures, we have lifted more than 500,000 children out of poverty. We all must work on these things, whatever particular systems cover our nations.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I would like to follow up on the word salad the Leader of the House gave in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on why the risk-based exclusion process has been pulled from the Order Paper. The Leader of the House talked about last week’s events being part of the reason. Surely last week told us that, actually, the security and safety of people who work on the estate, not just Members, is really important and should be more of a priority? She also said in response to my hon. Friend’s question that it is important we have a debate, so surely keeping the matter on the Order Paper, having that debate and ventilating the issues in the open would be the best way of reaching a resolution? I remind her that she promised it would be voted on by the end of last year. Is there a date now by which we will get to move on this?
Penny Mordaunt
I repeat my commitment to bringing the matter to the Floor of the House. I tabled it and I wanted it to be debated. I would just challenge what the hon. Gentleman said. Last week was not about the security of Members of this House. The hon. Gentleman is under a complete illusion if he thinks that that is the case. What happened last week was that the things we trust in our rule book in this place were upended for political advantage. I do not want to bring forward a debate that requires hon. Members to trust in systems we are putting in place when that trust is fractured. Let us work together to rebuild that trust. Let us address the legitimate concerns that our colleagues have raised and let us bring it back to be debated. I do not think that is a controversial view.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
I have always opposed capital punishment on the principle that it is wrong to take a life, so it cannot be right for the state to take a life in revenge. Events have caused me to reconsider my position. May we have a debate on crimes against humanity and the appropriate punishment for those who perpetrate, collude in and cover up atrocities and crimes so severe that the ultimate punishment may be required?
Penny Mordaunt
I think the hon. Gentleman’s incredibly subtle question, and where he might be taking it, is not lost on anyone in this House. It is appropriate that the finale of this session, which has featured so heavily conspiracy theories, should fall to the hon. Gentleman. I would just caution him to reflect on his own behaviour and what he does on social media, and on the security measures that have had to be stepped up for hon. Members in the wake of some of his social media tweets and questions in this House. Whatever my disagreements with the hon. Gentleman, I will always stand ready to get answers from Departments and assist him in his work, but I am going to call out, on every occasion, when he does things that I think are a danger to our democracy, and to the safety and security of Members of this House.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Last week’s data showing that the UK economy was in recession, with seven quarters of negative growth, and the fact that we have the worst-performing economy in the G7 are pretty damning. The situation in the west midlands is particularly concerning. Last November, PricewaterhouseCoopers published a report predicting that the west midlands would have the lowest growth of all regions in the UK. That is not a good look for the record of Andy Street, the Mayor of the West Midlands. May we have a debate on this really important driver of the UK economy, the west midlands?
Penny Mordaunt
I look forward to the Budget debate and the Chancellor setting the record straight with regard to the west midlands. Mayor Andy Street has performed miracles: he has been an amazing community leader; he has galvanised all sectors; and he is regenerating parts of Birmingham and suburbs around it that have not had the attention and inward investment they need. There are problems in that area in the legacy of Birmingham City Council and its appalling maladministration, and with the Labour police and crime commissioner. I hope Andy Street will be able to have more influence over those areas in the coming months and years.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Normally, points of order come after all the statements, but if the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is pertinent to the business before the House, I will take it.
Ian Mearns
I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I owe the House an apology: in my earlier advertisement for the wares of the Backbench Business Committee, I suggested that the deadline for applications for estimates day debates was lunch time on Monday, but it is in fact close of play on Monday—when the House rises on Monday evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am so pleased when I hear a point of order that is a point of order. [Laughter.]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
Write it in your diary.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I will write: “Today I dealt with a point of order that was, in fact, a point of order.” The hon. Gentleman rightly corrected what he had said before, and hopefully that means he will receive even more applications for Backbench Business debates. I thank him.
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my question to the Leader of the House about the announcement of the winning designer of the holocaust memorial project, I referred to the year 2016, but I should have referred to 2017 or 2018. I am sorry to have to correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Once again, this is getting very exciting. I have taken two genuine points of order, including that one from the Father of the House. I am grateful to him for correcting the record, and I understand the importance of the points that he has made.
Angiolini Inquiry Report
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Angiolini inquiry.
Three years ago, Sarah Everard was abducted, raped and murdered by an off-duty serving police officer. It was a gut-wrenching betrayal, an abuse of power of the most egregious kind, and the country was shaken to its core. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), established an inquiry to examine the many failings arising from the Sarah Everard case, chaired by Lady Elish Angiolini KC. Part 1 focused on examining Wayne Couzens’ career and previous behaviour, and a report dealing with its findings has been published today.
First and foremost, we should take time to think about Sarah Everard’s family and loved ones at what must be an incredibly difficult time. I pay tribute to them all for the immense dignity that they have shown in the face of such an unbearable loss in such terrible circumstances.
Tragically, the report makes it clear that Couzens was completely unsuitable to serve as a police officer, and, worse still, that there were numerous occasions when that should, and could, have been recognised. Lady Elish identified significant and repeated problems in recruitment and vetting throughout Couzens’ career, including the overlooking of his chaotic financial situation. This meant that he was able to serve in a range of privileged roles, for instance as a firearms officer. It is appalling that reports of indecent exposure by Couzens were not taken seriously enough by the police, and that officers were not adequately trained, equipped or motivated to investigate the allegations properly. Had fuller inquiries been made in 2015 and 2020, Couzens could and probably would have been removed from policing. Evidence of his preference for extreme and violent pornography, and of his alleged sexual offending, dates back nearly 20 years prior to Sarah Everard’s murder. The inquiry found that Couzens was adept at hiding his grossly offensive behaviour from most of his colleagues, but that he shared his vile and misogynistic views on a WhatsApp group. The other members of that group are no longer serving officers, after a range of disciplinary processes. The fact that many of his alleged victims felt unable to report their experiences at the time speaks to the issue of confidence in policing among women.
I wish to place on the record my thanks to Lady Elish and her team for this report. It is a deeply distressing but incredibly important piece of work, and they have approached it with thoroughness, professionalism and sensitivity. We all owe thanks to those who came forward and gave brave testimony to the inquiry. Everyone who Couzens hurt is in my thoughts today.
The report makes 16 recommendations, including improving the police response to indecent exposure, reforming police recruitment and vetting practices, and addressing cultures in policing. The Government will now carefully consider the report and respond formally in due course, and I assure the House that our response will be prompt. We are taking action to address public confidence in the police, and there has already been progress in a number of areas that have been highlighted by the inquiry. Anyone who is not fit to wear the uniform, for whatever reason, must be removed from policing, and every effort must be made to ensure that similar people never join. That is why we are providing funding to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to develop an automated system for flagging intelligence about officers much more quickly.
We are changing the rules to make it easier for forces to remove those who cannot hold the minimum level of clearance. Police chiefs are getting back the responsibility for chairing misconduct hearings, so that they can better uphold standards in the forces that they lead, and there will be a presumption of dismissal for any officer found to have committed gross misconduct. I can announce today that there will also be automatic suspensions of police officers charged with certain criminal offences, but the work must continue. Part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry is considering systemic issues in policing, such as vetting, recruitment and the culture, as well as the safety of women in public spaces. I will of course read the findings closely and with care.
Sarah Everard’s murder started a national conversation about violence against women and girls, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham reopened a call for evidence that went on to receive 180,000 responses from members of the public, with many sharing their harrowing personal experiences. That evidence demonstrated the terrible truth: women and girls routinely feel unsafe. This is unacceptable and should anger us all, and the whole of society needs to treat change in this area as an urgent priority.
Tackling violence against women and girls has been a priority for me for a long time. It is now a priority set out in the strategic policing requirement, meaning that VAWG is rightly considered to be as serious a focus as tackling terrorism. Our tackling violence against women and girls strategy and tackling domestic abuse plan are backed up by significant investment. We are changing the law so that rapists will serve their full sentence behind bars, with no option of release at the two-thirds point, and anyone who commits a murder with a sexual or sadistic element will spend the rest of their days in prison.
Our safer streets fund and safety of women at night fund support a range of projects across England and Wales. The online StreetSafe tool enables the public to anonymously report areas where they feel unsafe and why. There is a new national operating model for the investigation of rape and serious sexual offences, which means that the police and prosecutors will work together more closely, building stronger cases that focus on the behaviour of the suspect, and that place victims at the heart of everything. We have also launched a nationwide behaviour change campaign called “Enough” to bring about an enduring shift in the attitudes and behaviours that underpin the abuse of women and girls.
Most police officers use their powers to serve the public bravely and well, but the impact can be devastating when they fall short. Society cannot function properly when trust in the police is eroded. I am unambiguous that police forces must keep improving and must command the confidence of the people they serve. It is imperative that police leadership, of whatever rank, plays its part in this endeavour.
Once again, I express my heartfelt sympathy to Sarah Everard’s family and friends. I cannot begin to imagine the extent of their pain. Together, we must do everything possible to stop such agony being visited on others, to rebuild public trust, and to make sure that our streets and public places, as well as the private realm, are safe for women and girls. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement.
Three years ago this Sunday, a young woman walking home was abducted and brutally killed by a serving police officer who she should have been able to trust to keep her safe. Today we think of Sarah Everard and her parents, family and friends, who have to live with the shattering consequences of what happened. This is also a day when many families who have lost sisters, daughters and mothers to violence are here in Parliament to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), read out the names of the women killed this year.
Today’s damning report is about women’s safety. It is for all the women across the country who worry about walking home alone, or who worry about their daughters’ safety. It is also about trust and confidence in policing, and whether we have the standards in place to maintain confidence in individual officers. The work of the vast majority of police officers who work immensely hard and with integrity to keep communities safe is undermined when standards fail. I thank Lady Elish Angiolini for her inquiry and this comprehensive first report. I also thank those who came forward to give evidence.
The report exposes a catalogue of appalling failures in police vetting and misconduct processes, and in the investigation of indecent exposure and sexual offences. Wayne Couzens should never have been a police officer. He should have been stopped, and he could have been stopped, from being a police officer. It is truly appalling. His history of alleged sexual offending stretches back so many years, yet the opportunities to investigate were repeatedly missed. Most disturbing of all, Lady Angiolini says that there is
“nothing to stop another Couzens operating in plain sight.”
Although I agree with most of what the Home Secretary says, I have to be blunt about this: his response is too weak—too little, too late. The lack of urgency is unfathomable to me. The Government have been repeatedly warned about failures around vetting and misconduct. Independent inspectorate reports in 2012, 2019, 2022 and 2023 all highlighted serious failures in vetting procedures, which is why, two years ago, I called for mandatory national vetting standards. Forces are working hard, but there are no mandatory standards for all forces. All the Government have done is bring in a code of practice two and a half years after Sarah Everard’s murder, and it is not strong enough. Frankly, it is not even clear that Wayne Couzens, or officers such as David Carrick and Cliff Mitchell—both now convicted—would definitely have failed the vetting standards and the code of practice had they been in force at the time. The Home Secretary has to go further, and that has to be driven by the Home Office.
As for the misconduct changes that the Home Secretary referred to, most of them are not even in place yet. Again, this is three years after Sarah Everard was murdered. Will he commit today to a new mandatory vetting framework, underpinned by legislation, that all forces must abide by, under which any evidence about past domestic abuse or sexual offending will be pursued, and that will not simply take into account convictions? We will support him in that. At a minimum, will he accept recommendation 6, which is about a
“Review of indecent exposure allegations and other sexual offences recorded against serving police officers”?
At a minimum, surely he can accept that today.
The automatic suspensions that the Home Secretary announced do not go far enough. Are we to suspend people for criminal offences only once they have been charged? Once the police launch an investigation into domestic abuse or sexual offences by a serving police officer, that officer should be automatically suspended. Again, we have called for that repeatedly. The Home Secretary is not going far enough. As for the response on women’s safety more widely, that, too, is frankly too week.
I welcome many of the policies the Home Secretary referred to and that the Government have introduced over the past few years—most of them are things we called for—but, again, this goes nowhere near far enough. On indecent exposure, we know about the awful murder of Libby Squire in 2019 and the failure to take indecent exposure seriously enough. Libby’s mother, Lisa Squire, and the Home Affairs Committee Chair have been campaigning for stronger action on indecent exposure for years now. Again, surely the Home Secretary can accept at least the first three recommendations of Lady Elish’s report, which are on stronger police training and guidance on, and a stronger approach to, investigating indecent exposure.
When it comes to women’s safety, the reality is that the number of prosecutions for domestic abuse has halved; rape prosecutions are still taking years; early action and intervention just does not happen. There is a shocking drift on women’s safety and in what the Home Secretary has said today. I urge him to: support Labour’s call for new vetting rules, and for specialist rape and sexual offences units in every force; support Raneem’s law, so that the police respond with urgency to domestic abuse and save lives; and listen to Lisa Squire, the mother of Libby Squire. We say that this report should be a watershed, but we said that Sarah Everard’s murder three years ago should have been a watershed, and far too little has changed. How long must we go on saying the same things?
The first women’s safety march was on the streets of Leeds nearly 50 years ago, and we are saying the same things about our daughters’ safety today. I am sick and tired of nothing changing. I am sick and tired of women and girls who face abuse and violence not getting support, while perpetrators get away with it. Enough is enough. Let us have some urgency in the Home Secretary’s response. We cannot stand for this any more.
James Cleverly
The right hon. Lady makes a number of points about the findings in the report, and about the issues raised because of Sarah Everard’s brutal murder. I have continued the work of my predecessors, including that initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), to make sure that not just the Department, but police forces around the country and other organisations, statutory and non-statutory, that deal with the safety of women, are focused relentlessly on this issue. We have made it clear that there is still much work to do, and, as I committed to do, we will respond promptly to the findings of this report.
I understand the frustration that not enough has happened; things have not moved fast enough, and cultural change still needs to be driven through, including on leadership. I have made clear to police leaders, both in forces around the country and at the College of Policing, my expectation of leadership. This is not just about process and procedure, but about these matters being amplified and supported by leadership, and about a real commitment to driving through change in forces. I will continue to ensure that that happens.
I do not think it is right for the right hon. Lady to say that nothing has changed. That would not be an accurate reflection of the situation from the time to which she makes reference. There have been a number of improvements. My first visit as Home Secretary was to Holborn police station to look at the team working there. There have been improvements, although I concede that they have not been universally applied. The differential performance among forces is not good enough. I have discussed what can happen to ensure the least well performing forces match the performance of the best forces.
There remains a huge amount of work to be done. We are not waiting for the outcome of the second inquiry before we take action. We will look at changes to the recruitment and vetting processes, which have been highlighted, but in her inquiry Dame Elish shows that there were plenty of occasions when the current system flagged problems that were not properly responded to by the force. Those are not procedural problems but a culture problem. We will look at what processes and procedures need to change, but I will not wait for the second report before doing so. I will continue to push for cultural change through society and policing, to ensure that where issues are flagged, as they were, they are taken seriously and investigated properly to ensure that such a situation will hopefully never happen again.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I join everybody in the House in paying tribute to Sarah Everard’s family. Having spent time with them, I hope the report will at least give them some sense of the facts and circumstances around what happened to their beautiful daughter, as they requested.
I thank Dame Elish Angiolini for her incredible work. This report is only part one; parts two and three will follow. The report has no surprises when we think about what has been said thus far about policing since Sarah’s appalling abduction and murder. Zoë Billingham, His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and others have highlighted many institutional, cultural and practical failures.
Will the Home Secretary give his own view on what can happen next? This is a clear call for action for all police forces around the country to raise the bar on consistent vetting and action. There is no place for criminal or corrupt conduct in policing. We police by consent in our country but that bond has been broken with the public, as the report shows. With reports two and three due to come out, will the Home Secretary give a commitment that, as those reviews are undertaken and as he engages with Dame Elish Angiolini, he will act swiftly where issues are identified and not wait for the publication of further reports? Will he also act swiftly on putting forward the recommendations in part one of the report?
James Cleverly
I thank my right hon. Friend for initiating the report and appointing Dame Elish. Details in the report were new to many people and were painful to read, but much of what is highlighted was already known. We have not waited for the report to start driving change. I have had conversations with police leadership about my expectations for their focus on the policing of the safety of women and girls and their attitude towards women and girls. Processes and structures are important; we will review and improve them. However, the best processes and structures in the world cannot replace focus and leadership. It is incredibly important that leadership at every rank in policing takes that seriously. This is a conversation that I have had with police leaders and the College of Policing to ensure that the attitudes highlighted in the report change. Without that shift in attitudes, all the processes in the world will not repair what needs to be repaired. That is a conversation that I will repeat.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am grateful for advance sight of the statement, and to Dame Elish Angiolini for the careful and thorough way she has worked through this task, and the thoughtful way she talked through her findings online earlier. I, too, am thinking of Sarah Everard and her family today, as well as the family of Emma Caldwell, who have experienced such a protracted, awful ordeal.
Fundamentally, our police forces must both keep us safe and have our confidence that they will do so. Of course, most police officers do an excellent job, but trust has been hugely damaged by issues being raised—including, as we have heard, indecent exposure—but not acted on. We have heard that Wayne Couzens should never have been a police officer. The Home Secretary spoke about vetting. I put it to him that we need to hear more about both process and culture. It cannot be one before the other; both must be dealt with immediately. I would also like to hear more about how those currently in the force who show tell-tale signs, as Couzens did, will be dealt with.
What does the Home Secretary mean by “automated systems”, and how will they work? Will additional funding be made available to tackle institutional misogyny within the Met, and will Barnett consequentials be available so that the Scottish Government can similarly look at the threat of violence against women and girls, across society and within the police force?
Good policing will not end the epidemic of male-inflicted violence against women, but it should mean that men who abuse women are held to account. I wonder whether the Home Secretary is aware of the relatively small proportion of police officers investigated for domestic abuse, sexual assault, rape and abuse of position who were suspended over the last two years, and what steps he is taking to deal with that. Will the Home Secretary talk further about those who have raised concerns about domestic abuse by police officers, and how the specific actions that are needed will be taken? This is quite devastating for women’s confidence in policing. I wonder whether he is considering a statutory inquiry into institutional misogyny within the Metropolitan police.
Finally, he said at the beginning of his statement that the report and his Government’s actions have brought to light the concerns that women have. I have to say to him that we have had these concerns forever. This is not a new situation, but there is now an opportunity to do more about it. I am keen to hear about how that might pan out.
James Cleverly
On the hon. Lady’s final point, I want to make it clear what I meant. I was not suggesting that the report had brought to my attention, or that of the Department, a problem that is severe and long-standing. When I was at City Hall in the London Assembly, I contributed to the London violence against women and girls strategy, back in 2008-09, so I have been involved in this area and been passionate about it for the entire time I have been in elected office.
What Sarah Everard’s murder highlighted more generally to the public was something that I know women have known for a very long time: that the public realm is not safe enough; that their concerns are often not taken seriously enough; that there has been a dismissive attitude to non-contact sexual crimes; and that it takes far too long to bring domestic abusers to justice, too few of them are brought to justice, and women do not feel safe during the process. That has been raised by many people in the House. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who has made it clear that far, far more needs to be done, which many women already instinctively know.
That is the point that I am making about these tragic circumstances; we need to bring a greater and wider attention to this—a whole society attention. This is an issue about women and girls, but it is not an issue for women and girls. It has to be a whole society issue. I remain absolutely committed to ensuring that the specific recommendations of the report are responded to promptly, but, as my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said, we are not waiting for the report to come out to take action; we have already taken action and we have already increased funding.
With regard to the Barnett consequentials, I will have to leave it to others to talk through the implications of that within the wider funding envelope of our support to Scotland as an integral part of the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
This comprehensive report reveals a truly appalling catalogue of what ultimately turned out to be fatal errors, incompetence and complacency, which were epitomised by a culture in parts of the Met police—it is important to say “parts”—where vile behaviour and deeply abusive language, as we would recognise it to be, constituted banter. Mark Rowley, when he came in, offered in response to open up more than 1,000 cases of previous scandal and conduct investigations to see whether they had been conducted properly. When the Home Affairs Committee went to see the standards committee at the Met, we were told that this would take some time and that we would see more of these cases coming out. Can the Home Secretary give us a progress report on what more instances we are likely to see in the public domain?
Can we also hear more about an issue that we have raised previously, which is where those reviews of standards are undertaken by other members of the police force. Surely there is a case for bringing in greater independence by using other agencies and institutions, such as the military, to help with these investigations, as they would approach this from a different standpoint, ensuring that it is not just a case of the police marking their own homework.
James Cleverly
The review that was initiated by my predecessor and worked through by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is important. The commissioner has demonstrated an admirable commitment to reform. Having had conversations directly with him about this, I know that he takes these issues incredibly seriously. He wants to ensure that the Metropolitan police not only serve the capital and everybody in it, but are seen to serve them and that there is confidence in that.
I will of course consider my hon. Friend’s final point. I sat on the Metropolitan Police Authority’s professional standards committee from 2008, when I was first elected, until 2012. I saw the professionalism and alacrity with which the professional standards department of the Metropolitan police set about its work. There is a real anger directed at unprofessional officers by good officers. In my experience, the professional standards team takes its work incredibly seriously. The team wants to root out bad officers. Through the Criminal Justice Bill, we are giving chief constables more power to root out bad officers quickly, and I have committed to supporting them when they do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I welcome today’s statement. I hope that we will get a full response to the report from the Home Secretary very quickly. May I also associate myself with the comments of the Home Secretary and other right hon. and hon. Members today? Our thoughts are with the family and friends of Sarah Everard.
I wish to ask the Home Secretary again about this issue of indecent exposure, which is highlighted in the report and which he has talked about a little. In my constituency, we had the horrific case of Libby Squire, who was raped and murdered by a man who had been stalking women and roaming the streets of Hull for 18 months prior to murdering her. He had been exposing himself and committing acts of voyeurism. People did not report his actions, because they did not think that the police would take them seriously. Libby’s mum, Lisa Squire, has been campaigning on this for the past few years. She has recently given evidence at a hearing of the Home Affairs Committee. I wondered whether the Home Secretary would meet her, because it would be interesting to know his view. What more can be done now to encourage people—women in particular—to come forward when such things happen to them? I would also say that almost every woman I know has had this happen to them at some stage in their life. This problem is endemic.
James Cleverly
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for raising this point. I will of course seek to find an opportunity to meet the Squire family about this matter.
There needs to be a cycle of increased confidence. I hate some of the phraseology that has been applied, and I choose never to apply it about this issue, because there is the implication that these matters are less serious. But the sad truth is that, when we see reports of serious sexual violence, we can look back through the case history and often see plenty of examples of criminality leading up to that. Therefore we do absolutely need to take this seriously. Women who have been the victims of these kind of crimes—this kind of behaviour—need to feel confident about reporting them and they need to feel confident that their reports will be taken seriously. The more they see the police taking action, the more confident they will be in coming forward. Therefore, we need to develop a virtuous circle. We are not there yet; indeed, we know that we are a long way from that. We have seen this happen in the Couzens case. He was known to have committed these crimes, and that should have triggered a much more robust response. But it did not, and we must address why that was the case. We have to ensure that leadership and policing understand that, collectively, this House and the Home Office expect them to take this matter more seriously and send the signal that these crimes are not trivial and should not be ignored.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I would like to associate myself with the remarks of others—my thoughts are also with the Everard family.
This report tells us that the environment did nothing—nothing—to discourage Couzens’ misogynistic view of women. We know that not every flasher becomes a rapist, but we also know that every rapist starts somewhere. I respectfully say to my right hon. Friend that, of course, there have been good changes with regard to criminal justice and longer sentences for the most violent and the most serious offences, but that is too late. We have to intervene in the offending journey.
Last week, my Committee heard from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Cundy, a man who has taken on a really difficult job, overturning those stones in the Metropolitan police and turning up at 1,600 instances of officers with at least one allegation of a sexual offence or domestic violence—1,600. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance today that he will give more power to Stuart Cundy’s elbow, so that we get rid of these individuals from our police service?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I talk about that cycle of confidence, women need to see that when these crimes are reported, they are investigated and the perpetrators are brought to justice. Only then will they feel confident in coming forward. These are serious offences; they are not trivial. She is right to say that not everyone who is a flasher, not everyone who has made unwanted and inappropriate sexual advances to women, goes on to become a rapist or a murderer. None the less, the more people who are dissuaded from that behaviour because of swift and professional criminal justice, the more people we can prevent from getting to those later stages. That is why this is so important. That is why that cultural change needs to be driven through the whole system. A number of the Angiolini recommendations are for Departments other than the Home Office and for public bodies outside Government—all of us have to take this incredibly seriously. This is a whole of society approach, and that will remain the fundamental philosophy that I use to underpin the work of the Home Office in this area.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I associate myself with the comments for the Everard family and with Lady Elish Angiolini. Her report today is a continuation of her reports that have highlighted failures in our criminal justice system.
In the Home Secretary’s statement, I noticed mention of funding for the National Police Chiefs’ Council for the flagging of police officers in the vetting system. My own experience in the police service is that IT system improvements take a long time and are complex, so I suppose my first question for him is: what timescales do we have in mind for those improvements? Secondly, what engagement is happening with Police Scotland, because police officers transfer to forces in and outwith the UK? Finally, if today a serving police officer were found in a concerning situation that requires input into the intelligence system and they do not identify themselves as a police officer, are we confident that they would be dealt with accordingly?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady makes a number of points about the implementation of the changes that we are making. I cannot give precise timescales at the moment, because this piece of work is ongoing and recently initiated, but my desire is for these things to happen as quickly as possible. She is absolutely right that IT and systems changes are not instant, and I am impatient to get improvement, which is why I keep saying that we are not waiting for these things to go forward. They are amplifiers and accelerators of what should be a fundamental change that we are looking to drive through immediately. The earliest conversations that I had when appointed as Home Secretary were on this issue with the College of Policing and with Lady Elish herself. One of those first meetings I had on my appointment was with Lady Elish about this report and the work that we could do to get ahead of the findings that she has put forward.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. He will be clear that the overwhelming number of Metropolitan police officers are brave individuals who frequently put their life on the line to protect us all. That is key: such individuals want to see the bad apples rooted out and, indeed, never come into the police service in the first place. However, there are two aspects to the problems of the Metropolitan police: they are the one force in the country that failed to meet their recruitment targets in the past year; and the Mayor has yet to provide the funding from his budget to enable the cultural change that we need to see in the Metropolitan police. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to ensure that standards do not slip in recruitment—they should be enforced—and that the funding needs to be provided to change the culture of the Metropolitan police, as we would all like to see?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the fact that London’s police and crime commissioner is the Mayor of London. He therefore has a duty to ensure that the police force over which he has political control changes, and changes in the way that has been highlighted through the inquiry and in the part 1 findings of the inquiry.
My hon. Friend is also absolutely right that even though many of the forces across the country are at the largest they have ever been in terms of numbers, that is sadly not true of the Metropolitan police, but there absolutely must be no sacrifice of quality of vetting in order to hit the recruitment targets that we have made it clear we expect the Metropolitan police to hit. We want the Metropolitan police to be a well recruited force, and the funding has been put on the table—it has not been fully utilised by the Mayor, but the funding has been put on the table—to enable the Met to be that. The force needs to be populated with good, professional officers. That is the bar, the minimum standard we expect. We expect all leadership, uniformed and political, to abide by that philosophy.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I put it on the record that my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), in whose constituency Sarah Everard lived and from where she was abducted, then murdered, is on an overseas visit with the Joint Committee on Human Rights and is very sorry not to be in the Chamber for this important statement.
Sarah Everard’s abduction and murder had a profound impact on women across south London. Like so many young people, she had moved to London for work and made her home in our diverse community in Lambeth. She was one of us. But both before this appalling murder and afterwards, residents in south London and further afield who expressed concerns about police behaviour that was misogynistic, racist or homophobic were told repeatedly that this was just “a few bad apples”, an offensive phrase that diminishes and denies people’s experience and belies what have been shown to be structural, cultural and widespread problems in policing.
Will the Secretary of State, in the light of the report’s findings, apologise to everyone whose experiences of unacceptable behaviour by police officers has been diminished and denied in that way? Had they been listened to when they reported their experiences, action could have been taken that might have prevented Sarah’s appalling and tragic murder from taking place.
James Cleverly
As I said, from my first day in elected office, I have tried to drive cultural change and an increase in professionalism, first in the Metropolitan police and, in this job, in policing more widely. I will continue to do that for all the time that I have the power and authority to do so. There needs to be—there must be—fundamental change. We must create an environment where women and girls feel confident in, not fearful of policing. That will remain my focus. I assure the hon. Lady and the House that I remain committed to that.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I pay tribute to Lady Elish Angiolini for her thoughtful and considered report. The Home Affairs Committee took significant evidence on this issue, and her findings chime with what we heard about police standards and the culture within policing. It is worth saying that the vast majority of police officers join with good intentions, and they serve their communities well and with honour, and they serve the public well, but that core of rotten behaviour that she so well addresses in this report does exist. That is what we have to address, because at the heart of this issue is trust in policing.
We need to get back to a place where women trust police officers and where they trust that when they report things, those reports will be listened to. Does my right hon. Friend have confidence not just in what the Metropolitan police are doing, but in what forces around the country are doing—I have Cumbrian women who are concerned about their walks home at night—to look at the people in their forces and ensure that they root out bad behaviour and get the culture right?
James Cleverly
As I said in my response to the shadow Home Secretary, the simple truth is that there is no consistency across the country. Some forces deal with these issues better than others. We want to ensure that we increase the focus on such issues right across the country. The strategic policing requirement that I put forward is part of driving that attitudinal change right across the country. I demand that all police forces treat this as a priority issue, taking it as seriously as their work on counter-terrorism policing, for example, and that they learn from best practice, which is why I have spoken extensively with the College of Policing about the issue. Every woman everywhere in the country should have confidence in their police force.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I would like to send my love to Sarah Everard and to the families of the 340 women in this country who have been killed since the day she was killed.
The Home Secretary said that the strategic policing requirement is designed to make this issue as important as terrorism, but which police force in the country with a counter-terrorism unit has the same number of officers in that unit as it does specialists in violence against women and girls? Why did his Department spend £50 million last year on 6,700 Prevent referrals to prevent people from ending up in terrorism, but £18 million on 898,000 police reports of domestic abuse? We have 6,000 on one side and nearly 1 million on the other; the Home Office spends £18 million on DV perpetrators and £50 million diverting terrorism perpetrators, and says, “We are taking it just as seriously.”
To say, “We are doing everything possible in flagging intelligence” is just not true. Currently, if someone is found by a family court in this country—a British court —to have raped their wife, raped one of their children or abused their children, no police force in the country would be entitled to that information when doing their vetting. Will the Home Secretary commit to ensuring that, if someone who wants to become a police officer or a social worker has been found by a British court to have committed rape or child abuse, that information will all be made completely and utterly available?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point about ensuring that offences are taken into consideration in vetting. That is part of the set of reforms that we will look at driving through. She makes a point about numbers of officers and budgets; I am not convinced that that is necessarily the most useful metric of the seriousness with which we take things. As I say, the strategic policing requirement makes clear my expectations. Ultimately, we continue to increase the financial support for the policing of these issues. I will continue, as I have committed to the House, to ensure that police officers of all ranks take this seriously, because without attitudinal change and a fundamental shift in philosophy, increased funding and changed processes —both of which are incredibly important; I absolutely agree with her on that—will not have the effect that she and I both desire.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. Like many, I was shocked by the murder of Sarah Everard three years ago. I praise the dignity of her family. I worry for women walking home at night. I lost trust in the police then.
To follow on from the challenge by the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), surely if an investigation into a police officer is launched after allegations of domestic abuse or sexual assault, that officer should be suspended straightaway.
James Cleverly
I have worked with professional standards officers. Something like that, which might superficially seem obvious, is often more complicated. We have put forward changes in the thresholds that trigger a suspension. Of course, we expect investigating officers to move swiftly, as I said at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill. We want officers who are innocent to be vindicated quickly, and we want officers who are not to be removed from the force. That remains the philosophy that underpins our work on this.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. Like many others, I pay tribute to the families of Sarah Everard and the many other women who have lost their lives to violence by men. I think about the events back in March 2021 and take people back to the vigil that was organised on Clapham common, which is covered by my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who is not able to be here. Women wanted to come together to show solidarity. We all remember the scenes of Patsy Stevenson being handcuffed on the ground by two police officers.
The Home Secretary has spoken about women having the confidence to come forward and report. He also mentioned the Metropolitan Police Authority, of which he was one of the founding members. I served as a London Assembly member and sat on the police and crime committee, which saw reports about Met police officers’ actions. Does he not agree that for those women to come forward, they need confidence in the police, and that requires suspending at the first hurdle any police officers who have acted inappropriately—no ifs, no buts?
James Cleverly
I respect the hon. Lady’s experience on this issue. She will have heard the response that I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith). There cannot be universality in this; responses have to be based on the facts of individual cases. Successful challenges would be highly likely if suspension decisions were not based on the individual circumstances of each case. However, we have made it clear that the threshold has historically been far too high. We have reviewed that threshold and made it quicker and easier for officers to be suspended. That goes hand in hand with the changes we are making, through the Criminal Justice Bill, to ensure that the disciplinary procedure operates more quickly so that officers who are found to have behaved appropriately are returned to duty quickly, and those who are found to have behaved inappropriately are sanctioned quickly. That is incredibly important.
The policing of the vigil for Sarah Everard was awful —it was awful. It took what was already an incredibly painful set of circumstances and made them worse. I have spoken to police officers who recognise that. I will continue to speak about leadership, because that is not a process point; it is a leadership point. It is about driving attitudinal change and a willingness to accept criticism from people who have felt victimised for far too long and are demanding a change in the attitude of police around the country. The response to those incredibly legitimate concerns, at a point of incredible sadness and tragedy, amplified what were already tragic circumstances. I will do everything I can to ensure that situations like that are never—never—repeated.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I, too, pay tribute to the family of Sarah Everard. In Newcastle and across the country, her vile murder led to an outpouring of grief and horror, but it did not, as the Home Secretary said, start a conversation about violence against women—[Interruption.] That is what he said. Rather, it showed that the voices, the pain and the fears of women were being ignored. He says that he takes violence against women seriously; his language and his actions need to reflect that. Will he speak specifically about recommendation 11 on information sharing between forces so that predators like Couzens cannot move from force to force? This is not an issue for the Met alone.
James Cleverly
As I said in response to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), my point about starting a national conversation is that there are people who should have been thinking about this matter but were not. The terrible circumstances of the murder of Sarah Everard triggered a conversation within the Home Office and in policing. My own experience long predated those terrible events.
We must recognise, as a number of Members from across the House have said, that something changed when Sarah was murdered. We must absolutely ensure that those terrible circumstances, which the inquiry demands that we see, are utilised to drive fundamental change. I commit to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) that I will continue to drive that change and prioritise violence against women and girls. It is a key priority, as I have communicated over and over again since the day I was appointed Home Secretary.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the report, but it beggars belief—it is shocking beyond comprehension—that we can have serving police officers in this country who have been convicted of multiple counts of rape, kidnap, breaches of non-molestation orders and other serious offences. In his replies, the Home Secretary has said a number of times that this is not just an issue for women and girls. I would argue that it should not be an issue for women and girls: this is actually a man’s problem. We need to really address male attitudes towards women and girls. There can be no place for misogyny, violence, warped views or predatory behaviour. This is a problem of certain sections of the male population, so what more are the Government doing to tackle those warped views of women and girls by men?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman is right. As I say, this is an issue that affects the lives of women, but it should not be thought of as a woman’s issue—he is absolutely right that it is male perpetrators who need to change. I have always said that I do not want women to have to change their behaviour; I do not want women to have to be in segregated train carriages, or to not be able to go out at night. We should be talking about not curtailing the behaviour of women, but a fundamental change in male behaviour.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) raised a point that I failed to answer when replying to her, so I will take the opportunity to do so now, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. Information sharing between forces is absolutely key. We have seen that Couzens went from Kent to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary before coming to the Metropolitan police. While there were failures at various points, his vetting failure in Kent should have been flagged in other areas, particularly as he went on to very serious pieces of work with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and then as a firearms officer in the Met. That vetting failure should have triggered much firmer action, and information sharing is a part of that.
I finish by repeating my point: the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is absolutely right that this is about changing male behaviour, not women’s behaviour.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Like others, my thoughts today are with Sarah Everard’s family on what must be a very difficult day for them.
Lady Angiolini’s report is damning, but one of the saddest things about it is that many of the things she mentions—reports not being taken seriously, officers not being properly trained, and failures of culture within police forces—simply reinforce the fears that many of us have for the safety of ourselves and our daughters on our streets. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about the need for societal change and changes in men’s behaviour. Does he agree that a vital step in making those changes would be recognising misogyny as a hate crime, and moving forward to ensure that women feel better protected by the law?
James Cleverly
What will drive raised confidence is women seeing that their issues are taken seriously during investigations, and improving the speed with which the police respond to those investigations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) made the point that non-contact sexual offences need to be taken seriously so that interventions can happen much earlier, before greater harm is perpetrated.
I know that there have been calls for misogyny to be made a hate crime. While I understand those calls, I am yet to be convinced that that would necessarily drive the change that we seek to drive. There are other direct things that we should do, and indeed are doing, to drive that change. We have increased the penalties for sexually related criminality, as I said in my statement; we are ensuring that rapists are not released at the two-thirds point; and we are ensuring that where convictions involve sadism and suchlike, people serve whole-life tariffs. We are making clear through the penalties for those crimes that we take them incredibly seriously, but it has to be ongoing work.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the response that the Home Secretary has just given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I suspect that his words will come as news to the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I just do not understand: we passed a law in this place last June, the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which was designed explicitly to recognise where women are targeted on our streets and give them additional protections. The suffragettes taught us “Deeds not Words”. That Act was not even mentioned by the Home Secretary; I am not surprised, since he is not the only one who does not value it.
As a London MP, I have written to the Met commissioner about this issue. The Met is refusing to recognise the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act. It says that it does not see that Act as part of tackling violence against women or tackling misogyny, as the Home Secretary seems not to. In doing so, it does not understand that women being targeted on our streets is misogyny, because it is happening to them. That is why they have no confidence. If the Home Secretary wants to rebuild that confidence, will he ask the Met to abide by the laws that this place has passed to protect women, and will he get on and implement that piece of legislation? All he needs to do is sign the statutory instrument. That is one good thing that could come out of today: if the Home Secretary recognises that women do not feel safe on our streets and that it is not their problem to fix, maybe he, as the man in charge, will do something about it.
James Cleverly
I recognise the frustration that the hon. Lady expresses, and I can only restate my personal commitment. With regard to the Metropolitan police’s implementation of decisions made by this House, she should recognise that that is a decision for the political head of policing in London, the Labour Mayor of London. I am more than happy to take this matter up with him, if she has not already done so.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Dame Angiolini’s finding that there is nothing to stop another Wayne Couzens operating in plain sight worries me, because he had been operating in plain sight since 2002. The Home Secretary has used many words today, which he will be held to: “systemic issues in policing”, “trust in policing”, “attitudinal change is needed”, “change is needed”. Actions speak louder than words, Home Secretary. The police vetting, standards and misconduct systems need to be looked at now, so will he meet me to discuss the Police (Declaration) Bill, which I introduced as a ten-minute rule Bill only a few weeks ago, and how a register of memberships of secret societies should be publicly available? We need to rebuild trust in our police.
James Cleverly
I will ensure that either I or one of the Ministers in the Department gets the details of the points that the hon. Lady has brought forward.
I am more than happy to be held accountable for the words I have said at the Dispatch Box and the words I have said throughout my political career on this issue, because I am not going to lose focus on it. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House of that. As I have said, for the whole time that I have authority and jurisdiction over these areas, I will maintain this issue as a priority and demand that others—whether in uniform or out of uniform, operational police officers or those in the political leadership of police forces—take it as seriously as it should be taken. It is totally unacceptable that women and girls are not able to live their lives fully in our society because of fear, not only of criminality but of a lack of response from policing when these issues are brought to light.
Security of Elected Representatives
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the security of elected representatives.
This House brings together our nation. People from every part of the United Kingdom and from every background are represented here to debate, to argue, to challenge and to find the best course for our country to take. That is the way it should be, because this House does not belong to any one community or interest group; it belongs to every citizen from every corner of the kingdom. The decisions we take affect not just the lives of our friends, our neighbours and our community, but every community, and every community’s voice—even those we disagree with—must be properly represented. That principle is at the heart of who we are as a country and as a democracy. Our democracy works only if those who elect us are free to choose the individual they wish, and if that individual—the one they have chosen—has the freedom to say what they think.
In recent days, we have seen those principles waver, and the strain of rising community tensions is beginning to show. Instead of debate and accountability, we have seen intimidation and threats. Members of this House have told me that they feel they have to vote a certain way not because it is the right thing for their communities or even because the majority in their community wishes it, but because a few—a threatening few—have made their voices heard, and made them fear for their safety and the safety of their families. Even this House—the House that has persevered through fire and through war—has been pressured into changing the way we debate. We all understand why. The assassinations of our friends Jo Cox and Sir David Amess have affected us all. We know that there are extremists out there, and the truth is clear: the danger is real. We also know that bending to the threat of violence and intimidation is wrong. It does not just betray those who sent us; it encourages those who, through us, are bullying them.
Last Wednesday, demonstrators threatened to force Parliament to “lock its doors”. What these thugs were actually asking us to do was to put our constituents second, and to bow to those who were shouting loudest. That is more than a threat to us. It is a threat to the very democratic principles and values that define who we are as a country. Let me be absolutely clear: they must fail. If we were to stumble or to succumb to these pressures, we would not just see this House diminished; our communities across the country would suffer. Some things are more important than any of us as individuals.
The pressures have always existed, but since the 7 October attacks on Israel, they have spiked, along with a dramatic rise in antisemitism, accompanied by demonstrations that have caused profound distress and fear in the Jewish community and beyond. We are seeing a darkness return to our streets.
British Muslims also face threats. Islamist extremists call other Muslims apostates unless they are willing to destroy the society that has given everyone, including the many expressions of Islam practised here today, the freedom to worship as they choose. Far-right extremists are joining them in claiming that Islam has no place in Britain. Both claim that Britain is a divided nation, not a United Kingdom. Both are wrong.
This Government reject that agenda of isolation and fear. We will ensure that all voices in our democracy are heard. We are ensuring that those who have been elected to serve their community are able to do so without fear. That is why we are committing an additional £31 million to protect the democratic process and our elected representatives. This funding will primarily support MPs, councillors, police and crime commissioners and Mayors. The Operation Bridger network, which already provides police support to MPs, will be expanded so that all elected representatives and candidates have a dedicated, named police officer to contact on security matters, where needed. Forces around the country will be able to draw on a new fund to deliver additional patrols, so they will be better able to respond to heightened community tensions. Working closely with Parliament and the police, we will provide access to private security for Members who face the highest risk.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Policing Minister and I met senior policing leaders to discuss these issues. Together, the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the College of Policing, with input from the Crown Prosecution Service, have agreed a new defending democracy policing protocol. It contains seven key commitments to implement minimum standards of policing at events, to prevent intimidatory protest at homes, and to ensure protests at party offices, town halls, Parliaments or other democratic venues do not inhibit the democratic process. PCCs and chief constables have been asked to report back on the implementation of these measures by April.
Before I finish, may I pay tribute to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which keep us safe at all times? This additional funding will help them support us in undertaking our democratic duty.
I take the safety and security of all Members of this House extremely seriously, as I know do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker. The truth is that there are some things that transcend political dividing lines. There are principles that are so fundamental—so sacred, even—that we must all of us guard them against all threats, regardless of party allegiance. Defending our democracy is at the core of who we are as a nation. It is the living expression of the concepts of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. As we legislate and debate, as we argue and criticise, we must be robust. We must continue to test ideas and each other to serve the British people best. We must challenge each other, and remember that this is not just about us. We are only the temporary guardians of liberties that we have inherited. Today, it is our turn to defend them. This is our watch, and it is for us to rise above the fray and to say, with total clarity, that we will not be cowed, we will not be silenced and we will not be bullied. The people we are privileged to represent deserve nothing less. I commend this statement to the House.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. I join him in expressing our gratitude to all those who work to keep us safe. Our democracy is strong, but we can never stand for threats or attempts to intimidate. We cannot and will not allow a minority to pose security threats, or allow racial hatred to ever go unchallenged or to undermine our democracy.
Let me say to the Minister at the outset that we welcome the £31 million of additional funding. We recognise the extremely difficult situation faced by Members of this House, with all of us the target of intimidation and threats of violence, especially women. We must not forget that that targeting also extends to local councillors, Mayors, police and crime commissioners, Members of a devolved Parliament and an Assembly, and of course candidates. Nobody in this House needs any reminding of the terrible price we have paid in recent years and the loss of much-loved colleagues. We must ensure that this additional resource is focused in the right place and at the right time, and that long-term arrangements are in place to provide those who step forward to serve as elected representatives and their families with the reassurance they deserve to do their vital work without fear or favour.
Those arrangements must also ensure that others are not dissuaded from stepping forward to serve, because the threat is undermining the core principles of our representative democracy. Our country must return to a state of affairs where the only fear that politicians ever feel is from the ballot box. Although we absolutely respect the fundamental freedom to legitimate peaceful protest—it is a core democratic right—if that freedom is used to intimidate, harass or harm MPs and other representatives, including outside their home, safeguards must be put in place to protect them and our wider democratic system.
Such protective measures are now essential, but we also need to look at the underlying causes. What is it about our society that has changed that allows some to think that they can intimidate and threaten MPs and other elected representatives with impunity? What are the roots of this poison? It is hard not to see a connection between the increasingly polarised and acrimonious debate that has flourished online, particularly on social media, and the greater threat of physical harm in the real world. We also need to focus on the deeper roots of division that fuel this danger, not least by exercising good judgment in what we say. Words have consequences.
I would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions. Is the £31 million a one-off uplift, or will it be made available on a recurring basis? How does that relate to Scotland and Northern Ireland? In this general election year, all Members standing for re-election will become candidates again for the short campaign. Can he give an assurance that all who need additional protection will continue to get it? Will he also give an assurance that work is under way to ensure that Operation Bridger is configured and resourced to provide appropriate support locally, not least to our councillors?
Recent protests, alongside threats to and intimidation of politicians, have also raised the issue of what is defined as hateful extremism. The Government have not yet brought forward a definition, but that would be helpful in countering threats and intimidation. Can the Minister say when the Government or the Levelling Up Secretary will bring forward a definition, and outline when the Government will bring forward an updated counter-extremism strategy?
The defending democracy taskforce set up by the Security Minister in November 2022 is an important operational mechanism for co-ordinating activity across Government to protect and bolster our democratic system and institutions. Given the proximity to the general election, perhaps now is the time to look at how we can bring this work together on a cross-party basis. We all have a shared interest in ensuring that elections can be contested in a way that not just defends but strengthens our democracy.
Protecting our democracy and those who serve as elected representatives is mission critical. We must ensure that all who step forward to serve as democratically elected politicians are properly protected, and that the sovereignty of our democratic processes are not undermined. We on this side of the House will work with the Minister and the Government to do everything we can to make sure that is the case.
Tom Tugendhat
May I say how pleased I am to be working with my very good friend the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who I have known for a lot longer than either of us has been in this place? The questions he asks are important, and the tone in which he approaches this subject is even more so, and I am hugely grateful for the spirit of co-operation with which he has approached not just today’s statement but the work he has put in before today, and indeed with which the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) approached it before him.
Turning to the questions, the £31 million is this year’s allocation, but there are consequences that will flow into other years. I will not give the hon. Gentleman a figure because that is variable; as he will appreciate, we are almost through the current financial year, and the consequences will depend on what is drawn down and what is required.
The hon. Gentleman’s question about Scotland and Northern Ireland is of course entirely valid. Let me be clear: the security of the democratic process in the United Kingdom is not a devolved matter; it is down to this Government, and it is my responsibility and this Government’s responsibility to make sure that elections in the United Kingdom are free and fair. Of course, we must have a huge amount of co-operation with other Parliaments and Governments inside the United Kingdom; with, in some cases, returning officers and councils; and with Ministers in Holyrood—and Stormont, now that it has, thank God, returned to operating. This area is a sovereign responsibility, for the simple reason that it is about the national security of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about parliamentary candidates. He is right that when the election is called, there will be no more MPs, and any rights and privileges that we enjoy as Members of this House will immediately cease. The Government are looking at ways of maintaining the security requirements necessary to ensure that those who wish to stand as candidates again can do so, free from fear and from the threat of violence.
The hon. Gentleman’s question about counter-extremism is important, and I would like first to pay tribute to William Shawcross for his work on updating the Prevent review, and to Robin Simcox, whose work on the counter-extremism strategy has been so important. This is about countering extremism in many different forms. I mentioned that we must be clear that Islamist violence and threats are primarily a threat to the Muslim community in the United Kingdom. The number of friends of mine in the Muslim community whom some have tried to silence, because my friends’ version of Islam does not tie in with that of thugs and loudmouths who claim to speak on behalf of others, is remarkable. We must champion all voices in this country, and that includes all Muslim voices—there isn’t a single one; there are many. As for the definition, there is an existing definition, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, and work is ongoing to see how that could or should be updated. I am afraid that I do not have an update for him now, but I will certainly bring one forward as soon as I have it.
As for the cross-party nature of the defending democracy taskforce, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am looking at it now, although I think he will be the first to admit that the work has been very cross-party to date.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It has been an honour to listen both to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), and my right hon. Friend the Minister. I stand with three shields behind me: one for Airey Neave, assassinated in 1979; one for Robert Bradford, killed in his constituency surgery; and one for Ian Gow, who was blown up a week after the IRA killed Sister Catherine Dunne, a Roman Catholic Sister of Mercy, by mistake, and they thought, rightly, that by killing Ian Gow they would wipe that atrocity off the news. There are also other shields behind the Speaker’s Chair.
On average, one MP is killed every seven years. We are not the only ones exposed to risk; there is also the psychiatric social worker, the emergency blue-light responder, people fishing at sea, those working in a permanent way on the railways, and the like—so we should not think that we are the only people who need to have our safety looked at.
I hope the police will understand that those who need the most protection should get the most protection, and those of us who are not at much risk should not get too much money or attention given to us. There should be a risk-based analysis, so more is given to those who often speak up bravely, or those who, often because they are women or from ethnic minorities, get more attention from the thugs and extremists than is given to someone like me. Our constituents will understand, too, that candidates standing for election with us, who get the same attention as us, should get the same kind of protection as us.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the Father of the House for his kind words. He is absolutely right. I remember hearing as a child about the murder of Airey Neave, and it marked me then, and it marks me now, that somebody with such a record of service to our country during the second world war, when he escaped from Colditz, and who shaped one of our great political parties, had their life ended by the brutality and violence of a small group of murderous individuals whose agenda was not even shared by the majority in their own community, let alone the majority in the country. That is one of the most striking examples of anti-democratic forces in our country winning; they silenced a hero who had served our country for many decades. I appreciate very much my hon. Friend’s comments.
I hope right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me, but I will not go into the details of for whom and how security allocations will be made. If Members require a private briefing on how that is achieved, I am sure that I can arrange something, but the reality is that we will focus on those most at risk, to ensure that those who have credible threats against them are supported. My hon. Friend the Father of the House highlighted sad cases. A colleague of ours who has a seat in this House— I hope she will be returned at the next election—has to wear a stab vest to constituency surgeries. She is threatened by a nationalist movement in her seat. Supporters of hers have been silenced by threats of violence and intimidation. She rightly raised with me this morning the issue of hustings; her opponents will call her any number of names if she fails to attend them. The reality is that the threats against her are credible and real. We are working with the police to make sure that they are mitigated, so that she can carry out her responsibilities, not just to herself, but to constituents who may or may not wish to send her here. We must give them the chance to choose, and not allow a few threatening individuals to prevent her electors having that choice.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. When David Amess was murdered, one of the hardest things I have ever had to do was explain it to my children before they saw it on the news, or before one of their friends spoke to them about it. They were too young when Jo Cox was murdered for me to have that conversation with them. It is the reality of life that this sits on our shoulders as MPs. Last time I had to give a statement to the police about somebody’s behaviour, I asked to do it at the police station, rather than my house, so that my children would not be aware that I was giving a statement to the police.
The Minister talks about the importance of democratic representation, and it is important. So are the measures that he has put in place, but it is also important to realise that some people do not stand for Parliament because of the fear. They do not even get to the point of being candidates, because they are so scared about the risk, not just of serious threats or death, but of the abuse that people receive as a result of being involved in the democratic processes.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. One is about the assessment of the number and severity of threats to MPs from far-right extremists, versus Islamic extremists. One of my colleagues asked me to raise that with him. If the Minister has any information on the numbers, that would be helpful. I welcome the focus on candidates and councillors, and I appreciate his comments on policing of this issue being reserved, but if he expects Police Scotland to carry out some of this work, there needs to be funding for that. How he intends to ensure that there is—whether through the Scottish Parliament or not—is clearly for him, but can he give some reassurance that the forces expected to carry out that work will be funded appropriately, either from the centre or from the devolved Parliaments?
Tom Tugendhat
May I likewise thank the hon. Lady for the approach that she and many Members of her party have taken? She is right about Police Scotland funding. Any extra requirements, and the Op Bridger network, which applies, as she knows, across the whole United Kingdom, will be funded centrally to ensure that Members of this House get the same support. Police Scotland will have access to the same funding as other forces across the United Kingdom.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about candidates. The message has to be clear from us. We have seen a level of threats of violence towards Members of this House and elected individuals, including various Mayors, across the United Kingdom in recent years, but this job is still a huge privilege. We need to put it clearly: many of us realise the privilege of serving our constituents, and having our voices heard here and, as a result, around the world. That is a huge privilege and a rare honour for anyone to achieve, and it is worth striving for. It is one of the best ways that any of us, whatever our opinions, can serve our communities and help to make this country and, I hope, our world a better place. It is true that there are threats, and we are organising, as the hon. Lady recognises, extremely carefully to mitigate and reduce them, so that anybody can stand for election free from fear. I urge people who feel that they have something to offer our country to put themselves forward, to test their ideas in debate and at election, and to come and serve our country here on the green Benches.
On the hon. Lady’s question about balance, if she will forgive me, I will not go into the details, but I can assure her that I am not particularly bothered whether someone’s fascism comes from some weird form of nationalist extremism, or religious extremism, or political extremism of any kind—I don’t really care. If you threaten Members of this House, threaten democracy and threaten the British people, we will go after you. We will get you, and you will be detained.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is about defending democracy, but I am very concerned when we start talking about risk. The shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) spoke about having to have the right protections in the right place at the right time. We know that women, people of colour and LGBTQ Members will be at most risk, but none of us could have predicted that a man who was most famous for campaigning to make Southend a city, and Jo Cox, who spoke in her maiden speech about our having more in common, would be the individuals targeted. I urge some caution, particularly when it comes to hustings and to the involvement of weird conspiracy theorists in politics who openly incite division, whether out on the street, in our constituency surgeries or in this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We need to make sure that we have protections against them as well. There is the question.
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend has made her point extremely clear, and it is one I would support.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
May I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)? I do not think this is a partisan issue, and it is important to recognise that in the culture we now have, it is not about the issues either. The Minister talked about recent events, but many of us have been living with this problem for years, particularly my colleagues who are women of colour.
May I ask the Minister two specific questions, which I ask as somebody who does not want to live in a gilded cage? I want to go out and debate with people. I enjoy robust discussion, as he knows. I enjoy talking to my constituents, and I do not want to be asked to have a travel plan to go to my local park or my local pub or to be cut off from the people I am privileged to serve. At the moment, the approach we are taking suggests that it is all about the individual. I was told by the police that because I was a Back Bencher, my family were not covered, yet my family have been persistently targeted by people trying to intimidate me, from both left and right. Can he clarify whether there will be an understanding in the protection offered about our families in the analysis of risk? Many of the people being put off are not people who look like the people here.
Secondly, the Minister knows I am concerned about 527 groups—the organisations that often promote violence and hatred and incite campaigning which are not registered as charities and perhaps not abiding by the laws on imprints that many of us would recognise, yet increasingly part of British politics. Many of us have been warning for several years about these organisations. Will he now take that threat seriously, because it is undermining democracy?
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the hon. Lady. May I be clear that her family, if threatened, are covered? There is no question about that. The programme is based on the threats faced, not what position the hon. Lady may or may not hold in her own party; that is not one of the considerations.
May I also be clear that this £31 million is additional? It does not replace or undermine the work already ongoing in various ways. The hon. Lady will understand that all of us—every citizen of the United Kingdom—are covered by security infrastructure that includes everything from cyber-protection to intelligence agencies and staff who are helping us to stay safe. Many of the actions taken will come from warnings or investigations that have nothing to do with the area that I have just covered. What I was just talking about was the additional security requirements for protecting our democracy from today’s threats. As to her point about 527 groups, I am aware of that—she has raised it with me—and I take it very seriously.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He has made it clear that this is not only about security and policing and that we need to look for new ways to tackle what is fuelling anti-democratic abuse, which many hon. and right hon. Members are facing in their day-to-day work. Too often, that culture is developing online. Will he consider my call for a Committee of this House to monitor the effectiveness of the Online Safety Act 2023 and to make recommendations to Government on ways that we can tackle this issue and many others that start online? Surely we need to tackle that cultural change as well as the important issues that he has raised.
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend has raised many interesting points about the Online Safety Act over recent months, and indeed years. As it has just passed and is only beginning to come into force, I hope she will forgive me for not making any commitments immediately. However, her points are certainly important, and I will look at them.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. If I heard correctly, he said that the Government have not quite got a definition of anti-Muslim hate. I wonder if that could urgently be rectified. The post of independent adviser on Islamophobia has been vacant for over a year, but the Government are in desperate need of one.
I thank hon. Members for acknowledging the hate crime against women of colour. May I just mention my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), who has had an obscene amount of hate levelled at her, and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), the first hijab-wearing MP? The abuse they have faced is terrible.
MI5 and the Intelligence and Security Committee have stated that extreme right-wing terrorism is sadly here to stay, with the threat fuelled in part by racism. MI5 has said that teenagers as young as 13 are joining in extremist activity, often online. Last week, the Minister in the other place revealed that the Government are
“not intending to publish a hate crime strategy”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 February 2024; Vol. 836, c. 599.]
despite the last one being four years out of date. With the Community Security Trust report stating that there has been a rise in antisemitic abuse and a 300% rise in Islamophobia, why are the Government abandoning their work on hate crime?
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the hon. Lady for the question. We are not abandoning our work on hate crime. May I just cover some of those issues in order?
First, I was talking about a definition of extremism, not of anti-Muslim hate, in response to the question from the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). The Government are absolutely clear that racism in all its forms, including anti-Muslim hatred, is absolutely wrong, and there is no question about that. The only area of discussion has to be about how we deal with it, not whether we recognise it. We do recognise it.
As the hon. Lady recognises, hate crime in this country is sadly rising, and there are individuals who have faced the force of that from various different areas. Very sadly, many in the Muslim community, as she is aware, feel that hatred not from outside the community but from within it—from those who are trying to preach an extremist message of Islam that is not accepted within the Muslim community, let alone in other parts of the country.
We must be absolutely clear that this country protects someone’s status for who they are and not for what they happen to believe. There is freedom of belief and freedom of religious expression, which also means the freedom not to believe or to believe differently from one’s family or community. Those things are also protected.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I am grateful for the support that I have had from Police Scotland, and it is a matter of considerable regret to me that officers have had to attend my recent surgeries, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). I am conscious that the last time I spoke in Parliament on policing issues was to highlight the lack of police in the south of Scotland, where they operate with minimum numbers. My concern is that the police attending demonstrations and the events I am involved in are displaced from attending and supporting the constituents for whom I am here to speak. I fully agree with everything the Minister said, but will he assure us that the deployment of resources to protect us and protect democracy does not displace resources from protecting our constituents, the very people we are here to serve?
Tom Tugendhat
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. It will surprise nobody in the House that he quite correctly raised the fact that we must not put ourselves above our constituents. That is not what the statement is about. We are making sure that our constituents’ voices are defended and that their values, their expressions and the choices they make are able to stand. That is all we are doing. He is absolutely right that we would not take away from the protection of our wider society to protect those elected to serve it—what we are doing is part of the same thing.
As my right hon. Friend knows, we are also increasing police numbers. Sadly, in Scotland, that has not yet followed.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for the letter he sent to Members. I have been grateful to get clarity from the Dispatch Box in relation to myself as a Scottish MP. It would be nice to get a letter sent to all Scottish MPs that appreciates the complexity, because the seven points of the defending democracy protocol continually mention England and Wales, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing. I am sure that all the required engagement and connections are in place, but such a letter would give us an increased degree of confidence.
My questions are on two things. The Minister said he was looking at what can be provided during the election period, when we are no longer MPs. From a risk assessment perspective, my ask is that social media monitoring continues—I hope that would be one of the more cost- effective measures—so that we can see risks that we were not expecting.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), I do not want to live in a gilded cage either. I also associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer): we need to ensure that we are not preventing MPs from being close to their constituents while tackling the root problems. I would be grateful for the Minister giving us an update on that.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the hon. Lady for the feedback on that letter. I will ensure that that clarity is given. This statement absolutely applies to whole of the United Kingdom, as I have said, but I will ensure that I clarify that. Social media monitoring will not end at the election. Indeed, it is provided not just by the House, but, as the hon. Lady knows, by other elements of the Government. As to the wider challenges, this is an area where we are continuing to work. I would appreciate—this is an unusual and perhaps reckless thing to say at the Dispatch Box—feedback from all Members on the effect they see of these policies operating in their constituencies.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
If the security services are advising that this £30 million is needed, I welcome that if it keeps our Members safe. The Minister has referred to the national demonstrations. May I say, as someone who has had to learn lessons over the years about the nature of statements I have made, that we must be careful about how we use words in relation to those demonstrations? I have been on virtually every one of them, and, just as the police reported to the Home Affairs Committee, they have been overwhelmingly peaceful. The people I have walked with are members of the Jewish community. Where signs—they have been appalling —have been identified, the police, working with the stewards of those demonstrations, have dealt with them effectively and, yes, prosecuted people. I am pleased with that. We must be careful in our language, because I would not want distorted language to lead to conclusions such as that we should restrict the right to protests. We should be proud of the people of our country because, as a result of their concerns about human suffering, they have come out on to the streets in such large numbers to urge that that suffering is ended.
Tom Tugendhat
I am enormously proud of the British people. I have always been proud to be British and I will remain so until the day I die. This is the most remarkable country. My grandfather came here just over 100 years ago as a student. His family followed, fleeing the persecution and murder that sadly engulfed Europe for those horrific years of fascism. This country has given protection, security and safety not just to me but to millions like me. Not only has it enabled us to prosper and thrive, but it has afforded me the huge honour of representing the community that I love, and has allowed me to speak on behalf of His Majesty as his Minister here at the Dispatch Box. This is an amazing country, and I am deeply proud to serve it.
Let me touch on some of those protests. I was very measured in my language, and I was careful in the way that I put it because many good people protest on every side of every debate. There are always people who rightly raise concerns about aspects of foreign policy over which we may or may not have influence. Many of us have raised personal concerns about the horrific treatment of over 100 hostages who are still held, even now, in tunnels by a terrorist group who murdered their families in a surprise attack 120 or 150 days ago. Many of us have showed our horror at that. Others, sadly, have chosen to march with some who have shown signs of hate and racism. Others have chosen to stay silent when they have seen those signs. Others, completely by chance, find themselves photographed in front of signs of the deepest, most hateful antisemitism that we have seen on our streets since the Cable Street marches of almost a century ago. Is it not a strange quirk of fate how the same people are accidentally photographed in front of the same signs on a regular basis? What poor, poor luck they must have.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement which, rightly, looks at the security of elected representatives. He referred to hustings; in practice, how does he feel that would work? Thinking back to my election in 2019, there were nine hustings in my constituency alone. I managed to go to eight; I was nearly keeling over by the ninth. They will be happening right across the country, and rightly so, because our constituents must be able to come to us and ask what our policies are.
I also want to mention the staff members who support us. None of us would do our jobs as elected representatives —including councillors, elected Mayors and MPs—without the support of our staff. Will there be any support for staff members?
Tom Tugendhat
I am sure that no one in this House would judge the hon. Lady for missing one hustings out of nine. We are all in the process of training and strengthening up to get ready for whatever comes. She is absolutely right about staff members. Many of them will be affected in different ways. She will understand that I will not prescribe a single policy for hustings or for staff members because her seat—wonderful as it is—is not the same as mine or those of other hon. Members. Everyone’s seat is different and everyone’s staff work in differently ways, quite rightly, to serve their communities. It would not be right for me to prescribe that. However, the funding is available to the police—for her, it is the Metropolitan police—in order to support her in whatever way is most appropriate. It will require some judgment and perhaps some wider information and additional support. If changes are required, I would be grateful if she could let me know.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I served on the House of Commons Commission for three years, with you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that the security of Members of Parliament is essential for this House. Last week, precedent and convention were turned on their head, because concerns were expressed about the safety of some Members. There was a real sense that because we did that, mob rule has somehow prevailed. If that is the case, it will only encourage those who seek to disrupt our proceedings. Can the Minister assure me and the rest of the House that, although security of Members is essential and paramount, we will never again change the democratic practices of this House to satisfy the concerns and demands of a mob?
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. They remind me of those famous words of Speaker Lenthall: “I have neither eyes to see nor voice to speak, save that as given to me by this House”, in answer to King Charles—an earlier, less beloved sovereign of this Kingdom. When he spoke, he was rightly rejecting all force except that of the sovereignty of the British people, who have chosen their representation here, to have any voice in this place. In rejecting that outside force, he was rejecting the King. Now, thank God, we have a wonderful King whose voice is only munificence and light. We need to reject the mob. It is an outside power and it is unacceptable that it should have a voice in here. That silences the legitimate voice of our constituents and our country, and it must never be tolerated.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I have not spoken about my own personal security before, and I hope it will become apparent to the Minister why I need to do so today. I have been subject to serious threats, including death threats. I have been offered police support and protection. At one stage, we had to ensure that our teenage daughter was physically escorted to and from sixth form college, and she was not allowed off campus at break times. I have one live police investigation into harassment, one pending Crown court case into death threats, and I have physical security at my house, some of which I really did not want.
The security of MPs and their families is a serious matter, and it is not appropriate for it to become a political football. The Minister will therefore understand, I hope, my gut-wrenching anxiety and dismay when Tameside Conservative Councillor Liam Billington sought to politicise the physical measures at my house. Indeed, that was amplified by his Tory party chairman on social media. That is not acceptable. I hope that it does not happen to any other Member of this House.
Tom Tugendhat
Let me be very clear. Security for a Member, whether at home, police protection or whatever it happens to be, is not a luxury or a benefit. It is a burden and an intrusion into their personal life that is essential for the conduct of our democracy in our country. It is not something that any of us would choose— I certainly would not. It is deeply disturbing that anyone’s children should be targeted or threatened, and I hope the whole House will be clear and speak as one that no one should ever be criticised for having security and protection. I am sure that others outside will have heard that.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
MPs must be safe to express their views. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides, they face real threats, intimidation and abuse. That must be condemned at all times. But at a time of heightened tension, the Prime Minister’s talk of mob rule and some of the Minister’s comments today in relation to legitimate, peaceful protests, dangerously distort those events for political reasons, and detract from real risks. This morning, the Met’s former chief super- intendent, Dal Babu, made similar comments when he challenged unhelpful language, saying that there is a level of frustration, but we are in a democracy and the overwhelming majority of people at protests are peaceful. Do we not have a duty, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, to speak very carefully, address real concerns and not abuse events in that way? We must protect MPs, but we must also ensure that the public’s right to peaceful protest is protected.
Tom Tugendhat
I am slightly surprised by the hon. Lady’s comments. My prime duty to this House, and to those who elected me to serve them here, is to be honest. There is no point in lying to them or deceiving you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is absolutely no point in spreading untruths, leading to an outcome that would not serve us well. All I have done today is speak truthfully about the nature of the protests we have seen and repeat the words of some of those who organised those protests: that they would have us lock our doors, that they would close this Parliament, that they would silence our voices and that they would end our democratic processes. That is what they are advocating. If she does not like the truth, maybe she should stop supporting them.
Backbench Business
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
International Women’s Day: Language in Politics
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the use of language in politics in light of International Women’s Day; agrees that the respectful use of language is an important feature of a strong and inclusive democracy; and calls on all parliamentary candidates to pledge that respectful language will be used at all times in the upcoming General Election campaigning period.
I would like to start the debate, on behalf of members of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, by saying thank you. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, which we should never take for granted given the pressure to hold debates in the Chamber, and I thank the Fawcett Society, which provides the secretariat to the APPG. Like all APPGs, ours is open to all Members and is cross-party. There is more that unites us than divides us when it comes to women in politics and particularly to women who stand for elected office.
Let us start the debate to mark International Women’s Day, which I have to remember is a national holiday around Europe, by celebrating the women who make our communities great. Like everybody else I have a long list I could recite, but I would just like to highlight Dr Avideah Nejad, a consultant gynaecologist at Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, who took the time last Friday, along with Dr Dominic Kelly, to speak to students at my local sixth-form college about our brand new hospital and the work she does to inspire another generation of young people to take up medicine. We need more people like that in our communities.
The APPG want this debate to be more than a celebration. We want to continue our work to ensure that the amazing women on these Benches and in our communities see elected office as a way they can contribute to the future of our country. Women are now more likely than their male counterparts to come out of the best universities with the best degrees. They make up the majority of solicitors and the majority of students studying medicine, so why has the House of Commons not seen the same leaps as other sectors when it comes to attracting women into our midst? There are still two men elected to this place for every one woman. There are many reasons for that and I remind colleagues of the excellent research the APPG launched in September, but today’s debate invites us to focus on one element.
At the moment, as we heard in the statements today, too many women reject the idea of standing for election because of the abuse they face, in particular the abusive language used on social media. Abuse affects all of us, but it is disproportionately aimed at women and is more likely to put women off from standing for election. That is not to say that abusive language is acceptable to anyone. There is far more that online media platforms could and should be doing to stop online bullying and abuse among all their users, but the evidence is that it disproportionately negatively impacts women. That poses a huge risk to the retention of women in this place and, in turn, to democratic representation.
Over nine in 10 women MPs who took part in the research reported that online abuse or harassment negatively impacts how they feel about being an MP, compared with seven in 10 men—still not a great figure. Similarly, all the black and minoritised MPs who took part in the survey reported that they were negatively impacted by online abuse. The nature of the abuse was described as misogynistic and racist, with it taking a considerable toll not only on them but their families.
Lots has been done to recognise the problem. I pay particular tribute to Mr Speaker and his team in Parliament for the work they do in monitoring and acting on online abuse against Members, and ensuring increased levels of support are in place, as we heard in the statement by the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) a few moments ago, so that MPs have support to live their day-to-day lives as they want to, and not in an isolated ivory tower. Abusive and threatening language is spilling over into real-life behaviour. This is something I and others raised in the debates on the Online Safety Bill.
Politicians are not delicate flowers, but there can be few people who would be unaffected by having two work colleagues murdered in the last eight years. David and Jo were just going about their work as constituency MPs. We have seen the shift to protesters feeling a legitimate right to camp outside MPs’ homes, and maybe not just outside, and to attempt to intimidate MPs through their children, partners, husbands or wives—something I have experienced myself. The additional security is essential, but it will not solve the problem. We have to challenge and change the culture of online abuse, and the online abuse that is now spilling offline, too.
Free speech and its protection is often cited as a reason why we should not be regulating the online environment. Free speech is a crucial part of our democracy. The passing of the Online Safety Act 2023 into law demonstrates that the Government understand there is a line to tread between free speech and protections. But free speech is not the only thing we must safeguard. Speaking freely is just as important. Too many women in particular fear organised attacks if they speak up and speak freely on the issues that matter to them. In research, three quarters of women MPs said they do not speak up on certain issues because of the abusive environment online. The same goes for men; the numbers who are impacted are much smaller—around half—but that is still something we should be concerned about. The ability of this place to speak freely is being curtailed.
There is another aspect to this. Parliamentary privilege and the parliamentary language we use in this place means we have an obligation to choose our words carefully. People who watch our debates note that every time. But are we as careful outside the Chamber? Is political campaigning being shaped to fit the medium of social media: polarised, binary, simplistic, and chasing the algorithm first and foremost at the expense of nuanced debate? There are serious implications for our democracy if we allow our politics to be shaped by—I am afraid—a mob mentality that can thrive in the online world. The Online Safety Act can only be the start. I reiterate my call, which I mentioned in earlier proceedings, for a Select Committee for online safety to keep the issue under constant review.
In advance of the debate, I received a note from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is contacted by thousands of members of the public every year with their views on parliamentary standards. The language we choose to use matters in maintaining a culture of respect in political debate. Robust debate is not the same as personal intimidation and abuse. Is referring to your opponent as “scum” part of free speech and a robust debate, or is it abusive political campaigning? We all need to think carefully about that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The right hon. Lady has mentioned online platforms and a form of responsibility, but does she believe that Parliament itself should take more responsibility for the barriers that women are facing, or citing as their reasons for not entering Parliament, and for the language that we use here? What might that responsibility look like?
Dame Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and for her support for the all-party parliamentary group. Trying to make this a place that people want to come to should be a cross-party effort, along with tackling social media abuse and not only holding online platforms to account, but ensuring that they take down abusive images and messages inciting violence against Members of Parliament. That should be done much more quickly than it has been in the experience of many Members. There is so much more, over and above social media, that we need to change if we want more women to be willing to come here. Although half the population of our country is female, very few women want to stand for election, for reasons including some that I have mentioned.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
This debate is important for a number of reasons. The language that we use in everyday life can be very careless, and is becoming increasingly so in this place. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady worries, as I do, about the fact that during the current Parliament in particular there has been more focus on parliamentarians’ behaviour, and while some of it has to be called out, there have been occasions when an issue has been raised and then—if I may use a football phrase—Members have tackled the player rather than the ball: it has been about the person rather than the issue. Should we not be much more aware of not just the language that we use but how we direct that language? Should we not maintain a direction towards issues rather than people?
Dame Maria Miller
The hon. Lady is entirely right. In fact, I had included that analogy in my speech, but I took it out for the sake of time. I see that you are looking at me intently, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that a great many Members want to take part in the debate.
As the hon. Lady says, there is a discussion to be had about language versus behaviour. We have tools such as a code of conduct and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, but not all of them enable us to examine everything we do as Members of Parliament. Perhaps it is time for us to look at the language that Members use outside as well as inside the Chamber.
It is our job to identify problems and then find the solutions. As well as calling again for the monitoring of the effectiveness of the online safety laws, today I am pleased to be launching, along with colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group, a women in Parliament pledge, which all MPs and candidates can support, to take a zero-tolerance approach to misogyny, including racist misogyny, and all other forms of hate and discrimination in campaigning and in conduct. Back Benchers are taking this initiative to drive a change in culture, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will sign up to it. Our APPG is also calling on the Electoral Commission to make a public statement that homes are not a campaign destination, and calling on social media platforms to take immediate action on reported hate and misogynistic content and malinformation, misinformation and disinformation.
We, as elected Members, must act to defend our democracy and our democratic values. To mark International Women’s Day in 2024 we can show that we, too, accept our personal responsibility to lead that positive culture change—online and offline—in the words that we choose and the way in which we campaign, and I call on Back Benchers, Ministers and party leaders to join us. It is the responsibility of us all to safeguard our democracy, and the best way we can do that is by ensuring that we have a representative Parliament, welcoming everyone to be part of a respectful debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Perhaps I should explain how we need to proceed this afternoon. About 20 Back Benchers all together wish to speak in this afternoon’s two debates, and about an hour of the available time will be taken up by the Front-Bench speakers in the next debate. I therefore urge Members to try to speak for six or seven minutes, which will guarantee fairness.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I rise, as I do at this time of the year, to remember the women killed by men in the last year. This is the ninth year that I have read out the names of women murdered by men. I did it originally in partnership with Karen Ingala Smith, because we were desperate to highlight the patterns of these killings; the epidemic of men’s violence against women and girls has not abated.
I pay credit to Karen, who scours the pages of local papers trying to find the details in each case. I think that, in the last nine years, this act of memorial has raised the profile of killed women. Today we are more likely to see such cases reported in the national media, and over the years the country has grown more activist in this space. The Femicide Census has been born—where the results of Karen’s diligent volunteering, alongside that of Clarrie O’Callaghan, have turned into a growing resource for academics, journalists and policymakers. Karen and Clarrie deserve all the praise in the world for holding the line, never faltering wearily on the path, to give these women and their stories the elevation that they deserve.
I, however, have grown weary of this task. While it is an honour to do it, and every year when I meet the families—many of whom are with us today—I am reminded of why I do it, I am weary and tired of this list. The first year I did it, I felt overwhelmed, and then I grew used to it; but now I have grown so sad that every year there are the same cases of systems failures, prison recalls not followed up, and children’s services and family court decisions leaving women at risk, and of the fact that not every single police force in our country has a specific women’s safety unit, let alone the fact that none of them does.
I am tired of the sticking plasters, of flee funds instead of welfare reforms that would stop victims ending up destitute in the first place. I am sick of this review of some harm or other, and that review of sexual exploitation, being placed on a shelf and never driven forward. I am tired of hearing, on this one day each year, Ministers announcing a little bit of this or a little bit of that. I am tired of the fact that women’s safety matters so much less in this place than small boats. I am tired of fighting for systemic change and being given table scraps. Never again do I want to hear a politician say that lessons will be learned from abject failure, because it is not true. This list is no longer just a testament to these women’s lives; it is a testament to our collective failure. At least half the names I am about to read out are of women who could have been saved.
Here is this year’s list: Alesia Nazarova; Beryl Purdy; Holly Bramley; Susan Turner; Bernadette Rosario; Sara Bateman; an unnamed woman; Lucy Dee; Maia Dee; Rina Dee; Elise Mason; Marelle Sturrock; Suma Begum; Johanita Kossiwa Dogbey; Maya Devi; Suzanne Henry; Georgina Dowey; Holly Sanchez; Hayley Burke; Katie Higton; Kelly Pitt; Christine Sargent; Danielle Davidson; Stephanie Hodgkinson; Sandra Harriott; Fiona Robinson; Debra Cantrell; Emily Sanderson; Michelle Hodgkinson; Chloe Mitchell; Chloe Bashford; Tejaswini Kontham; Grace O’Malley-Kumar; Monika Wlodarczyk; Kinga Roskinska; Natasha Morais; Felicia Cadore; Nelly Akomah; Sarah Henshaw; Elizabeth Richings; Lynette Nash; Elizabeth Watson; Carol Baxter; Fiona Holm; Colette Law; Rose Jobson; Ann Blackwood; Hazel Huggins; Sharon Gordon; Claire Orrey; Christine Emmerson; Kelli Bothwell; Liwam Bereket; Chintzia McIntyre; Amy-Rose Wilson; Gabriela Kosilko; Claire Knights; Nhi Muoi Wai; Carrie Slater; Susanne Galvin; Helen Clarke; Ruth Hufton; Elianne Andam; Charlene Mills; Alison Dodds; Deborah Boulter; Celia Geyer; Mandy Barnett; Denise Steeves; Mehak Sharma; Caroline Gore; Sian Hammond; Michele Faiers; Christie Eugene; Perseverance Ncube; Sharon Butler; Dawn Robertson; Victoria Greenwood; Salam Alshara; Kiesha Donaghy; Alison Bowen; Taiwo Abodunde; Milica Zilic; Lianne Gordon; Kamaljeet Mahey; Glenna Siviter; Kacey Clarke; Keotshepile Isaacs; Tia Simmonds; Maya Bracken; Alison McLaughlin; Tara Kershaw; Kanticha Sukpengpanao; Claudia Kambanza; Michele Romano; Claire Leveque; Sam Varley; and an unnamed woman, who was 40 years old, from Beaconsfield.
As has now become customary, the families of women killed by men’s abuse who would not have appeared on this list, or who died before I started the custom of the listing, have begun to get in touch with me to ask for those women’s names to be read. I want to remember Melissa Mathieson, murdered in 2014, who was housed in allegedly supportive accommodation for people with autism together with a man who was a known risk to women; she had complained about him, but was not protected against him. We remember Melissa, and know that it brings shame on this House that, across the country, we are turning a blind eye to safety issues around women in state-funded accommodation. There will be another Melissa in dangerous accommodation as we speak. We must not mourn; we must act.
We also remember Eileen Mary Thomson, who died in 2017. At the age of 70, she was killed by her husband in a sheltered housing complex.
I was approached by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who asked me to remember Rita Roberts, whose family—his constituents—were recently told of her murder in Belgium 32 years ago, in 1992. Her body had gone unidentified until last year. We remember Rita Roberts and cases like hers, which is why every year we include on the list women whose names we do not know. They matter.
All of these women mattered. They need to matter much more to politics, and I urge the Government again, as I have done for years, to have a strategy for reducing femicide. Warm words, with no political priority, will never make this list shorter.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Every year, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), reads out that list. I do not think that I have ever had to follow her directly, and it is not an easy job to do. We are here to celebrate as well as commemorate, and as International Women’s Day is coming up next week, it is important that we reflect on what improvements there have been, but also on the failures.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) has brought forward a motion about the language of politics and the language that we use. I apologise if, following that horrendous list, the language that I use is a bit flippant. I want to celebrate some of the achievements. I look at the fantastic, joyful experience we had last summer with the “Barbie” movie—a film directed by a woman. It was the biggest ever debut, and it was a wonderful celebration of all that is frivolous and pink, but had an important underlying message. But what did we learn? That the Oscar nominations would go to a man.
Over the last 12 months, my Select Committee has worked with some incredible women who have come to the Committee and told their stories. I particularly reflect on Vicky Pattison and Naga Munchetty, who came and spoke so emotionally and importantly about the experiences they had gone through with adenomyosis and a particular type of premenstrual tension that had caused Vicki to go, in her own words, “really quite mad”. I remember the language of politics immediately after they left. I remember the email I got from a man—surprisingly—who told me that he was not interested in hearing from my “celebrity mates”. I pointed out to him that they are not celebrities; one woman is a broadcast journalist and the other, Vicky Pattison, is a very successful broadcaster in her own right. I send a message to Vicky today: you are not just the woman from “Geordie Shore”. He criticised the fact that we had them in front of the Committee and not other, “serious” women. That afternoon, I sent him an email asking whether he had sent the same email to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who had had George Osborne in front of her Committee. Did Mr Osborne count as a celebrity friend? The man admitted that he did not.
I would like to reflect on women’s achievements in sport, particularly the achievements of the Lionesses, who did such an incredible job to get to the final of the World cup. I would like to celebrate Spain—I really would—but a man spoilt that for us, didn’t he? I look at that individual, who made sure that the story of female triumph in sport was, once more, all about the bad behaviour of men. I will not name him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said that we need a world where women not only have free speech, but can speak freely. I reflect on the sports commentators who came in front of my Committee and said that when they make identical comments to those of male commentators, they are attacked on social media for being stupid or for being female, yet the men get away with their comments with no remark whatsoever. I commend my right hon. Friend for her pledge, and for the APPG’s work to make sure that, in the coming general election, we are careful with our language and think about the words we use. It really ought not to be necessary. I would like to think that I can get through this entire election campaign without being racist, sexist or homophobic—it really is not that high a bar to have set. Let us see what actually happens.
Sticking with sport, I would like to reflect on Mary Earps—Mary Queen of Saves—but all we got to talk about was her shirt, not her brilliant prowess on the field in making all those saves that got England to the final. We had to talk about the fact that Nike did not think that her shirt was important enough to have bothered to print one. Of course, when she won sports personality of the year, The Sun was the first one out there to talk not about her brilliant prowess, but about the fact that we could see her knickers through her dress.
I would like to talk about Taylor Swift, who was Time magazine’s “person of the year” for a second time, and who has a monthly reach of 100 million people on Spotify. It is an absolutely incredible achievement. We cannot talk about Taylor Swift without also having to talk about Kanye West and his efforts to silence her, criticise her and, indeed, use her in his music.
I would like to talk about Claudia Goldin, the solo female winner of the Nobel prize for economics—the first time there has been a solo female winner. Of course, she was studying the obstacles that women face in obtaining equal pay, because we are still there. We are still struggling to obtain equal pay and to see the gender pension gap shrink.
On today of all days, when we have heard about horrific abuse and the measures that have had to be put in place to protect Members of this place, what has been really striking is that colleagues have spoken not about the abuse they face, but about the abuse their family faces. Our families feel it. I know that the abuse is bad on social media, despite “block”, “mute” and “delete” being my best friends. My daughter will send me a text message that just says, “Are you okay?”. That is how I know that it is bad out there.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is so important to remember all those who are affected alongside a Member of Parliament. That includes our staff, doesn’t it?
Caroline Nokes
It absolutely includes our staff. My staff are criticised for working for me, when all they have done is apply for a job that they thought might be quite interesting and rewarding, and that might give them an opportunity to contribute.
There are many challenges, and we have to use our role in this place to do better. I always say that we can all do better. It is important to emphasise that none of us is perfect, and we should always strive to improve and be the very best Members of Parliament we can be.
Journalists the world over ask me whether the job of a Member of Parliament is worth doing, whether I feel safe and whether I would recommend it to any young woman, and I leave them with these important words: do it, because it is the best job in the world. The job means that you can make a difference for your community, and it means that our democracy is not dominated by white, 45-year-old men. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), my constituency neighbour. He is not 45.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I also thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing today’s debate. It is always an honour to be here to mark International Women’s Day.
Today’s debate calls for respectful language to be used in this place and in the upcoming general election, as the public look to us for leadership and example. It is crucial that we respect each other and those who elected us to be their representative.
I reflect on my nine years of serving the people of Swansea East in Parliament, and I am confident that I have built mutually respectful relationships both across the House and throughout the communities that I work with. Like many colleagues, I have had my fair share of abuse, particularly online. It saddens me that it is generally nothing to do with my politics or the causes that I champion; it is always because of my gender or my appearance—my hair colour, my choice of outfits, my size, or my glasses.
Just this week, following a debate in Westminster Hall, I was subject to some very interesting abuse from people who purport to disagree with my stance on an issue. However, their comments on X, formerly known as Twitter, had little to do with what I said. To give a flavour:
“I wouldn't let that thing decide what boxer shorts I was wearing in the morning.”
That says more about them than me, I think.
“It is of my opinion that you are obese. See a doctor immediately. Bring in affordability checks for all the”
stuff—I have used another word instead of theirs—
“you must eat to make you that fat.”
Another wrote:
“F these blue hair fat ugly freaks.”
And another:
“Shouldn’t this buffoon be serving jelly and custard to five year olds or on lolly pop duty?”
As a former dinner lady, I do not find that at all insulting.
That is just a snapshot of the disrespectful, misogynistic rhetoric that these bullies—that is what they are—feel that they are entitled to post, just because we are MPs. I agree that the language we use in this place is important, but there is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed.
Members would be disappointed if I did not talk about the menopause. Earlier this month, Avanti showcased its menopause toolkit for staff. It contained, among other things: a fan “for hot sweats”; tissues for “if you’re feeling a bit emotional”; a paperclip “to help you keep it all together”; a jelly baby “in case you feel like biting someone’s head off”; and a pencil “to write down things you might forget.” That is hardly the kind of language we should use about anyone, let alone women who are perimenopausal or menopausal. It is insulting, and it belittles symptoms that are so debilitating for many. I am sure it was done with the best intention and was perhaps meant to bring a bit of humour to the situation, but the choice of language is so important. I know from the communications I have received that it was deeply offensive, not only to a lot of women but to men, too. People working for the company were disappointed that this was Avanti’s response.
Wera Hobhouse
We are hearing terrible things in this discussion about banter. People say things are just banter, but banter can be very offensive. We should not be intimidated by people who say that we cannot take banter. It is important that people realise that some banter is offensive.
Carolyn Harris
I agree. Before I was elected, my husband always told me that I would need to have a thick skin. Well, it has gone past having a thick skin. At the end of the day, I am a human being. People would not speak to a person on the street like that, so why should I or anyone else have to experience it online? It is not banter; it is degrading.
My mission is to ensure that our conversations and the language we use normalises the menopause in communities locally, nationally and even globally. I have had some exciting opportunities to do this, but none more exciting than the opportunity I had last week to join a team of wonderful friends and colleagues, with good knowledge and expertise, in going to Eastwood Park women’s prison in the constituency of the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall). Menopause has over 40 symptoms, ranging from anxiety and brain fog to urinary tract infection and vaginal dryness. Many women struggle to navigate this time of their life, and they suffer as a result. Imagine not being able to pop out for fresh air during a hot flush; having night sweats while sleeping on a plastic mattress; or suffering crippling anxiety while locked up alone. That is the reality for women in prison. The difference I saw in the women between the Monday and the Friday was mind-blowing. We delivered a message that made a difference. I am hugely grateful to Davina McCall, Hazel Hayden and the Bristol menopause clinic, Kate Rowe-Ham, Lavina Mehta, Michelle Griffith Robinson and Kate Muir, who came with me to do this work. I am even more grateful to Eastwood Park’s governor, Zoë Short, and her team—Abbie Garrett and Alison Rivers—not only for trusting us to share the message with the women, but for being so proactive in supporting them.
Christine Jardine
The hon. Lady is making a terrific point. She reminds me of something I read by Mariella Frostrup in The Times this week, referencing the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s guidance on the workplace treatment of women with menopause. The guidance said that it should be treated as a disability. Does the hon. Lady share my frustration that that completely misunderstands and denigrates what the menopause is?
Carolyn Harris
I totally agree. The menopause is not a disability and should not be regarded as such, but any focus on it—and the EHRC brought focus to the menopause —makes a huge difference to the messaging, how women feel and how employers take notice of what they should be doing.
I will cut my remarks short, as I have taken up more than enough time. As we look to the general election, can we reflect on how we speak, and the choices we make when we address others? Respect earns respect in this place, in our communities, in the country and beyond.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this important debate on language in politics, which gives us an opportunity to mark International Women’s Day.
As the 431st female Member of Parliament, the first female MP for my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency and the first female Conservative Chief Whip, I start by stressing the importance of increasing female participation in politics. Sadly, women face many barriers to entering a career in politics. One of those barriers is the often unpleasant and abusive language to which they are subjected. This is totally unacceptable and it cannot, and must not, be tolerated. We have to work constantly to change that.
This is a cross-party debate and, to set the scene for my speech, I start with this quote:
“elect me for what I am and not for what I was born.”—[Official Report, 27 April 1992; Vol. 207, c. 15.]
Those are the notable words of the late Betty Boothroyd when she became the first female Speaker of the House of Commons. Her initial entry into politics was not easy. It took her five attempts to be elected as an MP, which is something with which many of us will be familiar. It took me three attempts to make it to Parliament.
Historically, the House of Commons has often been seen as a man’s world. It has often been compared to a private gentlemen’s club, and it was only with the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 after world war one, underpinned by the suffragette movement, that women were allowed to stand as candidates and be elected as MPs. As we know, the first sitting female MP was Nancy Astor, who was elected as a Conservative MP in 1919. Since then, we have undoubtedly made progress, and by the 1960s no one doubted that women should be part of the political process. Yet here we are in February 2024 with 226 female MPs in the House of Commons, which is 35% of all MPs—that is hardly reflective of our country. The Conservative party currently has 88 female MPs. Although that is a triumphant leap from the days when Nancy Astor was the sole female MP, it is still only 25% of all Conservative MPs.
With women clearly under-represented in Parliament, we have to ask the question: why? One decisive factor as to why many women choose not to enter politics at all is its aggressive and intimidating nature. Sadly, Parliament and politics all too often remain overwhelmingly masculine in culture, language and space. Even after 100 years in politics, many female politicians continue to suffer from bullying, harassment, misogyny and sexism, both in this place and beyond. To see that, we can just take a look at the toxic nature of Prime Minister’s questions some weeks, where women have been known to be called “stupid woman” and have even been told to “Calm down, dear”, in an insulting and often patronising tone. Surprisingly, when we look in the guidance on “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”, we see that although it contains a section titled “Parliamentary language”, there is not a single mention of sexist language being inappropriate. I know that Mr Speaker is doing a huge amount of work to change the culture and behaviour in this place, but perhaps that is something else we could seek to look at a little further.
This language issue extends beyond the Chamber and to all forms of communications and settings, be it social media, mobile phones, tweets or WhatsApp messages. This abusive language has to be unacceptable, and I urge all Members of Parliament, on both sides, to report it and call it out. Many female MPs have been subjected to hate messages on their Twitter posts—we have heard some examples of that this afternoon—and, sadly, some have even received death threats. That is why I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of a £31 million package to counter threats to MPs’ security, which includes cyber-security advice and a dedicated named police contact. That is fundamental to protecting and upholding our democracy. As the Home Secretary recently said, no MP should have to accept threats or harassment as “part of the job”. That applies to all MPs, but it applies to female MPs in particular.
Some people may perceive politics to be centred around assertiveness and power, but I believe that it is slightly different; empathy, compassion and our respect must also be at the very core of it too. We see that just by looking at the role of women in the peace and security agenda. I believe that if we all remembered why we entered politics in the first place, which is to strive to make a positive change for society, we would all be treated with more respect. Most importantly, more women would be encouraged to enter politics.
Like everyone else here today, I hope that in the near future not just 50% of all MPs will be women, but that at least 50% of all MPs will be female. When my party has an organisation called “Men2Win”, I know we will have succeeded. Fairly representing our population is where we need to get to; we need everyone to be treated with dignity and respect at all times. I still pinch myself when I come into this place. I remember how I felt the first day I sat on the green Benches. It was then, and still is, the biggest privilege and honour of my life to be a Member of Parliament and to serve the community that elected me, Aldridge-Brownhills.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). I always say that we will know we have reached true equality in this place when we have as many rubbish women as we do rubbish men. [Laughter.]
The Home Office Minister should be ashamed of how he attacked an Opposition Member of Parliament during the previous statement. I hope that she raises a point of order, because we are talking about the language in this place and we should all be setting an example. We saw at the weekend the language used by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I just remind the hon. Lady that if she is referring to Members, I hope she has notified them that she intended to do so.
Dawn Butler
I have not notified them, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have just been so angry about this. I will withdraw naming them. I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for calling out the language used by those on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) is no longer in her place. When she read out her list, it was heartbreaking, and when we saw the family members stand, it broke all of our hearts. The media are failing women and, as legislators, we are too, because that list should be getting shorter every year and it is not getting shorter.
In the short time I have today, I wish to mention three things that we can do as legislators to help stop the killing and abuse of women. I wish to thank Level Up and Glamour magazine for their tireless campaigning in this area. I also thank the Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), for the productive discussions we have had on language changes to the Independent Press Standards Organisation code. It is important that we have cross-party discussions on that, because we are talking about the safety of women. It is a shame that those changes have not happened yet. I feel that the Minister understands their importance, but I sometimes think there is a barrier stopping her from making them happen. I do not know who or what the barrier is, but I feel that she understands the importance of the changes. The second thing we need to do is put in place 10 days’ paid domestic violence leave. The third thing we need to do is ensure funding for refuges.
Let me start by discussing the IPSO code. The way the press reports is often inaccurate and undignified, and prioritises sensationalist headlines over responsible reporting. That approach needs to be replaced with responsible reporting that tackles the root of domestic abuse and the dynamics of power and control. We need to end victim blaming. By doing that, we will save lives. We need to improve and strengthen clause 4 of the code. As Level Up has said, clause 4 deals with:
“Intrusion into grief or shock”.
The clause states:
“In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.”
Level Up says:
“Given the academic research on the negative impact of romantic framings and the known damage caused to victims’ families, Level Up recommends the Editors’ Code Committee introduce a subclause to the effect of:
‘In cases where a person has been killed by a partner or former partner, care should be taken not to use language which could frame the killing as an act of ‘love’, or which could be construed to blame the victim for their death.’”
That amendment needs to be made to the code with urgent effect. We cannot say that this is voluntary; it has to be enshrined in the code.
One in four women experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. I am sure that all the women in the Chamber today have suffered some kind of domestic abuse or unwanted attention in their lifetime. Every three days a woman is killed by a partner or ex-partner. None of those deaths have come out of the blue. Criminologists have established that when a woman is murdered by a partner, it marks the end of a sustained period of coercive control. Abuse does not end when the relationship ends. In fact, the time when women are most vulnerable is when they leave a relationship. The moment someone leaves an abusive relationship is the moment of greatest risk. I urge the Minister to urge the Government to look into a domestic abuse policy requiring employers to provide up to 10 days’ paid leave, as enacted in the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand. By granting victims paid leave, those 10 days will save lives. As legislators, there is no greater honour than passing legislation that saves lives.
To conclude, the third of my asks is for extra money for refuges. The Women’s Aid “Domestic Abuse Report 2024” states that £189 million should be ringfenced for women’s refuge services. Almost 50% of organisations have said that they are operating without funding, so they are saving lives but they are not being paid for it. Some 79% of people using refuges use food banks and 62.5% of survivors are unable to leave their abusers because they cannot afford to.
Level Up has an acronym: AIDA. A is for accountability: murder is not a loss of control, but the responsibility of the perpetrator. I is for image: centre images of victims, not perpetrators, and do not place their images side by side; and use official photos that have been provided by the police or the family, not social media. D is for dignity: a victim’s children, family and friends will read the coverage many times. They will be in grief and shock. Avoid sensationalising language, invasive or graphic details. Dead women cannot protect their families. Finally, A is for accuracy: name the crime for what it is—fatal domestic abuse, not a horror or a tragedy perpetrated by a monster or unknown evil. Use statistics from the Office for National Statistics for context on how many other women have been killed. Gender-based violence is a national and not a personal problem. It is not an isolated incident and many women are being killed each year.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I place it on the record how disappointed I am that not a single man is speaking in the debate today. We all have a role to play to empower, inspire and enthuse the next generation of women, and to face down, and ultimately defeat and silence, toxic misogyny and abuse. That should not be the responsibility of only the women in this place.
Specific moments deserve attention. We must celebrate when important glass ceilings are smashed. I stand here as a very proud first female MP elected to represent the people of Pontypridd. My party has driven a coach and horses through the idea that to be a parliamentarian means one has to be a white, privately educated, independently wealthy man. Young women can look to our parliamentary party and see people that look and sound just like them.
Yet there is still not enough progress. Just being here in Parliament is not enough. Equality is not about being 50% of everything; it is about winning hearts and minds. It is the drip, drip of education and the embedding of a culture in which women are genuinely valued, respected and championed. I am talking about a world in which online and real-world misogynists are rejected outright because young people and others see them for what they are. That culture, education and example is often set by influencers and in society by the words used in this House and beyond by Members of Parliament, and others elected or appointed to public service. Those words matter.
Sometimes those words are subtly, even unconsciously, biased. They seem harmless and no doubt the intention is not always sinister. However, those words feed a narrative that has played out for many years across society. Today, it is playing out daily in both broadcast media and in fringe spaces online. People are rapidly being radicalised thanks to self-affirming filter bubbles amid a culture that is openly targeting women. As Hope Not Hate has pointed out, feminists, left-wing women and women of colour are a common focus.
Ironically, it might be easy for some to roll their eyes at my words. When a woman uses the word “radicalisation” in the context of feminism that is often dismissed and ignored, and at worse she is labelled “a mad feminist”. But what starts in fringe spaces does not end there. It leeches on to larger social platforms and then moves into everyday discourse, as radicalised individuals feel more comfortable expressing their hatred in real terms.
What starts with throwing a drink over a woman can become, and has become, a murderous attack. Such attacks can be, have been and are the consequences of language, which is why we need to tackle the widespread harm. That is important and, as shadow tech Minister, I fought hard to ensure Ofcom will have a code of practice for tech companies focused on violence against women and girls. In addition, those calling us “love” need to think more carefully about their contribution to the problem.
To take this idea further, we have what the global pop sensation Taylor Swift called “a different vocabulary” for men and women. She said:
“A man does something, it’s strategic. A woman does the same thing, it’s calculated.”
We do not have to look far for other ways in which that coded differentiation plays out. How many times in this place have hon. Members spoken passionately, only to have been characterised as “emotional” or even “hysterical”? How many times have we been patronised or told to “watch our tone”? The deputy leader of our party, the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), has been repeatedly objectified and targeted in mainstream media for her appearance or conduct, described by what she is wearing rather than what she is saying, faced with failed attempts to undermine her authority. Sadly, she is not alone. How often was that the case for Lord Prescott, for example? Why have Ministers, Back-Bench Members and others in this place have felt perfectly comfortable personally disrespecting me in text messages, conversations or speeches, reducing my value to that of my appearance, effectively devaluing important conversations on policy?
Particular words can cause particular harm to particular groups. When a former Member of this House—a former Prime Minister, no less—compared Muslim women wearing the burqa with letterboxes, not only was it mocking, cruel and Islamophobic, it led to a rise in attacks on Muslim women, according to Tell Mama. Jewish Women’s Aid told me, as shadow Minister for Domestic Violence, that the omission of words, the failure to believe, and the accusations levelled at Israeli women that they were lying about the brutal rapes and sexual violence which took place on 7 October have served to undermine confidence in the services offered by Jewish Women’s Aid to women in this country. Once again, words had an impact.
As I have said, I have had words used to try and intimidate or threaten me. I know colleagues have had similar experiences. These words undermine and threaten our democracy. When women in Parliament are under threat, our democracy suffers. When young women see these threats, it deters them from standing. So let the call go from this Chamber today that we will not be silenced—we will not shut up.
Thankfully, words can also be used for good. Above the entrance to St Stephen’s is an installation that includes a representation of the various Acts of Parliament that have paved the way for women. History shows that words have the potential to change the world for good, and if we want an example, we do not have far to look. Inside the cupboard at the back of the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft, on this very parliamentary estate, words mark the efforts of Emily Wilding Davison to ensure women had the right to vote. They serve as a true reminder of the potential for good and for change.
I am heartened by the fact that in the face of all the hatred and disgusting words I have had sent to me over the last four years, I have been lucky to have constituents, colleagues and members of the public share words of kindness. Supportive words have flooded in from allies, friends and family. I am sure we all can agree that those are the only words that matter.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my good friend. my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and her powerful and passionate speech.
I am delighted to speak in this important debate as we approach International Women’s Day 2024. I do so as a daughter, mother and sister, the first woman to represent Newport West in Parliament, and a champion of the role women play in all and every part of our national life. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), for her opening remarks and for ensuring we could all be here today. I acknowledge and pay tribute to the speeches of all those colleagues who have spoken before me. The focus of the debate is important. We gather in the shadow of the plaque to our late friend, Jo Cox. We should all be a bit kinder, do a bit more and go a bit further in making our political discourse healthier, safer and more decent.
More than 100 years have passed since the first women won the right to vote and in 2028, we will mark the centenary of the equal franchise Act, the most basic but important Bill that gave equal voting rights to women and men. Since then, and particularly over the last 20 years, women’s representation in our politics has been transformed, and we have seen the positive impact that women in elected office can make. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Mother of the House. She has made it her life’s work to empower women, to get many more of us here. As she leaves these Benches at this year’s general election, I thank her for all that she has done for more than 40 years as a Member of this House. I know that I speak for many others in doing so. I also thank some of the wonderful women on the Labour Benches who are standing down at the next election. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher), my indefatigable right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Dame Margaret Beckett), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) will all be missed by Labour Members, and I believe by Conservative Members too.
I acknowledge the strong women I work with to serve the people of Newport West: Jayne Bryant, our local Member of the Senedd, who is a very good colleague, and the leader of Newport City Council, Councillor Jane Mudd, who is standing to be the first woman police and crime commissioner in Gwent in May. I also acknowledge the women members of Newport City Council, and of course my very good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). With our United Kingdom in mind, I send my best wishes to Michelle O’Neill, the new First Minister of Northern Ireland, and to Emma Little-Pengelly, the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. It is not a surprise that two women are leading the way in getting the Northern Ireland institutions back on track. I know that we all wish them every success.
We all know that the presence of women MPs in the rooms, chambers, corridors and dining halls of power where decisions are made has undoubtedly transformed our laws and policies. Yet while women have been leading the charge on these significant reforms, they have also faced significant challenges, as the Fawcett Society noted in its brilliant briefing, especially black and minority ethnic women, disabled women and women with long-term health conditions. We need more women in elected office, but we will not get more women to put themselves forward if they know that they will be constantly attacked on the basis that they are a woman, a black or minority ethnic woman, or a disabled woman. We all have a responsibility to use temperate and respectful language, and must all regulate the language that we use and ensure that we do not use language that would incite hate, harm people or simply engage in the age-old race to the bottom.
How this place represents itself to the people will have an impact on the engagement of women, and the public more broadly, in politics. The last few weeks have shown that some people in this place have little regard for the impact that their words have on people outside in the real world, and we must not forget that. We can start by getting our own house in order. It is important to ensure that those working in this place, as in any other workplace, can do so without fearing for their safety, free from abuse and harassment, and that the overall culture is welcoming of people from diverse backgrounds and with diverse needs. That cannot be a difficult thing for each of us to work towards every day. We expect it of people in our constituencies, so we should lead by example.
The abuse that we get online merely adds to the deep-seated issues in Parliament regarding bullying, harassment and sexual abuse. I know that they are being addressed with urgency by Mr Speaker, but we must keep going.
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend mentions some of the issues being tackled by Mr Speaker, but they are also being tackled by you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are also standing down at the next election. We should also pay tribute to you for leading the way for women in our own party, and across the House.
Ruth Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that positive and opportune intervention. I did not want to embarrass you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I thank you for your calm nature last week when you took on the issues that arose. The calm and peaceful way in which you dealt with it all was an inspiration to us all.
Online abuse affects when women in public office speak and what they speak about. Online abuse, particularly abuse that is misogynistic and racist, has a detrimental impact on the mental health and wellbeing of women in public life, particularly ethnic women MPs, reflecting on the emotional toll that it takes on them, their families and their staff. It is deeply unfortunate that online abuse spills out into reality, causing real concerns about physical safety, with such abuse often including threats of violence. Even though women make up over half of the United Kingdom’s population, as the right hon. Member for Basingstoke said, we make up only 35% of the House of Commons. There is so much more to do.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
We are talking about the importance of language in debate, but does she agree that we also need to start thinking about images, especially with changing technology? Several Members present were with me last night at a debate about deepfakes and artificial intelligence, hosted on the Committee corridor by Glamour and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. It strikes me that a lot of the themes of today’s debate around the use of language, and how off-putting it can be, can also be applied to stuff that is generated very realistically and very quickly. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should not forget that while we debate language, and women in politics?
Ruth Jones
I absolutely agree. Being a luddite, I may not be as familiar as lots of other people in the Chamber with AI and other online issues, but deepfakes are deeply troubling. I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that really important issue.
I acknowledge that the Conservative party has had three women leaders. Although the last two did not last very long, the Conservatives have done more than we have, and in due course I hope that Labour will elect its first woman leader. In August 2022, just 36% of the 19,212 elected councillors across the UK were women. Fewer than 5% of councils have achieved gender parity, so the need to empower and support women is clear to all of us. The issue will not be solved overnight, but we need to start making progress. It will not be addressed by one party, but by all of us working together, and it will not work unless every man in this place, and in our country, recognises the role that they have to play too.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing the debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is no longer in her place. I think that we can all agree that it was very hard to listen to the names that she mentioned. I will cite just two of them. One was Johanita Dogbey, who was my constituent. She was killed on 1 May last year in broad daylight. Following on from the earlier statement by the Home Secretary on police resourcing and the need to ensure that the police respond to things locally, what was really tragic and sad about that killing was that apparently the gentleman responsible made an attempt two days earlier in the local area—so could that death have been prevented? Nothing will ever prepare us for having to sit with a grieving family who have lost a child. As we know, no parent should have to bury their child. Every so often, I still remember the embrace that I gave to Johanita’s mum, and the pain that she felt—she asked me why her daughter was taken.
I also wanted to mention Elianne Andam, one of the other names that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned. Again, that senseless killing shocked so many people. People will remember that on 27 September, at 8.30 in the morning, a young 15-year-old was tragically stabbed in her school uniform, on her way to school in Croydon. Again, I think about when my hon. Friends the Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and I attended the vigil in Croydon a week after, and we embraced Elianne’s mum, Dorcas. We felt that raw pain of yet another woman’s life being taken and asked ourselves, “Why? Why has this been allowed to happen again?” It is for all those women that we, as female politicians—and also male politicians—need to do better in addressing how we conduct ourselves; we cannot let those deaths be in vain.
Today, we are debating a motion on language and politics. It is right that we do so, because language does matter. The words that we use really matter. As politicians, we all have a responsibility to conduct ourselves in a manner that ensures that we can all be treated with dignity and respect; yes, there can be passion and even sometimes a bit of anger when we are trying to get our points across, but—going back to the statement and to some of the earlier speeches—if we as parliamentarians are not conducting ourselves in that way, we should not wonder why our constituents and the general public then fuel that abuse and hate towards us. We have to be respectful towards each other.
It is important that we do not put off further women from standing for election. I am proud that, in 2019, I was part of the most diverse intake ever. A small group of 26 of us were elected for Labour for the first time in 2019, yet we were majority female—19 of us. Of those 19, 10 of us were BME women, including the first hijab-wearing MP. We should be celebrating that, but if the language coming out from politics and from politicians is not respectful, we will not see those types of women standing for election. It is important that we look at that. All parties, including my own, have a duty to consider how we treat female politicians—not just when they are candidates, but after they are elected. It is about that duty of care and ensuring that we are providing a support network for our colleagues, and looking at how the House authorities can help us.
Delivering women’s equality in this place is vital if we are to have a healthy democracy. It is important that all parties consider how best to ensure that more women can come into politics, but we have to be honest about some of the barriers that are still in place. For a number of those women, campaigning, and time off for public duties, can be expensive. A number of these women bear the burden of caring responsibilities, and it is important that we look at what support is in place.
As we approach International Women’s Day, we should work together to redouble our efforts to support women who are thinking about standing for election, and those who are already here to make sure that our politics—not just the language that we use, but the actions that we take —continues to be strong and inclusive for everyone.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am pleased to follow all these excellent speeches. It has been a worthwhile debate, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for bringing it here today.
Debating the language that is used in politics is important, particularly as we approach an election. As we have heard, we cannot debate that without speaking about the reality of the impact of the language that is used about us and to us. The language in the political sphere has a profound impact on women in politics now and on those who may or may not want to jump into what is sometimes just a swamp. That sounds a bit dramatic, but it is not really. Although it is the biggest privilege to represent our communities—I am sure we all feel that very sincerely—the challenge is the discourse, including in here, the language and the abuse. To hear her talking, I think the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) the Member for Swansea must be using my social media. Unfortunately, we all also recognise the targeted harassment and security concerns that go along with some of this.
Important research by the Fawcett Society points out that the safety and security of elected representatives, and the issues around that, are highly gendered. The fact is that we are not representative. Women make up more than half the population, but only 34% of MPs. We need to do better there. I applaud the new Scottish Government Cabinet. It has been gender balanced for many years now, but the new Cabinet is, I think, 70% female. That is a significant and important step. It is welcome to see all these capable women taking their places.
It is telling that the debate today follows on from statements on the security of elected representatives and on the Angiolini inquiry into the circumstances around the murder of Sarah Everard. Although I have been glad to participate in the last few International Women’s Day debates, there is an undercurrent, which was brought into stark focus again today by the Angiolini inquiry report. We need to reflect on the awful reality of where the normalisation of behaviours, and the amplification of language and attitudes, can lead to. My very deep sympathies are with the family of Sarah Everard. They are also with the family of Emma Caldwell, whose killer was sentenced yesterday to 36 years’ imprisonment for her murder in 2005. Their ordeal has been so awful. They have waited so long for answers, but those answers, while very important, will not bring their much-loved Emma back. Emma was reportedly someone with many friends, who, despite having a very difficult time in life, was appreciated, valued and loved. I appreciate any and all headlines that manage something that should not be so difficult: when talking about Emma, to use her name and not just describe her as “sex worker”—Sky News, you must do better. I do hope that Emma’s very brave family can now find peace.
Every hon. Member who has spoken today has, unsurprisingly, noted the impact of online abuse on their participation in democracy. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke eloquently pointed out that robust debate is not the same as abuse. We could be here all day—probably all week or more—if we started down the road of giving examples that are far from even pretending to be debate. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) was right to say that what starts in fringe spaces does not end there.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) spoke well about language. There is our language here— I am thinking of the recent remarks by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), not made in this Chamber, but the context was that of an MP speaking. That was a powerful and unfortunate example of the power of language. What we say and how we say it does not just reflect on or influence us, but enables people—men, mainly—to abuse women, including not only politicians, but other women who have the audacity to have opinions and to want to express them. That is regrettable, because of the likely impact of turning women off politics and the democratic process. Glimmer of light and all that, though: I was at the St Ninian’s High School careers fair a couple of weeks ago, and the number of powerful, articulate and smart young women interested in careers in democracy, politics, research and so on was heart- warming. I wish them all every success.
There is space to welcome some positives, but I will touch on some other women we need to mention before I close, not least the women in the middle east. We know about the awful and disproportionate impact on women, and that is horribly clear as we watch with horror what is unfolding there: the Israeli women caught up in the Hamas terror attack, the hostages and their families—it is impossible to imagine how they are coping; and the women in Gaza dealing with unimaginable things—with the death, destruction, privations that we cannot begin to imagine, and childbirth without hospitals or medical facilities, these women are suffering beyond belief.
I would like to end on a more upbeat note and to speak about the women of East Renfrewshire who do so much good. I do not have time to speak about many of these brilliant women, but I would like mention the women in my office team, Carolyn, Nix, Freya, Katie and Sampurna, who all deliver every day for our community—I am fortunate to work with them—and my East Renfrewshire councillor colleagues, Councillors Angela Convery, Caroline Bamforth and Annette Ireland, who are all women of substance and hugely committed to improving their communities.
I must also mention two special women commemorated just last week at the 20th anniversary event of the Auchenback Resource Centre. They are memorialised on lovely benches that sit outside the front of the centre. I think that the House would want to join me in reflecting on the great work that Rita Connelly and Irene Simpson did for the people of Auchenback and on how much of a difference those powerful women made to the people who lived in their area. That is a useful point at which to conclude. We all understand that this is a challenging time, but we must ensure that as well as pointing out the difficulties and challenges, we celebrate powerful women like these, who make a real difference.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I remind Members again that if they are going to refer to other Members, they should notify them. Criticism of other hon. Members should only be on a substantive motion.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this important debate. I thank everyone who has participated in it. The issue of language in politics is vital in relation to International Women’s Day. It is possible to celebrate this important occasion, as we rightly do every year, while acknowledging the wider issues for women in politics and in society.
Many Members have already reflected on the frankly caustic nature of political campaigning. As the shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, I too have sadly become accustomed to what I can only describe as an often toxic discourse, including on equalities issues. Complex and sensitive matters get boiled down to simplistic, overly oppositional narratives, such that substance is overshadowed or even completely disregarded. Well, I want that to change. I want the issues that we debate in this House always to be centred on the facts of the matter and the merits of policy. The debate is important because the language that parliamentarians use has an impact on the world outside this place. We Members all have a responsibility to use respectful language while we debate. Members are of course rightly passionate about issues, but passion cannot justify intemperance of the nature that we have seen too often lately. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) was right to refer to the words of the late Jo Cox, who so powerfully reminded us all of what we have in common, despite any points of division. As the representatives of our constituents, we need to take responsibility for the words we use.
Dame Maria Miller
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Will she join me in regretting ever hearing a Member of this House refer to their opponent as “scum”?
Anneliese Dodds
I think it absolutely right, when any Member makes a mistake, as was the case in that instance, that they apologise. That was unacceptable, and it is right that the Member concerned apologised. I would like all Members to apologise when they use divisive language, whether it is of the type that the right hon. Lady just described, or racist or sexist language of all types. It does us no favours when the House tries to tiptoe around these matters, as we have seen over recent days and previously. We need to face up to them, because language matters, words matter, and the language and words used by Members matter, so I appeal to all sides of the House to ensure that the language that we use is respectful. We are not at war with each other, and the language we use should reflect politics as a battle of ideas, not insults.
Dawn Butler
Is my hon. Friend as disappointed as I am about the failure of some Members of Parliament to call out Islamophobia?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I have been very disappointed by that, as I would have been about any case of prejudiced or racist language that does not consider what a Member or politician has said or done but instead suggests that their appearance, faith, ethnicity or gender is what should be focused on. We surely need to move beyond that as Members of this House.
We also need to move beyond that in the online world, about which we have heard a number of powerful speeches. We need a more powerful regime than that in the Online Safety Act 2023. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) set out powerfully why change is needed there and how it can be achieved. I think that everyone in the Chamber was disgusted to hear the misogynistic abuse that has been directed towards one of the most formidable campaigners in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) also set out clearly the need to prevent abuse from becoming the norm in online political debate and discussion.
Of course, in ensuring that the language we use does not prevent women’s participation in our politics, we also need to ensure, as we look towards International Women’s Day next week, that our politics delivers on the representation of women more broadly, and on the issues of concern to women. It is possible to achieve parity between men and women on these green Benches; it is possible to have a gender-balanced parliamentary party and a gender-balanced shadow Cabinet and Front-Bench team. My party has achieved that, and I hope that other parties will seek to achieve it in future, because, sadly, we are far from that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) mentions leadership from a sedentary position, quite rightly. I believe that leadership was mentioned earlier in the debate, but he was not there for it. The debate has shown that women’s leadership is alive and kicking on all sides of the House, and I am very pleased to see that, but we need more action. That is why we believe that we should enact section 106 of the Equality Act 2010—so that all political parties publish data on the diversity of their candidates, including how many women they have standing for office.
Perhaps because the motion before us today focuses particularly on the issue of language, there has been less reference to incredible women in our society, but we did have a focus on some of them. We heard from the right hon. Member for Basingstoke about those involved in medicine, particularly gynaecology, and from the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) about the absolute legend who is Mary Earps, who has inspired so many girls and women in sport. Those advances should not be forgotten, but neither should the need for more action to deliver greater women’s equality in society. Unfortunately, we are moving backwards in some areas—we have heard about a number of them this afternoon. Reference has been made to the gender pay gap; at the current rate, it will take 41 years to completely close that gap. I do not know how many Members in the Chamber today expect to still be in the House in 2064. I hope everyone has a long and healthy career ahead, but that is surely too long for women to wait to get the equal pay we desperately need.
Of course, we have also discussed the appalling epidemic of violence against women and girls in our country. This debate follows the discussion about part 1 of the Angiolini review of the truly appalling events leading up to the murder of Sarah Everard. As she has done eight times previously, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), read out the names of the many women who have been murdered, and of course spoke about unnamed women as well. We heard some appalling examples from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who spoke about her constituents. There is surely a very clear need for action when we see, for example, that only 1.5% of recorded rapes lead to a charge, and that rates of prosecution for domestic violence are falling, and also the kind of press treatment of victims that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) set out so clearly.
We also see the desperate need for action on women’s health—we have not had time to discuss that issue today —and action for women in the workplace. We need to deliver that change. There is a need for legislative alterations, and as we have heard today, there is a need for a change in the tenor of debate, so that we are always promoting women in our politics and they are never put off it because of divisive language.
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
I start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this important debate, and all hon. Members for their contributions. The use of language, particularly in politics, is such an important topic. Members have shared very personal experiences, including the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), and the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who has been criticised for her hair colouring. My criticism is that my hair looks like it was borrowed from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), so I share her frustration at that abuse.
Why does this abuse matter? My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) put it very eloquently: it stops women from speaking freely, not just women in this place but women in our communities. At the moment, we have very toxic debates around issues such as biological sex, with people losing their jobs and facing prosecution just for wanting to have an honest debate. I am pleased that Members on all sides of the House have said this afternoon that it is important to have a sophisticated level of debate on very sensitive issues, but also about the general level of abuse that women face up and down this country. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, what is classed as banter by some people is very much abuse for others.
The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) always campaigns very hard on the issue of how abuse of women is reported in the media. We have met to discuss this, and I am frustrated that progress has been slow. I can assure her that I have met ministerial colleagues, but also the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and I will follow up after this debate. It is really important that when women are murdered in our communities, it is not reported as a crime of passion. It has to be reported as it is: it is murder and abuse. That language makes a difference to how those crimes are then treated.
It is true—this was the focus of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke set out—that the situation has an effect on our democratic accountability and who stands for election. We want more women, and more women from the real world, standing for election. However, the Fawcett Society found that 93% of women MPs said that online abuse or harassment has had a negative effect on how they act as Members of Parliament. It stops talented women coming forward for all parties, and we are losing good hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) is one example of a woman leaving this place. We heard earlier in this parliamentary term from Rosie Cooper that the reason she stood down early was the abuse and threats she received. We have lost good Members such as her, which is very sad for Parliament.
We are potentially in an election year, so it is as important as ever that our language is measured—in this place, and in our political parties. Every single political party can play a role, and nobody standing for election should suffer intimidation for holding or aspiring to hold elective office. We have introduced measures to try to make the experience fairer. Since 2022, anyone who intimidates a candidate, campaigner or elected representative can be barred from elective office for five years. It is great that we are passing legislation like that in this place, but it needs to be enforced, because abuse is too often seen as something that just goes with the job. No one—not my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—should have their office burned or people protesting outside their home simply for representing their constituents.
The debate reflects the wider debate in society about violence against women and girls. Sadly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), had to read out her list again this year, and one of the women she mentioned was my constituent Chloe Bashford, who was murdered in horrific circumstances in Newhaven. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) commented on two tragic deaths in her constituency of women who were also on that list. We have made significant progress, having published the tackling violence against women and girls strategy and the tackling domestic abuse plan, but that is not going fast enough. We all have a role to play, not just the Government; it is the role of all agencies, from the police to the courts, to absolutely make sure that femicide is taken seriously and dealt with when people come forward to give evidence and share their stories.
Our Domestic Abuse Act became law in 2021. That legislation is making a difference. Abusers are no longer allowed to directly cross-examine their victims in the family and civil courts, and victims have better access to special measures in courtrooms. However, conviction rates are still too low. We also supported the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, and the hon. Member for Bath brought in the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which addresses harassment in the workplace. That is for everyone, but we know that women are affected by that in more ways than most.
The final piece I want to address is the role of the media, given the upcoming election. It is really important that debates and votes in this place are reflected fairly. One example is the sewage vote, which was an attempt to end the use of sewage outflows in this country. We Conservative Members voted to dismantle our sewage system and have a long-term plan to end sewage discharges, but that was often portrayed in the media as voting against stopping any restrictions on sewage, which has resulted in multiple death threats and abuse for Conservative Members. When journalists ask why MPs are abused so much, I would say that journalists’ language, and the way that they portray what happens in this place, is as important.
Caroline Nokes
I will not get the Minister to say this, but I will say it for her. Can we also look at those who write Commons sketches? I am particularly thinking of Quentin Letts, who is a bit prone to going after people like me for being too pony club posh, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for having pink nail varnish. The list is endless, and it is never about what we say, but about what we look like.
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely. We need to remind each other that we all have a role to play—not just MPs but wider society. The fundamental issue is that if female MPs are being targeted and harassed, that will be reflected for women up and down this country; if it is seen as okay to target elected representatives for what they look like or what they say or how they vote, that will be reflected in wider society. There is a democratic system in this country: if people are not happy with who represents them, they go to the ballot box and they decide. What is not acceptable is for Members of Parliament, local councillors, police and crime commissioners, Members of the Senedd, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and others, even down to school governors, who are taking difficult decisions, which would have been taken long before if they were easy, to be intimidated in how they vote. If that is tolerated, violence against women and girls will be tolerated, perpetuated and accepted too.
I thank everyone for such a positive debate. We have got to speak up, we have got to stand up and we have got to take part and not let the haters win.
Dame Maria Miller
First, I should point out that I think every debate should end with two Marias.
I thank all Members who have spoken for their contributions today. Words matter, and the words we use matter even more because they are often repeated by people outside. That point has been clearly made by a number of Members today and I thank them for doing so. I thank everybody for their contributions and remind everybody that next Friday is International Women’s Day. It is an opportunity to remember all the women in our lives, and I will be remembering my daughter, Georgia, who is the most formidable daughter anyone could ever have.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved, That this House has considered the use of language in politics in light of International Women’s Day; agrees that the respectful use of language is an important feature of a strong and inclusive democracy; and calls on all parliamentary candidates to pledge that respectful language will be used at all times in the upcoming General Election campaigning period.
Welsh Affairs
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Welsh affairs.
It is good to see you back in the Chair for the annual debate on Welsh affairs, Mr Deputy Speaker. We call it the St David’s day debate, although this year it falls just prior to St David’s day. I wish all Members a very happy St David’s day for tomorrow—Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Hapus.
Let me start my remarks, however, on a slightly discordant note. It is a bit disappointing that yet again the debate on Welsh affairs, the annual St David’s day debate, is being squeezed in the timetable. Two very important debates were scheduled for this afternoon and anybody present in the Chamber for the previous debate will have heard the serious remarks and speeches made in it, but may I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to give us some guidance during the course of the debate on how we can get back to a situation where we protect the time for Welsh Members to have their one day a year to raise matters of importance for their constituents? There is a feeling among many of us that the smaller nations of the United Kingdom are not being served in this institution at the moment.
Putting that aside, it is good to have this debate again and, as the Member of Parliament for Preseli Pembrokeshire, I am extremely honoured to represent the city of St Davids. We have argued before during these debates about whether David was born in Ceredigion or in Pembrokeshire, but the fundamental point for those of us from Pembrokeshire is that this 6th century monk who founded the bishopric is hugely importance to us culturally, socially and economically in continuing to attract visitors from all over the country and indeed the world to the city of St Davids.
A few weeks ago I was honoured to attend the cathedral for the enthronement ceremony of the 130th bishop of St Davids, Bishop Dorrien, who represents just the latest in a continuous line of bishops going all the way back into the mists of the dark ages to the time of David himself. That is remarkable and marks out our corner of west Wales as somewhere very special indeed. I am sure that all Members who represent Wales in the House, particularly those with constituencies in the diocese, will wish Bishop Dorrien all the best.
It is a massive privilege for me to have been Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee in this Parliament. Given that this will be the last St David’s day debate of this Parliament, I put on record my huge thanks to my fellow members on the Committee, who are a joy to work with. I learn so much from them, and I thank them for the hard work they have put in to the Committee’s work over the past four years. I also thank the Clerk of the Committee, Alison Groves, and the previous Clerks we have had, starting with Adam Evans, Anwen Rees and Sarah Ioannou, all of whom are incredibly intelligent and diligent and have made my job as Chairman so much easier.
I was conscious, when I became Chairman of the Committee, that I was following in massive footsteps—the shoes no less of the current Secretary of State for Wales, who was not only an outstanding Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, but a popular one. I knew I had big shoes to fill, but I started off with three objectives that I outlined to the Clerks team when I became Chair. Those were to see whether as a Committee we could: show relevance; improve our visibility; and, through that, improve our impact as a Committee not only on Government decisions, but more broadly on national life in Wales. In how we have gone about our work as a Committee over the past four years, we have tried to stay true to that. Although those things are difficult to measure, we feel we have put a lot of worthwhile effort into the Committee, and many of the inquiries we have investigated have borne fruit.
We have looked at some big picture issues, such as the future of broadcasting in Wales. At a time of enormous change in the global broadcasting industry, we have looked at the particular risks for Welsh public service broadcasters, which are the bedrock of Welsh broadcasting success, and the role of Welsh language broadcasting in our national life. We hope that the Government continue to take note of the recommendations we made on that subject.
We have also looked at some specific, sometimes quite technical issues, such as grid capacity in Wales. That was a technical issue for us to grapple with, but it is of such importance for unlocking all the opportunities and potential for renewable energy in Wales and for ensuring that our constituents see the benefit from the energy revolution through such things as the rolling out of electric vehicles and charging points. We have also tried to be reactive as and when new information and data have come to light on issues of public importance. We have tried to respond quickly.
Water quality and the scandal of sewage pollution in Wales is one issue that we have focused on. We have held not just one, but two sessions with the bosses of the water companies in Wales, Natural Resources Wales and Ofwat. We held the second session because we were not satisfied with some of the answers we got in the first, and because of new information that came to light that appeared to suggest that Welsh Water knew it was pumping illegally large volumes of sewage into waters in Wales.
One of my priorities in leading the Committee has been to try to get the Committee out and about in Wales. Some of the most meaningful meetings we have had as a Committee have not necessarily been with people on the parliamentary estate or upstairs in a Committee Room, but in Wales. I think, for example, of meeting A-level students at Gower College and talking to them about their aspirations, how they consume media, and in particular the role of social media in their lives. So little of what they consume through these new digital channels has any Welsh-specific content and we discussed the implications that might have for the future.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Purely for the record, and as a fellow of Gower College Swansea, can I ask the right hon. Gentleman to include the full title for Hansard?
Stephen Crabb
Gower College Swansea—the hon. Lady has made her point with her usual force and eloquence.
I think as well of the meeting we had with apprentices at the magnificent Airbus factory in Broughton. The Airbus apprenticeship scheme must be the most impressive, and probably the most competitively applied for apprenticeship, anywhere in the country. What we saw there was really impressive.
I also think about the meeting we had a few weeks ago at His Majesty’s Prison Cardiff, where we spent the morning, which finished up with a sit down session with a group of prisoners who opened up to us in the most remarkable way. They talked about their upbringing, struggles with relationships and addictions, past failures and mistakes, and their hopes for the future. What really struck a chord with me was how they talked about feeling respected by the staff at the prison and feeling that they could give respect back. There was hardly a dry eye in the room at the end of that session, which was probably the most powerful and moving thing I have done as a Member of Parliament in the past 18 years.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The right hon. Member is giving a really interesting introduction. I am glad that he mentioned the work done by prison staff, because their work is so critical. He must agree that we have an anomaly in the justice system in Wales whereby so many of the critical support services for prisoners coming out of prison are run by the Welsh Government. That situation is not reflected anywhere else in the England and Wales legal system, and, sooner or later, that must come to a close, because it is insufficient.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before Mr Crabb comes back in with a response, I will let people know that there will be an unofficial five-minute limit. I also very much take on board what Mr Crabb had to say about ensuring a decent amount of time to discuss Welsh affairs in future.
Stephen Crabb
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I do not agree with the right hon. Lady. We have been taking evidence on exactly that issue and we have come across extremely professional people working in those public services and the prisons to ensure that the jagged edge of devolution, if you like, does not create disadvantages for Welsh prisoners. We will continue to look at that during our current inquiry.
Let me move on—briskly, if I can. I have been very encouraged by the engagement we have had with UK Ministers. I thank the Secretary of State and his predecessors for the 10 public evidence sessions they have had with us over the last four years. It is also worth noting that we have had the First Minister of Wales in front of us four times, and we have had 10 other sessions with other Welsh Government Ministers. I believe that that level of engagement with the Welsh Government is unprecedented, and I hope it will continue, whoever leads the Welsh Affairs Committee in the next Parliament.
The Committee has also been able to question the chief executives of some of the devolved bodies, including: Transport for Wales over deterioration in rail performance in Wales; the chief executive of Natural Resources Wales about water quality; and, as we did yesterday, the chief executive of the Development Bank of Wales, which is of course responsible to the Welsh Government.
I have also tried to change how the Committee works as a team. One thing I have done is exploit the Standing Orders that allow guesting. I am pleased that we have had Welsh Members of Parliament who are not members of the Committee plugging in and taking part in individual inquiries where they have a specific interest. Notably, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has done so for the broadcasting inquiry and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) has done so when we have been looking at the defence industry in Wales. I have also sought to involve some of the Chairs of the Senedd Committees. I was pleased that Delyth Jewell joined us for the broadcasting inquiry, and Llyr Gruffydd joined us when we were questioning the chief executive of Transport for Wales.
We will have a challenge in the next Parliament, as we will have significantly fewer Members of Parliament from Wales, which—I say this with great sadness—will inevitably mean a weaker Welsh voice in this institution. Both in absolute and relative terms, Welsh representation will be smaller in the next Parliament. In terms of ensuring that the Welsh Affairs Committee can continue to build on the good work we have done—I have a great interest in this—I think we will have to change how the Committee works. The Welsh Grand Committee is effectively moribund, and nobody is mourning its slow death, but the Welsh Affairs Committee has proved its worth.
I would like to us to move to a situation where all Welsh Back Benchers have the opportunity to participate in different inquiries, depending on their interests and availability. I have written to the Leader of the House and the Chair of the Liaison Committee about that issue. A lot more work is to be done to get progress on that. I would like Members who hope to be back in the next Parliament to bear that in mind as we think about how to ensure that Welsh representatives make their presence count here at Westminster.
My final note is about Senedd reform, because that is the other side of the democratic coin in Wales. The Welsh Government plan to expand the Senedd quite significantly, with 36 additional Members, and different figures have been put on the cost. My big concern is about how they intend to elect those Members. I have questioned the First Minister about the fact that there will be multiple Members for the same constituency. The First Minister did not think it presented such a problem, and suggested that one of the strengths of the new system will be that someone who might want to take an issue to a Conservative Member of the Senedd could do that, or they could take it to Plaid Cymru Member, because that might reflect their political preference. That is a fundamental shift from how we go about our business as Members of Parliament in our constituencies. I do not care whether someone voted, how they voted, or whether they put up a sign for me or did everything they could to get me out of office. I will represent that person to the very best of my ability.
I fear that with a “plurality of representation”—to use the First Minister’s words—in these new supersized constituencies, we will end up with a fuzzier, more diluted sense of democracy in Wales at a time when both in Westminster and in Cardiff we need Welsh politicians to be much more effective and show value to all our constituents and get the change that we want in Wales, as it desperately needs. I will bring my remarks to a close here, and I look forward to hearing what other Members have to say.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. As I said, please try to keep speeches to about five minutes, so that everyone has the chance to speak.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing this debate—one that I look forward to every year. Even though this year we are here off the back of three defeats so far in the men’s Six Nations, the potential of a young squad under the leadership of Warren Gatland is very exciting. My glass continues to be half full. I am also looking forward to watching the women’s Six Nations and to seeing them run out on to the Principality pitch.
Our national joy of rugby must have a mention, but I spoke about rugby in the last two debates so I will not make hon. Members suffer it again. Instead, I will sing the praises of my wonderful constituency. I make no apologies about stating that I represent the most beautiful constituency in Wales. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I know that other Members may argue for their patches, but that only goes to show that we are very lucky to call Wales home.
As hon. Members all know, the Gower peninsula was the first designated area of outstanding natural beauty, not just in Wales but across the whole of the UK. Over the recess I paid a visit to The View Rhossili, an aptly named hospitality business overlooking the remarkable Rhossili bay, to discuss the issues of hospitality in Wales, especially VAT. Rhossili bay is often included in lists of the best beaches in the world. There is no question for me that it belongs with the likes of Bondi and Venice beaches. My favourite walk is the one to Worms Head. It is only four miles from the car park, but it is an amazing walk with every type of terrain. I pay tribute to the Coastwatch volunteers at the end, as Princess Anne did only a few weeks ago in the constituency. The work of the volunteers there to keep our people safe when walking out to the Worm is second to none.
Other parts of Gower are renowned for other reasons. Last week I paid a visit to Selwyn’s Seafoods, which harvests cockles and laverbread collected from Penclawdd. The cockle industry has been part of the life of Penclawdd since at least the Roman period, with cockles sourced there sold worldwide. History is so important for the Gower families, who have travelled widely to sell their cockles. It really warms the cockles of your heart, to coin a phrase.
I would like to take a moment or two to recognise the boundary changes, which the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire mentioned. They will affect me: should I be successful at the next election, I would lose my constituents in Clydach. I would like to thank them for their commitment to me and for their support. In October last year, I was lucky enough to be at the opening of the restored Clydach lock. I pay tribute to the work of the Canal & River Trust and especially to Councillor Gordon Walker, who handed me an axe with which to open the lock. No damage done, Members will be pleased to know, but it was one of the highlights of my seven years in this place.
The Gower constituency may be losing Clydach, but it will gain Cockett, Dunvant and the rest of Killay, Mayals, and the newer ward of Waunarlwydd, so I thought I might include a few fun facts. I will have to cut them short, but the Cockett ward includes Fforestfach, which used to be home of not one but two greyhound racing stadiums. On Dunvant and Killay, Dunvant is most famous as the home of the Dunvant male voice choir, the oldest continuously singing choir in Wales, founded in 1895. After campaigning for years, the Mayals ward is now home to Mumbles Skatepark, a fantastic addition to the Mumbles seafront. Finally, Waunarlwydd—or “one eyelid” to the locals—is a ward that split out of Cockett. I had the pleasure of playing women’s rugby there for a little bit and I have many, many good friends as a result—I had to get rugby in one more time.
It is a testing time in Wales at the moment, and Tata Steel jobs are having an impact on people in my constituency, but I am always there to support them. It is also a testing time in agricultural communities across Europe, not just in Wales: this is not a singular particular issue. We have to work together cross-party and with our farming communities, and encourage all constituents who want to make their voice heard to respond to the consultation with the Welsh Government before it closes on 7 March.
I look forward to hearing the rest of today’s speeches. I speak better French and Italian than I do Welsh, but I will dust off my famous phrase and say, “Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus, pawb.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I stood for the council in Cockett once. Clearly, I did not get elected, but you are going to enjoy Cockett.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing the debate and mildly support his criticism of its attenuated nature; it is really not acceptable.
Last Saturday, I had the great pleasure of hosting the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), as he visited the town of Ruthin in my constituency. Ruthin is—I apologise to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi)—arguably the finest, most beautiful small town in the whole of Wales. It is benefiting from a levelling-up award of some £11 million. The Secretary of State was very impressed with the levelling-up proposals for Ruthin and he received a warm welcome.
That was in contrast with what happened two days previously, also in my constituency, when the Welsh Government’s First Minister decided to cancel a visit to Colwyn Bay, having received a warm welcome of a rather different nature from farmers in Rhyl the previous day. The farmers were protesting about the Welsh Government’s sustainable farming scheme, which they consider detrimental to their interests. I fully share their view. The Welsh Government’s proposals, which as we have heard are currently subject to a consultation, would require farmers to set aside 10% of their land for tree planting and another 10% for wildlife habitats to qualify for subsidy payments. The Welsh Government say that the aim of the scheme is
“to secure food production systems, keep farmers farming the land, safeguard the environment, and address the urgent call of the climate and nature emergency.”
It is hard to see how reducing the productive land available to each farmer by 20% will either “safeguard food production systems” or “keep farmers farming the land”, and it is impossible to see how any measures introduced by the Welsh Government, in almost any context, will make any appreciable difference to the climate emergency.
The Welsh Government’s plans, quite simply, will damage agriculture in Wales, and that is not just my view. It was also the conclusion of the Welsh Government’s own impact assessment, which predicted that the policies would result in
“a 10.8% reduction in Welsh livestock numbers; an 11% cut in labour on Welsh farms; and a £125.3 million hit to output from the sector and a loss of £199 million to farm business incomes.”
Given that their own impact assessment has predicted such dreadful consequences, it is almost impossible to understand why the Welsh Government think it is a good idea to plough on, so to speak, with what is clearly a catastrophic policy.
There is no doubt that climate change is a reality, which needs to be addressed and, indeed, is being addressed very effectively by the Westminster Government. However, when deciding whether the Welsh Government’s proposals are sensible or proportionate, we should take into account the fact that Welsh greenhouse gas emissions are already very low indeed. In 2021, the United Kingdom contributed only 0.77% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Of those emissions, Wales was responsible for just 7.5%, and the Welsh agricultural sector was responsible for only 15% of those Welsh emissions. Welsh agricultural greenhouse gas emissions therefore constitute just 0.008866% of the global total. Nigel Lawson famously observed that to govern is to choose. It is clear that the Welsh Government have deliberately chosen to penalise Welsh agriculture, damage Welsh farming incomes and decimate the ranks of those employed in the rural economy in order to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that will, in global terms, be wholly insignificant.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
May I suggest, very respectfully, that rather than winding up the rhetoric, the right hon. Gentleman should encourage his constituents to respond to the consultation? There is still a whole week to go.
Mr Jones
I can assure the hon. Lady that my constituents have responded to the consultation, both on paper and physically. Several of them were in Cardiff yesterday, objecting to this ludicrous proposal.
If large numbers of Welsh farmers are forced off their land, which the Welsh Government’s own impact assessment predicts that they will be, the consequence will be increased rural depopulation. Welsh culture will be undermined, the Welsh language weakened, and it will be another nail in the coffin of the Welsh rural way of life—but that, it would appear, is entirely acceptable to the Welsh Government, provided that it results in a pitifully small reduction in emissions.
Of course, it is not just the farming community that is being damaged by the disproportionate pursuit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing emissions was used to justify the ludicrous 20 mph speed limit that now prevails across built-up areas in Wales—a measure so hated that nearly 470,000 people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. The same justification was given for last year’s decision to abandon all major road- building projects in Wales, including the desperately-needed third Menai crossing.
When he announced the policy, the Welsh Government’s Deputy Minister For Climate Change—yes, they apparently have a Deputy Minister as well as a Minister—acknowledged that
“None of this is easy.”
He was quite right in that respect. It is not easy for farmers, for commuters, for business people or for families. Livelihoods are being put at risk and lives are being made miserable by a Welsh Government who are putting dogma ahead of common sense. Let me repeat that to govern is to choose. The Welsh Government could, and should, make a new choice. They should recognise that they are the Administration of a relatively small, lightly populated part of the United Kingdom, and that they should be serving its specific needs and addressing its priorities in a proportionate manner. Wales needs better health care, better schools, better roads, a better economy and a better quality of life, and those needs are not well served by the dead hand of climate change fanaticism.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is a huge pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing it. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that we have the best views in Wales—she cannot deny that.
I have to confine my remarks to two topics so that there is time for other colleagues to come in, and I would like to talk first about railways. Wales accounts for around 11% of the route length of the rail network in England and Wales, but has had only 1.6% of rail enhancement spending in the last decade. We in south-west Wales have a vital railway link from London to the ports of Pembrokeshire, where ferries provide a link to Ireland, but we desperately need investment in the line.
We have had the fiasco of the stop-start on electrification. When Labour left power in 2010, we had plans to electrify the line all the way from London to Swansea. The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition Government cancelled the section from Cardiff to Swansea, then reinstated it after campaigning from MPs—only to cancel it again. When the right hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) was Secretary of State for Wales, he stood at the Dispatch Box and claimed that it was not worth doing because the nature of the track meant that there would not be any significant improvement in speed, so the journey time would not be any shorter. That completely misses the point, because electrification of the lines is vital for other reasons.
The first reason is tackling climate change, as using electricity from renewable sources means that we can make a significant contribution to cutting emissions. The second reason is pollution; it is much better to have nice, clean electric trains, rather than the diesel fumes that are currently pumped out into our stations and urban areas. The third reason is noise. In Central Square in Cardiff, the noise and pollution coming from the diesel trains in the station is dreadful, and it is certainly not improving our city centre environment.
Then we come to the state of the railway. Time after time, colleagues and I find ourselves delayed on our journeys to and from London, and all too often it seems to be because of a basic failure of infrastructure. The failure of signalling systems means that some lines are blocked. There is points failure, damage to overhead electrical wires and defective track, with delays and cancellations between London Paddington and Reading. Often we are told that there is congestion through the Slough and Reading areas. There simply does not appear to be the capacity to carry the traffic, yet this is a major railway line linking south and west Wales to London. It provides an international route to Ireland, yet the problems are constant. It is an embarrassment that people coming to our capital city of Cardiff for important events are delayed, and the problem is that it is not an occasional occurrence but a regular problem. I find it easier to count the times that the train is on time than those when it is delayed.
If the issue is not technical problems, it is flooding in the Swindon area when there is heavy rain, as happened only 10 days ago. That results in a massive detour around Bath, with people packed like sardines on the train. We are told that these storm events are likely to become the norm and not the exception, so solutions should be found and improvements made. I urge the Secretary of State for Wales to lobby the Secretary of State for Transport for the badly needed improvements to the line. The connectivity is vital, and we want people to enjoy coming to Wales—whether for pleasure or business.
Coming further west, yes, we have seen improvements to the Loughor bridge, but we need a real commitment from the Government to invest in and upgrade the railway line all the way through Llanelli and Carmarthen to Pembrokeshire. We need pressure from the Government to ensure that Network Rail maintains its assets to the highest standards, not least to minimise flooding in areas along the coast from Llanelli to Carmarthen, through Ferryside.
I turn to energy. We in the Labour party are absolutely committed to making Wales and the UK a renewable energy superpower. Indeed, the Welsh Labour Government have already facilitated significant investment in wind energy and a range of marine technologies. We all understand that that is massively needed in order to slash people’s electricity bills, power the transport of the future and cut our emissions, as well as to give us energy security so that we are not dependent on foreign despots. We have such potential for renewable energy in Wales. We have continued to develop wind energy, whereas the Tories have banned it in England.
In south-west Wales, we have potential not only for onshore wind, but for offshore wind and floating offshore wind. Floating offshore wind can be deployed further out to sea, in deeper waters, where the wind is stronger and more electricity can be produced. We also have ports such as Milford Haven and Port Talbot, which can be used both in the construction phase and in the maintenance of offshore floating wind, but we face two significant dangers: first, that investors do not come to that part of Wales at all; and, secondly, that we do not maximise the opportunities for a local supply chain.
As colleagues and I have previously said, we had a calamitous result in last year’s bidding process when not a single company made a bid because the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero was either too inept or too stubborn to heed the industry’s warnings about needing to adjust the strike price to take account of the surge in inflation. Although we had no bidders for floating offshore wind, the Irish worked with the industry and had a very successful bidding process.
Then there was the complacency of the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who effectively just said, “There’s next time.” That is a whole year in which other countries will be stealing a march on us. This year, I ask the Secretary of State to work with Government colleagues to ensure that we get the very best, including the scale of investment we need in floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea. We need to have a number of different players taking part in the process.
The UK Government need to be aware of the stiff competition we face from other countries around the world. The investment in our ports and infrastructure has to be really attractive, as business wants clear direction, certainty and incentives from the Government. When I look around and see the investment in the United States due to the Inflation Reduction Act, when I see similar initiatives across Europe and when I see how countries such as Oman—countries that have hitherto been dependent on oil—are now investing massively in renewables and clean steel, the UK has to do more to develop a competitive edge. Ministers need to be cognisant that the problem for our ports is that a huge investment has to be made up front before they see any returns.
The other great danger is that of not maximising the supply chain opportunities. We in Llanelli have a strong engineering and manufacturing tradition, and the development of offshore wind should open up supply chain opportunities, but for this we need a very clear commitment and consistency from Government on the size and the timescale for the development of floating offshore wind. We need realistic support for upgrading our ports, a detailed analysis of the factors that will help or hinder the development of the supply chain industries in Wales, and a proper strategy and understanding of what will make it attractive to develop such supply chains in Llanelli, Port Talbot and the surrounding areas, rather than importing components from abroad. The tragic irony is that, just as we have a tremendous opportunity with the development of offshore wind, we could see the end of steel production at the blast furnaces in Port Talbot while the new electric arc furnace is still not up and running, nor is the quality of its product proven for the uses we may require.
Another essential area of UK Government responsibility is upgrading the national grid to provide the connections and transmission to get the electricity generated to the areas where it is needed. I know that the Welsh Government’s Climate Change Minister, Julie James MS, has been raising this matter.
The Crown Estate’s Celtic sea blueprint, published this month, gives a lot of detail on the components that will be needed for floating offshore wind, the port infra- structure required and the shipping needed. The report acknowledges the value of Celsa in Cardiff as the UK’s primary rebar supplier, but it also refers to other steelmakers. The worry is that the capacity will not be there. The report also identifies a need to grow port capacity in the region, and to use it effectively.
I stress that we need a joined-up effort from the Government, particularly from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Business and Trade, to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from this fantastic opportunity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To protect everyone’s time, I will introduce a formal five-minute limit.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for supporting this important debate, and I thank the excellent Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). We have heard some fantastic speeches across a broad spectrum.
Some of the oldest churches on my island constituency of Ynys Môn are to be found on the coast, at places like Llaneilian, St Seiriol, St Padrig and St Cwyfan, otherwise known as the “church in the sea”, by Aberffraw—it is arguably one of the most beautiful spots in Wales. The early Christian communities settled there because the missionaries who carried the gospel to Ynys Môn arrived by sea and built their simple churches where they landed.
Much like Dewi Sant, who we celebrate tomorrow, these missionaries left an indelible mark on Ynys Môn and the whole of Wales. Many of our place names stem from the age of the saints. The many villages whose name begins with “Llan”—Llanfaethlu, Llanfachraeth, Llanddeusant, Llanbedrgoch and so many more—give us a clue to their origin. The ancient Welsh word “llan” means a clearing in the trees where a church was built.
Some 1,500 years of the Christian church’s existence in Wales has left a positive mark on language and culture, on history and geography, and on the values of the people, for which we have Dewi Sant and the many other missionaries of the Celtic age to thank. What many do not realise, however, is that we have the Christian faith and a British monarch to thank for the survival of our Welsh language. In 1588, Queen Elizabeth I, who spoke Welsh, among other languages, and was descended from the Tudors of Ynys Môn, commanded that the Bible be translated into Welsh. That translated Bible gave us the endearing story of Mary Jones, whose Christian faith was so important that she saved for five years and walked 26 miles just to purchase a Bible in her native tongue. In the 18th century, it was the same Welsh Bible that clerics such as Griffith Jones from Llanddowror used to provide Welsh literacy skills to children and adults alike, long before the state had even contemplated building schools. Thus, the Bible became a key tool to teach literacy, as well as religion.
The Welsh language is spoken by nearly 60% of the population of Ynys Môn and for many it is their first language. It is the language in which most council and public sector meetings are conducted, and the language we hear spoken in the streets and shops of Amlwch, Llangefni and Caergybi/Holyhead. It is important to me and my constituents that we preserve our language and culture, which is why I use specially-commissioned bilingual headed paper to write to my constituents. It is also why I have a Welsh website as well as an English one, and why I produce bilingual newsletters and use excellent local translators Alun Gruffydd, Ceri Hughes and the team at Bla Translation in Llangefni when I need to.
Although I grew up speaking English, because my father had to leave Wales to find work, I am doing all that I can to promote and preserve the native language of Ynys Môn. I continue to learn Welsh, and I read my oath of allegiance to this House in Welsh. I also support Anglesey Council’s applications for UK Government funding, for example, from the community renewal fund, which is used to promote and support the Welsh language on Ynys Môn.
Above all else today therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, Dydd gŵyl Dewi reminds us of the impact that faith has had on Wales. Much as the wind and the rain has shaped the Welsh landscape, so the Christian Church has shaped the character of the nation and a British Queen preserved its language. Diolch yn fawr.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is an honour to be here again on St David’s Day, Dydd gŵyl Dewi, to discuss our separate set of circumstances, issues and problems, and to celebrate what makes Wales unique, even if we each have only five minutes to do so today. Calls for a longer period of time in future would be very welcome.
This debate is particularly important this week because we are standing on the threshold of the spring Budget and we all have a duty to recognise how what we do here reverberates directly and indirectly in Wales. As each of us is a representative of the fairest constituency of Wales, we have a duty to aspire to and to seek to bring about fairness and ambition for our country. That bring us to the question of what is in the gift of the UK Government specifically to do to make a real difference.
What Governments can do is invest in what will make a material difference, and of course I would propose that investing in fair consequentials for the funding allocated for HS2 would indeed make a material difference. Not only are we owed about £3.9 billion from that fiasco, but the Prime Minister, in his autumn conference speech last year, promised us the electrification of the north Wales main line route for £1 billion. He did so despite that figure being based on a 2015 case and the Welsh Government saying that no development work has been done on the project in the intervening nine years, and so I imagine that prices have changed. This was like the previous promises that were made of an electrified south Wales main line—things have also gone quiet on that front, with Transport Ministers reluctant to give a timeline. Of course we will have heard, because we are in the run-up to an election, of plans to spend HS2 money in the midlands and the north of England being detailed.
A second thing that would make a real material difference to Wales would be to devolve the Crown Estate, whose asset value in Wales was £853 million, with its marine portfolio amounting to £603 million, two years ago. In 2020-21, the estate made £8.7 million, with £8.6 million from the marine portfolio. That goes directly to Treasury coffers, and 25% goes to the monarch via the sovereign grant. Imagine what we could achieve in Wales with that money.
Devolving the Crown Estate would also give us rights to offshore leasing. It would allow us to have our own green industrial strategy and save bill payers over £300 million each year through offshore wind, all while generating public funds for the Welsh Government to help better people’s lives. We need only look at what is evolving in Scotland, where the Crown Estate is devolved, to see what is possible. Twenty projects approved through offshore leasing are projected to raise £28.8 billion of investment, and £700 million would be passed to the Scottish Government for public spending.
So many of the problems that we experience could be solved by fair funding. That requires reviewing and replacing the outdated Barnett formula with a system that delivers equitable funding for all parts of Wales. There are several reasons why the formula must be replaced. First, it does not address our needs; it has not for decades. Wales’s funding floor is not based on Wales’s current assessed need, but on estimates made by the Holtham commission in 2010, which drew on—wait for it—2001 census data. Secondly, the formula is not clear or transparent. When funding is announced in England, it may take weeks or months to find out if Wales will receive Barnett consequential funding, and if so, how much.
Thirdly, we all know the formula is open to political manipulation, with Wales being robbed of at least £3.9 billion through HS2 funding. Northern Ireland recently received a funding package of £3.3 billion from the UK Government to address its funding problems. If Wales were to receive an equivalent per capita funding package, it would get £5.4 billion. Looking ahead to the spring Budget, I hope that the Government will show, somehow or other, that they intend to tackle the deep structural problems that Wales faces, but I will not hold my breath.
For 14 years, Wales has had a UK Government who ignore and belittle our needs, wants and values, and use devolution—our democracy and our Senedd—as a political punchbag. That is bad for our democracy in the UK and in Wales, and we need to find a better way to deal with the UK as it stands.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing the debate, and I echo his remarks on the time available to us.
I was born in Bangor. While it is my great privilege to represent Aberconwy and part of the area where I was raised, it will be my great privilege to contest the new seat of Bangor Aberconwy at the next election. My childhood was also privileged. How else could anyone describe enjoying north Wales’s plunging valleys—scrambling up and occasionally rolling down its rugged mountainsides —and learning about its heritage, ways and language? As a result, I grew up in the firm belief that ours—mine—was a community and culture to be cherished. Although I had yet to put an understanding or reason to it, I knew intuitively, in my bones, that people and place mattered. There was also something else: a feeling shared by so many whom I grew up with that I would have to leave this home and north Wales to seek opportunities, develop a career and make something of myself. That was what I determined to change, to the best of my ability, when I became an MP.
Numbers give those ideas shape. The 2021 census revealed that Wales’s Welsh-born and working-age populations are shrinking. Young people are leaving. The population is ageing. Fluency in Welsh is declining, as those raised speaking it find that they, too, must leave. This youth drain is not evenly spread. Data from the real estate site Compare My Move reveals that 72% of those moving home in north Wales leave north Wales, but fully 61% leave Wales altogether. Ours has the highest rate of outward movement of any Welsh region.
Analysis by the Higher Education Statistics Agency reveals that movers are disproportionately educated. One in five Welsh-born people leaves Wales, but a full third of all Welsh graduates leave Wales. A recent report by the Wales Governance Centre identified that growth of middle to higher-earning roles in Wales has remained stagnant since 2000. The 2023 Bevan Foundation report “Poverty in Arfon in the 21st century”, commissioned by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), for which I commend him, reports that 37% of the jobs there are in the public sector, compared to a UK average of just 18%. The north-west Wales economy is dominated by agriculture, tourism, hospitality, public sector employment and few well-paid jobs. It is characterised by long hours and hard work that is honourable—honest, even—but the picture cannot be described as one of growth and opportunity, or full of prospects for the next generation.
How to respond? The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) correctly identified a need for investment, but the last major investment in north Wales was in the Conwy tunnel nearly four decades ago. A combination of the revised responsibilities of devolution and the lack of ambition and vision from the Welsh Government in Cardiff has led to little response to the challenges. Their report in 2016 identified that congestion, poor connectivity and a lack of resilience—traffic is set to increasing by 2038—represent a threat to locking in the benefits of proposals associated with the nuclear power station in Anglesey. Just last year, another of their reports found that proposed A55 and bridge upgrades could boost investment, but it concluded that such schemes would be
“inconsistent with Welsh Government’s aim of reducing car mileage per person by 10%”.
It was the same last October. On receiving news of the UK Government’s investment in the electrification of the north Wales mainline, the response of the Welsh Government was that the scheme was not a priority for them.
However, I want to conclude on a note of hope for our young people, and to give clear, real evidence of the prospect of change coming down the line. The creation of a freeport in Anglesey with £26 million of seed funding will ensure that investment, skilled jobs and housing can flow into north-west Wales. An £80 million investment in an investment zone in Wrexham will leverage £1.7 billion more into high-value, advanced manufacturing, and the commitment of £1 billion to electrify the north Wales mainline carries the potential for faster journey times, higher frequency of travel, cheaper fares and more freight travel. That bumper investment is a huge step up in our regional competitiveness. There is nothing predetermined about decline. We are kindling the ambition that was once there in the ’80s, expanding our infrastructure, liberating and connecting our communities and businesses, and securing for our young people a future that combines both prosperity and cultural continuity. The future for our young people in north Wales is brighter because of this Conservative Government, and of that I am proud.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing today’s Welsh affairs debate ahead of St David’s day tomorrow. Like others who have spoken and will speak, I am very proud to be Welsh. I am proud of my country, my family, and the community that I represent, which is steeped in true Welsh values. I see them every day—people supporting each other and helping their neighbours, working collectively to tackle the issues affecting our communities. For me, that is most evident during the Everyone Deserves campaign, which has become an institution, not just in Swansea East but in communities across Wales, during the Easter, summer and Christmas school holidays. Everyone Deserves a Christmas 2023 shattered previous records, not just in the number of families that we supported, but in the number of people who answered the call to turn up and help.
It is always bittersweet talking about that, because although I am immensely grateful for all the support, and proud of what we achieve, it saddens me that the demand is so high, and that so many families in our communities are struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living in recent years has crippled households in Swansea and right across Wales. It is not only families struggling during the school holidays; last month, we saw the shocking results of a Bevan Foundation study on pensioner poverty in Wales, which found that one in 10 pensioners is skipping meals, and one in five is going without heating. Indeed, Everyone Deserves saw a rise in the number of pensioners seeking help last Christmas.
I will not talk about every person who helped with the campaign, because there are genuinely too many, but I must mention my local heroes, who show their support time and again. The Swans and the Ospreys, who are legends on the pitch—my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) might disagree—are always there, unloading vans, packing boxes and delivering hampers. The wonderful ladies of the Valley Rock Voices choir, who have the voices of angels and hearts of gold, raise money throughout the year, week in and week out, for Everyone Deserves, and even throw impromptu concerts while packing hampers to keep everyone entertained. Pentrehafod School—I remember its headmaster being born, which is rather scary—helped to launch the Christmas appeal, did bucket collections at the football, and is hosting us again this Christmas, so that we have space to pack the hampers. My very dear friend Mal Pope went one better this year and actually wrote a brand new Christmas song to raise funds for us. I have known Mal literally all my life. I am so proud of him, because he celebrates 50 years in showbusiness this year, and I am so grateful for his unwavering support. There are so many more people whom I could mention, because this really is a whole community effort. In fact, it has spread way out of my community. Last Christmas, for example, we stretched even further, delivering hampers to Swansea East, Swansea West, Neath, Aberavon, Blaenau Gwent and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones).
I hope one day to be able to say, “There are fewer people needing help this year,” and that Everyone Deserves has had fewer referrals, but I fear that may be a while away. Until then, it is an honour to provide support. That support may be provided directly into someone’s home, involve funding a play session for Swansea’s National Autistic Society or Hands Up For Downs, or even go to holding a coffee morning for the Swansea City Disabled Supporters’ Association, which tomorrow, on St David’s Day, launches the “Everyone Deserves a Cuppa” sessions. I am always proud of people’s willingness to help each other, especially those who may need a little extra support.
We are a nation who wear our hearts on our sleeves— I do so more than most, probably. From the hillside to the vales, we thrive on welcoming people. There will always be a welcome for people who come to our home in Wales.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd, a dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus i bawb. Rydw i’n caru Cymru, yn enwedig Cwm Cynon, lle ges i fy ngeni a fy magu, ac rydw i’n dal i fyw yno. I am just saying that, like everyone else in this Chamber, I love Wales, but especially Cynon Valley, where I was born and raised, and where I still live.
In our history, our plentiful natural resources have generated vast wealth. Sadly, though, the people of Cymru who created that wealth have not reaped all the benefits from it. Our wealth has been extracted. The profits to be made, whether from coal and steel, or, increasingly, from wind and waves, have been siphoned off by a tiny few,s while the many who helped to create and generate it suffer poverty, hardship and inequality.
This year, we commemorate 40 years since the miners’ strike, when a Tory Government took on the coal mining industry, decimating local communities in south Wales in the process. Although the heavy industries that defined the Cynon Valley have retreated, the extraction continues in different guises. Almost 3,000 jobs are under threat at the Tata steelworks in Port Talbot. In Cynon Valley, the wind farms atop our hills are owned by the Swedish state, and the sandstone that makes up the steep valley sides is extracted for profit by a German multinational.
This is the story of Cymru’s past and present, but it does not have to be the story of Cymru’s future. In recent years, we have seen an unprecedented recentralisation of power in Westminster, which forces through legislation that conflicts with the position of the Welsh Government and the people of Cymru. Today, the Senedd has voted to withhold legislative consent to the anti-boycott Bill that was passed here in Westminster.
The final report of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales last month is a landmark moment in Cymru. It concludes that
“the status quo is not a viable option for providing stability and prosperity for Wales.”
It proposes three options: enhancing devolution; a federal structure; and independence. The commission’s proposals provide an opportunity for a much-needed overhaul of both political and economic power for Cymru, because the prevailing neo-liberal economic orthodoxy is inextricably linked with current constitutional arrangements.
On the economy, there are a number of demands to be made of the UK Government if it is to begin to redress the economic imbalance. They should replace the Barnett formula with a fair, needs-based funding system, and secure prudential powers, increasing the borrowing cap and winning an increased reserve for Wales. They should fund the safety of the 2,500 coal tips requiring £600 million of remediation works, a legacy of Welsh coal production, and ensure that the former mine workers are compensated properly, as demanded by the national mineworkers pensions campaign. The UK Government should uphold the forced-Brexit promise to Cymru, pay the Welsh Government the £1.2 billion owed and give them the reins of power on that. They should pay the billions of pounds in High Speed 2 consequentials. Finally, they should ensure that the £850 million of revenue from the Crown Estate in Cymru can be used to build a Welsh sovereign fund.
Such measures would give Welsh Government greater power to invest in big-ticket initiatives to transform the economy in the long term, whether that be major renewable generation projects or large-scale retrofitting of homes. The independent commission’s proposals provide the opportunity for a future Cymru where we not only generate wealth, but retain and reinvest our wealth in our communities for the benefit of all, and in a way that tackles the climate crisis. This new approach of community wealth building—cymunedoli—is gaining traction from Blaenau Ffestiniog in north Wales to my constituency.
To conclude, none of that is possible unless we gain the involvement and confidence of the people of Cymru. The existing democratic deficit—the disconnection between conventional politics and the people of Wales—is extremely serious. Democracy is not just about voting once every five years, so that we can sit in Westminster or Cardiff representing or misrepresenting people; it is about giving people a voice, working collaboratively to bring about, for me, a socialist future for the people of Wales.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this St David’s Day debate, although I add my own concerns about the lack of time. I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, to hear you say that in future we might have longer to discuss all the many important issues that face Wales.
I congratulate the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), and thank him for securing the debate and for the way in which he has chaired the Select Committee. In his opening remarks, he mentioned that we have in recent years taken a broad view of the issues facing Wales and its communities, none more so perhaps than the changing population of Wales and the demographic trends that we have witnessed not just recently but over decades. The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) touched on that important point. The dynamic, I am afraid, affects Ceredigion just as it does his part of north Wales. It has long been the case that young people who grow up in Ceredigion leave for study or for work and seldom come back. The 2021 census reported that, sadly, Ceredigion’s overall population has declined by some 5.8%, which is a remarkable figure, the largest decrease anywhere in Wales.
Within those figures, there is a story of real change in the demographic make-up of Ceredigion: fewer young people—children and young adults—and therefore a higher proportion of the population over 65 years of age. Indeed, Ceredigion has a remarkable demographic make-up, in that 13% of its population are under the age of 15 and 25% are over the age of 65. That is a problem that we should be considering in both Westminster and Cardiff, because it has real consequences for the ability to deliver public services in an effective and appropriate manner.
That also has something to do with the ability to ensure that we have vibrant communities. I do not want—I think no one else in the Chamber would want—parts of Wales, be that in west Wales or elsewhere, just to become places that shut for half the year, only coming to life during the summer months. We want a vibrant economy through the year, where young people can expect to pursue exciting careers in the place in which they were born and raised.
Others have mentioned investment, and I want to touch on the importance of investing in digital connectivity as part of the solution to develop the economy of rural parts of Wales. That is something I have raised in this Chamber before. Sadly, Ceredigion does not have a very good record when it comes to digital connectivity. Access to the internet has long been an essential, not a luxury, for people in the modern age, but our access to full gigabit broadband is constrained to just 37% of households compared with 76% for the UK as a whole, and 10.7% of households in Ceredigion receive broadband speeds below 10 megabits per second—the equivalent UK figure is 3.6% of households.
Although progress has been made in recent years, much more needs to be done. Not only would that help to ensure that people can access essential services, which are increasingly going online, but it could prove a bit of a boost for the local economy. I am very pleased to say that some companies are looking to relocate their head offices to Ceredigion, in the few villages and towns where we do have full gigabit broadband, because, as long as they have access to the internet through a reliable full gigabit connection, they do not mind being in west Wales—in fact, it is an advantage, and that can be quite an advantage for us, too, if we are serious about developing the rural economy.
In the moments that I have left, I will make a plea to the Secretary of State, because I know that he is also keen on rural broadband. Project Gigabit—the UK Government scheme—has been in existence for a few years now, but progress in rural areas is still too slow. In Ceredigion, we are still waiting to understand which premises will be connected in the next iteration of the scheme, and those who will not be connected will need to find alternative solutions. The sooner we have clarity, the better, because the quality of the lives and the services that can be accessed by those without connectivity are much diminished. If we could have greater prominence and priority for the connection of rural areas, I would be very grateful. More specifically, perhaps the Secretary of State could suggest to his Cabinet colleagues that they work outside-in for the next round of Project Gigabit, so that rural communities are connected first.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Appropriately, we have two Joneses to end the Back-Bench contributions to the debate. I call Ruth Jones.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very pleased to be able to speak in this shortened but perfectly formed debate. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing the debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. This is my fifth St David’s Day as the Member of Parliament for Newport West, and I want to use the few minutes available to me to talk about what is best about Newport West and Wales. I will touch on what we need and how my community represents some of our best qualities as a nation in our United Kingdom.
I also take this chance to send my best wishes to our First Minister, Mark Drakeford MS, who will stand down at some point in the coming months. Mark has worked tirelessly for Wales, often at great personal sacrifice to himself and his family. We all continue to mourn the passing of his wife, Clare. On behalf of the people of Newport West, I thank him for his service to our country and his commitment to public service. We wish him well.
As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Wales is the land of song, and Newport has long played a role as a beating heart for new and emerging music, including the successful Goldie Lookin Chain, an absolute favourite of my predecessor, the late Paul Flynn MP. More generally, Wales has seen the prowess of Dame Shirley Bassey, Tom Jones, the Manics, Stereophonics, Feeder and Super Furry Animals—I could go on. I must not forget our hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who have voices that are second to none.
Acts, bands and singers cannot thrive unless they have spaces to perform, and in Newport West, I dare say that we have one of the best spaces in Wales: Le Pub, a welcoming, community-owned independent music and arts venue. It is a gem in the heart of Newport city centre, and I acknowledge the wonderful Sam Dabb, who is the inspiration, brains and hard work behind that wonderful venue.
Newport West is soon to have another live music venue in the form of the 500-seat capacity Corn Exchange. I checked before the debate, and the first show will be by the band The Bug Club. Before hon. Members go rushing to get tickets, I must tell them that it is sold out—sorry. There will be many more shows and bands performing there in future, however, so I encourage all Members to look at the events calendar and to come and see us in Newport West to hear something a little different and to enjoy our hospitality.
I would also like to acknowledge Barnabas Arts House, an independent art gallery run by Janet Martin—another venue that I encourage Members to add to their bucket list. The transformative nature of art can break out of set spaces; we have seen that in Newport at the Place of Wonder, a collaboration of 12 artists also led by Janet Martin, which has transformed Ruperra Lane from a derelict passage to an astonishing art haven.
It would take too long to name all the successes in Wales that have planted their roots in Newport soil, whether that is the international triumph of Tiny Rebel, the local coffee found at the Rogue Fox, or the small business of the wedding venue in the West Usk lighthouse. All are rooted in my constituency, and I deeply appreciate being surrounded by such entrepreneurs and to have the chance to represent them in this place.
Of course, I cannot miss the opportunity to give a big shout-out to the semiconductor cluster in south Wales, as well as Newport Wafer Fab and all the brilliant workers there, who are crying out for certainty, clarity and a coherent strategy from the Government. Hopefully, in his wind-up today, the Secretary of State will be able to give us some positive news—we can live in hope.
The past 14 years have been difficult, but I do not want to dwell on them today. Instead, I will say to all the teachers, NHS staff—professionals and volunteers—carers, transport workers, council officers and everyone else who lives, learns and works in Newport West and Wales, “Thank you for all you do to make our nation and this country what it is today.” However, I cannot end my speech without mentioning steel. Steel produced, recycled and repurposed in Wales is as Welsh as it gets, from Port Talbot to Llanwern and Sims Metal and Island Steel in Newport West. We all want a transition to green steel production, but that must be a just transition. We need to utilise a blend of technologies, because decarbonisation must not mean de-industrialisation.
As we mark St David’s day 2024, we have the chance to champion all the great and good that makes Wales what it is today; to appreciate what we have in Wales, and acknowledge that we could have so much more. We are not far from having the chance to deliver that change with a change of Government here in Westminster. The people of Wales need it, and they deserve it too—the sooner the better.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I start by echoing the thanks given to the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing the debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Today, I will focus on a small number of key issues that are facing the communities I represent—areas where I believe this Government could be doing more to help, and in some cases, a lot more. The first issue I wish to raise is that of the once great Post Office, the foundation of a strong community spirit, which we in Wales are hugely proud of. In recent memory, almost every city, town and village had a local post office, once called the “front office for government”. Local sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses knew their customers and could offer a wide range of government, financial and postal services.
Post offices were once the hub of every community—a trusted British service that was the envy of the world and the fabric of our communities—but sadly, that is now a thing of the past. We are all familiar with the truly appalling way in which the Post Office has treated its own loyal staff in the Horizon scandal, but the culture at Post Office Ltd seems to be ingrained. Post Office managers are turning their back on our communities and secretly closing post offices without any public consultation. It is an all too familiar pattern: a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress retires or resigns. Post Office bosses initially claim that the closure is temporary, and promise to update elected representatives in 12 months if the branch is still closed. A whole year passes; with vital services closed, residents make alternative arrangements through necessity. Post Office managers then claim that it is simply not viable to reopen the branch, as there is no customer base. Is there any wonder, if a branch has been closed for a whole year?
The Post Office has pulled that trick in Merthyr Tydfil. Five years ago, Treharris post office closed when the sub-postmaster left, and no replacement has been provided. Just last week, the sub-postmaster in Pantysgallog resigned, and the Post Office—which initially said that it would be a temporary closure—was forced to admit that it had no plans to recruit. Post offices are being closed, almost always permanently, and there is zero consultation with the communities that use them. This arrogance from the Post Office cannot continue. The Government must change the rules so that if a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress leaves and there are no plans to recruit, Post Office Ltd must consult with residents and elected representatives. That is the very least that our communities deserve.
I also want to talk about the cost of petrol and diesel, which continues to be a major issue for people right across the country. Motorists filling up their car in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney are paying considerably more than those in areas just a few miles away—often as much as 10p per litre more. I have been campaigning on the impact that this petrol pump rip-off is having on residents in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, and have asked retailers to explain why prices are so much higher; none has been able to provide any reasonable justification.
I am afraid that, to many of my constituents, that looks like price gouging, and I agree. I have encouraged motorists to use apps such as PetrolPrices, but with prices remaining comparable in the local area, there is little scope to shop around. In Northern Ireland, the Consumer Council published a fuel price checker in September 2020, which has helped to keep fuel costs below those in Wales and England. People are continuing to suffer because of the Conservatives’ cost of living crisis, and I believe that the Government must do more to ensure there is genuine competition and to end the petrol pump rip-off in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
The last area on which I would like to focus is pension credit. As we know, the Tory cost of living crisis has hit pensioners particularly hard. It should shame the Government to their very core that almost 1 million pensioner households across the UK are estimated to be missing out on vital support from pension credit, with a staggering £2.1 billion of pension credit left unclaimed. Just think what that £2.1 billion could do for pensioners who are struggling to pay their bills. Working with the citizens advice bureaux in both Merthyr Tydfil and Caerphilly, I organised a pension credit day of action, when in a single day we helped people claim over £200,000 in missing benefits. Just imagine what the Government could do if they really wanted to. Ministers must do better in getting cash out of the Treasury and into pensioners’ pockets.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to end by taking the opportunity to wish a very happy St David’s Day—dydd Gŵyl Dewi hapus—to you and to all those celebrating tomorrow.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
May I say what a pleasure it is to speak once again in this annual, if sadly truncated, debate on St David’s Day? I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on once more putting in the leg work to make sure that we had the opportunity for such a wide-ranging and good-natured debate on matters Welsh.
I was not intending to mention the rugby, mostly out of politeness, but the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) raised the three straight defeats. I have to say, from a Scottish perspective, that we gave Wales every chance in the second half, but perhaps I had better just move on. Just to say that the SNP wishes everyone in this House and beyond a very happy St David’s Day when it comes.
This is always a good opportunity to look back at history, but also to look forward. In looking forward, there is no issue of greater import, I would argue, to young generations than the climate, the energy transition and the economy, and we need to get all those parts working together, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said so powerfully in her own contribution.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke about the role that the Crown Estate has to play in that. I can speak from the perspective of Scotland, and when the Crown Estate was devolved, the Scottish Government used that to forge ahead in granting licences for over 25 GW of offshore wind development, which in many respects puts us at the forefront of offshore wind development globally. That is double the UK’s existing offshore capacity, and it will create high-quality jobs and draw in significant investment.
Having that power devolved has clearly been a huge benefit in Scotland, and as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said—she did not quite say this, and I hope I am not putting words in her mouth—it is beyond time that Wales was able to directly benefit from its own resources, instead of only being able to catch a little bit on the way past as those resources are exported.
Those on the Treasury Bench sometimes get quite excited whenever that is brought up in the Chamber, but in light of the failure of the wind auctions, as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) pointed out, we can see why. I think this is an area where the UK Government are in danger of being on the wrong side of Welsh opinion. YouGov conducted a poll that found that 58% of people in Wales support devolving the Crown Estate to Wales. That has also come out as a recommendation of the independent commission on the constitutional future of Wales, alongside other matters such as the devolution of justice and the devolution of railways, with a fair funding settlement to go along with them.
Another telling headline, at least from my perspective, from the independent commission’s report was the willingness of that cross-party body to say that independence for Wales was a viable option for Wales’s constitutional future. That might bring mixed reactions but I would say, from my perspective as a supporter of Scottish independence, that being able to get such a group to agree on that point is a pretty positive place to be, because it shows the respect there has to be between the different views on the constitutional position.
Too often in Scotland attempts are made to shut down debate around independence as if it is in some way too difficult or even, implausibly, unviable. The question should not be about whether this could happen, but should always be about whether it should happen; that is a good place for a respectful debate to take place. Support for independence in Wales now regularly polls at about 30% with apparent majority support among those aged under 34, so this discussion will find itself in the public domain to a greater extent in the years ahead.
Robin Millar
I have never seen a poll showing any more than 20% in favour of independence.
Richard Thomson
I am not about to open up my phone to look at the exact polling, but I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman after the debate to show him the figures and apologise if I am wrong or claim a pint if I am correct.
Beth Winter
On the point about the independent commission, which is a landmark moment, does the hon. Gentleman that it is really important that the commission did not pick any of those three options but instead said very strongly that it was up to the people of Wales to decide? Does he agree that that is the right way forward?
Richard Thomson
I absolutely agree with that point. The principle of consent is enshrined in the Good Friday agreement for Northern Ireland and implicit in that is that it is a decision for the people. I would argue that that is the position Scotland ought to be in—it is a position for the people—and of course it is for the people of Wales to decide how to form a Government best suited to their needs and to then bring whatever pressure they can through the ballot box to bring that about.
Two other recommendations came out of the commission that struck me: the need to secure a duty of co-operation and parity of esteem between the Governments of the UK; and that the Sewel convention ought to be strengthened. That is something on which a Labour Government in Cardiff and an SNP-led Government in Edinburgh could probably find a lot of agreement. My party is often happier to find ourselves in agreement with the Labour party than the Labour party is to find itself in agreement with the Scottish National party, but there are examples that creep up where the Scottish Labour party appears to be at variance with its colleagues in Wales and I would like to use my remaining time to highlight one example.
When the UK Government find their record under attack, they point the finger, not always fairly I would say, at the record of the Labour Government in Wales, and in turn that Labour Government in Cardiff point a finger back about the funding settlement that is in place and it being imposed by the UK Government. Yet when Labour in Scotland tries to criticise the Scottish Government, it seems completely oblivious, in a way its Welsh counterparts are not, to the funding strictures also in place in Scotland. I do not know whether Welsh Labour ever speaks to Scottish Labour, but if they have not swiped right on each other yet, I would be more than happy to effect the introductions—I would be very happy to set up a blind date if that would be helpful.
Liz Saville Roberts
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will join me in wondering about the fact that nobody would come forward to recommend the status quo and the commission did not do so, because there are evidently no advantages to the status quo in the present devolution settlement.
Richard Thomson
Time is short and the right hon. Lady makes her point very deftly as always, but I want to come back to the point from the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire about the proposed expansion of the Senedd and the electoral system. I have to say that having multi-Member constituencies is not a new thing. They exist in Northern Ireland and also in Scotland for the regional lists, and they exist in local government here, and yes, of course, elected representatives treat people without fear and without favour, and without regard to who anyone voted for or even if they voted at all. [Interruption.] Yes, really, and certainly that is how any elected representative worth their salt will go about things. Conservatives, at least as I always understood it, used to be in favour of consumer choice and this means voters have an element of consumer choice in terms of who they wish to take their concerns to, or indeed if they wish to engage the services of more than one Member. There are examples which I would be more than happy to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman later, because it really is not the end of the world, as he is portraying it to be.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
It is good to see you in the Chair again for this annual debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also thank the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing the debate, and I gently echo his sentiments about the time we have for this debate today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it and all colleagues present for their contributions to what is always a wide-ranging debate on Welsh affairs.
I will mention just a few contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) talked about rugby and cockles. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) gave a great speech about rail infrastructure, renewable energy, offshore wind delays and steel. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) is formidable, and she spoke about her “Everyone Deserves” campaign. If she asks you to help, you dare not say no, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) talked about our proud industrial past. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) talked about music and culture in her constituency, and I am very much looking forward to visiting the Corn Exchange this weekend. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) talked about two very important issues: post office closures, which I entirely recognise from the experience of my constituents in Cardiff Central, and the Government’s poor roll-out of pension credit.
St David’s Day is a time to celebrate Welsh heritage and national identity, and the Labour party is fiercely proud of our Welsh heritage. Ever since devolution, delivered by a Labour Government, Labour-led Welsh Governments have delivered positive change for the people of Wales: free prescriptions, free school lunches for all primary schoolchildren, the highest number of nurses and consultants in the Welsh NHS for a decade, the protection of the NHS bursary, unlike in England, and a ban on fracking, unlike in England, and those are just a few. Labour is the party of devolution. We are committed to reinforcing the status of the Senedd.
Jo Stevens
The right hon. Lady has made several contributions, so I will carry on, if she does not mind. We are committed to reinforcing the status of the Senedd, strengthening intergovernmental working and pushing power out of Westminster and into the hands of our communities.
Wales is brimming with potential. Yesterday, pupils from my constituency from St Philip Evans Catholic Primary School in Llanedeyrn came to Parliament, and I met them and their teachers at the end of their day here. They were fascinated by what they had seen and they gave me quite an enthusiastic grilling, with excellent questions, but they, like all children from across Wales, including those who visit Parliament’s wonderful education centre—I thank all the staff there for the tremendous job that they do—are our future. We all have a responsibility to make sure that they have a good future, full of the opportunities that they deserve.
I am ambitious for a future fuelled by the talent and innovation I have seen up and down Wales. I am proud of our roots in industry. Industry has been our history, and it can be our future, too, but the chaos and failure of the Government risk squandering that future. My hon. Friends have rightly mentioned steel several times today. Steelmaking is the lifeblood of communities across Wales, the backbone of our local economies and the foundation of our manufacturing capability, and that is why the deep cuts to jobs mooted at Port Talbot are a kick in the teeth.
Instead of having a proper industrial strategy like Labour, Conservative Ministers have compounded the risk to likelihoods, forking out £500 million in taxpayers’ money to see up to 3,000 people made redundant and forfeiting our ability to make virgin steel. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade—not known for diplomacy, I might add—said that Wales should consider it a win, and the Welsh Secretary said that it is mission accomplished on saving Welsh steelmaking. I am afraid that that attitude shows casual indifference to the thousands of people across Wales who have so much at stake here, and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our Welsh economy and a total disregard for the need to preserve the UK sovereign steelmaking capability.
However Conservative Ministers try to spin it, the loss of sovereign steelmaking is a fundamental threat to our UK economy and security—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) can chunter as much as he wants. However Tory Ministers try to spin it, that is the truth.
The floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea that we have heard about this afternoon and the new nuclear power plant at Wylfa that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) has been begging for year after year, and which Labour Members want to see, will need significant quantities of steel. Where is it going to come from? In an increasingly uncertain world, the Government are surrendering our sovereign capability to build the Royal Navy ships we need to keep our shores safe and our shipbuilding industry strong.
The Secretary of State has said on numerous occasions that no one will be left behind. He talks about his role as chair of the transition board—a monument to his party’s failure to secure the future of sovereign steelmaking in Wales. I want to put a marker down here and now. If these job losses go ahead, I will be holding him to account every single step of the way.
I have seen this happen before. I grew up just take a few miles from Shotton steelworks, which in 1980, under a Tory Government, became scarred by its closure. The resulting loss of 6,500 jobs remains the biggest industrial redundancy on a single day in western Europe. It totally decimated the area. Nearly everyone at my school had family who worked in the steelworks or in the supply chain. The impact of those mass redundancies in our area was felt for years: all those skills and the potential of my generation wasted—the rug pulled from under our feet. I am deeply concerned that we will see that again, but this time in Port Talbot and right across our steel communities.
It is not just steel. On nuclear at Wylfa and on Newport Wafer Fab—the jewel in the crown of our high-tech south Wales cluster—the Government drag their feet while workers and their families nervously wait, jobs and investment go and opportunity withers.
Labour has a different view of how things could be, and we have set out our plan. A UK Labour Government will invest £2.5 billion in the UK steel industry by the end of their first term—that is on top of the Government’s earmarked £500 million. We will increase domestic demand for steel by more than doubling onshore wind capacity, tripling solar power and quadrupling offshore wind. We will get Britain building again.
A general election is coming. It is an opportunity for voters to make their voices heard. My pitch to them after 14 years of Conservative Government is this: if people feel it is no longer true that when they work hard they get on, if people are bored and frustrated with watching a chaotic, failed Government more focused on holding their party together than on governing, and if people feel like it is time for a change, they should look to Labour. We can build the economy of the future, create good-quality jobs, drive down energy bills and provide energy security, and we in Wales will play a critical role in powering the whole UK through a decade of national renewal, rekindling Wales’s proud industrial roots with the industries of the future.
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd, am y cyfle i ateb y ddadl heddiw. Thank you for allowing me to say a few things in this St David’s day debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, for bringing forward the debate.
Let me turn straightaway to the comments made by the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens). First, on what has actually been delivered by the Welsh Labour Government in Wales, with due respect, she left a few things out. She did not want to mention that the Welsh Labour Government have delivered the longest waiting lists in the whole of the United Kingdom. She did not want to mention that the Welsh Labour Government are now having to build air filters to blow away the diesel fumes from the ambulances that wait for nine, 10, 11 or 12 hours at a time outside Welsh hospitals. She did not want to mention that the Welsh Labour Government, after more than 20 years of devolution, have delivered the lowest educational standards in the whole of the United Kingdom—that is according to the OECD. She did not want to mention that the 20 mph limit is causing extra congestion in Wales. She did not want to mention that the Welsh Labour Government are damaging the economy by bringing in a ban on any new roads being built.
Jo Stevens
Can I correct the right hon. Gentleman? He keeps repeating this ban on all road building, which he knows is not correct. If hon. Members on the Government Benches want to complain about 20 mph zones, they might want to look at their own Department for Transport, which promotes them, and the Tory-run councils that have introduced them. The right hon. Gentleman wanted 20 mph in his own constituency. The organisers of the anti-20 mph social media groups in Wales are run by a Conservative councillor from Sunderland who—wait for it—has supported the measure in his own patch. You could not make it up!
David T. C. Davies
Like all Members of Parliament, I support a 20 mph limit outside schools, hospitals or other places where there are vulnerable people. What I have never done—and neither have the Conservative Opposition—is to support a blanket 20 mph speed limit. What I would never support is a suggestion of bringing back Severn bridge tolls, which was put forward by a Labour council in Monmouthshire—it is in its own leaflet. What I would never do is bring forward a tax on the tourism industry, which will destroy more jobs in one of the most important industries in Wales.
What I certainly would not do is to tell farmers that they have to put aside 20% of their land for planting trees and other wildlife schemes dreamed up by people who do not know what the countryside is all about. What I would not do is spend over £100 million on just about the only effective job creation scheme the Senedd has ever come up with—to create dozens of extra Senedd Members. The hon. Lady and various others, including the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), mentioned the independent commission, which frankly was not that independent. The commission itself expressed grave reservations about the closed list voting system brought forward by the Welsh Labour Government without any proper discussion with the public upon whom it will be visited.
The hon. Lady wanted to talk about steel, so I suggest that she stop giving false hope to steelworkers in Port Talbot, or suggesting that this has come about as a result of a Government decision. The hon. Lady made a few comments that were simply factually incorrect; I might need to educate her a little about how steel is produced. First, there is no sovereign capability to make steel in a blast furnace, because every single bit of iron ore is bought in from abroad, as is all the coke, not least because the hon. Lady’s party wanted to shut down all coalmines because of concerns about the climate emergency. There is no possibility of virgin steelmaking because all the ingredients come from abroad. Secondly, as far as I am aware, none of that steel is being used by the Royal Navy, but steel is being produced for the Royal Navy in the United Kingdom—from Sheffield Forgemasters, and it comes out of an electric arc furnace.
Labour says that it has a plan for steelworkers in Port Talbot. I actually visited Mumbai about two weeks ago and spoke to the global head of Tata, and the head of Tata Steel. They made it very clear that no such plan was put to them by the shadow Front Bench team. There is no plan that they are looking at. The reason that they are shutting down those two blast furnaces is that they are losing over £1 million a day. The only plan that they were going to consider was insolvency, and pulling out of steelmaking in the United Kingdom all together.
The plan that the Government came up with was not a plan of giving half a billion pounds to fire 3,000 people; the Government were presented with a situation where Tata came in with insolvency practitioners and said, “We are pulling out of the United Kingdom.” Had it done so, it would have cost 8,000 jobs and 12,000 more in the supply chain. The Conservative Government, which I am proud to be serving, came up with a scheme whereby we put half a billion pounds towards building an arc furnace—a scheme that will save 5,000 jobs and a supply chain. It is absolutely wrong and misleading to suggest that we have given a steel company half a billion pounds to fire 3,000 people, when we have given them half a billion pounds to save 5,000 jobs, and to ensure that steel continues to be made in Wales.
The danger is that the hon. Lady’s words are being heard by Tata in India. Many people there will be thinking to themselves, “Do we actually want to continue investing in the United Kingdom if we can’t be certain that any deal we have will continue if there is a different Government?” The hon. Lady’s words are also going to be seen by workers in Port Talbot, who may be thinking to themselves that there is some secret plan that could save their jobs. There isn’t. If the hon. Lady does a little bit of research, she will find out very quickly that there is no plan C. There was a plan A, which would have shut the steelworks and cost every job, or a plan B, which saves 5,000 jobs.
The hon. Lady did not mention anything about the £100 million transition fund. The Government are not going to turn their backs on workers in Port Talbot. The Government have £100 million set aside to make sure that every single person who loses their job has access to the training they need to get further employment. The Government have saved jobs and are standing by the people of Port Talbot. I really hope she will find out a little bit more about it before trying to comment further.
I am also very proud of the work that the Government have been doing to level up across the rest of Wales. Under this Conservative Government, we have been responsible for four growth deals, three rounds of levelling-up funding, two investment zones, two freeports—including one in Port Talbot, which will encourage more industries to come in—the electric arc furnace, and the £1 billion project to electrify the north Wales coast main line. The Government have been doing an enormous amount to put money into Wales.
Following Brexit, the Government promised that farmers would not lose out by one single penny as a result of our leaving the European Union. We calculated what agriculture was getting during the last control period—it was about £337 million a year—and we made sure that that money continued to be delivered. It is very disappointing, therefore, that the Welsh Government have decided to take that money and plough it into a scheme that will reduce the amount of land available for growing agriculture, increase food miles, and throw 5,000 people out of work. Yes—there will be 5,000 job losses on the Welsh Government’s own figures as a result of the agricultural scheme that the hon. Lady’s party’s Government are planning to bring in.
I will just mention one or two other points in the last minute or so I have left. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) mentioned gigabit connections. I agree with him that we need certainty on where they will be and that there are challenges in rural areas, but I would point out that in 2019 about 11% of properties had a gigabit connection and that has now increased to 69%. The work is going on at pace.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) made a very good point, as did the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), about the cost of living. I am not decrying anything the hon. Lady has done, because she does do a lot of good work, but I again point out that this Government have ensured that pensions and benefits have all gone up in line with inflation. The living wage has gone up in line with inflation. There have been extra payments to pensioners and to those on benefits, and also to those in houses with a disability. That is not to say that that solves all problems. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney also rightly drew attention to the fact that some companies are perhaps not behaving as they should on petrol prices. I agree with him. The Government are following up the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority to bring forward a scheme to provide extra transparency.
I think I have only about six seconds left, unfortunately; hopefully, a little more time will be allocated to us next time. I apologise to anyone I have not mentioned, although I am certainly not going to forget my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), who continues to champion nuclear. I will continue to work with Members of Parliament and many others to ensure that the floating offshore wind industry goes ahead. I also wish Members Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus I chi gyd—a happy St David’s Day to you all. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Stephen Crabb
I thank all Members who participated this afternoon in what has been a very good debate. I am particularly grateful to fellow members of the Select Committee who joined me in the application to the Backbench Business Committee. We thank that Committee for granting the debate. We look forward to future St David’s Day debates that are perhaps longer and more expansive.
I was particularly encouraged to hear the speech from the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), which highlighted the opportunity for Wales of floating offshore wind. For a nation like Wales, which does not see many new industrial opportunities come along, that is the opportunity the UK Government and the Welsh Government together should be seizing. We look forward to some good news, hopefully, from the Secretary of State and his colleagues on port funding in Milford Haven and Port Talbot to help capture all the economic benefits that that new industry could bring to our communities. Thank you again, Mr Deputy Speaker, for chairing this St David’s Day debate. Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Welsh affairs.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Let me just say, before everyone leaves, that I have heard very clearly what has been said about the time constraints that all Members had to endure during the debate. I have chaired a few Backbench Business debates in the past that have finished early, but if this debate had been allowed more time, it would clearly have gone the distance, and people would have had the opportunity to say far more things. I will raise that with Mr Speaker tomorrow.
Let me also say that I was at St Margaret’s Church yesterday for the memorial service for John Morris, Lord Morris of Aberavon. Not only was it a wonderful service, but hearing the London Welsh Male Voice Choir boom out “Calon Lân” made me feel incredibly proud to be Welsh. It has been an honour and a privilege to chair the debate, and I end by saying: dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus i bawb.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the statement on the security of elected representatives earlier today, I made a measured contribution on the need to protect not only MPs but the public’s right to peaceful protest. The Minister for Security appeared to lose control of himself, and said in his response to me that I supported organisations that would “close this Parliament” or “end our democratic processes”.
The code of conduct for Members of Parliament states:
“Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of... its Members generally.”
Mr Deputy Speaker, how can you ensure that the code is adhered to by Ministers during difficult discussions? How I can put on the record the fact that I do not support organisations that would close this Parliament or end our democratic processes, and that that is not the goal of organisations such as those that were lobbying MPs and protesting in Parliament Square last Wednesday? People were legitimately protesting about hundreds of thousands of casualties, including and 30,000 deaths, in Gaza in recent months. I found what was said particularly offensive, insensitive and inappropriate, given that much of the House’s time today has been taken up by issues relating to abusive language, and threats to Members of Parliament, and to women specifically.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I was not in the Chair at the time, and indeed the Chair is not responsible for the content of Members’ speeches, but the hon. Lady has expertly put her views on the record, and I know that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she said and will pass it on to the Minister.
Young Adults with Spinal Injuries
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, which I sought on behalf of my late constituent Tom Lazarides and his family, some of whom are present in the Public Gallery. Tom was a 20-year-old student at Durham University when, on 13 June 2020, he dived into a swimming pool and suffered a catastrophic spinal cord injury that left him paralysed.
In preparation for the debate, I reread an interview that Tom’s mother Bridget gave to a newspaper in October 2020. In that interview, Bridget spoke about her talented, sporty son, about how loved he was by all who knew him, and about the overwhelming outpouring of support for him from across the country. Bridget’s interview was also full of determination—Tom’s determination and hers—and hope that, despite the devastating nature of his injuries and the many challenges that he faced, with the love and support of his family and friends and good treatment and care, somehow Tom would be okay. I am sorry to report to the House that Tom Lazarides sadly passed away in November 2023.
Tom and his family were devastated by his injury. Instead of helping them to come to terms with what had happened, and enabling Tom to live as well as possible with his injury, the systems that should have been there to support him failed utterly to deliver the care that he needed. Tom’s spinal cord was permanently injured in two places. He was tetraplegic as a consequence, and had many health complications. He had a potentially fatal condition called autonomic dysreflexia, which causes unpredictable and dangerously high spikes in blood pressure. His skin was very fragile, leading to grade 4 bedsores. He had a tracheostomy, leading to communication difficulties. He was unable to cough, leading to repeated inhalation of food particles, which caused pneumonia and pulmonary oedema, and he suffered from muscular complications.
Tom had spent 18 months in hospital, including a year of rehabilitation at Stoke Mandeville. His injuries were permanent and unequivocal. They were well understood by his doctors, and were fully and properly documented. The injuries gave rise to a need for ongoing clinical care from qualified nurses, which could not possibly have been delivered by local authority social care. Tom was discharged from Stoke Mandeville in the autumn of 2021. Under the policy of discharge to assess, he was referred for consideration for NHS Continuing Healthcare funding.
According to the NHS, eligibility for Continuing Healthcare funding is determined on the basis of a person’s needs, rather than a particular diagnosis. There should be no limits on the setting where it can be provided or the type of support, and it is determined according to an assessment by the local NHS integrated care board. The assessment comprises two parts: the NHS continuing care checklist, which can be completed by a nurse, doctor, other healthcare professional or social worker, followed by a full assessment undertaken by a multidisciplinary team.
Tom’s assessment was completed in January 2022. His family raised concerns with me that the assessment process appeared to start with a blank sheet of paper and did not take into account anything that was already known about Tom’s injuries and their impact on his health. For example, he was asked by an assessor whether he got around the house on a Zimmer frame, and to show that he could not use his hands when he was clearly tetraplegic. His family were left with the constant impression that no one involved in the assessment, or in reviewing the decision later in the process, had ever properly read Tom’s medical records.
In May 2022, a decision was reached that Tom was not eligible for Continuing Healthcare funding. For Tom and everyone who knew him, the decision was as astonishing as it was devastating. Tom’s level of clinical need was crystal clear. As Tom’s mother has said to me on a number of occasions, all that needed to happen was for Tom’s very clear medical notes to be read. Tom’s family appealed the decision. The process was beset by difficulties, including changes of personnel at the case manager level, records being lost and constant delays. Tom found the visits to his home intrusive, and they had a detrimental impact on his already fragile mental health.
There was no prescribed timescale for the assessments and appeals, and no clear point of contact for Tom and his family to liaise with during the process. Tom and his family felt that there was constant pressure for him to move to a care home, despite the study published by Professor Brett Smith 12 years ago, which documented the very poor outcomes for young adults with spinal cord injuries who live in care homes, arising from their lack of agency in the decision to move to the care home, the shortage of properly skilled and qualified staff who can meet the needs of residents with spinal cord injuries, the lack of independence, and isolation. Tom was a bright young person with so much to contribute. What he wanted and needed was care and support at home, so that he could live well with the consequences of his spinal cord injury. In the last few months of his life, Tom repeatedly expressed a wish to end it. He simply could not see a positive future, when the struggle to access the care and support he needed was so difficult.
Tom Lazarides’ family have asked me to raise a number of issues that arise from his experience, which indicate the ways in which the healthcare system is simply not working for young adults with spinal cord injuries. The first is the discharge to assess policy. Discharge to assess is not designed for people with a catastrophic injury. What may be appropriate for a frail, elderly person who has had an emergency hospital admission, giving rise to concerns about their care needs at home, or for someone with a progressive condition that may be reaching the point at which more care is needed, is simply not appropriate for someone with a catastrophic permanent injury. It gives rise to a lack of continuity from hospital to home, and requires the person to be assessed by people who do not have the same detailed or specialist knowledge of their needs as the hospital clinicians who have been caring for them as an in-patient.
The second concern is that the patient has no involvement in decisions about their care. Tom was clear and consistent that he did not want to live in a care home. He was a bright and articulate young man whose paralysis should not have resulted in the removal of all agency in his own life, yet the completed decision support tool, the first stage in the assessment process, was submitted without being checked by Tom or his family. Panel meetings took place in a context of secrecy—about their membership, the dates and times of meetings, and the content of discussions. A system is not delivering patient-centred care when the patient is completely shut out of the decision- making process.
The third concern is the lack of any certainty or transparency about the timelines for decision making. The processes relating to Tom’s care took years, and the lack of continuing healthcare support had a profound impact on his day-to-day life during that time. Tom and his family simply had no idea when they would have any news about the next steps.
Everyone, the Lazarides family included, is acutely aware of the pressures on our health and social care system and the need to ensure value for money for the public purse, as well as ensuring safe, appropriate and high-quality care for individuals who need it. Tom’s case, however, was not a matter of resources. In the end, following the appeal, the ICB decided that he was eligible for continuing healthcare funding. The tragedy is that his family were only informed of this after he had died.
It is devastating for any young person to suffer a spinal cord injury that has life-changing consequences but, with the right care and support, it is possible to live a good life with independence and dignity. Depression is not inevitable, but poor mental health is sadly all too common. Tom Lazarides and his family encountered a system that seemed incapable of delivering the safe, appropriate, high-quality care and support that he needed and was entitled to. As a consequence, they spent the two years from Tom’s discharge from Stoke Mandeville Hospital in the autumn of 2021 to his untimely death in the autumn of 2023 constantly fighting a system that ultimately failed them.
What attention is the Minister paying to the experiences of young adults with spinal cord injury and the quality of care that they are able to access? What action is she taking to ensure that the quality and availability of care for young adults with spinal cord injury is consistent across the country? Will she look at the policy of discharge to assess and its appropriateness for patients with a sudden and permanent life-changing injury? Will she look at the assessment process for continuing health- care funding and take steps to ensure that a patient’s existing healthcare records always play an integral part? Finally, will she take steps to ensure that the assessment process for continuing healthcare funding has increased transparency and accountability, and increased certainty on the timescales and decision-making processes?
No one who reads the facts of Tom Lazarides’s injury and subsequent health needs could be in any doubt that he needed long-term nursing care to be safe and to live well with the consequences of his injury, yet the tragedy of his injury was compounded by the failure of our healthcare system to deliver the care that he needed, or indeed to treat him and his family with respect and dignity.
Tom’s family have asked me to raise his case, in order to press for accountability and for improvements for others. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this debate and for her powerful speech telling us about Tom Lazarides’s experience, his tragic accident and his injury. I welcome his family, who the hon. Lady said are here in Parliament today. I offer them my sincere condolences on the loss of Tom, who sadly died in November 2023.
I listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech, although I did not have advance sight of her comments, and I will do my best to respond. I assure her that I am happy to write to her with further details about the points she has raised this afternoon. I am responding as the Minister with oversight of continuing healthcare and discharge, so I will be able to say more on those points. Particularly in her summing up, she talked more generally about care for people with spinal injury, which can have such a devastating impact and can mean that a person needs a great deal of care from multidisciplinary NHS teams.
I could go into the way NHS England commissions services for spinal cord injuries—there is a national specification and a range of support—but I think I could make better use of the time today by picking up on the question of continuing healthcare and the discharge situation, which the hon. Lady outlined. She described how Tom’s family feel that the system failed him and his clearly complex health needs as a result of his injuries. She described the long time he spent in hospital and the long-term rehabilitation he needed, which meant he needed significant ongoing clinical care. She described how he was considered for continuing healthcare and the experience of the eligibility assessment, and how Tom and his family felt it did not take into account his injuries and health conditions, and did not take full account of his medical records. She described how he and the family were then told that he was not eligible. They subsequently and rightly appealed, and I heard how difficult the hon. Lady said that process clearly was for the family and for Tom, with the lack of transparency, the uncertainty, and the feeling that meetings happened without them and their involvement. I heard how Tom felt under pressure to move into a care home, when he really wanted to live well at home. All of us can completely understand that. Anyone, whether a young person such as Tom or someone of old age, wants to live as independently as possible, whatever their health needs at home. I also heard about the experience with discharge to assess.
Clearly, a process is in place for accessing NHS continuing healthcare. The intention of the process is to consider the individual’s clinical needs, the combination of those needs and how they come together, and therefore to assess whether somebody is eligible. The intention is to design a package of care around the individual to support them where they wish to live, be it at home or in a care home. First, a checklist is used, which leads to someone having an eligibility assessment. If I understood it correctly, Tom experienced and went through the eligibility assessment, but, as the hon. Lady mentioned, the initial decision was that he was not eligible. I am happy to make some inquiries. As a Minister, I cannot make a call on any particular decision that is made on an individual, but clearly I want always to be assured that the right process has been followed. It is probably helpful if, with the help of officials, I try to seek some further information outside the Chamber from the hon. Lady to see what I can do to understand fully what happened and to be assured as to whether there is anything we need to do to make the process work better, particularly in the circumstance that she has described, where somebody such as Tom has clearly had some severe injuries. I am also happy to meet her and Tom’s family to understand this process better.
The hon. Lady raised a point about discharge to assess and how it did not work for someone with a catastrophic injury. Again, we should pick that up in a conversation outside the Chamber. In general, the purpose of discharge to assess is a good one: to avoid people having long and unnecessary stays in hospital, where we know that frail and elderly people, in particular, are likely to decondition and live less independently as a result. She knows that well from the work that she does on social care. Once somebody has been discharged home, they are often able to live with more independence and regain mobility in a way that was not clear when they were assessed in hospital. Sometimes assessment in hospital will lead to delays and a longer stay in hospital, and to what is called over-prescription, with somebody ending up living longer in a care home when they might have continued at home. In general, discharge to assess is a good thing but, as I say, I am happy to look into the specific question of whether there might be circumstances, such as when somebody has had a very serious injury, when the process works differently. I will take that away.
The hon. Lady made a point about the involvement of patients in decisions about their care. It is fundamental that patients should be involved in decisions about their care, as should families and carers. In many circumstances, the patient and those around them will be the experts on what they will need. They need to be involved in the ramifications of whatever decisions are made. That should take place, but let us investigate further outside the Chamber whether that is working as it should be, together with the points she made about transparency and trying to ensure that people are involved when continuing healthcare is being assessed and considered.
I receive a significant amount of correspondence about continuing healthcare. The NHS has a challenging job to ensure that the decisions go the right way. I know the process can be long and hard for those involved in it. I want to ensure it works as well as it possibly can, so that those who should be eligible receive such care. I understand in Tom’s case that, after the appeal, the decision was made that he should be receiving continuing healthcare. How sad that that came after his death and after all the suffering that he and those close to him must have gone through.
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing Tom and his family’s situation to my attention. I commend her for her powerful speech and how clearly she put across the concerns. I look forward to speaking about this further outside the Chamber.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I pass on the deepest condolences of everybody here at the House of Commons to Tom’s family, friends and all who mourn his passing. It was a very moving speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Hopkins
Every child with special educational needs or disabilities should receive the high-quality support they deserve, but schools and councils do not have the necessary resources to meet increasing demand and rising costs. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the funding and powers available to councils to improve SEND provision?
Gillian Keegan
That is one reason the high-needs budget is up by over 60% in the past four years, and will reach £10.5 billion in 2024-25. We are also supporting local authorities with financial deficits through the safety valve and delivering better value programmes. In most constituencies, including in the hon. Lady’s area, the funding has gone up by 25% to 35%.
[Official Report, 29 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 588.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan):
Errors have been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). The correct response should have been:
Gillian Keegan
That is one reason the high-needs budget is up by over 60% in five years, and will reach £10.5 billion in 2024-25. We are also supporting local authorities with financial deficits through the safety valve and delivering better value programmes. In most constituencies, including in the hon. Lady’s area, the funding has gone up by 25% to 35% since 2021-22.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the provision of training in SEND during initial teacher training to ensure that more teachers are aware of the support that children might need, and on the recruitment of specialists, such as educational psychologists and speech and language therapists?
Gillian Keegan
We are implementing a gold thread of high-quality teacher training reforms to ensure that teachers have the skills they need. The Department has been exploring opportunities to build expertise, through a review of the initial teacher training core content framework and the early career framework, to identify how we can equip new teachers to be more confident in meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND. There will be more investment in educational psychologists, of which there will be another 400, and more investment in early years SENCOs, of which there will be another 7,000.
[Official Report, 29 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 590.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education:
An error has been identified in my response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena). The correct response should have been:
Gillian Keegan
… There will be more investment in educational psychologists, of which there will be another 400, and more investment in early years SENCOs, of which there will be up to another 7,000.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Similarly to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), I welcome the introduction of a new SENCO national professional qualification—I declare an interest, as my wife is a SENCO—but to create a truly inclusive school environment, all teachers need the knowledge, skills and practical training to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. What steps is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State taking to ensure that initial teacher training gives them that support and training?
Gillian Keegan
… As I said in answer to the earlier question, there is a golden thread of high-quality teacher training reforms. We will be looking at a revised framework and working with providers so that they can ensure that the contracts deliver the very best support for teachers. What will be vital, and something that Members will feel, is the additional 7,000 SENCOs that will be trained in the coming years.
[Official Report, 29 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 590.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education:
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). The correct response should have been:
Gillian Keegan
… As I said in answer to the earlier question, there is a golden thread of high-quality teacher training reforms. We will be looking at a revised framework and working with providers so that they can ensure that the contracts deliver the very best support for teachers. What will be vital, and something that Members will feel, is the addition of up to 7,000 early years SENCOs that will be trained in the coming years.
Degree-level Apprenticeships
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Next week is National Apprenticeship Week, and I look forward to celebrating apprenticeships across the country. As the Secretary of State knows, small and medium-sized enterprises are crucial to delivering high-quality apprenticeships at every level throughout our economy, but the number of SME apprenticeships has plummeted by 49% since 2016, and research shows that the levy is failing to reverse the decline in employer training more widely. The Secretary of State pretends that everything is fine, but is not the real answer to back our businesses, giving them greater flexibility to enable them to deliver the training that we need to get our economy growing again?
Gillian Keegan
Absolutely. Obviously, one reason for the reduction in some of the SME numbers is the fact that we made improvements to ensure that every single apprenticeship was of high quality. I want to make sure that all young people who embark on an apprenticeship, as I did, put their trust in the system and get what they deserve. We have removed the limit on caps on SMEs, and we are working on reducing the number of steps to make it easier for them to access the system. We are also looking at what more we can do: we are focusing on a number of ways in which to ensure that apprenticeships work well for SMEs, which account for 70% of employment.
[Official Report, 29 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 602.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education:
Errors have been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). The correct response should have been:
Gillian Keegan
… We have removed the limit on caps on SMEs, and we have reduced the number of steps needed to register, making it easier for them to access the system. We are also looking at what more we can do: we are focusing on a number of ways in which to ensure that apprenticeships work well for SMEs, which account for 60% of employment.
Westminster Hall
(8 months, 3 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
Backbench Business
(8 months, 3 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
Colleges Week
(8 months, 3 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
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Colleges Week 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Robert, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate during Colleges Week, which runs from Monday until tomorrow. I should also point out that I chair the all-party parliamentary group for further education and lifelong learning, the secretariat for which is provided by the Association of Colleges, to which I am grateful, among others, for the briefings and support they have provided ahead of the debate.
This debate essentially falls into three parts: first, celebrating the great work that colleges do all around the country; secondly, highlighting where Government policy and support are working; and thirdly, pointing out the areas where more work and attention are required so that colleges can realise their full potential for the benefit of the people and the communities they serve.
It is important, first, to celebrate the great work that colleges are doing. All around the UK, they are an essential part of our education system. They are firmly embedded in their local communities, where they are fully cognisant of the opportunities and challenges and the strengths and weaknesses of their local economies. They enable people of all ages and backgrounds to realise their full potential. They are key players in boosting local regeneration and levelling up and in eliminating the gaps in skills and productivity, which are in danger of ever widening. They also play a vital role in preparing people for the jobs of tomorrow, which, all of a sudden, are with us today in areas such as digital, artificial intelligence and the low-carbon fields.
Colleges touch all our lives. English colleges educate 1.6 million students every year and employ approximately 103,000 full-time equivalent staff. Some 925,000 adults study or train in colleges, and 608,000 16 to 18-year-olds study in colleges. The average college trains 950 apprentices, and 100,000 people study higher education in a college. Twenty-three per cent of 16 to 18-year-olds and 27% of adult students are from minority ethnic backgrounds. Twenty-six per cent of 16 to 18-year-olds in colleges have a learning difficulty or a disability, and 58,000 college students are aged 60 and over. In summary, colleges do their job very well. Ninety-two per cent of colleges were judged to be “good” or “outstanding” for overall effectiveness at their most recent inspections. At times, however, colleges feel that they are doing their job with one arm behind their backs, and I shall touch upon that shortly.
I will briefly highlight the great work that East Coast College does in Waveney. It now operates from two campuses, in Lowestoft in my constituency and in Great Yarmouth in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis). It fully understands the challenges of coastal communities, the communities in which it is deeply immersed, and works very closely with local authorities, local businesses, the James Paget University Hospital, CEFAS—the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, where the Government’s marine scientists are based in Pakefield next to Lowestoft—and the two universities that cover the area, the University of East Anglia in Norwich and the University of Suffolk, which has its headquarters in Ipswich but operates across Suffolk.
In Lowestoft, East Coast College is an active member of the place board, of which I am also a member, which has overseen the projects carried out as part of the town deal. Its work focuses on two areas: first, the need in the health and care sector to support an ever growing elderly population. It has put in place the Apollo project —not a journey to the moon, but a two-year workforce programme designed to address recruitment and retention challenges in the health and social care sector. Secondly, opportunities are emerging in the energy sector. Among other projects, there are the offshore wind farms anchored off the East Anglian coast and the Sizewell C nuclear power project just down the coast.
In recent years, significant capital improvements have been carried out at East Coast College. Those include the Energy Skills Centre in Lowestoft and the eastern civil engineering and construction campus at Lound, midway between Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. At present, the college’s challenges centre more on revenue funding, and its needs mirror those of the rest of the sector, to which I shall now turn.
The good news is that, in recent years, there has been a realisation of the vital role that colleges play in providing people with the skills they need to realise their full potential, to address regional inequalities and to ensure that the economy fires on all cylinders. Some good initiatives have been put in place, such as the lifelong learning entitlement, and funding has improved, albeit from a low base. That said, significant challenges remain; some are structural and long term, and others derive from the cost of living crisis and the long and sharp tail of covid.
The Local Government Association points out that
“the national employment and skills system is too centralised”,
“short-term” in outlook, and that
“no single organisation is responsible or accountable for coordinating programmes nationally or locally. This makes it difficult to plan, target and join-up provision.”
It also identified that
“poor-quality, insufficient and fragmented CEIAG”—
careers education, information advice and guidance—
“is a persistent and key barrier to youth employment”,
notwithstanding the introduction, finally, of the Baker clause in the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022.
The Edge Foundation focuses on the problem that is all around us: the skills shortages that are getting worse. The shortages are numerous and have grown significantly. The rate of skills investment is in decline, and skills shortages have significant costs for UK businesses, the economy and the environment. The engineering sector is important to me locally, as engineering skills will be much in need to fuel the transition to a low-carbon economy. EngineeringUK, in its “Fit for the future” engineering apprenticeships inquiry, has highlighted the variability and quality of training provision and the problems in recruiting teachers and trainers.
Colleges Week normally takes place in the autumn. This year, however, for good reason, it has been brought forward to the spring—not only so that it takes place in advance of the general election campaign, to provide the sector with every opportunity to set out its stall, but so that urgent representations can be made ahead of next week’s Budget to meet many of the challenges that I have highlighted.
I confess that I was expecting the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), to be here, but it is great to see the Minister for Schools in his place, because he and I have discussed this issue a great deal. I would be most grateful if he conveyed some of these asks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in advance of his Budget statement next Wednesday.
As I have mentioned, there are skill gaps across the country in all sectors of the economy. To eliminate those gaps, I urge the Government to invest the extra money raised from the immigration skills charge to enable colleges to tackle the urgent priorities identified by employers in the local skills improvement plans that are now being rolled out across the country and those that are found in relation to the increased number of skills shortage vacancies revealed in the latest Department for Education employer skills survey.
At the Conservative party conference in Manchester in October, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly announced a 10-year plan to give young people a better start in life through the advanced British standard, with more hours, a broader curriculum, and extra help for those who have struggled up to the age of 16. Those ambitions are the right ones, but if they are to be achieved —if there is to be any chance of having the teachers, the trainers and the facilities in place to deliver them—we must start investing now. To do that, three issues need to be addressed.
First, the pay gap between those teaching in colleges and those teaching in schools must be closed. It has been widening in recent years and now stands at £9,000 per annum. That pay gap cannot persist if the advanced British standard is to be a success.
Secondly, colleges are disadvantaged when it comes to VAT. Unlike for schools, VAT is not reimbursed for colleges—it cannot be recovered. Colleges in England were reclassified as public sector organisations back in 2022 and are now subject to all the controls that apply to academies, but, unlike academies and schools, they are unable to reclaim VAT under the refund scheme in section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. That could be addressed by amending that Act. The funds that would be released, totalling around £210 million, could then be reinvested, helping colleges to deliver the improvements to the school system that the Government seek.
Thirdly, as I mentioned, covid has had a long and sharp tail, impacting harshly on young people’s education. The Government recognise that and are providing funding for tuition support to help those with the greatest need to obtain the necessary grounding in English and maths and to catch up on the vocational courses where assessments were deferred. That is good news, but the indications are that the demand for those lessons and courses is still growing. It is estimated that approximately 40,000 more students than last year need to resit their English GCSEs, with 20,000 needing to resit maths. I therefore urge the Minister to do all he can to ensure that the funding for that tuition support is extended.
I am reaching my conclusion, Sir Robert. I am sure that others in this debate will refer to FE and colleges as being the Cinderella of the education system. Indeed, that was right in the past, but my sense is that all parties across the House have recognised the error and folly of that. We are now, after a long time, travelling down the right road, with the importance of vocational learning as provided by colleges being acknowledged and accepted by all. However, we are driving down this road in third gear and we now need Government to provide resources, support and more policies so that we can quickly and seamlessly move into top gear. If we do that, we shall provide opportunity for many and eliminate all those stubborn gaps that I have referred to a great deal during this speech.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this Backbench Business debate and on marking and celebrating Colleges Week.
I want to speak in support of the colleges of our nation, which are such a significant part of our education system. My hon. Friend outlined some powerful statistics when he was making his case so eloquently a moment ago, but one in particular jumped out at me, which is that more than 1.5 million students—1.6 million, in fact —are educated at colleges in England every year.
Colleges play a critical role in delivering the skills that our nation and our economy need. I visited many colleges some years ago when I worked on apprenticeships, and they were great visits. However, there is one feature from them all, which I want to draw out and comment upon: the links between colleges and local employers. Through those links, colleges not only provide the workforce that companies need now, but develop the skills programmes for the future.
We are seeing huge changes in the global economy, as countries face the challenges of sectors and routes to market that are going digital. There is also the overarching challenge of net zero and the consequent decarbonising, and how that is creating new skills, new industries and a requirement for significant training. Colleges are at the forefront of meeting those challenges through skills, based on partnerships and local insight, through apprenticeships, with each college training 950 apprentices, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and through professional development, as careers change and people of all ages need to reskill as industries develop. Further, colleges are training tens of thousands of people aged over 60. It is therefore important to keep investing in these areas for our future national prosperity.
The UK has not valued colleges enough over past decades. There has been some kind of underlying assumption that the system should really be focused on university degrees, which are right for so many but not the only definition of excellence. I see opportunity and excellence much more widely; I see it in our college network. Spreading the word about the range of choices that people have is one of the benefits of Colleges Week.
I should also congratulate the Minister on a policy change that has quite recently put apprenticeships on the UCAS website. That is a game changer. The feedback I have had from school and group visits in Harrogate and Knaresborough is that that has been a highly successful initiative and people have become aware of apprenticeships. It has almost been like giving them a parity of esteem, which has not been present before. It has certainly boosted knowledge in a very positive way.
We are obviously here supporting colleges today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has made a powerful case. It is also fair to say, however, that colleges have not fully received the attention that their success and scale merit. My hon. Friend said colleges were formerly a Cinderella service. That might be a little strong and people have woken up to that; however, Colleges Week presents a great opportunity to pay tribute to all our colleges and all that they achieve.
I want to highlight a major development taking place this week at Harrogate College, and also to congratulate the team at Harrogate College and the Luminate Education Group on their work on it. That development is a £20 million scheme to replace the main building at the college and construct a renewable energy skills hub. In effect, there will be a totally new campus, which is very exciting and a real game changer.
Preliminary work started this week and full construction starts next month. Energy efficiency is being built in and will help the college to deliver its plan to become carbon-neutral by 2035. The upgrade will see state-of-the-art facilities on campus, including a mock hospital ward, an electric vehicle workshop and a construction centre that will focus on renewables and the building methods of the future. Basically, that directly relates to my earlier points about how important the links between colleges and local companies are for the skills that are needed; indeed, it is proof of the wisdom of that policy.
The college principal, Danny Wild, has kept me posted throughout the development of this great project, and I was able to speak with Ministers and do all that I could to help to get it over the line. Of the total budget of £20 million, £16 million comes from the Department for Education’s further education capital transformation fund—and transformation is indeed what we are talking about with this development. It will make Harrogate College future proof—the college’s words—and consolidate its position as the leading provider locally of T-levels. It is anticipated that the new development will be open for students in the summer of 2025, which really is not long for a project of this scale and ambition.
Apart from providing better facilities for the students, this development will send a major signal that Harrogate College and all that it does are both aspirational and of the highest quality. Basically, students will be equipped with the skills for a new era. When we see college investment and college success, it is not just about small initiatives at the college itself; the economy of the entire area will benefit. We have a strong local economy, but the companies within it often report difficulties in filling vacancies—the unemployment rate locally is 1.8%. This project will help to fill those vacancies, because it will help to tackle skills shortages.
So I say well done to the Harrogate College team. I look forward very much to visiting the college shortly, and I know that there are positive developments right across the country. There is much to celebrate all over the country, but I just wanted to highlight and celebrate this local news. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say about ensuring that this sector is front and centre in our education system.
Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)
We now move to the Front-Bench wind-ups, starting with the Opposition spokesman.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert, and to speak in this debate.
It is right that we pay tribute to the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this debate. I know that he is incredibly passionate about further education and the skills sector, and he has raised a number of very important issues, which I will address. I also acknowledge his work on the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning—I am a passionate supporter of that group—and work of the Association of Colleges, as the secretariat to the group.
I thank all our colleges up and down the country for the vital contribution they make to our national skills system, and to young people and adult learners across the country. In addition to noting the support and advice from the Association of Colleges, it is worth our reflecting on the support and advice that comes from the Sixth Form Colleges Association, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, and our qualification providers, including City & Guilds and others, which have also played an important role in the Future Skills Coalition. In addition, this week, FE Week and City & Guilds put on the annual apprenticeships conference, which played an important part in pulling everybody together during this important week.
I acknowledge the contribution made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who made important points about engagement with employers and about how Harrogate College is helping to meet local skills and workforce needs. That is a story that all our colleges could share, so it was good to hear those examples.
The hon. Member for Waveney said that colleges play an important role around the UK in our skills system and are firmly embedded in our communities. They understand the needs of our local economies, and have played an important role in the development of our local skills improvement plans. Like many other college leaders, Tracy Aust, the principal of West Thames College in Hounslow, who also oversees the Feltham skills centre, has been pivotal in pulling together those voices so that we can better match the skills needs in our local economy with the provision coming through our colleges. That also helps local authorities and other players to develop a deeper understanding of the community learning requirements.
In that context, our FE institutions truly stand as pillars of knowledge and ambition, but they are also beacons of adaptability. They work together to foster an environment that encourages lifelong learning. One of the best parts of my role as shadow Minister is going to colleges across the country to meet and listen to learners and employers. That includes West Thames College and the Feltham skills centre, which do important wrap-around work on employability and mentoring. Logistics apprentices from the Institute of Couriers are in Parliament today to celebrate their achievements. I pay tribute to the chairman of the institute, Carl Lomas, for all he does, with great enthusiasm, including building links and investing in colleges. The apprentices I saw today feel they know him personally. Those relationships and that social capital around our systems are really important.
I have spoken to students studying T-levels, apprenticeships and higher technical qualifications, and adult learners upskilling, at City and Islington College. I have spoken to people working and learning at the National College for Nuclear, and health and aerospace apprentices in Milton Keynes, Newcastle and Liverpool. Last week, I visited South and City College in Birmingham to see the important new facilities for robotics, electric vehicles and so on. This is not just about connecting young people and adult learners with the content of learning, but about giving them hands-on experience with new technologies.
I am launching my colleges tour over the next few months, which will focus on how we are engaging with small and medium-sized enterprises in our communities and what the barriers are. SME apprenticeship levels have been dropping significantly—they have fallen by 49% since 2016—and we absolutely must turn that around.
As a nation, our No. 1 priority is to grow our economy so that we can invest in our public services and greater opportunities for all. To achieve that ambition for growth, we need to invest in human talent to grow our skills and our workforce across all sectors where there are skill shortages. Colleges play an important role in delivering skills for green infrastructure, our creative industries, our life sciences sector, our public services and our everyday economy, including hospitality. All those things require workforces with specialised skills. It is vital that people across our country have pathways into high- quality vocational training, secure, enjoyable work, and opportunities to upskill. I have talked to adult learners who have told me that the qualifications they did five or 10 years ago have left them out of date, compared with those coming through the system now. Given that nine out of 10 adults are likely to need some retraining in the next decade, that will be an important part of all our futures.
Colleges are uniquely placed to deliver on this combined mission of economic growth and improved life chances for all. They provide an exceptionally diverse range of education and training courses to meet the needs of local economies. They are centres of lifelong learning for people of all ages and at all levels, as the hon. Member for Waveney so effectively highlighted. But just as it is important to acknowledge the successes of colleges this week, we must also acknowledge the challenges they face, a number of which were eloquently outlined by the hon. Member.
As examples, apprenticeship numbers have fallen, real-terms funding for the further education sector has fallen to record lows, and vital decision-making powers have been taken away from local communities. The Conservatives have also overseen more than a decade of decline in skills and training opportunities. I say that because apprenticeship starts have fallen by 200,000 since 2017—it is important to recognise the figures. In every region, apprenticeship starts have fallen since 2010, and small and medium-sized enterprise engagement with apprenticeships has fallen by 49% since 2016.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I apologise to the Chair, as I will not be able to stay to the end of the debate as I have a meeting with the head of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service to talk about progression and issues of this sort.
With apprenticeships, it is very important that we compare like with like. It is a great thing that all apprenticeships now involve a year of work and a qualification. That was not the case under the last Labour Government.
I want to put on the record my tribute to the Heart of Worcestershire College and the Worcester Sixth Form College, for the fantastic work they do. I commend to both Front Benches the report from the Education Committee on post-16 qualifications, which made a number of recommendations, including increasing the number of youth apprenticeships and setting a target for the proportion of apprenticeships that lead people into work.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for sharing the work of the colleges in his area, with which I know he is well connected. I acknowledge his work as Chair of the Education Committee, including on that report.
It is important that we are clear about the figures, but it is also important to recognise that things have got harder, particularly for small businesses, since the implementation of the levy. We need to address those challenges. For level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships, the numbers are falling in proportion to apprenticeships as a whole—these are challenges that the Education Committee has rightly highlighted. It is important to make sure that there are pathways post-16 for those who may not have the same qualifications at GCSE. That is a point I will refer to further in my remarks.
It is also true that the Government are on track to miss the 67% achievement rate, with almost half of apprenticeships not being completed. There are a range of reasons for that. Level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships have seen some of the worst falls; there has been a 69% fall in the number of starts at level 2 and a 21% fall in the number of starts at level 3. In addition, too many young people and adult learners say they are not aware of the opportunities available to them. Colleges have also seen real-terms funding cuts under successive Tory Governments. Since 2010, spending per pupil has fallen by 14% in colleges and 28% in school sixth forms.
Labour will put colleges at the heart of our plans for breaking down barriers to opportunity and boosting Britain’s skills. Central to that is our plan to develop technical excellence colleges, enabling colleges in local skills improvement plan areas to specialise in the particular needs of their local economies and businesses, driven by LSIP priorities. We know that Whitehall does not have all the answers for what is needed in our local communities. That is why we will continue to build on the already begun process of devolving and combining power and budgets for skills and adult education to combined authorities and local areas, so that the right decisions and right priorities are led by those with the most local information, who are in the right places.
These plans will empower FE colleges to take a lead in responding to local needs. We see it as important that we reform the apprenticeship levy to become, in part, the growth and skills levy, giving businesses and employers the flexibility they need to invest in skills and training and to continue to support SMEs to take up apprenticeships, too. An estimated £3 billion in unspent levy has gone to the Treasury since 2019 that could have been spent on more training opportunities for learners and, through that, on training providers too, supporting capacity to grow the sector. The system is not working as it needs to be. Bringing more flexibility is a policy backed by the Manufacturing 5, the British Retail Consortium, techUK, the Co-operative Group, City & Guilds—the list goes on.
It is vital that young people are aware of their post-16 options so that they know which routes are open to them and how to take them. That is why Labour wants to train more thsn 1,000 new professional careers advisers. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Waveney about fragmented advice and guidance, but we want to train those new advisers for students in our colleges and schools and introduce two weeks of compulsory work experience for every student to connect them earlier with the workplace.
There are real concerns about the chaotic roll-out of T-levels and the phasing out of many overlapping qualifications among college staff and young people—a serious issue that has been raised with me. The Protect Student Choice campaign estimates that 155,000 students could be left without an appropriate course of post-16 study if the Government go ahead with these plans in this way. That is why Labour will ensure that all students are able to complete their qualifications and will pause and review the proposed removal of courses until we can be sure that these reforms will not prevent young people from pursuing high-quality vocational qualifications.
In conclusion, boosting Britain’s skills will be a national ambition for Labour, led by our new body Skills England, which will help provide that overarching national skills framework, connecting that with regional and local need, and will bring together businesses, training providers and unions to meet the skills needs of the next decade across all our regions. I am proud to say that colleges will be at the heart of that ambition.
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this debate in Westminster Hall on this important subject. He rightly mentioned that he and I have talked about these topics many times over—I think it is fair to say—many years. I know he has a fervent passion for and deep knowledge of the subject, and I thank him for what he does with the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning. I join him in thanking and congratulating the Association of Colleges. Like many colleagues, I had the opportunity earlier this week to go over the road—the other side of Parliament Square—to the AOC awards event. It was great to meet an award winner from my local college in Alton and its other campus in Havant, but also to see the huge variety of people benefiting from all that colleges have to offer. Both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) spoke with passion about the importance of colleges and the great work they do in educating and training people of all ages and backgrounds, as well as the key role they play in communities. They rightly talked about the challenges they face, and I do not argue with any of that.
I am the Minister for Schools, but I still know there is no more important subject than colleges. I see every day that we have great schools educating our children, giving them a great education and grounding to take them on whatever path they choose at age 16. Of course, we also have strong higher education institutions, delivering world-class higher education to young people and equipping them with the high-level education and skills they need. We then have further education colleges, which are the filling—if you like—in the education sandwich. Like the best sandwich options, there is a variety to choose from because colleges do just about everything, including all the things I have just mentioned. They do basic skills, English and maths and so-called level 3 provision. More recently, there has been the introduction of T-levels. They do apprenticeships, as we have been talking about, and I will come back to adult learning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney reminded us, FE colleges also do HE, as well as pre-16 provision for certain groups of young people. To cap it all, some colleges even have their own nursery—they are really providing the full range of education. We are not talking about jacks of all trades, because they do not just do lots of things; they do them very well. The latest figures show that approximately 92% of colleges were judged to be good or outstanding at their most recent inspection, which is quite an incredible figure.
The Secretary of State and the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education visit colleges around the country frequently. I should say, by the way, that the latter would have loved to be here today. He phoned me this morning to say so, and to ask me to pass on his best wishes, in particular in celebration of Colleges Week. He is not able to physically be in two places at once; otherwise, he would have been here. The Secretary of State and the Minister meet staff and students and see at first hand some of the excellent work they are doing, as I have had the opportunity to do in previous roles in the DFE. They are astounded by the range and breadth of high-quality provision on offer in fantastic facilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney rightly alluded to another key role that FE colleges carry out, which is acting as agents of social mobility. Many learners in FE come from disadvantaged backgrounds, so our colleges are essential for ensuring that individuals from all backgrounds are supported to progress into employment or further learning. It is fair to say that for many years, colleges were unsung heroes, doing fantastic work without ever really getting commensurate recognition for that work. That has changed now, because everybody understands and recognises the importance of what they do. This debate is a great example of that recognition.
The skills agenda, in which colleges play a critical role, is one of my Department’s key priorities. Colleges are delivering our radical skills reforms, helping individuals with basic skills needs right up to challenging the highest performers to reach their potential, raising the stages of technical education through the delivery of apprenticeships and the introduction of rigorous T-levels.
It is easy for us to say that colleges are great, and that we recognise all they do, but we need to back that up with support and investment. That is why we are making major investment in post-16 education, in which colleges play a huge part, with an additional £3.8 billion over this Parliament for education and skills. In particular, throughout this Parliament, we have consistently increased overall funding for 16-to-19 education year on year, including an extra £1.6 billion in 2024-25 compared with 2021-22—the biggest increase in 16-to-19 funding in a decade. FE colleges, like all 16-to-19 providers, have benefited from that investment. We are investing £3 billion in capital between 2022 and 2025 to improve the condition of the post-16 estate, deliver new places in post-16 education, provide more specialist equipment and facilities for T-levels and deliver institutes of technology.
We recognise that the issues colleges are facing are not just about whether they have enough funding and how to make the funding stretch to deliver everything they need to do, but about systems, procedures and bureaucracy. Colleges have told Government that we need to address those things, and we have listened. That is why we have consulted on reforming the further education funding and accountability systems, and last year issued our response. We have committed to simplifying funding systems and creating a single adult skills fund and a single development fund. We have already started delivering on those commitments and will continue this work to reduce the bureaucracy associated with funding. We have set out a much clearer approach to support an intervention for colleges, and will also remove duplicative data collection and take steps to simplify and improve audit. All these things will help to minimise burdens on colleges and let them focus their efforts on delivering that excellent education and training.
Of course, FE would not be what it is without teachers and teaching. The quality of teaching and leaders is the biggest determinant of outcomes for learners, and that is why we are investing £470 million over the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25 to support colleges and other providers, and to address key priorities, including on recruitment and retention. That funding has already fed through to colleges and other providers via increased 16-19 rates and programme cost weight increases from last September.
It is part of a wider programme to support the sector to recruit excellent staff. That includes a national recruitment campaign to strengthen and incentivise the uptake of initial teacher education, teacher training bursaries and the Taking Teaching Further training programme. We also announced £200 million to improve teacher recruitment and retention by giving those who teach key shortage subjects a payment of up to £6,000, tax-free, per year in the first five years of their career. For the first time, that applies to those teaching eligible subjects in all FE colleges.
Let me turn to some of the comments made by the hon. Lady who speaks for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). This debate has not been primarily party political, and nor should it be. We are celebrating Colleges Week, and that is something on which colleagues right across this House agree. I welcome a number of the things that the hon. Lady said, but there are a couple that I cannot quite let go, particularly on the subject of apprenticeships.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) was quite right in saying that, if we are going to talk about apprenticeships, we must talk like for like. I am afraid that, before 2010, there were some people who, when asked about the quality of their apprenticeship, did not know that they were on an apprenticeship. We have changed that and underpinned the apprenticeships programme with guarantees of quality: the minimum length of the course; the minimum amount of time in college; the creation of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education; and, critically, employer-designed standards. That has made a very solid set of very high- quality apprenticeships. I would urge the hon. Lady and her party not to pursue the plans and policy that they appear to be—not to undermine those apprenticeships or have fewer of them, and instead create a new quango.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments, and we do not need to get into a debate today—there are many other opportunities for that. He is right that it is important that we do not create dividing lines where we do not have them, in an area that needs both stability and long-term planning, but I want to challenge him on the point he has made. It is true that apprenticeships starts have fallen, and I am not saying that we have not also supported some changes through the passage of time. However, we all know that there are challenges, such as employer involvement in start-ups, employer fatigue due to the difficulties with the current apprenticeship system and the drop in SME engagement, and it is really important that the Government acknowledge those challenges.
It is also important not to misrepresent Labour’s call for a reform where employers, if they so chose, could spend up to 50% of their apprenticeship levy more flexibly. Too much of that levy is being returned to the Treasury because employers are unable to spend it on any learning. For most employers, the reform would not make much of a difference because they are only able to spend about 50% of their levy, and that would not change. Perhaps the Minister might also know that, if we see more growth in the economy, we will also see more of the levy coming in and greater apprenticeships there too.
Damian Hinds
Again, let us not have a party political debate—that is not the nature of this discussion today. I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that I have not misrepresented the Labour party’s policy in the slightest. She then went on to repeat it, which is to say that there would be less money guaranteed to be available for apprenticeships. That would surely lead to a move away from those high-quality apprenticeships that I mentioned. I understand the attraction of voices saying that the levy is not a good way of doing things, but I have to tell the hon. Lady that it addresses a fundamental problem—
Damian Hinds
Absolutely, and I will come back to the fundamental problem in a moment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister again, but I think he does not fully understand the Labour policy and that may be because he has not engaged with it in detail. The point on the growth and skills levy is that the opportunity to spend on more modular courses and more flexible learning, creating the opportunity to build qualifications through more modular approaches, could support more engagement with learning and contribute to a reduction in the early ending of apprenticeships, where the targets of apprenticeship completion are not even being met. That is a real issue.
Damian Hinds
I assure the hon. Lady that if there is any misunderstanding about the Labour party’s policy, it is not because people have failed to engage with it; it is because it is not clear—and one great benefit of our apprenticeship system is that it is clear. The approach of the apprenticeship levy resolves one of the fundamental questions of investing in human capital, training and people, which is the so-called free rider problem.
For many years, some employers invested strongly in their workforces and then some of the members of those workforces, after a couple of years of training, would get up and go to the competitor. The levy is precisely to make sure that the whole of our economy and the whole of industry has a like interest in developing those skills and developing investing in the potential of people. I advise the hon. Lady to be careful in deciding to get rid of that and replace it with a new and unneeded quango.
I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who also spoke about the centrality of apprenticeships and the quality of them. He spoke about the importance of colleges to the whole local economic area. I too represent an area with a particularly low level of unemployment, even though unemployment across the country is low compared with historical norms—it is at slightly less than half the level it was when I and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Waveney came into Parliament in 2010.
Particularly in areas of even lower unemployment, however, skills matching becomes vital for the local economy. I also join my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough in congratulating both Harrogate College and the Luminate Education Group on their work on the renewable energy skills hub. That is a great example of colleges being future-looking, forward-looking and innovative, making sure we are equipped with the skills for the future and creating facilities that contribute to that.
I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, who has brought us to this Chamber today—and we are all grateful to him for doing so. He listed some of the several ways in which colleges are vital to our economy and society. He too spoke of the importance of colleges in their local communities. He reminded us that that is about people of all ages—including those who might not have had that great an experience coming through education the first time, who can have another chance, and those who had a fantastic experience the first time around, who can further develop their skills. It is also about the jobs of tomorrow and making sure we can continue to adapt and that in so doing we offer social mobility to people throughout the country.
My hon. Friend also talked about productivity, which is so important here. We know that there has long been a big productivity gap—since the year I was born and beyond, and I am 54—between this country and the United States and Germany in particular. It has improved, but it is still a gap and we need to move further. Making sure we can match skills to where they are needed and hone those skills is incredibly important.
My hon. Friend also spoke about the importance of colleges themselves as big employers in local areas, and we should never forget that. He also discussed the importance of working with employers, a subject also covered by our hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. In particular, I note the work of Suffolk New College in leading on the local skills improvement fund for my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney’s area. Indeed, I pay tribute to all three colleges serving his local area—East Coast College, Suffolk New College and West Suffolk College.
We are getting close to a fiscal event, and my hon. Friend quite rightly put in his Budget bids, which will have been heard. He also talked about some of the progress made. I agree that the value of the Baker clause is not just what it does directly, but the symbolism and the message it gives that all children should know about the full range of what is available to them at the age of 16. Some of those children will be better suited to going to a school sixth form, some will be better suited to going to a sixth form college and some will be better suited to going to an FE college. Some will be better suited to a largely academic route and some will be better suited to a technical and vocational route. Having those options made known at a suitable time in that journey is really important.
There are also T-levels. Of course, colleges are not the only places that deliver T-levels, but they are at the centre of that great reform. They offer more hours in college and bring English, maths and digital skills right into integration with the core vocational subjects and, crucially, the nine-week or 45-day industrial placement. When I meet employers or young people who have done T-levels, that is the thing they always talk about the most: the opportunity to apply what they learn in college directly in a workplace and develop the workplace skills that we know are so valued by employers. By the way, they bring an opportunity to see a young person in action in the workplace for an extended period.
There are the higher-level technical qualifications and the advanced British standard, which is in development now. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney was quite right that we are developing that landmark reform to remove fully the artificial divide between the academic and the vocational. In doing that, we need to start investing now—and we are investing now. That is such an important point to make, and it is understood across Government.
When people think about a college, probably the first thing that comes into their head is a picture of a building, but my hon. Friend and I, and everyone here, know that it is all about people. That is why those investments in people are so important, including the extension of the levelling-up premium to further education colleges for the first time. The Teach in FE recruitment campaign is running, and there is the Taking Teaching Further programme. We know that there is a particular importance to, and sometimes a challenge in, getting people with recent industrial experience—those “on the tools”—into college to impart those skills onwards. There are FE teacher training bursaries worth up to £30,000, depending on the subject, tax-free, in the academic year 2024-25.
I will close by thanking everybody who has taken part in this debate, particularly our hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for tabling it and convening this important discussion. It was informative to hear from him and others about local issues, successes and, of course, how much we value our colleges—“Love our Colleges”, to coin a phrase from Colleges Week. The one clear thing coming from this debate is that we all recognise the importance, value and role of our colleges, as the strapline that I just mentioned makes clear.
I have set out how we are backing our recognition of colleges through investment and support by increasing funding, investing in facilities and estate, reforming accountability and funding to reduce burdens and investing in programmes to support and boost the further education workforce. I hope and believe that those things will benefit colleges and support them to deliver. I know that we ask colleges to deliver a lot these days, but that is because we know that they can and do deliver incredibly well.
Peter Aldous
I am a shade disappointed, not by the quality of the debate but because there was high demand to take part and we have not had as many colleagues as I would have hoped for. There are loads of demands on people’s time. However, what we have lacked in quantity, we have made up for in quality. I am the odd person out in this debate; I am the only participant who has not had a Front-Bench role, so it has been interesting to hear the views of those on the frontline.
The three of us on the Government Benches—I, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones)—have all been here since 2010. Colleges are in a better place, generally speaking, than in 2010, particularly in terms of the quality of their estate. That has certainly improved, but we need to move on. While the shiny new buildings are important, we need the teachers and trainers to be able to help with the learning in those colleges. That is where we have a particular problem. Look at the energy sector that East Coast College is having to deal with: we have a crying need for welders and fabricators, but there is a real challenge in getting those teachers and trainers.
Lord Baker fought for the Baker clause for years. He took too long to get it, but he got it. At some stage, I would welcome some information on how it is going down in practice, because when I go around the community I represent, I cannot say, “Ah! That is a result of the Baker clause.” If we pull a lever in this place, it does not automatically lead to a gear change in the rest of the country.
The one disagreement we have had is on the issue of apprentices. If one looks at where we were in 2010 and where we are today, we are generally in a better place, but the journey has not been smooth—there have been ebbs and flows along the way. I am slightly confused by some of the statistics. It may be that we were in a better place two or three years ago than today. One of the challenges is to get SMEs properly involved in the apprenticeship system.
That brings us on to the levy. The levy is a great idea, and the Government were right to introduce it, but there have been teething difficulties and challenges with money being returned to the Treasury. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and I have been in events where I have said that we need to press ahead with a review now, rather than waiting for next year after all the hullabaloo of the election. It must take place now, so that we can iron it out and get it on the right journey.
Finally, here are my funding asks of the Chancellor. This is ultimately about ensuring a level playing field. Colleges are not on a level playing field with schools and academies when it comes to VAT. They are not on a level playing field when it comes to what teachers are paid.
At the beginning of the time that I have spent in this place, there was the problem of colleges having to pick up the pieces for young people who, for whatever reason, had not acquired basic literacy and numeracy skills in secondary education. That situation has improved dramatically, but covid has thrown a big spanner in the works and the colleges are having to work very hard to address that. It is not going to go away immediately, and that is why they need those funds to be extended.
Sir Robert, thank you for bearing with me for a few extra minutes. It has been a good debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Colleges Week 2024.
Eating Disorders Awareness Week
(8 months, 3 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
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Eating Disorders Awareness Week 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. Across the UK, 1.25 million people have eating disorders, which include binge eating disorder, bulimia, anorexia, other specified feeding or eating disorders, and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder.
Left undiagnosed and untreated, eating disorders can be silent killers. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness, and results from one study have shown that a third of people with binge eating disorder are at risk of suicide. For too long, sufferers have been left feeling trapped and alone. Urgent action is needed to tackle this rising epidemic.
The theme for Eating Disorders Awareness Week 2024 is avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, or ARFID. The condition is characterised by a limited range of food intake. Sufferers may eat only “safe” foods, and can avoid entire food types. That means that they have difficulty meeting their nutritional and energy needs, and can experience weight loss and health problems.
ARFID can come from sensory sensitivity and fear of negative consequences from eating. Beliefs about weight and shape do not necessarily contribute. Be Body Positive, an NHS-backed psychoeducation website, has shared a story of what life can be like with this condition. Tahlia was diagnosed with ARFID when she was 20. She was initially misdiagnosed as a fussy eater before eventually being misdiagnosed with anorexia as a teenager as a result of her significant weight loss. Because she was misdiagnosed, she missed out on early vital treatment. In her own words:
“Growing up, I felt misunderstood and isolated because of my eating habits…Knowing that ARFID exists has been a validating experience, connecting me with a community of people who share similar challenges.”
The helpline run by Beat received more than 2,000 phone calls from people looking for support for ARFID last year—2,000 only last year! However, awareness of ARFID is still very limited. Misperceptions that it is just fussy eating leave sufferers like Tahlia feeling alone. There is no solid data on how many people in the UK have ARFID; it could be anywhere from less than 1% of the child and adolescent population to over 15%.
Because of those perceptions, accessing specialist treatment can be a lottery. There is a lack of standardised treatment pathways for ARFID, and it is hard to find out what support is available. A recent survey of NHS websites found that only six of the 55 NHS providers of eating-disorder services for children and young people explicitly stated that they provided treatment for ARFID, and only one of the 49 NHS providers of adult eating-disorder services said the same—one out of 49!
Rigid stereotypes of eating disorders persist in other areas. Despite their high prevalence, eating disorders are frequently misunderstood and viewed as a lifestyle choice. Contrary to popular belief, eating disorders are most common among people with severe obesity. I have been appalled by stories of people being turned away from treatment because their body mass index was too high, and have long supported Hope Virgo’s “Dump the Scales” campaign to change that.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines state that single measures such as BMI should not be used to determine whether someone receives treatment. However, those guidelines are not being uniformly implemented. Some services are still using those barriers due to severe mismatch between demand and capacity in chronically underfunded services.
It is not uncommon for patients to get to a worryingly low BMI before they are considered appropriate for an in-patient bed. That requires investment, but eating disorder treatment is cost-effective at any stage. We know that early diagnosis is critical: the earlier someone receives intervention for their eating disorder, the more likely they are to make a full recovery. The longer symptoms are left untreated, the more difficult it is for someone to recover. Healthcare should focus on prevention before cure. Access to the right treatment and early support is life changing. If we want to save money, prevent hospital admissions, save lives and improve outcomes for all sufferers, we need to ensure full implementation of clinical guidance around diagnosis.
There are many wonderful organisations working up and down the country to get people the help they need. I pay tribute to SWEDA, previously known as the Somerset and Wessex Eating Disorders Association, which provides invaluable support to so many families across my local area and is expanding its operations this year. Last year, SWEDA told me that it saw a 150% increase in people attending support and guidance appointments for eating disorders compared with pre-pandemic figures. Its children’s service was overwhelmed with young people and their parents desperately seeking help.
Eating disorders wipe out adolescence. Young people suffering from eating disorders miss out on so many educational and social opportunities. Those years are stolen from them—not to mention the potentially irreversible effect on their physical health. I welcome the access and waiting time standards already set for children and young people’s services. However, those targets have still not been met; 6,000 children and young people are stuck on the NHS waiting list for treatment. In two thirds of those cases, patients have been waiting for over three months, despite the standard stating that for routine cases, treatment should start within a month. Between 2022 and 2023, fewer than three quarters of children’s urgent cases started treatment within one week—well below the 95% standard. If we have standards, the Government must provide the resources to meet them.
For adults, there are not even targets in place. Adult eating disorder services in England are severely under-resourced, especially now that demand has risen to even higher levels as a result of the pandemic. Those services typically have either long waiting lists or strict referral criteria. That means that many adults are unable to access the treatment they need until they have become very ill. On average, people wait almost three and a half years to get treatment for their eating disorder, and adults wait twice as long. Shockingly, sufferers are reaching the point of emergency hospitalisation before they can access care.
Delays have deadly consequences. In 2017, the parliamentary health and service ombudsman published a damning report into the failings that led to the death of 19-year-old Averil Hart from anorexia and that of two other adults with an eating disorder. Last February, the Health Service Journal identified at least 19 adults with eating disorders whose death sparked concerns from coroners about their care. At least 15 of those were deemed avoidable and resulted in formal warnings being issued to mental health chiefs. We can never allow that to happen again. We must remember that eating disorders are treatable.
Targets are crucial if we are to tackle this epidemic. An access and waiting time standard for adults would provoke significant extra funding and focus. If we want to encourage people to seek help, we need to give them a guarantee that they will be seen. Having clear standards can facilitate service improvement. They enhance the experience for patients and drive up health outcomes. Although there is still a way to go, the standards introduced for waiting times for children and young people’s eating disorder services have driven some crucial service improvements. We need to see the same for adults.
Our health service is simply neither equipped nor empowered to deal with eating disorders. I was disappointed that the Government decided against publishing a 10-year cross-Government mental health and wellbeing plan for England; instead, they developed and published a major conditions strategy, which included mental health alongside cancer, cardiovascular disease and dementia. We need targeted and varied strategies for targeted and varied issues.
I again point the Government towards Hope Virgo’s eating disorders manifesto. It calls for the Government to implement an evidence-based national eating disorders strategy, with a plan outlining how they will tackle the huge rise in the number of people affected by eating disorders. I would also like to see the appointment of an eating disorders prevention champion to co-ordinate the Government response.
The strategy should integrate obesity and eating disorder prevention plans, because there are so many overlapping factors between the two. The Government should also consider reforming treatment approaches. For example, an Oxford University study found that using the integrated CBT-E or enhanced cognitive behaviour therapy approach rather than the current in-patient approach reduced readmission rates for people with anorexia by 70% over the course of a year.
We should also consider the other available options. The all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders, which I chair, is currently conducting an inquiry into intensive out-patient treatment. Such programmes are designed to support people with severe eating disorders for whom traditional out-patient treatment is not working. Patients go home in the evening and at the weekends, and have access to increased meal support and therapy. They can be treated in a familiar community-based setting. Such programmes are recognised as an effective and less expensive alternative to in-patient care. Importantly, both patients and their loved ones often find this form of treatment far preferable to other forms of treatment.
However, intensive out-patient treatment is not widely available across the country and there is no up-to-date information about exactly how many services are providing it. Again, we return to the importance of appropriate early intervention. Universal access to intensive out-patient services could minimise the need for disruptive in-patient stays. I hope to hear comments from the Minister about investment in such treatments.
Much of what I am talking about comes back to resources. The Government funding needs to reach frontline services, but the APPG on eating disorders found that 90% of the additional NHS funding given to clinical commissioning groups for children’s services did not reach the frontline. The Government must ensure that their funding pledges are not empty words and that money gets to where it is needed. A one-off boost is not enough. Soaring demand for underfunded services will leave people missing out on care when they need it most.
To tackle eating disorders, we also need to understand them fully. From 2015 to 2019, eating disorders accounted for just 1% of the UK’s already severely limited mental health research funding. The APPG on eating disorders previously conducted an inquiry into eating disorder research funding, which found that a historic lack of investment has led to a vicious cycle of underfunding. The APPG also emphasised that we need to diversify the research agenda.
Certain eating disorders and patient groups have not been served by current research. That is a real barrier when it comes to efforts to improve care. We cannot identify the obstacles that exist without having more information. Some progress is being made. It has been encouraging to see some increased investment into eating disorder research and a commitment to actively involve people with lived experience in emerging research collaborations. We now need to see targeted investment and ringfenced funding.
Eating disorder sufferers are being abandoned. We are well aware that the NHS is in crisis. However, although we have heard harrowing stories about delays in ambulance services and accident and emergency departments, the impact on mental health services has received little attention. Eating disorders are an epidemic and the sooner we realise that, the sooner we can treat them with the attention they deserve. No one should be condemned to a life of illness and nor should anyone die of an eating disorder in 2024.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
This debate can last until 4.30 pm. I am obliged to call the Front Benchers no later than 3.57 pm and the guideline limits are 10 minutes for the SNP, 10 minutes for His Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. Then the mover of the motion will have two or three minutes at the end to sum up the debate. In the meantime, it is Back-Bench time. I call Olivia Blake to speak.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I thank hon. Members across the House for their support in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing it. All the work that the APPG on eating disorders does is very much appreciated, and it rightly puts this issue back in front of us to discuss during each and every Eating Disorders Awareness Week. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us time to debate this issue.
Like many serious mental illnesses, eating disorders are often endured in silence. That means symptoms can go unnoticed, resulting in devastating consequences. Without diagnosis and treatment, eating disorders can be deadly. They have the biggest mortality rate of any mental health condition.
Around 1.25 million people in the UK live with disordered eating—a number that has inevitably been made worse by the pandemic. Although younger women are especially at risk of suffering from eating disorders, it is vital to remember that eating disorders can and do affect all people regardless of age, gender, ethnicity or background. So the general topic of today’s debate—Eating Disorders Awareness Week—is an important one, and it is especially important to one of my constituents.
I want to talk about someone I have been supporting for the past two years, who has shared her deeply distressing experience as an in-patient on a mental health ward. She spoke about the way in which she was
“reduced to numbers before receiving help.”
Despite not being able to eat, drink or take medication for five full days on the ward, and after asking for medical help, she was told she would only be referred once she had reached a specific blood pressure and blood sugar reading.
During my constituent’s ordeal, she was not provided with any support at mealtimes and, eventually, staff stopped asking if she wanted any food or drink. That resulted in her being transferred to another hospital in a critical condition and requiring emergency medical treatment in the ambulance on the way. As my constituent rightly told me,
“no one should ever be left to the point of medical emergency before needing help.”
It is right that we acknowledge the hard work of eating disorder specialist NHS workers and campaigners in my constituency and across the country, such as Hope Virgo, whom we have heard about, and many others. Specialist frontline workers continue to provide vital life-saving care in increasingly difficult circumstances and with increasingly scarce resources. We also need much more training in eating disorders for all frontline staff so that they understand how to treat patients in their care.
We know that eating disorder services are at breaking point. Demand is going up, cases are becoming more critical, training and resources are scarce, and the availability of support is a postcode lottery. This means that unacceptable cases such as this are inevitably becoming more and more common. The current system is failing. As I said last year, we face a crisis with terrible human consequences.
The specific theme of this year’s Eating Disorders Awareness Week is avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. Anyone can have ARFID; it can affect children, teenagers and adults. Although it is a little known and often misunderstood condition, it can have serious consequences for health if left untreated. Too often, misconceptions about picky or fussy eating trivialise this serious condition. The stigma and fear of judgment means that those with ARFID and their carers often suffer in silence. The charity, Beat, has reported an increase in calls to its helpline from people affected by ARFID. In 2018, it received 295 inquiries about the disorder. By 2023, that had ballooned to 2,054 calls.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Member agree that this is also about the carers, care givers and the parents who need to know about the condition? They are often worried to death when they see a child or a young adolescent in such a condition and they do not know what to do.
Olivia Blake
I absolutely agree. I have had carers contacting me to ask where they can find guidance because of the limits locally, which I will go on to in a bit. That is probably why we have seen the increase in calls for support for carers.
Carers are hearing time and again that people are struggling to get the help that they desperately need. That is partly due to limited awareness, limited research on the condition and a lack of standardised treatment pathways. Today’s debate plays an important role in tackling the misconceptions in the system and raises awareness of a serious condition that can have fatal consequences if left untreated, due to malnutrition and other issues.
Another part of the problem is under-resourcing in the system. Since 2011, hospital admissions for eating disorders have nearly doubled in England, going from 2,287 to 4,462 last year, after peaking at 5,559 cases in the year 2021-22. Currently, 12.5% of 17 to 19-year-olds are estimated to suffer from disordered eating. Shockingly, an NHS England survey found that 59.4% of 17 to 19-year-olds exhibited behaviours that suggested it was possible that they had an eating disorder. Among girls, the figure rises to just over three quarters, at 77%.
While Ministers promised more funding, the scale of response simply is not matching the alarming level of demand. The waiting time targets for specialist eating disorder services for children and young people are consistently not met, even though they have only recently been put in place, while the lists have simply been growing longer and longer. As a bare minimum, there should be an action plan to address the backlog, and a similar target must be put in place for adults seeking help. That was part of a previous plan, but it has clearly been dropped in the major conditions strategy, which the hon. Member for Bath mentioned. Without a clear plan in place to meet those targets, it is really important that we make sure that care is available to people. All children and adults with an eating disorder should be able to get access to the care that they need.
It is not good enough to address the in-patient figures alone. We know that early intervention is the right treatment. The devastating consequences of eating disorders can be prevented, yet the Government have done very little to move us in the right direction towards preventive care.
Due to the delays in identification, referral and waiting times, those able to access treatment are waiting on average three and a half years between onset and start of treatment. That is far too long, when we know that the earlier we get to people, the better their chances. The delay is potentially fatal to many, with recovery being far more likely for patients who receive medical intervention early, when behaviour can be adapted before it becomes too ingrained. For ARFID, we need an NHS-commissioned treatment pathway and trained NHS staff so that people do not go undiagnosed or untreated, or sit in treatment pathways that are not suitable for their needs.
It is seven years since the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report, which has been mentioned. That report was damning. It concluded that patients had been failed by NHS eating disorder services. It is shameful that we cannot point to more progress in this area and that, since then, the ombudsman has felt the need to reiterate the findings of that report to try to get more action.
This crisis should be an opportunity to rethink our approach to how we support and treat people in the UK who suffer from an eating disorder. I urge the Minister to look at the transformative work that groups such as South Yorkshire Eating Disorder Association are doing to help build an alternative framework for care nationally. It is time that we acknowledged the crisis and committed the training and resources necessary to fix it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) not just on securing this debate, but on her dogged pursuit of this issue over the years. The Minister should be aware that the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders is one of the most active and effective in Parliament, as a result of her work. She has collected around her hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), who are extremely committed in representing their constituents.
We all come to this issue as a result of dealing with our constituents and the hardships that they have faced. I thank Hope Virgo for her work, her campaign and the book she has written. If it was not for her, I do not think we would have been on this agenda as effectively as we have been in recent years.
I thank the Government as well because, early on, they recognised that there was an issue and brought forward some resources. I am grateful for that, but this is one of those issues where things are moving so rapidly in terms of the scale of the problem. We will have to come back to the Government regularly to look at how we top up those resources.
Much has been said about the statistics. I heard the figure of 1.25 million people mentioned and others have said 1.6 million, but it seems like a bottomless pit. The health survey was really interesting. If I remember rightly, it looked at those who had the potential for an eating disorder, so it was trying to get ahead of the numbers, and it said that 16% of the population—19% of women and 13% of men—could be at risk. One of the issues that the APPG has been really good at breaking through on is that this is not just about women; a large number of men are also affected by this problem, and that needs to be addressed.
In all these debates, we try to get across the impact and, to a certain extent, highlight to our constituents that we understand how their lives are affected. Of course, the mental health issues are fundamental. There have been suicides and deaths, but there has also been an outbreak of self-harm among people suffering from this condition. People have reported that there has been an impact on their ability to work, meet socially and engage in a full life. What has worried me most is the huge increase in the numbers being admitted to hospital—I think there has been a fourfold increase in recent years.
As has been said, this is the mental health condition with the highest mortality rate. Part of that is because there is a mismatch between the scale of the problem and the resources available, and that includes the number of hospital beds. I understand that there are only 450 specialist beds, but the admission rate is about 20,000, so there is a startling difference between what is needed and what has been provided.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the biggest problem is that for too long, this condition has been seen as a lifestyle choice rather than an illness? We still need to make a breakthrough on that.
John McDonnell
Thanks to the work that the hon. Lady, the campaigners and others have done, the media reporting of this issue has, to a certain extent, changed dramatically, but that has taken years to achieve. I agree that this is still seen as a lifestyle choice. It is not seen as serious; people do not relate deaths to this condition, but we all know from dealing with our constituents that that is what happens.
The other issue about the access to hospitals and clinics is that we have all had to map out, across the country, where constituents can go. Often, what happens is that they are discharged from one unit and it is then almost impossible to get them into another, particularly if there are specialist concerns.
The issues that we are reiterating today include the fact that the funding needs reviewing again, because the situation has moved on since we last discussed funding with the Government. There is also a lack of clarity, so we need a concrete action plan for the coming period. One of the issues is how we bring people together. There is a real concern about the lack of monitoring. One of the proposals, which I think Hope Virgo first raised, is to have a discussion about how we are monitoring this situation, both in terms of incidents and the effectiveness of different treatments. A proposal from one of the discussions we had is that it is time to bring together again those with experience of the condition and the key clinicians in the field, so that we can stand back and objectively look at where we are at. When we have dealt with homicides and suicides in other fields, we have set up independent inquiries because of the seriousness of the matter. In some instances, I feel that we need some form of inquiry to see where we are at and what is needed in the future.
The hon. Member for Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned the staff. The impression I get from the discussions I have is that, because of the increasing demand, staff are experiencing a level of exhaustion and a morale issue about simply being able to cope with the numbers and severity of the conditions they are dealing with. One thing we can do today, as others have, is to acknowledge the commitment and dedication of those staff, while recognising that they need greater support, in terms of both numbers and pay, to demonstrate just how valued they are.
The issue around the NICE guidelines has already been raised, and my experience is the same as others’, really. It is hit or miss; there is a postcode lottery in the provision of treatment under the guidelines. The Dump the Scales campaign by Hope Virgo and others has been effective at moving the debate on from just talking about BMI, so that a wider range of discussions are now taking place, which I really welcome. However, there is still no recognition across services that eating disorders are a mental health issue, and that therefore mental health practices that have been effective elsewhere need to be applied here. I argue very strongly for the need to fund cognitive behavioural therapy, which has a success rate of 70%, I think. It has also reduced readmission rates down to about 15%, so it is a huge money saver for the NHS. Again, we need to look at the levels of investment, both in training staff for that and in ensuring access.
I want to mention another issue that has been raised before. We have found too many examples of the provision of palliative care to eating disorder sufferers, which we are hoping will end. Palliative care should be offered only if there is another life-threatening condition; it should not be offered just because of this condition. We hope that that has now been ended, but it needs monitoring again to ensure that the message is out there. Our overall view is that, with the right support and early enough intervention, people’s lives can be saved, and that their lives can be transformed as a result, but it does need adequate funding.
The hon. Member for Bath mentioned the ringfenced fund that is needed for research. At this stage, it is time to stand back, bring together sufferers and clinicians, and look at what the strategy should be. We need an adequately funded, concrete strategy that we can all sign up to. This is a cross-party issue; it is not party political. As I say, I welcome what the Government have done so far. We are now at the stage where we know so much more about the escalation of the problem and the need for therapeutic interventions, and about what works and what does not.
My final point is to pay tribute, as others have done, to all the campaigners who have put this issue on the agenda and provided support throughout. I pay tribute to all the clinicians, of course, and to one group in particular, which is the school nurses—Members may recall that we held a session with them. They brought forward their programme for how they would provide advice and assistance to pupils, which proved to be incredibly effective. Of course, I also pay tribute to all those who have supported the all-party parliamentary group of the hon. Member for Bath with such expert advice, as well as consistent nagging.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front Benchers, the first of whom will be Patricia Gibson for the SNP.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I wish to begin, as others have, by congratulating the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on bringing forward this debate in Eating Disorders Awareness Week. I am very glad to once again participate in this debate, as I have done in the past. When I have spoken in this debate previously, I have always begun by pointing out that I first became aware of eating disorder conditions in the 1980s, when Karen Carpenter died, and then again in 1999, when Lena Zavaroni died. Both women had struggled with eating disorders for a number of years and sadly succumbed to them, when they ought to have had so many years ahead of them.
An estimated 1.25 million people across the UK face a similar struggle. Eating disorders, as we have heard, do not respect age, ethnicity, gender or background. Indeed, a quarter of those with eating disorders are men.
The mortality rate is high, especially for those with anorexia, which has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness, and one in six people with binge eating disorder attempt to end their lives. Other mental health challenges can often accompany eating disorders, such as depression, self-harm, anxiety and obsessive behaviours. Eating is fundamental to survival, so those with eating disorders typically develop severe physical health problems. Yet we know that, with the right support and treatment, we can change lives, and early intervention provides the best chance for recovery.
Eating Disorders Awareness Week this year seeks to highlight avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, or ARFID, which is a relatively new term. It is different from other restrictive eating disorders in that it describes a pattern of eating that avoids certain foods or food groups entirely and/or is restricted in quantity. Sometimes those with it eat very small amounts. Avoidant and restrictive eating is not related to a lack of available food, cultural norms or even fasting for religious reasons, and it is not related to a person’s view of their body shape or a specific purpose, such as losing weight. Nor does it feature some of the other behaviours that can be associated with anorexia or bulimia, such as over-exercising. ARFID is often dismissed as picky eating, but the crucial difference between what we might call a picky eater and a child with ARFID is that a picky eater will not starve themselves to death. A child with ARFID very well might.
While the exact causes of ARFID are unknown, it is thought that people who develop it do so because of sensory sensitivity, fear of negative consequences or a lack of interest in eating. For example, they might be very sensitive to the taste, texture or appearance of certain types of food, or have had a distressing experience with food, such as choking, vomiting, infant acid reflex or other gastrointestinal conditions. That may cause the person to develop feelings of fear and anxiety around food, leading them to avoid it. It does not discriminate; it can affect anyone of any age, including even babies, and can be diagnosed in children as young as three.
Researchers know much less about what puts someone at risk of developing ARFID, but it has been discovered that people with autism spectrum conditions are much more likely to develop the condition, as are those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and intellectual disabilities. In addition, children who do not outgrow what we might call “normal picky eating”, or in whom picky eating is severe, appear to be more likely to develop ARFID. Many children with ARFID have a co-occurring anxiety disorder, and they are also at high risk for other psychiatric disorders.
According to Beat, the UK’s largest eating disorder charity,
“There has been a sevenfold increase in calls to our Helpline”
related specifically to ARFID over the past five years. The variable service provision for the condition is due partly to the lack of research into treatment. The Scottish Government have provided Beat with more than £600,000 to provide a range of support for those affected by an eating disorder, but performance still varies across health boards. There must be no complacency. To help tackle that, a consultation was undertaken on the draft national specification for the care and treatment of eating disorders in Scotland to ensure that support and services meet the needs of those living with an eating disorder, wherever and whoever they are in Scotland. The responses to the consultation will be considered carefully.
When a person has an eating disorder of any kind, they need compassionate support with their mental and physical health. Their loved ones also need support, because this is a condition that affects whole families and not just individuals. Indeed, very often, it is close loved ones who are the first to pick up on the fact that their beloved family member has an eating disorder. There is nothing worse for them than watching their loved one’s mental and physical health deteriorate before their eyes from a condition that is often not well understood and, sadly, not always sufficiently supported through prompt and sensitive treatment.
I am glad that we are once again having this important debate on this condition in Eating Disorders Awareness Week and taking the opportunity to raise awareness of eating disorders in general and, this year, of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. Much more research needs to be done into that, and I confess that I knew almost nothing about it before I started preparing for the debate. I hope debates like this one will help those living with an eating disorder and their loved ones to feel less alone, because it can be an isolating illness for individuals and their families, which can only compound the pain and fear that this condition often generates.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I want to start by praising the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake). They are true champions of those suffering from eating disorders or mental health issues, especially our children and young people. I congratulate them on securing the debate and on their excellent contributions, as well as their continued work through the APPG on eating disorders to help champion this issue. They have put this issue on the national radar and have worked effectively cross-party to try to eradicate the epidemic of eating disorders.
I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who talked passionately about the impact that eating disorders have on individuals and highlighted the fact that we need to understand the impact they have on people’s lives, including at work. He also talked about the huge spike in hospitalisation figures.
I want to touch on some of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath, who used powerful statistics to make the growing problem of eating disorders hit home. She highlighted the disparity between areas in how high up the agenda the issue is—it is not always high up the agenda—and talked about the importance of carers and parents knowing more about the condition so they can help to address it. That was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam, who talked passionately about her constituent, who said she was “reduced to numbers” before receiving help. She also highlighted something that hit home with me when she spoke about how her constituent had said that no one should be “left to a medical emergency” before getting help, and that there should be standardised treatment for this particular matter.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Opposition to mark Eating Disorders Awareness Week. As many people in the room will be aware, eating disorders are serious mental illnesses that can have severe consequences. It is estimated that over 1 million people in the UK live with an eating disorder, and the reality is that for far too long, those suffering have been ignored. Eating disorders are responsible for more loss of life than any other mental health condition, as has been said. Unfortunately, as we have seen with the statistics raised in the debate, it is increasingly becoming quite common. The sooner someone receives treatment, the better their chances for making a full and sustained recovery, yet that is often not the case. It is a credit to the many campaigners and parliamentary colleagues in this room who have been working on this, along with vital charities, such as Beat, that we can say progress has been made in awareness and support. However, as we continue to face the severe consequences of the pandemic, we see a mental health crisis across our country. We all know that so much more urgently needs to be done.
The NHS figures suggest that the proportion of those aged 17 to 19 with an eating disorder stands at 12%, which is up from just 0.8% six years ago. Hospital admissions are double what they were a decade ago, and last year the awareness week focused on the specific challenges for men.
I also want to quickly echo the point made my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam, as well as other Members, on the importance of recognising that eating disorders do not discriminate. They affect any age, ethnicity, gender or socioeconomic background. It is important to highlight those facts when continuing to break down the stigmas and stereotypes that prevent so many people from reaching out and receiving much needed help.
This year, Beat has focused its attention on another important issue that has often been overlooked—avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. It can affect anyone of any age, and Beat has estimated that the number of people with that disorder in the UK could be over 200,000. It can be very difficult to diagnose, and as Beat has highlighted, the information available to those seeking help can be very limited, which echoes what has been said by hon. Members today about parents and carers not having sufficient information on how to address these issues. For example, it has been highlighted that eight in 10 eating disorder service providers do not state on their website whether they offer ARFID care.
The data clearly shows that such cases, like all eating disorders, have surged in recent years across the UK. However, as cases have risen, services have struggled to match the demand, which means more waiting in anguish for longer. In 2015, the Government introduced new waiting times and access standards for community-based eating disorder services for children and young people. That included targets for one-week urgent treatment and four-week routine treatment, but those targets have never been met. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what will be done to address that failure. Meeting those targets is much needed. Instead of meeting those targets last year, one in five patients with non-urgent referrals were not seen within four weeks, and one in three patients with urgent referrals were not seen within a week. When children and young people with urgent cases of eating disorders wait more than 12 weeks to start treatment, the severity of the current crisis cannot be overlooked.
I also want to raise the important issue of providing adequate care to adults. As highlighted by the HSJ report last year, the deaths of 19 eating disorder patients, with at least 15 of those being deemed avoidable, demonstrated an urgent need to improve eating disorder provision. What more are the Government doing to address those concerns and ensure that all those patients receive the quality of care that they deserve?
I also want to touch on some of the points mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam, and the hon. Member for Bath. They mentioned the lack of monitoring of the effectiveness of treatment being provided. Is the Minister aware that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has published guidance for healthcare professionals to support the development of specialist skills and knowledge to assess and treat people with eating disorders? What are the Government doing to ensure that that guidance is embedded in primary care and emergency departments? The Opposition recognise that, when it comes to eating disorders and all mental health issues, prevention is so important, and early prevention provides the best chance of recovery. Too many people, especially our children and young people, are stuck on mental health waiting lists for months or years instead of receiving the urgent care that they need.
We face a mental health crisis in this country, and we must have a Government that acknowledge that and will take urgent action. That is why Labour have committed to a child health action plan, with a bold ambition for this to be the healthiest generation of children ever. We will recruit thousands more mental health staff to cut waiting lists and ensure that more people can access treatment. We will focus on prevention, early diagnosis, early intervention and timely treatment near where people live.
To do that, we will put an open-access mental health hub for children and young people in every community, and a mental health specialist in every school. That will be paid for by abolishing tax loopholes for private equity fund managers and tax breaks for private schools. We cannot continue to lurch from crisis to crisis, which is what is currently happening. We must look at how we can build a new, solid, long-term foundation for a resilient health and care system, with an NHS that is truly fit for the future.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing an important debate on an important topic. I know that both as an MP and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group she has long been a champion for those living with eating disorders. She has worked with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) and others on the APPG to ensure that eating disorders are kept high on the political agenda.
I share the passion for this issue expressed by all the hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, one thing that unites everybody in the Chamber today is that we have all tried to help a constituent, or the family of a constituent, who is suffering from an eating disorder. I have certainly done so in my 13 years as the MP for Pendle, and those cases that I have dealt with are some of the most difficult and emotional to have come across my desk in my surgery.
Improving eating disorder services is a key priority for the Government and a vital part of our work to improve mental health services. As we have heard, this week is national Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and raising awareness is essential to making progress on this important issue. I am grateful for the work of Beat and other charities across the whole sector; they have shone a light on eating disorders and they support people who are struggling.
We know that having an eating disorder can so often be utterly devastating for those with the condition, as well as for those around them. As I think has been said by pretty much every hon. Member who spoke today, we know that eating disorders can affect people of any age, gender, ethnicity or background. However, we do know that recovery is possible, and that access to the right treatment and support can be life changing. Early intervention is vital, and we want to ensure that children and young people with eating disorders get swift access to support.
Since 2016, investment in children and young people’s eating disorder community services has risen every year; £53 million was invested per year in 2021-22, and that figure rose to £54 million in 2023-24. As part of the £500 million covid-19 mental health recovery action plan, we invested an extra £79 million to significantly expand young people’s mental health services—enabling 2,000 more children and young people to access eating disorder services. We have also introduced a waiting time standard for children and young people with eating disorders. Our aim is for 95% of children to receive treatment within one week for urgent cases, and within four weeks for routine cases.
Abena Oppong-Asare
On the Minister’s point about getting waiting time targets down to one week, those targets were implemented in 2015, and they are yet to be met. Could the Minister explain what work is being done to address that, because he just mentioned those same targets again?
Andrew Stephenson
I completely recognise the shadow Minister’s challenge on that point and the concern that she has—I will set out what we are doing to address it. She also mentioned the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which published a report on this today. It is worth putting on record that we very much welcome that and that we look forward to working with it and other stakeholders. Waits are not as short as we would like, and the Government are determined to meet our waiting-time standards for children and young people with eating disorders. Extra investment is going into the services to meet increased demands and reduce waits, so hopefully we will start to see progress made towards meeting those targets. However, we acknowledge that, while there has been record investment and progress in improving access to eating disorder services and improving quality, there has also been a significant increase in demand for those services over the past few years. That was especially true during the pandemic, with increased demand outstripping the planned growth in capacity.
Children and young people’s eating disorder services are treating 47% more children and young people than before the pandemic, with almost 12,000 children and young people starting routine or urgent treatment in 2022-23, compared with just over 8,000 in 2019-20. That surge in demand has made meeting our waiting-time targets more challenging, and waits are not as short as we would like them to be. However, I am proud that our services and clinicians, backed by new funding, are supporting more children and young people than ever before. Those services are changing and saving lives.
We also know that even earlier intervention is critical to prevent eating disorders from developing. Community-based early mental health and wellbeing support hubs for children and young people aged 11 to 25 can play a key role in providing that support. In October 2023, we announced that £4.92 million from the Treasury’s shared outcomes fund would be available to support hubs, and an evaluation to build the evidence base underpinning those services.
Wera Hobhouse
Can the Minister perhaps comment on what I said about intensive out-patient units, in that we really do not have any information on how widely spread they are and where they are being provided? They are a very good alternative way of treatment, and we really need more information about where they are available.
Andrew Stephenson
We do need more information on that, and I will come to that point. The next point that I wanted to make was on an announcement that I know the hon. Lady will already be aware of, but other hon. Members may not be. Following the evaluation of some excellent commercial tenders from hubs across the country, the Government announced just this week that we are now providing an additional £3 million, which means that total of 24 hubs will receive a share of almost £8 million in 2024-25. That is more than double our original target of funding 10 hubs, and organisations across England—from Gateshead to Truro—will now benefit.
I appreciate that there is still a bit of a postcode lottery around the country, but we are looking to strengthen services, working with different partners across England, to ensure that we are improving services—enhancing existing services—or developing new services where they have not been provided in the past.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I just want to add to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) about hubs. What work will be done to ensure that the data is captured to see how the growing problem of eating disorders can be addressed and what effective treatments could slow the increase?
Andrew Stephenson
We are working very closely with NHS England and partners to ensure that that data is captured. We are also working with the charities involved in this sector and with others.
I know that the Minister with responsibility for mental health, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), has been doing a lot of work on this and has met with various stakeholders. I perhaps should have said at the start of the debate that the reason my hon. Friend is not here and hon. Members have me instead is, of course, that the International Women’s Day debate in the Chamber was still going when this debate started —so, unfortunately, there was an unavoidable clash.
However, I know that this is a topic very close to my hon. Friend’s heart, and getting the data right is really important for us to ensure that the gaps that currently exist in services are being addressed. I will certainly ensure that the shadow Minister’s issue is raised with my hon. Friend; if I may, I will ask her to write to the hon. Lady on that.
We know that eating disorders can have devastating effects on adults too. Under the NHS long term plan, by 2023-24 we are investing almost £1 billion extra in community mental health care for adults with severe mental illness, including eating disorders. That extra funding will help to enhance the capacity of new or improved community eating disorder teams covering the whole of the country. As part of funding provided in 2021-22 in response to pressures created by the pandemic, we also provided £58 million to support the expansion of community mental health services for adults, including those relating to eating disorders.
Many hon. Members in their contributions raised avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, or ARFID. I share their ambition to improve support for people living with this under-recognised condition. In 2019-20, NHS England funded seven community eating disorder teams for children and young people, one in each region of England, in a pilot programme to improve access, assessment and treatment for children presenting with ARFID. The pilots ran from September 2019 to March 2020 and included training to support the adaption of each service’s existing care pathways, assessments and treatment interventions for children and young people with ARFID. The training from those pilots is now available for local areas to commission for their community children and young people’s eating disorders services. In 2021, NHS England also commissioned ARFID training for staff delivering treatment in inpatient children and young people’s mental health services.
We recognise that more needs to be done. We know that the earlier treatment is provided, the greater the chance of recovery. NHS England continues to work with eating disorders services and local commissioners to improve access to treatment for all children and young people with a suspected eating disorder, including those presenting with ARFID.
Several hon. and right hon. Members raised the issue of BMI and the Dump the Scales campaign. NHS England continues to emphasise to systems and services that BMI should not be used as a single measure to determine access to treatment within either adult or children and young people’s eating disorders services. That is in line with NICE recommendations and is included in the national published guidance, as well as in the recent community mental health framework. NHS England is also in the process of updating the children and young person’s guidance, which will also state that BMI should not be used as a single measure.
The hon. Member for Bath asked whether we would consider appointing an eating disorder champion who could help to galvanise action and support for people living with those conditions. As she may know, the Government do not currently have plans to appoint a specific champion role, but I can assure her that the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England already work closely with stakeholders advocating for better care, such as Beat. We are also very grateful for the work of Dr Alex George in his role as the Government’s ambassador for children and young people’s mental health, which includes championing the needs of those with eating disorders.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington raised the issue of palliative care pathways. I want to assure him and other hon. Members that people with eating disorders should not be routinely placed on palliative care pathways, including those with severe, complex or enduring eating disorders. The NHS is clear that all those with severe, complex or enduring eating disorders should have access to evidence-based treatments focused on helping people recover, including hospital-based care if appropriate. Staff involved in the care of people with complex and severe eating disorders must adhere to the legal frameworks that safeguard their best interests, and NHS England will work with patient groups and stakeholders to develop further guidance on that.
The hon. Members for Bath and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) raised the issue of suicide. It is critical that we all do all we can for those affected by eating disorders before they reach that point. That is why the Government published a suicide prevention strategy in September of last year, which aims to reduce suicide over the next five years. I want to reassure right hon. and hon. Members that people in contact with mental health services, including those with eating disorders, are a priority group for the strategy.
In closing, I extend my thanks once again to the hon. Member for Bath for securing the debate, and to all the hon. and right hon. Members here today for their thoughtful contributions and questions.
Wera Hobhouse
I want to thank everybody who took part in today’s debate on Eating Disorders Awareness Week. It was an opportunity for all of us to learn more about ARFID, or avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder —it has a long and difficult name, but it is a very severe condition and it is important we understand more about it, as it now affects many young people and their families. I am therefore glad that Beat chose that particular theme for this year’s Eating Disorders Awareness Week.
We have heard about the many different forms that eating disorders take. Many aspects of those different forms are still not entirely known, and that includes ARFID. We need a lot more research into the condition. Most of all, we must increase awareness of support for sufferers and caregivers, urgently increase access to services and especially provide access in a timely manner. We have heard several times that we have targets for children and young people, but they are not being met, and we certainly need targets for adult services. While we have made progress, there is still much more to do.
I want to thank Beat, the many other eating disorder charities and those working in eating disorders services for their sterling work. They are all doing amazing work. Last but not least, I want to pay tribute to the indefatigable Hope Virgo. Without her tireless campaigning, we would not be here today. However, there is still a lot to do. I know the Government are listening and I hope for and look forward to further co-operation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Eating Disorders Awareness Week 2024.
Written Statements
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transforming for a Digital Future: Progress Update
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
In June 2022, the Government published “Transforming for a digital future: 2022 to 2025 roadmap for digital and data”. This set an ambitious plan that by 2025, we will deliver a transformed, more efficient digital Government that provides better services for the people of the United Kingdom.
In September 2023, I published an update to the road map to ensure we are keeping pace with emerging trends, challenges and opportunities.
At the request of the Public Accounts Committee, I am now updating Parliament on progress made against the road map including progress made by individual departments. Key recent achievements include:
16 of the top 75 services have so far reached great, well on the way to our target of 50
29 Government services are now live with gov.uk One Login and over 3.3 million people have so far proven their identity through the new system
The Government digital and data profession has grown from 4% to 5.4% of total civil service headcount, close to our target of 6%, bringing in the key skills we need
The generative AI framework for Government has been published, to provide detailed guidance, resources and tools for the safe and secure usage of generative AI
There is much work still to be done, but I remain confident that under this Government’s plan we are on course to meet the commitments set out in the road map by 2025.
We will be depositing a full copy of “Transforming for a Digital Future: Government’s 2022 to 25 roadmap for digital and data, February 2024 progress update” in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS299]
Contingency Fund Advance: Afghan Relocations and Assistance Programme
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
The Ministry of Defence is continuing to deliver the Afghan relocations and assistance programme. Defence expenditure this financial year now includes supporting Afghan individuals and families with important integration services on arrival in the UK as well as sourcing private rental accommodation where required through existing defence contracts. The Ministry of Defence is seeking a Contingencies Fund advance in order to fulfil its commitments under ARAP.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £17,000,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Defence. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £17,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS301]
Contingency Fund Advance: MOD 2023-24 funding
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
The Ministry of Defence new cash requirement for the year exceeds that provided by the main estimate 2023-24. The supplementary estimate has not yet received Royal Assent.
The Contingencies Fund advance is required to meet commitments until the supplementary estimate receives Royal Assent, at which point the Ministry of Defence will be able to draw down the cash from the Consolidated Fund in the usual way, to repay the Contingencies Fund advance.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £2,450,000,000 and £750,000,000 of capital will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Defence. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £3,200,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
This is a routine Contingencies Fund advance request that has been agreed with HM Treasury. This request does not affect the Ministry of Defence’s departmental expenditure limit position.
[HCWS302]
England Rare Diseases Action Plan 2024
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
The Government have published England’s third rare diseases action plan on www.gov.uk today, on international Rare Disease Day.
Rare diseases are those affecting less than 1 in 2,000 in the population. Although rare diseases are individually rare, they are collectively common with one in 17 people being affected by a rare disease at some point in their lifetime. Approximately 3.5 million people in the UK are living with one of over 7,000 rare diseases, such as muscular dystrophies or Huntington’s disease. People living with rare diseases often face challenges with the health and care system. The National Conversation on Rare Diseases received nearly 6,300 responses and helped us to identify the four priorities of the 2021 UK rare diseases framework: faster diagnosis; increased awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; better quality of care; and improved access to specialist care, treatment and drugs.
This 2024 England rare diseases action plan is part of the Government’s continued commitment to improve the lives of those living with rare conditions. This year’s action plan provides an update of the progress made against actions outlined in the 2023 and 2022 action plans, and sets out seven new actions to continue to address the priorities highlighted in the UK rare diseases framework.
The Government have shown strong leadership in addressing the concerns faced by the rare diseases community over the past year. Key achievements include:
Designing and securing funding for a pilot of two syndromes without a name clinics in England to deliver care and diagnosis for people with rare undiagnosed conditions.
Updating the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality standard on transition from children to adults’ services to ensure that it is relevant to the rare diseases community.
Publishing the UK rare diseases research landscape report, illustrating the strengths of UK research, with over £1.1 billion of rare disease research funded by the Government and charities, and over 250 research projects supported by industry over a five-year period.
A £14 million investment to fund the UK rare disease research platform, which is made up of 11 UK-wide research nodes and a co-ordinating hub facilitating greater collaboration between academic, clinical and industry research, and people living with rare diseases, research charities and other stakeholders, to accelerate the understanding, diagnosis and therapy of rare diseases.
Announcement of over 200 rare genetic conditions that will be screened in the Generation Study. This is the biggest study of its kind in the world, screening over 100,000 newborns with the aim to understand whether sequencing babies’ genomes can help to discover rare genetic conditions earlier.
The 2024 action plan also includes significant new commitments against the framework priorities, developed collaboratively with our delivery partners across the health landscape, and in close consultation with members of the rare disease community. These include:
Developing a genomics communication skills resource to ensure healthcare providers are equipped to have sensitive conversations relating to the gathering of genomic information, consent for diagnostic genomic testing and feedback of results.
Developing the specialist genomics workforce through the Genomics Training Academy.
Developing networked models of care for rare diseases, ensuring that specialist expertise is always available while allowing patients to be treated and cared for as close to home as possible, starting with networked models for inherited metabolic disorders and amyloidosis.
Improving access to whole body scans to increase survival rates and outcomes for people who have rare conditions that result in an inherited predisposition to cancer.
Addressing health inequalities for people with rare conditions through publishing a toolkit for highly specialised services and by mapping and measuring the geographic spread of patients accessing these services.
Under the action plan, the millions of people with rare diseases in England will see more efficient and equitable access to care and new treatments introduced. Over the coming year, we will closely monitor the progress of these actions, seeking input from those living with rare diseases to ensure we are measuring the outcomes that matter most. Progress will be reported in 2025, as part of England’s commitments to report annually over the five-year lifetime of the UK rare diseases framework.
Through this third action plan, we will continue to take steps towards achieving our overarching vision—delivering improvements in diagnosis, awareness, treatment and care, and creating lasting positive change for those living with rare diseases.
[HCWS298]
Local Government Finance Settlement Update
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
On 5 February, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) set out the final local government finance settlement for England for 2024-25. The final settlement includes new funding for local authorities worth £600 million and makes available up to £64.7 billion for local authorities in England, an increase in core spending power of up to £4.5 billion, or 7.5% in cash terms—an above-inflation increase—on 2023-24.
As a result of this settlement, the vast majority of local authorities will be able to set balanced budgets in 2024-25 and continue to deliver vital services for their communities.
Members of the House will be familiar with the small number of local authorities with severe local failure, where the Government have had to step in and take the most serious action through statutory intervention. These authorities are Birmingham City Council, London Borough of Croydon Council, Liverpool City Council, Nottingham City Council, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, Slough Borough Council, Thurrock Council and Woking Borough Council. The House receives regular updates on the progress of these interventions. In some of these cases, significant local failures in governance and financial management have resulted in acute financial failure, and these councils have asked the Government for continued support to help them set budgets including for 2024-25.
In addition, the Government have always stood ready to engage with local authorities who may request support on an exceptional basis due to local issues that they are unable to manage themselves. While those discussions are confidential, the Government are committed to making the details of any support that is agreed public, in the interests of transparency. Today, my Department is publishing on www.gov.uk details of in-principle capitalisation directions provided to a small number of these local authorities. I will deposit copies of any relevant documents in the Library.
Capitalisation directions permit a local authority, in specific and exceptional circumstances, to meet revenue costs through capital resources, enabling them to manage budget pressures over time—for example through the sale of council-held assets. They do not include any additional direct grant funding. At this stage, and in line with precedent, the Government have provided these local authorities in-principle support only, to ensure that they can set their 2024-25 budgets and deliver vital services for their communities.
In line with the usual framework for agreeing capitalisation directions, appropriate conditions will apply. These are intended to ensure that the process is only used in circumstances where it is truly necessary, address the drivers of the issues that have led to local authorities requesting support, and ensure continued progress towards achieving financial sustainability. In all cases, the Government expect these local authorities to take into account the need to reduce wasteful expenditure, and ensure every area is making best use of taxpayers’ money. Where statutory interventions are in place, any final agreement to support will be contingent upon the demonstration of ongoing improvement, transformation and recovery.
Where the Government have agreed to provide support, it is essential that appropriate assurance arrangements are in place. Where appropriate, any final agreement to support will be conditional upon the completion of rigorous external assurance reviews to assess, at a minimum, the local authorities’ financial management practices, and the production of improvement and transformation plans that focus on securing the local authorities’ medium-term financial position. The Government are taking additional action in the case of Plymouth City Council, which has requested a very significant capitalisation as a direct result of the incorrect accounting treatment of a transaction in 2019-20 through which the council borrowed to pay off a large part of its pension deficit. Given the unusual nature of Plymouth’s approach, the in-principle capitalisation is conditional on a thorough, independent investigation into the transaction.
I am clear that the Government will not hesitate to take action if needed to protect local taxpayers.
[HCWS300]
Grand Committee
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber, which we are not expecting, I will let you know, and we will adjourn for the time it takes to allow you to vote.
Long-Term National Housing Strategy
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote a long-term national housing strategy, and to seek cross-party support to ensure its effective delivery.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, it is a great privilege to open this debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have signed up to speak. I look forward to hearing from the great wealth of expertise and experience.
We are in the midst of a housing crisis. For too many people in the UK, home is not a place of safety and security but somewhere expensive or temporary, insecure or unhealthy. There are 140,000 children living in temporary accommodation, 1.2 million households on waiting lists for social homes, and numerous young professionals consigned to be part of “generation rent”. Inadequate housing has knock-on effects throughout a person’s life: on their education, their mental and physical well-being, their relationships and their ability to put down roots. It does not have to be like this. It is worth restating that decent housing is one of the basic essentials for a fulfilled and healthy life, yet we have some of the poorest quality housing in Europe. We can do better than the current system—indeed, we must do better.
Today, I would like to put forward three steps that I believe we need to take in order to transform our housing system. First, we need a clear, shared vision of what good housing looks like. Noble Lords will be familiar with a range of policy solutions that try to address individual elements of the crisis, but we need an overarching vision. What are we working towards? A “fixed” housing system is not just about interventions that respond to symptoms of brokenness; it is about tackling root causes and creating a housing system we can all be proud of.
Although there is broad agreement that our housing system is failing, there is no clear vision of what a “good” system would look like. We might start by saying that everyone should have a home that is a place of comfort, safety and security. Our homes should sustain us and help us maintain physical and mental health. They should offer access to work opportunities and public services, to peace and quiet for relaxation, and to places to socialise with family and friends—where children can grow, play and study and achieve their full potential. In short, we might say that decent, affordable homes should be available for every household. It is possible to realise these aspirations, if all political parties and stakeholders agree on a common vision of good housing, and a road map for getting there.
That is why, secondly, we need a long-term national housing strategy. In 2021, the report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community concluded:
“Our most important recommendation is that Government should develop a coherent long term housing strategy”.
Working in parallel was the Affordable Housing Commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, whose contribution I am looking forward to hearing today. It made similar, equally strong recommendations, calling on the Government to
“make affordable housing a national priority and to put it at the centre of a national housing strategy”.
In advancing these recommendations, both commissions echoed many other recent housing investigations.
Most experts agree that the housing system is failing in substantial part due to the absence of a long-term strategy. Indeed, reactive, short-term and contradictory policy interventions have possibly exacerbated the crisis. We need an appropriate strategy to pull together disparate policy goals and short-term targets into something comprehensive, leading to realising a shared vision of good housing.
Decades of consistent action are required to address the challenges which make up the current housing crisis, because years of failure have got us into the situation we face today. It will take a generation to transform our housing, so we need to think in terms of 10, 20 or 30-year horizons. A strategy is also far more than achieving housebuilding targets. It must take into account all tenures and aspects of the current system, improving our existing stock as well as building new homes. I am confident that we can achieve this long-term vision and strategy, but it will of course take more than just good intentions.
So, thirdly, for this proposal to be effective, we will need the commitment of the main political parties and a governance mechanism to keep it on track. All parties will need to have a sense of ownership of the vision and strategy if it is to survive changes of government. That is why it must be comprehensive in offering good news for all: owner-occupiers, social housing tenants and private sector renters, as well as those with specialist housing needs.
The agreed housing strategy will require a statutory footing to ensure that it has the longevity and resilience to be carried out over a sustained period. Otherwise, policy decisions could be driven by short-term political aims, to the detriment of the long-term housing goals. One idea for putting a robust governance structure in place is to create a housing strategy committee, modelled on the existing Climate Change Committee, to provide annual progress reports to Parliament and hold the Government to account. Specific and robust targets will need to be set, based on need and the economic, political and social context at any given time.
Today I have put forward three fundamental steps which I believe will need to be taken to transform our housing system in the long term. There is no quick fix, but that does not make this response any less urgent. We must build a shared vision, a shared strategy and a shared political will to deliver it over a generation.
In my role as lead Anglican bishop for housing, I hear constantly that the housing system is broken. I am urging all political parties to rise to the challenge of fixing it today. I would welcome a commitment from each party to prioritise creating a long-term strategy for housing, and to commit equally to working with the other parties to ensure that it has cross-party and therefore long-term support. No one party will be able to turn around our broken housing system. It calls for a shared endeavour and a common commitment to prioritise current and future housing needs over short-term political advantage. I would welcome further conversations with Members from all political parties on shaping this vision, forming a strategy and ensuring that it is delivered.
I have already drawn together a steering group, which includes several noble Lords, some of whom will speak today, and work has already begun in partnership with the Nationwide Foundation on what the principles of a long-term strategy might look like. Time does not allow me to expand further, although others may yet comment; but I hope the seed may have been planted today and that the Minister will agree at least to finding out more about what we are trying to work towards.
Our homes and communities are fundamental to our lives flourishing. The current system is broken, but with long-term, concerted and coherent action, we can transform our housing system so that everyone has a decent, affordable place to call home. Let us rise together to this challenge, and together consign the current housing crisis to history.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate and recognise that the Church, through the Archbishops’ Commission, is almost alone in having offered to help alleviate the problem by making land available for building.
The housing shortage is a crisis and a scandal. We talk about it, we set targets and we tinker with the planning rules, but we avoid debating one fundamental cause. The right reverend Prelate is doubtless familiar with Zen Buddhism, and with the Zen master challenging his disciple to describe the sound of one hand clapping. The answer lies in the debates in this House on housing. There is a lot of talk about housing supply and next to nothing about housing demand. We do not talk about housing demand because the increase in demand comes overwhelmingly from immigration.
A couple of decades ago, I was researching a pamphlet about the housing shortage. I discovered that we were then importing the equivalent of the population of Birmingham every decade. A few years later, we were importing the population of Birmingham every five years. Then it accelerated to the population of Birmingham every three years. Now it has reached the population of Birmingham over the last two years. Where do noble Lords plan to build a new Birmingham every two years? Unless noble Lords are prepared to answer that question, or to admit that any realistic solution must involve reducing net migration to the rough balance which prevailed before Tony Blair opened our borders, they have no moral right to participate in these debates.
I urge noble Lords to read the article by Robert Henderson in the Times on 23 February. He explains that the better-off elites, who used to display their superiority over common folk by what Veblen described as conspicuous consumption, now do so by adhering to what he describes as “luxury beliefs”, which he defines as
“ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class at very little cost”
to them,
“while often inflicting costs on the lower classes”.
Support for mass immigration is a luxury belief. It inflicts harm on the poor, the young, and the less skilled. It means that young people cannot afford to leave home and start a family and poor people cannot get on the housing waiting lists, which have doubled, but it makes our elites, who own their own now very valuable homes, feel morally and socially superior. I hope that, in future, the right reverend Prelate will challenge this hypocrisy.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for tabling this important debate. We are desperately in need of some consistency in decisions about housing supply, and the Church of England, along with others such as the National Housing Federation and Shelter, have led the way in calling for a long-term national housing strategy.
For those living at the sharpest end of the housing crisis, a socially rented home is the only truly affordable solution. For decades, the number of families who cannot afford a safe, secure home has been rising. There are now 8.5 million people in England who cannot access the housing they need. That includes 2 million children who are living in overcrowded, unaffordable or unsuitable homes, and record numbers of children are living in temporary accommodation.
Recent research from the National Housing Federation looks at what will happen if we do not act to put a long-term housing plan in place. By 2045, around 5.7 million households could be spending a third of their income on housing expenses—an unaffordable amount, and nearly twice the number of people doing so today. The impact of this on future generations would be stark. Both young and old would be worse off. In a society with a growing ageing population, we are already experiencing a severe shortage of homes for older people and an acute lack of specialist housing. By 2035, the number of people over the age of 60 in England will reach 29% of the entire population. Without a long-term plan for housing that accounts for changing demographic needs, by 2045 roughly 2.3 million older people could be living in homes that just do not meet their needs.
These figures offer a stark illustration of why a new long-term approach to meet housing needs in this country is urgently required. It took decades, as the right reverend Prelate said, to reach this crisis point. Clearly, it will take systemic change to solve it. Ultimately, it is a crisis that can be solved. Countries around the world are tackling similar crises, with long-term national strategies, and so can we. Such a systemic approach will happen only if there is long-term, cross-party political commitment and collaboration, and cross-Whitehall working, covering construction, planning, finance, skills, energy, net zero, health and social care, among many other things.
I support the right reverend Prelate’s call for a separate committee for housing that could put an end to the short-termism and uncertainty which has made systemic change in housing feel impossible. It must, in my view, by supported by a cross-Whitehall housing unit to end the housing crisis, on the same lines as the child poverty unit or the Social Exclusion Unit. I would welcome the Minister’s views on this, because only then can we begin to imagine a future where everyone in this country has a good-quality home that they can afford.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for initiating this debate; indeed, I thank the Church of England for re-engaging with housing issues, not just with a welcome report but in taking some practical steps to maximise its direct contribution as a major landowner and investor. I join the right reverend Prelate in seeking consensus on a forward vision to solve the nation’s acute housing problems over the longer term.
A national housing strategy would mean, irrespective of innumerable changes of Housing Minister, having agreed goals for which a road map can set out the steps ahead. This needs to take a coherent, co-ordinated and cross-departmental approach which is sustained, irrespective of political change. To devise this strategy and maintain progress toward its goals, suggested approaches have included: creating a royal commission; setting up a new Cabinet committee to bring together the seven departments which all have a housing interest; establishing a government unit with the capacity for evidence-gathering and policy advice; or, and this is my favourite, creating by statute a national housing committee, along the lines of the Climate Change Committee, to act as a watchdog that monitors progress toward fulfilling the strategy’s objectives.
Meanwhile, although having a long-term strategic vision is essential, the current situation is so dire that each step taken needs also to ease the nation’s immediate housing crisis. The best barometer of how the situation is deteriorating is the doubling of the number of households having to be placed in temporary accommodation in many areas. This means children living in insecure and often unfit properties that deeply affect schooling, employment, health and well-being, while costing the NHS and care services billions, harming the wider economy and busting the budgets of councils already in severe financial circumstances.
I conclude by recommending one measure that meets emergency needs while increasing long-term social housing provision. The Government should create a national housing conversion fund for housing associations and councils to acquire and upgrade run-down private rented properties for use as temporary accommodation now, and for the long-term growth of the social housing sector for the future, while also addressing issues of fuel poverty, health inequalities and climate change imperatives. I wholeheartedly endorse the right reverend Prelate’s plea for a national housing strategy, and I couple it with an earnest request for immediate action to ease a very real housing crisis.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
My Lords, this debate is testament to a rare cross-party consensus. There is broad agreement that our housing market is socially divisive and economically debilitating. I would argue that it is the single biggest impediment to economic growth in the UK. Yet numerous strategies, initiatives and attempts at reform have consistently failed to deliver meaningful change.
The reason for that failure, I believe, is simple. Every reform has begun with the implicit belief that development needs to be planned by government dictating where we live, what type of houses we live in, and where we work and shop. Government, national or local, simply does not have the requisite knowledge, incentives or resources to do that; no single guiding mind ever could. That planned economies do not work seems to be a lesson the world never tires of learning. We plod through the standard Soviet list of excuses for failure: blame the plan, then blame the planners, then blame everybody else that you can. But the problem here is not the planners, the nimbys or even the politicians. They are symptoms of a deeper problem: planned economies do not deliver.
Some assume that the only alternative to top-down planning is free-for-all, conjuring up images of a nation covered in concrete, but there is a middle way: the same system that regulates virtually every other successful economic activity in the western world, from food to cars, computing and clothing—a carefully regulated free market that harnesses the collective intelligence and aspirations of an entire nation, but that might start with the presumption that all land is developable, but is subject to strict principle-based rules and regulations that will protect the legitimate interests of existing communities. Such a system could still have the flexibility to preserve land of outstanding natural beauty and open spaces of communal value. It can maintain the powers of local authorities to actively develop in their areas and all development would have to comply with clear rules and principles.
I have time to suggest just two. I hope that the first meets with the right reverend Prelate’s approval: it is the “love thy neighbour” principle. It simply insists that all new development does nothing to materially devalue neighbouring homes and businesses. The second, the “carry your weight” principle, requires all new development to leave infrastructure in the state in which it found it or better. Before 1947, such a free market system existed in broad terms; it delivered the architecture, streets, cities and towns that we love and cherish today. Our planning system does not need to be reformed; it needs to be replaced with better, as do so many of our buildings. Let us start afresh, put a bit more trust in each other, love the future as much as we love the past and return this nation to an age of great building of which we can be proud.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate and an excellent speech. I agree that a long-term strategy is vital and, just in case I run out of my three minutes, the first of the three points that I want to make about long-term strategy is that it is important that its implications for other elements in society are fully thought through, because this is not just about housing. This picks up some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, just made. Secondly, it is about stability—creating a stable environment, in which people can plan and develop. Thirdly, it is about buy-in. I agree about cross-party buy-in but, if that is not possible, another form of buy-in is important: there are a lot of experts in this field and people who understand what is going on; we need to ensure that the people who really know about it are a part of any strategy that is developed. They are not necessarily sitting in Whitehall, where I have sat for some time.
A long-term strategy is vital to take all the implications into account. I come from a health background and therefore naturally think about the health implications and poor housing contributing about £1.7 billion to the costs of the NHS—as a modest estimate. I am also aware of the impacts on the environment, employment and everything else that goes with them. A long-term approach needs to take all those implications into account. Too much of what happens at the moment is tactical, and chopping and changing. Permitted development rights is precisely in that area: it is a tactical approach, whereby development might happen completely randomly by people outside the local communities, who see opportunities, come in and develop.
There is an alternative, better way of doing that, which is for the local authority, which has an interest in the area, to play a leading role in developing where such approaches take place. It is clear that there are commercial properties that could be transformed into housing.
The second point, about stability, is incredibly important to change the risk/reward balance for investors and developers. If we were able to secure a stable financial environment, we would see people able to take a smaller profit from their development in the longer term and investors, particularly those with an interest in social impact, coming in.
My third point is about buy-in. Such a strategy needs to be created with engagement, not just consultation, which government likes. The expert bodies and stakeholders should be part of developing and creating what is going to happen; some strategy should not be imposed from above.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
Noble Lords should excuse me—this is my first go. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate. This is an idea whose time has come. I spoke to a number of young people about their feelings around housing. Let us be clear: when talking about housing, one is speaking about people under the age of 40. They said that the situation completely destroys their future and they have given in. They wanted me to bring three notable points to the attention of the Committee.
However, I had to speak to them about some of the successes that the Government have had, with 2.5 million houses built over the past 14 years, though that is clearly not enough. When we talk about housing, I want to focus on the human element and the absolute drag that this has been on the development of young people in this country. If we are to have a national body, there must be political buy-in. Some things go beyond politics and this is one of them. The state of housing in this country challenges the notion that we are a civil nation. Any nation that cannot afford to house its young people and their families needs to look at what its beliefs are. We are supposedly the fifth or sixth-richest nation in the world and we are spending our money in the wrong way. Many of those points have been made here.
To have this national scheme, however, a few things should be added to that list and pursued. One is promoting family-sized homes. In our current situation, we build lots of one or two-bedroom houses, which means that family-sized homes become, relatively, even more expensive. For those people below the age of 40 and looking to start a family, this is where their focus is. If they cannot start a family, it changes their trajectory of life as they see it.
The public sector needs to be more effective in putting its surplus land into circulation to be used for housing. Again, a national scheme could identify where these pockets of land would be most useful, how they came into circulation, what level of profit was drawn from this land and so on, to help these things happen more quickly. Many local authorities feel that they have to defend the land to the point where absolutely nothing happens and no one wins.
As a Government, we have also given lots of money to development. We gave the Mayor of London £4.82 billion but we had no control. His speed of delivery was incredibly slow. He started many schemes that will not be finished until 2030. That is simply too late for most people in dire housing need in this country.
Finally, this idea needs to be seen as a national mission. Most of the social pressures that we face in this country will be greatly eased by increasing the amount of affordable, decent housing. I commend this idea to anyone and I hope we can find a way of supporting it across the political divide.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate and welcome this debate, with its purpose of promoting cross-party agreement on a national housing strategy. The long-term nature of the issue would benefit from cross-party support. In that respect, I should like to focus attention on the importance of an agreed rural housing strategy within the national planning framework. I declare my rural interests as set out in the register.
More attention to rural issues is required from all parties and housing is paramount, although it is not the only concern. Infrastructure and other policies need to be considered. Some 10 million people live in the countryside and 85% of rural businesses are not farming businesses. The opportunity exists to increase the productivity of rural areas and the growth and sustainability of these communities if there is an agreed policy on housing. For non-farming businesses to expand and to enable diversification by farmers, there is a labour requirement to support this growth. With a shortage of new, as well as affordable, homes, together with an increase in second homes and holiday lets in some areas, availability of labour can be a major problem. Therefore, responsible housing development in our villages is vital to support growth and to make these communities flourish.
An example of a policy on which we should be able to agree is to encourage rural housing exception sites—RES—with a high degree of affordable housing. So far, this has not been a successful policy due to both the expense of submitting planning applications and the high risk of their refusal. In 2022, RES delivered only 548 homes, and only 14 out of 91 rural local authorities used the policy. The recommendation is to encourage RES by granting planning permissions in principle before the applicant incurs the cost of a full planning permission. I tabled an amendment to the levelling-up Bill suggesting this, which, although warmly received by the Minister, was not accepted. I ask the Minister to reconsider.
Many other planning issues affecting rural housing need cross-party support, but I urge on this and future Governments the need for rural-proofing for housing in both local and national plans.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I concur heartily with my noble friend Lord Lilley: we have to look at demand as well as supply, and there has to be a plan to do so. I disagree with the idea of a quango to look after this issue; Parliament must take responsibility for the failures in housing policy. Although I welcome the Government’s long-term plan for housing in areas such as brownfield development presumption and helping small and medium-sized businesses in the supply of permitted development rights, it is not enough.
I heartily deprecate the capitulation in December 2022 to the nimby wing of my party in destroying the Government’s laudable aim to build many more houses. We need to revisit the National Planning Policy Framework. In some respects, the levelling-up Bill was a missed opportunity.
I urge noble Lords to look at the CMA report published on 26 February—the focus on aesthetics and beauty, the possibility of a statutory code for the quality of homes, fairness and equality in the management of private estates, and the encumbrances and obligations of public space on people who buy homes on new estates.
There has also been quango overreach. It is a fact that 41,000 homes in Norfolk and 18,000 in Somerset are not being built because of the nutrient neutrality regulations. The Labour Party missed a trick in not supporting the Government on that issue; significant safeguards were put in place to get those houses built.
There are other issues which time does not permit me to develop, but in the long term we need to reiterate our support for public sector land being released for all types of housing tenure. That has not happened. In the other place I served on the Public Accounts Committee and, year after year, we had reports of the failure of government departments to release land properly.
We also need fiscal measures to enable, through the tax system, the building of extra care facilities for older people, in order to release the pressure on acute hospital care and to enable older people to release larger homes for young working families, for instance. Finally, we still have not done the work we should have properly done on residential estate investment trusts. International comparisons show that they work abroad to leverage serious amounts of money into good-quality, sustainable private sector lettings.
We will have an opportunity to develop these issues in the debate on 14 March, sponsored by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, in which I very much hope to take part.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on her good idea of a committee. I do not regard it is a quango; the comparison with the environmental committee is a good one.
The Government’s latest approach, building on brownfield sites, will not help thousands of young people in rural areas. Does the Minister support the concept of community land trusts, which require young people to live and work there for three years to get one-third off the purchase price of their home, which, if they sell, goes back into the community?
The Financial Times recently published an article pointing out that building social housing saves money overall. The total cost of housing benefit is billions of pounds, which could be saved. It is a really important point, and I would welcome the Minister commenting on that issue.
We can meet housing targets, although it requires an imaginative approach. My party is heading in the right direction when it talks about freeing up land. There is plenty of greenbelt land that could be built on. You need long-term projects, and I make no apologies for referring to a project near me in Southall, built by Berkeley Homes. It is a 25-year project, and one of the largest brownfield regeneration projects in west London, working with Hillingdon and Ealing local authorities. It is a 25-year project, successfully delivering the first phase of 623 homes, 50% of which are affordable. It is an absolutely beautiful site, where work is being done to link in with the local environment and ensure that there is very little use of cars.
We desperately need more housing in London. If you come in on the train, as I did this morning, you will see thousands and thousands of flats. Interestingly, hardly any of them are available for people. Why is that? It is because speculation is taking place. In Norway, you have to live in the country to be able to invest in housing, and the Government should ensure that that approach is taken in this country.
We can solve this problem. We did it after the war, and we can do it again. It is certainly a vitally important project.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to the right reverend Prelate’s timely debate. She has worked hard behind the scenes to build the necessary cross-party consensus on the delivery of a long-term housing strategy, and she spoke on it very eloquently today. I have a strong temptation to respond to some of the thoughtful and provocative contributions to the debate, but my actual job is to respond briefly on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, so I shall forebear on that.
The Liberal Democrats share the right reverend Prelate’s belief that every person should have an affordable roof over their heads, and we also share her analysis that, despite the good intentions of politicians of practically every stripe, some of which have been well demonstrated here, we remain a very long way from achieving a good outcome. Outright homelessness is rising, precarious tenancies are mushrooming, social housing waiting lists are lengthening, and too many first-time buyers are squeezed out by escalating prices, then knocked out by fluctuating mortgage rates.
The state is spending billions of pounds supporting tenants’ rent payments, and billions more subsidising buyers’ mortgage payments, but still the housing crisis persists, with all its malign consequences. Given that painful analysis, the right reverend Prelate is clearly right to call for a new approach: a long-term housing strategy that addresses the problems, not just for one Parliament, one Secretary of State or one Housing Minister, but for a generation. That is what is needed to give the certainty, sense of purpose and drive to all those who are not politicians and who have to play a part in delivering the outcomes needed: the construction and development industries—
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Do the Liberal Democrats believe that the long-term strategy should include controlling demand as well as supply?
Lord Stunell (LD)
I think that the noble Lord is inviting me to enter into a debate about the merits of immigration and whether or not we want more nurses and doctors, or our universities to have any money from overseas fees. That is an entirely different debate, which I shall steer wide of, if I may.
If we are going to have a flourishing and successful housing strategy and policy, we have to engage owners and landlords, and get the skills sector, the planners and local communities on board, and we have to get the vital financial sector to play a part. At the moment, none of those can contribute their best because they are falling back on reactive responses to the short-term decisions taken in this building, when what they need to see is a durable and credible strategic vision.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, standing aside from the political fray, has been bold enough to tell us that, unless we can co-operate to deliver a broad consensus that can survive the day-to-day political battles, there will be no end to the housing crisis. Some of us are working cross-party to see how that might be achieved. It is still work in progress, and I want to hear from the Minister that she and the latest Housing Minister will keep their minds open to the opportunity the right reverend Prelate’s initiative gives them to play an important role in delivering a long-term housing strategy that reaches rather further than the forthcoming general election.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for securing this important debate today and for all her work in this area.
We debate aspects of housing on many occasions in your Lordships’ House, and rightly so, as we are in the middle of an extreme housing crisis. It is utterly shameful that we have 88 families a day being accepted as homeless by local councils, six times as many families as there are social homes being built. The housing benefit bill has doubled and some councils are spending 40% of their budget on emergency housing.
The reason for the many debates goes to the heart of the topic today: there simply is no national vision or strategy for housing driving the change that we want to see. Contrast that with the vision of the post-war Labour Government, who not only built my new town, Stevenage, but drove national consensus between 1945 and 1980 and saw local authorities and housing associations build 4.4 million social homes—more than 126,000 a year. By 1983, that supply had halved to just over 44,000 a year and last year it was less than 10,000.
We see a piecemeal approach to housing, whereby Bills are introduced to provide sticking plasters for some of the issues facing us, but even those get watered down as the Government cave in to vested interests. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about housing targets. We now have a Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, which we were told would confine the archaic tenure of leasehold to history but does nothing of the sort. We have a Renters (Reform) Bill, which should have scrapped the dreadful Section 21 evictions that leave renters so insecure but is currently stalled.
Planning departments, which should be at the heart of creating local visions for their areas, assessing the need for housing and making the short-term and long-term plans to deliver, have been starved of funding through successive years of savage local government funding cuts. Just this week, we have seen two important reports which set out some of the key issues. The CMA report illustrates a point made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in relation to the findings of the Letwin review—and I hope that the noble Lord will not mind me quoting him. He said that
“we have handed over the decision-making process for all major housing developments to the oligopoly of volume housebuilders. These companies initiate each new scheme: they secure the land, they produce their plans and they build their development, in their own time and at a speed that suits them”.—[Official Report, 17/11/22; col. 1062.]
We have also had the outstanding report by the National Housing Federation and Shelter, setting out the clear economic and social reasons for a surge in the delivery of social housing.
We all know that a safe, warm, secure and affordable home is the foundation for every individual, family and community to thrive. That is where our vision and our strategy for housing should start. My party will get Britain building again and recover the dream of home ownership with a housing recovery plan and a blitz of planning reform to quickly boost housebuilding to buy and rent and deliver the biggest boost to affordable housing in a generation. We will have the next generation of new towns, with a package of devolution and stronger local powers over planning, a planning passport for urban brownfield development and first dibs for first-time buyers, supporting younger people with a government-backed mortgage guarantee scheme.
I hope that we can build a consensus and the mechanism to maintain it. After 27 years as a councillor, my passion for the power of good housing to unlock the potential of individuals, families and communities is undimmed. It is time to renew our vision, our focus and our inspiration so that everyone in our country, and indeed future generations, will have the opportunity of a home that enhances their dignity.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate. I start by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions and, in particular, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for bringing forward this important debate. I know that she has taken a keen interest in this issue over a long period and I thank her personally and on behalf of the Government for her leadership on this matter and for developing proposals to release more church land in particular for affordable housing. It really is recognised and appreciated.
In light of the comments from across the Committee, I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to delivering more of the right homes in the right places. We have a long-term strategy that we are delivering and a strong record to build from. In fact, the four highest annual rates of housing supply in the last 30 years have all come since 2018 and we are on track to meet our manifesto commitment to build 1 million homes this Parliament.
The long-term strategy for housing that we committed to in July 2023 encompasses all tenures and supports households right across the country. In this strategy, we are regenerating our most treasured towns and cities, starting with London, Leeds and Cambridge. We are giving communities a voice in what development happens in their area and where.
In particular, quality is key to this strategy. We are introducing the most comprehensive reforms that the private rented sector has seen in 30 years through the Renters (Reform) Bill, including applying the decent homes standard across the private rented sector for the first time to ensure that every home is safe, decent and warm. We are also delivering on one of our core commitments: the Government are liberating leaseholders through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, expanding the rights of leaseholders to enfranchise and take back control from distant freeholders.
We know that increasing supply is critical, especially of affordable housing. That is why I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Best, will acknowledge that our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme is delivering tens of thousands of affordable homes to rent and to buy, alongside the £1 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund and an additional £4.2 billion through the housing infrastructure fund to support new development. Separately, we are also providing £1.2 billion to the local authority housing fund to support refugees and those at risk of homelessness, on top of almost £2.4 billion this spending review period to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.
To further support our ambitions on supply, the Secretary of State announced changes to the National Planning Policy Framework in December 2023 and set firm expectations for local authority planning performance. Also, just two weeks ago the Housing Secretary announced new commitments to boost brownfield development across the country to help to provide the right homes in the right places.
I will try to respond to as many of the specific questions as possible, so apologies if I miss anybody out. If I do, we will try to cover those by reading Hansard afterwards and replying in writing.
In no particular order—my pile of sheets is fairly huge—the first sheet in front of me is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on cross-party support, which many noble Lords mentioned, including the right reverend Prelate. What have we done to seek cross-party support while developing the long-term strategy? I suggest that we have sought cross-party support at every step of the way across all the principles underpinning our long-term strategy for housing. We have engaged in lively debate in both Houses on our legislative programme, including most recently on the Renters (Reform) Bill and the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to strengthen these key pieces of legislation and ensure that we get them right. We have laid Written Ministerial Statements, setting out our policy intentions to both Houses to scrutinise, and we have published consultations inviting views from all to ensure that we are listening to a spectrum of views as we strive to deliver good homes in great places to live and work.
Many noble Lords mentioned cross-Whitehall collaboration and it is fair to say that we work in this way. Very many departments are involved in this work, which is ongoing and continuous. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, also commented on permitted development rights. I agree: we need to look for all alternative forms of new homes. Permitted development rights give us a way to deliver those more quickly, in many instances.
Last summer we issued a consultation on PDR amendments to support housing delivery, including potential changes to the PDR, which would allow the change of use of commercial premises to residential. Following the analysis of the consultation responses, we have amended Class MA to remove the 1,500 square metre limit on the amount of floor space that can change use under the right, and removed the requirement that the premises need to be vacant for at least three months before an application for prior approval can be made. I hope, therefore, that there is some support for that, as changing some of these permitted development rights is making an important contribution to the delivery of new homes across the country, with 104,000 new homes having been delivered under these rights in the eight years to March 2023. I hope that will expand and accelerate under the new proposals.
My noble friend Lord Bailey mentioned young people. Indeed, first-time buyer numbers have been steadily improving over the last decade, and in 2021 we saw the highest number of transactions in 20 years. However, there is more that can be done and, I hope, is being done. We are committed to providing a secure path to home ownership by increasing the number of first-time buyers, helping people access homes and make true freehold ownership the standard. Since 2010, over 876,000 households have been helped to purchase a home through government schemes, including Help to Buy, right to buy and shared ownership.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned various schemes, but in particular those for key workers. Our first homes programme is designed to help local first-time buyers in their locale and indeed key workers on to the property ladder by offering homes at a discount of at least 30% compared to the market value.
My noble friends Lord Bailey and Lord Jackson, and others, mentioned public sector land. We are setting up a new public sector land for housing programme which will release land for at least 15,000 homes this year and the next, and we have been working with large landowning departments—
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining some of the Government’s response to the crisis, and indeed for referencing their own long-term strategy. Does she agree that seeking to find cross-party support for their long-term strategy is different from sitting down and working together cross-party towards the creation of a long-term strategy, with a national housing committee, that would report progress and seek to hold the Government of the day, of whatever party, to account?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I appreciate the sense and sentiment behind that; therefore, although I am not personally familiar with the issue, I will take it back to the department to discuss where we are at. But I point out that this is a sensitive area in which collaboration is really important, not just with government at the highest level, but with local government and delivery partners, so collaboration is in the DNA of this. We need to figure out how this is going to work; however, I will come back on this issue when I have spoken to the department.
Returning to the issue of public sector land, we have been working with larger landowning departments, including the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport and the Department of Health and Social Care, as well as with Homes England, to establish this new programme. These departments, along with the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, will come together in a new ministerial task force to ensure delivery by March 2025.
On affordable housing supply, to give some historical context, since 2010 we have delivered over 696,100 new affordable homes, including over 482,000 affordable homes for rent, of which 172,000-plus are for social rent. In the period from 1997 to 2010, some 557,000 affordable homes were delivered. The Government are on track to deliver their target of building around 250,000 affordable homes—
Lord Lilley (Con)
The Minister does not seem to wish to address the points I raised at the beginning of the debate, but did she note that all the speakers opposite seem to believe in a Zen housing strategy involving only one hand clapping? Supply side does not address demand, even though that requires us to build the equivalent of Birmingham every two years just to cope with incomers, before we build a single house to deal with the existing problems the right reverend Prelate so eloquently enunciated at the beginning. Is the Minister a Zen planner too?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I can assure my noble friend that I am not a Zen planner. However, I am a realist, and I am faced with a multiplicity of policy responses to the rise in demand, no matter where it comes from. The Government do consider the demand and supply side, which form part of our long-term strategy.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We challenged the term “affordable housing” during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. It is still being used constantly, as though using it means that the housing is affordable to anyone, which it absolutely is not. Can we please have a bit of caution over the use of that term?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I note the noble Baroness’s comments on the definition of that terminology. It is not mine—it is a term the department uses—but I will query its definition.
On overall delivery, £11.5 billion was made available in the affordable homes programme and it will deliver thousands of affordable homes to rent and buy across the country. Local authorities also have a crucial role to play in increasing the supply of social housing. That is why, in 2023-24, we introduced a package of flexibilities for how local authorities can spend their right-to-buy receipts. We implemented a preferential rate for borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board for building council houses, which has been extended until June 2025.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raised the issue of rural housing, as did the noble Lord, Lord Young. We delivered more than 268,000 affordable homes in rural communities in England between 2010 and March 2023. Of the £11.5 billion we are investing, £7.5 billion will be outside London. That will help boost the supply of affordable housing in rural communities. We recognise that development of affordable housing in rural areas can be costlier and riskier; therefore, the Government are trying to help partners with their funding.
I am now out of time, but there are several pages of points I have not got to. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are delivering a long-term housing strategy that provides safe, decent, warm and beautiful homes for communities across the country. We are determined to work with the housing sector, local authorities and all of your Lordships to make our ambition a reality.
AUKUS
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Risby
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in respect of the AUKUS agreement, the defence and security partnership between the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, for over a century there has been an enduring relationship between three trusting countries, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of which share embedded democratic values. In 2021, the three nations began a consultation process—particularly referencing Australia, which had been concerned by unwelcome Chinese naval activity in the Indo-Pacific region—to upgrade its submarine capability in partnership with the United Kingdom and the United States: AUKUS.
For us, our own defence thinking has extended to the Indo-Pacific, underscoring our passionate historic commitment to the freedom of the seas. A year ago, this consultation led to an agreement that Australia acquire conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines through the trilateral partnership, which sends a clear message of our shared commitment to protecting global security and, most specifically, a secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific.
That consultation, in 2021, reflected great prescience. Since then, the world has become increasingly scarred by war and violence, such as Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, supported by his linkages to countries such as North Korea and Iran. Violence in the Middle East has once again erupted, and in the Indo-Pacific China continues to assert itself, backed by a sustained build-up of military capabilities and indeed a close relationship with Russia. It is these national linkages that present democracies with a threat to the world we live in, attempting to rewrite the rules of the international order to better suit their interests. What happens in the Euro-Atlantic clearly now reverberates in the Indo-Pacific, and vice versa. The two regions are increasingly inextricably linked.
The UK is already fully integrated into the security architecture of the Euro-Atlantic, and in recent years His Majesty’s Government have chosen to engage the nations of the Indo-Pacific with much greater commitment, as well as to integrate the UK more deeply in the region’s security, while benefiting from the economic and business opportunities offered there. So far, we have been successful with trade agreements and, of course, our membership of the CPTPP. But it is AUKUS, the technology accelerator agreement signed between the UK and two of our closest Indo-Pacific partners, Australia and the United States, which promises to have the greatest potential impact on regional and, ultimately, global security.
Through pillar 1, which is concerned with equipping Australia with nuclear-powered submarines and Britain’s next-generation undersea capabilities, the United Kingdom is ensuring that its future defence infrastructure is of the highest standard. This will allow us to continue to participate with consequential impact in upholding a world free from coercion and the use of force in both the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific. In this spirit, it also specifically involves a rotational presence in Australia of one British submarine and four American submarines. Through pillar 2, which is concerned with accelerating and deepening the development and delivery of state-of-the-art military capabilities, the UK is further ensuring that in a world so influenced by advanced technology systems, we will not fall behind key developments.
AUKUS acts as a transparent and intensively close way of enhancing our trilateral relationship. It gives Britain a chance to share in the upgrading of the capabilities of two of our close partners. It is an opportunity of a magnitude that cannot be overstated. We already have a strong relationship with the US and Australia, but AUKUS plans to better operationalise this bond and take it to further heights.
AUKUS positions itself as an initiative that goes above and beyond the vagaries of electoral cycles, and indeed it must, as the project will require sustained effort and expenditure from Governments into the 2040s. It is a firm signal that we are placing greater emphasis on each others’ geostrategic sensibilities and objectives, but also embedding a long-term step-by-step strategic commitment.
In order to maximise the functional benefits of AUKUS, it must absolutely be viewed as a national endeavour, expressed as such and be given overarching focus across all relevant parts of government. This will enable us fully to embrace the generational commitment that AUKUS demands. It is a focused effort at building a more integrated deterrence posture. This will require increasing interoperability between the three nations. This enhanced interoperability informs collaborative projects through pillar 2, such as shared approaches to the next generation of advanced weaponry—for example, hypersonic missiles. There are obvious dangers associated with countries choosing not to obey the rules of the sea, and AUKUS is the UK, Australia and the USA united in their effort to resist and if necessary push back together against such activity.
A key element to ensuring that the long-term vision of AUKUS is realised will be enhanced people-to-people, governmental and educational links between the three countries. This is already beginning to happen. Regular port visits from British submarines to Western Australia in the 2030s will also further this, and I am encouraged to learn that Royal Australian Navy representatives have begun training at British and American nuclear-powered submarine schools. Is my noble friend the Minister content that we are adequately deepening our education and workforce development systems’ link with the United States and Australia, which is key to the realisation of the agreement?
The benefits of that long-term generational partnership will not be felt just in the realm of international security but here in Britain directly. We are experiencing the impact on shipping and the British economy that Houthi attacks in the Red Sea are having. AUKUS contributes to Britain’s ability to resist and detect such activity, as well as to deter actors from disruptive action, wherever it arises.
What we know is that the nature of defence and warfare is changing dramatically, such that in pillar 2, key areas have been identified for sharing and development. Fundamentally, they are undersea capabilities, but also quantum technologies, artificial intelligence, advanced cyber, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic capabilities, electronic warfare, and innovation and information sharing.
The Minister will know of the 17 working groups that have been established. Can he indicate how their functioning is progressing? All this work to bring the pillars to fruition highlights the intensity of shared mutual trust. Indeed, the evolution of AUKUS is being watched with positive interest by New Zealand, Japan and South Korea, all of which have security concerns.
Of considerable and enduring importance, AUKUS offers a concerted attempt to integrate our top civil and private companies with our own industrial base. This will in turn stimulate the British economy by providing jobs and improving skills—a transformative boost, particularly for the local economy of Barrow-in-Furness, where the new submarines will be built. In fact, as Barrow is so pivotal to AUKUS, I must ask the Minister if he is satisfied that there is an adequate skills base there, what we are doing to upgrade it and whether the transportation system in and around Barrow is appropriate for the construction of AUKUS submarines.
The people of the United Kingdom want to live in a world free from coercion and blatant aggression. Today, this vision is under increasing pressure. We thus need bold new ideas, and to pursue them in tandem with our closest allies and partners. AUKUS is key to this. It is about investing in and with our partners, shoulder to shoulder, for the future, so that we can uphold and maintain the international order that has benefited us and many others so greatly.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, while the events in Ukraine and the Middle East have understandably engrossed the world’s attention, we have seen developments in the Indo-Pacific that signal its increasing geopolitical centrality: in 2022, China struck a security pact with the Solomon Islands; in January, Nauru switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China; and, a month ago, Papua New Guinea confirmed early-stage talks with Beijing on a security and policing agreement. Post AUKUS, Chinese-driven media activity across several Pacific island nations demonstrates that China regards the agreement as a major impediment to its geopolitical ambitions, as does its concerted diplomatic pressure on smaller nations across the region.
I do not question the aims of AUKUS, but I have three questions about our approach to realising those aims and our capacity so to do. The first is about the future of submarine warfare. The last two years have seen advances in uncrewed submarine capabilities by our allies and our strategic adversaries. In Russia, the K-329 Belgorod submarines emerged—unmanned nuclear-powered submarines that purportedly offer nuclear-strike capabilities, as well as deterrence support. Last year, North Korea unveiled its first nuclear-armed unmanned submarine.
While encouraged by our own Project Cetus, I ask whether any assessment has been made of the extent, if any, that crewed, nuclear-strike submarines will have been superseded by the time Australia is building SSN-AUKUS boats. Given the rapidity of relevant technology advances, it would be useful to know if any such work has been or is likely to be commissioned.
Secondly, on our industrial capacity, can we meet our obligations under the AUKUS agreement’s optimal pathway? Each of the last Astute-class submarines under commission took around 130 months to complete. We are told that HMS “Agincourt” will commission after a 99-month build. Why does the MoD believe that we will be able to complete work on HMS “Agincourt” 31 months more rapidly than we did for the previous four submarines in the class and 13 months faster than BAE Systems has ever built an Astute?
Lastly, on the reliability of the MoD’s financial estimates, on 7 December I asked why the three services have different approaches to cost forecasting, with the Navy and RAF including predicted costs for the capabilities planned while the Army includes only what it can afford. The noble Earl the Minister said that he was in “entire agreement” on the question of consistency and conceded that in 40 years of looking at budgets he had
“never seen a budget that resembles anything like this one”.—[Official Report, 7/12/23; col. 1570.]
On top of this supervening inconsistency, we have seen the NAO describe the MoD’s equipment plan to 2033 as “unaffordable”; the MoD’s own worst-case forecast concedes a funding gap of almost £30 billion. What financial contingencies has the Minister’s department instituted or considered to ensure that we meet all our pillar 1 and 2 AUKUS obligations? Any assurance in the Minister’s answers to these questions would be extremely welcome.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests: I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy and chair of Wilton Park.
On 13 February, the Foreign Secretary broadly answered the question that we have put to ourselves today. I will return to two of the areas that he raised to pursue them further. He referred to the gain of about £4 billion-worth of contracts in generating thousands of jobs. I urge the Minister that we talk about AUKUS and job generation in a much wider context. As the noble Lord, Lord Risby, rightly said, this will be over several electoral cycles and some very difficult budget settlements; it therefore must be seen in the context of our national security and the freedom of the high seas, which is important to our prosperity.
The Foreign Secretary also referred to progress made on ITAR. He used an interesting phrase:
“a troubling issue that British Governments have had to deal with for decades with American Governments”.
He acknowledged that
“it is essential that AUKUS partners can trade freely between each other in defence equipment”.
He suggested in his answer that real progress had been made when
“President Biden signed the US National Defense Authorization Act, which enables licence-free trade between the AUKUS countries”,
but he added a note of caution by saying,
“and we are working with the State Department on the technical details to make sure that really happens”.—[Official Report, 13/2/24; col. 143.]
If, at its heart, AUKUS is a technology-accelerator agreement for the purpose of national defence, it is important for current members—and to any discussions about widening it, particularly to Japan and South Korea—that the ITAR question is satisfactorily resolved. Otherwise, we will not be able to trade freely.
I think that it is generally accepted that the current membership of AUKUS pillar 1 is unlikely to have additional partners, but when it comes to pillar 2, on advanced military technology, we might even look at countries such as Canada. I suggest that the Minister should also not forget about the importance of France as a major Indo-Pacific power.
The key issue that I want to leave the Minister with is that Bloomberg recently estimated that if there were to be a blockade on the Taiwan Strait it would cost the economy some $10 trillion. All these debates, whether on AUKUS, additional partners or technology, have to be seen in the context of free world trade, the freedom of the high seas and our collective prosperity.
Lord Walney (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for securing this debate. Momentum is crucial in AUKUS, not only because there is no time to waste in building up the capability and deterrence factor, but also because we should not assume that public and political opinion across our partner nations will remain static without clear signs of progress. It is vital that we make that progress on both pillars.
As the noble Lord, Lord Risby, rightly said, much of pillar 1 rests on the workforce. We need to get on with integrating and training across the UK and Australia in particular, which will co-operate deeply on SSN-AUKUS. What progress have the Government made in delivering specific AUKUS visas to enable workforce transfer in this regard?
Our country needs more advanced engineers, full stop. It particularly needs to be able to attract them into this specific programme. Key to that, as the noble Lord, Lord Risby, said, is building up Barrow’s capability and the nuclear capability in Derby. Both those towns need the infrastructure to attract and sustain the significant rise in numbers that will be needed. If the Minister wants to share with us what announcements will be made in the Budget next week on that, we would all be very grateful. This really is investing to save, because unless we can get the workforce up to speed, the cost overrun will dwarf anything that will be spent on the necessary infrastructure measures.
Team Barrow is doing heroic work, but a great responsibility rests on its shoulders. The engagement from the Cabinet Secretary, the Levelling-up Secretary and others is genuinely remarkable, but I hope that the Government will specifically focus on ensuring there is the institutional capacity in local institutions to deliver the economic development that is needed. The future of local enterprise partnerships remains in doubt across the country and development corporations have had difficulties. There needs to be something more in place.
Finally, the Government must ensure that pillar 2 is a concurrent commitment and not sequential. We need greater engagement with industry and we need Ministers consistently to show the public that this is an economic and security priority. Without that, we will not hope to maintain the consensus that is needed.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Risby, on securing this timely debate. I support the AUKUS partnership with two of our strongest allies and welcome the progress made so far. However, although the United Kingdom still likes to regard itself as one of the world’s leading military powers, that claim is becoming ever more difficult to stand over, given the ongoing depletion of our Armed Forces. This is especially worrying at a time when our nation and the West face a greater threat from Russia than for many decades.
Against such a worrying backdrop, I find it astonishing that His Majesty’s Government continue to preside over such a brutal reduction in the size of the British Army. Under their watch, the Army is now a professional force of around 73,000 personnel. This compares with around 100,000 in 2010. This underlines why working in partnership with other nations is so critical for our security, although it should not be as vital as it currently is. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether there are plans to expand the AUKUS partnership beyond its current membership? The Legatum Institute has published a report recommending the integration of Canada into AUKUS pillar 2. Is this being considered?
It is obviously the case that the United States is by some distance the lead partner of the three current members, so much so that the outcome of the forthcoming US presidential election could be pivotal to the AUKUS agreement remaining in place. Can the Minister advise the Committee whether Mr Donald Trump has indicated his support for the creation of AUKUS and, more importantly, given a commitment to throw the full weight of his Administration behind it should he regain the presidency in November?
Last year, when announcing new funding to support the AUKUS programme, the Prime Minister suggested that it could create thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell me whether any of these jobs will come to Belfast, which, as we well know, has such a long and illustrious history, both in shipbuilding at Harland & Wolff and in supplying the defence sector at Thales Air Defence Ltd, formerly Shorts Missiles Systems?
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, mentioned the situation in the South China Sea region. The Committee will know of my unwavering support for the Government of Taiwan and my determination to protect their people from the aggressive actions of the communist regime in Beijing. Given the global reach of AUKUS and the US Government’s recent welcome decision to sell arms worth $75 million to Taiwan, has it been made clear to the democratically elected representatives in Taipei that the partnership stands fully with them and against the increasingly frequent incursions of Chinese military aircraft across the median line of the Taiwan Strait into Taiwan’s northern air defence identification zone?
Similarly, we simply cannot put up with the constant straying of Chinese military vessels into Taiwanese territorial waters, with the most recent incident occurring as recently as Monday of this week, when five Chinese coastguard ships approached the frontier line in Kinmen.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, when the Foreign Secretary answered Questions on AUKUS the week before last, he was euphoric, absolutely unbounded, in his enthusiasm for the agreement. I happily agreed with him on the undoubted attractions of AUKUS. I fully understand the potential upsides, particularly to the defence industrial base, jobs and national advantage. I did not want to appear cynical, but I asked him whether there had been any slightly more cautionary voices in the relevant NSC discussion regarding AUKUS. I have to say that I felt the Foreign Secretary was politely dismissive of the risks that I raised, such as losing, or at least leaking, specially nuclear-qualified personnel to Australia and the risks of cost escalation in a programme that might rapidly become non-discretionary in nature. In opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Risby, spoke of sustained expenditure until at least 2040.
From the Library pack provided to inform this short debate, I also now see that, as well as the self-evident delivery risk in increasing the drumbeat of submarine production, there appears to be a significant liability for British submarines to conduct both operational tours and extended port visits to Australia throughout the long period involved in generating the Australian capability. I worry that this must surely place at risk the operational requirements, at least for what we call two-boat availability, for standing tasks in closer-to-home waters.
Therefore, I again ask the Minister: has there been any recognition or discussion of attendant risks to this agreement and how to mitigate them? Or does it now represent an irreversible commitment which might place further constraints on the future flexibility required to bring into balance defence policy aspiration and the MoD’s available funding?
One might be tempted to ask similar questions about the Global Combat Air Programme, GCAP, a parallel initiative with Japan and Italy. Let me be clear: I am a huge supporter of advanced technology but, equally, I am concerned that the continued addiction of our procurement processes to pursuing ever more exquisite capabilities risks a future defence capability programme that, because it is underfunded, is also completely unbalanced.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, AUKUS is an acronym for a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. There are two pillars, with defence capabilities, and in the first a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet for Australia, supported by the UK and the USA. The second pillar is co-operation in advanced capability, including AI.
As a trustee of Policy Exchange, I can say that we coined the term “Indo-Pacific”, as opposed to “Asia-Pacific”, as it used to be referred to. With the UK’s renewed policy focus in the Indo-Pacific, this is very timely. We have just joined the CPTPP. Should we join Quad, with India, the USA, Japan and Australia? The UK joining would make it Quad Plus, and we would circle the world. With our membership of NATO and Five Eyes, our security would be enhanced. However, would the Minister not agree—I am like a stuck record—that we should be spending 3% of GDP on defence? As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, our Armed Forces, the Army, Navy and Air Force, are too small in numbers of people and short of equipment—and I say that as a proud honorary group captain in 601 Squadron of the Royal Air Force.
The Prime Minister assured us last March that an additional £5 billion would be provided by the MoD for the AUKUS programme and sustained funding would be provided. The Government have also said that this would create thousands of jobs here in the UK and, of course, in Australia.
Gideon Rachman wrote an excellent article in the FT just three days ago, where he said:
“China has repeatedly attacked Aukus as dangerous and confrontational. Shortly after it was launched, Boris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister at the time, gleefully lampooned the ‘raucous squawkus from the anti-Aukus caucus’”.
Gideon Rachman concluded his article by saying:
“The pact is ultimately a statement of resolve and long-term commitment. It is based on a shared perception of the growing strategic threat from China and Russia as they work together to overturn the current international order. That perception seems more pressing and valid than ever”.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for initiating this debate and raising awareness of AUKUS, which people need to know more about. I love the way he referred to it as a technology-accelerator agreement. There is huge potential in enhancing our security and powering ahead with our innovation and research and development capabilities—all things at which this country has always been absolutely brilliant.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Risby, on sponsoring this important and timely debate. AUKUS is an agreement of the greatest significance, a very high-tech defence project within the non-proliferation framework. It is also a significant opportunity for Australia, Britain and the United States for employment and the development of leading-edge technology.
From all that we hear, things in general are proceeding well, but it is still very early days for AUKUS. My understanding is that there has been solid progress on where the project needs to go, but there remains a great deal of detail to be decided. I want to look at some detail on the workings between the partners.
The three countries are close allies, but there is a need for vigilance so that the opportunities and benefits are shared equally. The United States has a particular strength—an admirable strength—in defence technology. This is a very good thing. But there is a risk, and a very real one, that the tech opportunities will be taken by the United States at the expense of Australia and Britain. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that Britain and Australia benefit appropriately, as envisaged in what I believe to be the spirit and intent of the agreement? We need to be confident that the benefits are mutual.
It is intended that the UK and Australia also grow and enhance their technological, business and academic bases. The protection of IP is essential for the development of our industrial, academic and research bases. It is also vital for Britain and Australia to maintain and grow employment, especially under pillar 1. We also need to be vigilant to ensure that Britain does not end by losing skills, not least experienced Royal Navy engineers, to our very good Australian friends.
In a project of this scale and importance, it is essential that what might be termed a common information infrastructure is established, especially for the delivery of pillar 2 capabilities. We are assured that an advanced capabilities forum is in the process of being established as an essential vehicle for the exchange of information between government and industry trilaterally.
For Britain and Australia, negotiations to gain approval under the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations regime—ITAR—as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, could inadvertently handicap broader UK exports outside of the AUKUS partners. Discussions with ITAR must be carefully handled, and with great attention.
A final point: the three nations are close allies and very good friends. The behaviour between them over the next 20 years and more will be critical to the success of AUKUS. Given its long-term nature, it is necessary to bear in mind that there will be elections in each country, very likely at different times, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Risby. There is a need for great tact and understanding between the partners. What thoughts does the Minister have has on this serious requirement?
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the world has changed and it should now be defined more globally. We are approaching a crossroads and, as with the last Cold War, two well-defined camps are emerging. There was a “never again” collective relief last time around; however, a new extended cold war now appears inevitable. Deterrence, though, might become essential. This makes AUKUS timely, but it should be seen as a building block. No single alliance is what is required, but rather a multiple.
We and the European Union, together with those with similar values, must become more brutal in our mindset and prepare in haste for a series of defence and security hubs to act for the common good. With nuclear proliferation and the fear of using those arms potentially dissipating—I come from a school of thought subscribing to the view that nuclear arms are more a form of blackmail—and with the current make-up of the UN Security Council not allowing it to do what it was constructed to do, there is an immediate need for NATO and Five Eyes collectively to create a tight command structure to thwart those who wish us ill. EU and US leaders present and future, together, I suggest, with the inclusion of Canada in the Five Eyes network, should collectively see this as a priority, with the clear participation of India to be encouraged in one form or another.
The adage “Out of area, out of business” has relevance now, as it did when a past NATO Secretary-General observed succinctly the West’s necessity
“to deal collectively with the multiplying threats and instabilities of this new era”.
Sanity and pragmatism are critical for these new times. Sabre-rattling should not automatically be perceived as a slow drumbeat to war, however; only strength will ensure a safer and more coherent world.
I conclude with three observations. First, China has a longer-term play than being a participant in war; secondly, beware Russia and the GIUK gap, which, together with the Arctic northern sea route, can play a strategic and deceptive role; thirdly but importantly, we should urgently build the network and invest in those countries with which we and others have had an historical association. Failure to do so makes them a soft target.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my shareholdings as in the register, particularly in the Potteries-based Goodwin plc, which is a major supplier of castings to the US and UK submarine programmes.
Parallel to AUKUS Australia is, pleasingly, spending $7.25 billion to increase its number of combat vessels from 11 to 26. It intends shortly to sign a “very significant” defence co-operation agreement with Indonesia. Is the Minister aware of this and could he comment?
Perhaps the Minister could also comment on the capacity of Barrow, its expansion physically and the workforce there. Our submarine-building programme has been characterised by cost and time overruns. Have any comparisons been made with the United States, in the sense that there are possible lessons to be learned? Can he also tell us what the current manning level of our existing submarines is, and are there any plans to increase the number of submariners?
Is there a concern that a percentage of the workforce in Barrow may well emigrate to Australia? No doubt, Barrow has many attractions, but Australia is of course somewhat warmer. How many Australian military and civilians are embedded with the Royal Navy or are on any sites? Pillar 2 talks of deep space advanced radar capability. Are there going to be any new United Kingdom radar sites?
Finally, Goodwin raised two matters with me. First, the United States orders submarines in blocks and is in the process of procuring materials and components for the next 17 under one purchase order, with obvious savings. The United Kingdom, Goodwin tells me, tends to purchase for each boat separately. Larger and longer purchase orders for AUKUS would be beneficial. Secondly, forgings are mission-critical to submarine construction. United Kingdom forging suppliers are buying ingots from eastern Europe, with obvious negative implications. Goodwin tells me that can supply ingots here. Perhaps the Minister can look into this United Kingdom opportunity.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my entry in the register of interests and specifically to my roles with the Royal Navy. I join all noble Lords present in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Risby, on securing such an important and timely debate.
The world has changed beyond all recognition in the past decade. When I was elected to the other place, there was little discussion of the potential threat posed by China. It was the height of the golden era of Sino-British relations under the then Prime Minister, now the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Inquiries by the Defence Select Committee, of which I was a member, into the strategic importance of the South China Sea were broadly ignored. The world has moved on, as have our relations with China. The Indo-Pacific is now a core operating environment and our relations with key allies throughout it are a cornerstone of our mutual security.
In that context, His Majesty’s Opposition of course support the AUKUS alliance and consider the security pact to be a welcome formalisation and deepening of the relationship with two of our strongest allies. That does not mean that we do not have some questions for the Minister, however.
The delivery of both pillars of AUKUS requires us to consider this not as a defence programme but as a national endeavour, as the noble Lord, Lord Risby, highlighted. On pillar 1, the Labour Party strongly welcomes the announcement of the SSN-AUKUS collaboration. We want these boats to be built in the UK. We want to see new infrastructure at Barrow and a multigenerational commitment to and investment in the next generation of SSNs. For our part, a future Government will build on our Indo-Pacific commitments through UK technology, capability, diplomacy and closer defence industrial co-operation. We will strive to make the potential of both pillars of AUKUS a reality.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Walney, a future Labour Government will build the next generation of AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines in Barrow, and we consider the UK-Australia-US security pact at the heart of AUKUS to be above party-political consideration. Our national security is not a matter for party politics. However, we need assurances from the Government that they are doing the groundwork now in order to deliver the promise of AUKUS. Can the Minister therefore answer the following questions?
Responses to several Parliamentary Questions in the other place have made it clear that clarity is lacking on who in the department has responsibility for AUKUS, and that only a part-time SRO is dedicated to the project. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is clear leadership and sufficient resources for the successful delivery of this programme? On pillar 2, what capabilities are the Government prioritising in order to deliver innovation to our UK Armed Forces, alongside our AUKUS allies, as part of this programme? At the moment, pillar 2 seems to lack clarity and direction. Can the Minister assist noble Lords and begin to put flesh on the bones? Given the long-term commitment to AUKUS pillar 1, will the Minister set out how he intends to ensure that the UK defence industry has the skills it needs to deliver the AUKUS submarines on schedule, especially given current programme delays?
AUKUS is an incredibly important part of the next phase of our national security, complementing our NATO commitments and building on Five Eyes. Our job now is to make it work.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Risby for initiating this debate and to all noble Lords for their constructive and extremely thoughtful contributions. It is fair to say that I have never been asked more questions in such a short period, so I will be doing quite a lot of writing. However, I hope to pick them all up either now or through answering some of the more specific ones.
It is indeed two and a half years since we launched the AUKUS defence and security partnership to bolster global security alongside our equal American and Australian allies. Since then, the challenges to address have become more acute. Putin has brought war to Europe, tensions have heightened in the Indo-Pacific, and terrorism and violence have been unleashed in the Middle East. Military coups have toppled Governments across the Sahel and the Houthis are holding global trade hostage in the Red Sea. Each of these global security setbacks magnifies the need to advance our military capabilities through partnerships such as AUKUS. This is about much more than building the next generation of submarines and other capabilities. It is also about establishing a more sustainable industrial base and developing the skills for the future. With that in mind, I will provide an update on the progress we have made on the various AUKUS workstreams and I will try to address the questions raised by the noble Lords.
First, AUKUS pillar 1 is our commitment to help Australia develop a conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capability. Last March, AUKUS leaders announced that this new platform would be based on designs for the UK’s next-generation submarine that will replace our current Astute class. They will incorporate cutting-edge US technologies and will be the largest, most advanced and most powerful attack submarines ever operated by the Royal Navy. They will enhance our capability to operate in the north Atlantic and will further our objectives around the world. They will be built in Australia and the UK and will enter service with the Royal Navy in the late 2030s, and with the Royal Australian Navy in the late 2040s. This phased delivery will enable us to work together to build up the facilities, skills and experience needed for all partners to operate the vessels both safely and securely.
I was delighted to see the Australian high commissioner and his deputy earlier this week. We had a very positive, enthusiastic conversation about precisely this point on skills, training and experience. The opportunity of working ever more closely together on this critical task, developing joint skills and sustainable employment for decades to come across all three nations should be rightly celebrated, and that work is well under way.
The Government have committed an additional £5 billion up to 2025 to modernise the UK’s nuclear enterprise and fund the next phase of the AUKUS submarine programme. It is obviously very difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, rightly knows, to budget very accurately when we are talking about 2030, which is years ahead. However, the determination is there to ensure that the procurement process is both accurate and timely.
AUKUS partners BAE, Babcock and Rolls-Royce have already been awarded contracts worth £4 billion to procure long-lead components for the submarines. This will support thousands of highly skilled jobs in the UK, particularly in Barrow, where the UK’s submarines will be constructed, and at the Rolls-Royce Raynesway site in Derby, which will double in size to manufacture all the reactors for the UK and Australian subs, creating around 1,100 new jobs. We have also accelerated nuclear co-operation and training between AUKUS partners, offering enhanced opportunities for Australian sailors to train in the UK and the US, including on non-nuclear submarines, and we have committed to more planned visits to the US and nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.
On pillar 2, although the media spotlight has shone brightest on our submarine collaborations under pillar 1, AUKUS has always been about a much broader range of defence and industrial collaboration under pillar 2. From better information and technology sharing to new cutting-edge joint capabilities and more seamless interoperability, as well as strengthening the resilience of our defence sectors, these objectives were centre stage at the AUKUS defence ministerial meeting in December, where Ministers announced new pillar 2 capability programmes on AI, autonomous systems, threat detection, undersea warfare, quantum technologies and cybersecurity, as well as a separate deep space advanced radar programme and a programme of industrial engagement. We are making steady progress with many of these capabilities and, wherever possible, we will continue to be transparent and provide updates as we reach important milestones or embark on new endeavours.
Our ambition to deliver nuclear-powered submarines for Australia will remain trilateral. However, as our work progresses on AUKUS advanced capabilities—pillar 2—and other critical defence and security capabilities, we are open to engaging with allies and close partners. Defence Ministers also announced new future combined exercises, including a joint exercise in the autumn of 2024 off the east coast of Australia to test new equipment to protect critical underwater infrastructure, including autonomous systems. Joint exercises such as this improve our ability to work together and enhance the development of new capabilities.
My noble friend Lord Risby is absolutely right to raise the important function of the AUKUS working groups, which continue to progress the ambition set out in December by Defence Ministers. I am also grateful to him for highlighting the pivotal role that Barrow will play as a home of UK submarine-building. The Government have committed £5 million to support the long-term delivery board for Barrow and are working in close co-operation with Westmorland and Furness Council and BAE Systems to develop that community. With the infrastructure to support this ambition, it should be a thriving place for people to work and live. That includes local transportation and other community projects.
Critical to the success of AUKUS and the strength of the partnership is our ability to forge deeper and more seamless ties between our nations right across the defence sector, so we were delighted that Congress recently passed legislation to establish an AUKUS nations exemption to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations—ITAR—for the UK and Australia. I understand some of the concerns about the small print of this, but the principle having been taken is a very significant step in the right direction.
Closer collaboration and exchanges between our businesses and experts will drive innovation, enable us to make the most of emerging technologies and provide an opportunity for UK defence companies to turbocharge exports. To further grease the wheels of innovation and trade, we have established the advanced capabilities industry forum and will shortly publish the first AUKUS innovation challenge, deepening those crucial links between our three systems to ensure we support the development of skills fit for the future workforce.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. He just mentioned the AUKUS advanced capabilities industry forum and collaboration with trade and industry. That is absolutely spot on, but no one mentions working with universities. Is there not huge potential for the AUKUS programme, in the USA, Australia and here in the UK, to work with our world-class universities to turbocharge this programme? I am chancellor of the University of Birmingham, which last week won a Queen’s Anniversary Prize at Buckingham Palace for its work with Rolls-Royce on aero-engines. It is so powerful. Should we not be promoting this more?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I could not agree more. Rolls-Royce is in the process of doubling its graduate intake between 2022 and 2025, and taking on an enormous number of apprentices over the next 10 years to ensure that we build up this capability of proper, genuine, well-paid and highly skilled jobs for life—exactly the sort of thing that the noble Lord refers to.
Alongside our AUKUS partners, we have also committed to co-operate on the deep space advanced radar capability programme. Although DARC is not part of AUKUS as a result of the particular nature of regulatory requirements covering space-related technologies, it is a clear benefit from the closer trilateral working relationship that we have forged through our AUKUS partnership. That shows the breadth of thinking that AUKUS is projecting.
A couple of noble Lords raised our non-proliferation obligations. As part of the AUKUS programme, we have engaged extensively with the International Atomic Energy Agency, as noble Lords would expect. The UK, the US and Australia are fully committed to an approach that protects classified information and strengthens the global regime.
On the question of other strategic allies in the Indo-Pacific, such as Canada, Japan or indeed South Korea, which was mentioned, we already enjoy close defence relationships.
On exchanges, we currently have three Australian officers embedded in the Royal Navy submarine officer nuclear training pipeline and two Royal Australian Navy personnel embedded in the Submarine Delivery Agency in the Defence Nuclear Organisation. An advanced verification team formed of experts from all three partner countries visited Pearl Harbour and Faslane last year to build our understanding of the maintenance and industrial skills required to maintain nuclear submarines.
I shall just go through some of the specific questions. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked about costs and contingencies. In addition to the £3 billion extra provided to our Defence Nuclear Organisation, I confirm that there will be sustained funding to support the AUKUS programme over the next decade. It will be a process of iteration but the commitment is absolutely there.
Can we really build submarines faster than ever before? We have a commitment from our industrial partners and confidence in that. Rolls-Royce is producing the reactors and we have invested billions of pounds in both Barrow and Derby. As I said, we have committed to more than 1,000 new jobs already.
It is better that I write to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about our assessment of uncrewed submarines.
At this time, it is not for me to comment on President Trump and the presidential candidates’ views. At the moment, all three parties are confident of the longevity of the tripartite agreement.
On the question of jobs in Belfast, there is indeed a very proud tradition and industrial past of shipbuilding in Northern Ireland and across the UK. I take the point: Barrow-in-Furness has the licence and capability to build the submarines, but I am certain that there will be a lot of SME opportunity that includes Northern Ireland. In fact, we will ensure that it does.
In closing, I express my gratitude once again to my noble friend Lord Risby for initiating this important debate on AUKUS. Our national defences have always been dependent on the strength of our resolve, the quality of our people and capabilities, and the power of our alliances. In our more dangerous world, the AUKUS partnership is strengthening all three of these elements. Our adversaries may be aligning but, through AUKUS, the UK, the US and Australia have become ever more connected, prepared and lethal. AUKUS is a partnership building bridges across the Atlantic and the Pacific. It is a partnership for the future that, I hope, will keep us safe for generations to come.
Overhead Electrical Transmission Lines
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Swire
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the advantages of burying overhead electrical transmission lines.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to open this debate and I am most grateful to noble Lords who have signed up for it. Many more have approached me elsewhere to say that they cannot be here, but they feel as strongly about it. I start by conceding that it may seem a little eccentric or self-indulgent to have a debate on this subject when so much is going wrong elsewhere in the world, but it is an incredibly important subject, and one that we need to be very aware of in terms of the implications going forward.
Let me say at the outset that I fully recognise the Government’s commitment to reach their target of net zero by 2050, and the challenges of achieving that in a difficult planning environment. They are encountering the same difficulties in reaching their housebuilding targets. Everyone—or at least most people—is signed up to the principle of more housing; the problem starts when the new housing is going to be anywhere near them. I believe that that can be overcome by good design, with houses built in the right place, and by building housing that actually enhances existing communities rather than detracting from them. Unfortunately, with powerlines, we do not seem to be faced with any such choice.
National Grid, which noble Lords will hear a lot about in the next few minutes, estimates that there are more than 22,000 transmission pylons across England and Wales, made up of 4,500 miles of overhead cables and only 900 miles of underground cables. I think that I am writing saying that, where National Grid is the distribution network operator—known in the business as the DNO—as in the Midlands and in my part of the world, the south-west, south Wales and so forth, the network is made up of a further 60,000 miles of overhead lines and 83,900 miles of underground cables. These figures are set to increase dramatically. National Grid’s “Great Grid Upgrade” includes proposals for hundreds of miles of high-voltage overhead lines right across great swathes of our countryside, all held up by pylons.
I acknowledge from the outset that overhead transmission lines are cheaper than the alternatives. The Parsons-Brinckerhoff report states that,
“overhead line (OHL) is the cheapest transmission technology for any given route length or circuit capacity, with the lifetime cost estimates varying between £2.2m and £4.2m per kilometre”.
Why we use kilometres I do not know, but we seem to from time to time. It continues by saying:
“Underground cable (UGC), direct buried, is the next cheapest technology after overhead line, for any given route length or circuit capacity. It thus also represents the least expensive underground technology, with the lifetime cost estimate varying between £10.2m and £24.1m per kilometre”.
It is precisely these figures that the Government pray in aid time and again to defend their policy. Further, in the National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure, EN-1 contains a
“strong presumption in favour of pylons”.
The Prime Minister has described a lack of electrical infrastructure, such as cables, pylons and substations as
“one of our biggest constraints to reaching net zero”,
and described the 14 years that it takes to get some projects under way as “unacceptable”.
We know that grid capacity has to double to transport energy from offshore wind, solar farms and other renewable sources to meet demand, which is anticipated to double by 2050. Nick Winser, the UK’s first Electricity Networks Commissioner, says that our policies are out of date, and we need £54 billion worth of new grid infrastructure by 2030.
All this has huge significance for our country, particularly our countryside. There are good and bad ways of achieving net zero, and this is a bad way. One of the main problems is the lack of joined-up, long-term thinking, not least when it comes to bringing offshore-generated electricity onshore. Can my noble friend the Minister please explain why substations are located offshore in countries such as Holland and Belgium—I understand that Denmark and Germany intend to follow suit—yet current UK policy is that instead of pooling power from the 18 or so wind farms and interconnectors in need of connection points to the UK, National Grid is offering each and every project a connection one by one? If this was not folly enough, having the substations onshore is even worse. Scottish Power wants to build, inland at Friston village near Aldeburgh in Suffolk, a substation which would be 50 feet high and cover 30 acres. Surely we can be smarter than that.
While I am on the subject of wind turbines, can the Minister confirm that they take 15 to 20 years to become carbon neutral and that the engines need replacing after 10 years?
Today, East Anglia is in the firing line. It faces the prospect of 100 miles of new pylons cutting a swathe through some of our most beautiful and historic countryside. It is tragic and, to my way of thinking, vandalism. It is true that Ofgem, through the visual impact provision, has identified £500 million to help reduce the visual impact in areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks, and National Grid runs a landscape enhancement initiative as part of this project. But when I last looked, National Grid’s revenue was almost £5.5 billion last year, with profits up by 15% and a net profit margin of over 13%. John Pettigrew, National Grid’s chief executive, boasted:
“A record £7.7 billion has been invested in building clean, smart energy infrastructure and maintaining world class reliability across our networks”.
What about its East Anglia green initiative? It looks good because it is transporting renewable or clean energy, but at what cost? The cost is 180 kilometres of 400 kilovolt overhead cables, 50-metre-high pylons, except in Dedham Vale, where they will be buried, and a new 400 kilovolt connective station near Colchester.
What consideration has been given to alternatives, such as cable ploughing—in other words, ploughing the cable straight into the ground rather than having to dig up 120-metre-wide swathes of our countryside—or using DC instead of AC, which requires a narrower trench? What is the Minister’s view of TS Conductor’s new generation of super lightweight and super strong conductors? I think I am right in saying that the UK Government are an investor in that company. They are already installed in the US and have the great benefit of being able to transmit five to six times more power—critically, using existing infrastructure, the net gain being that fewer pylons would then be needed. This calls for more creative thinking from all those involved.
Incidentally, I wrote to the papers about the onshore distribution of electricity some ago, when I saw that the Crown Estate is proposed to gain many billions of pounds from renewable energy. It has let it be known at a very high level that it wishes the money generated from those profits to be ploughed back for the public good. What better way to spend that money than on burying all the cables that this offshore wind will generate?
The offshore distribution of electricity needs a major overhaul to meet new demand in different places. The offshore grid in the North Sea needs much better integration, which would save £2 billion and reduce overall infrastructure by 50%. We need to be more protective of our countryside, our green and pleasant land, before we wake up to find that we are too late.
The late Poet Laureate, Ted Hughes, wrote in his poem “Telegraph Wires”, which was part of his collection, Wolfwatching, about
“The Striding Steel Sentries
Marching across the land”,
describing them as “mighty metal monsters” and concluding,
“If we didn’t have them
Darkness would be our fate”.
But that was written in 1989, and the technology available to us has moved on considerably. We do not have to have mighty metal monsters marching across our land to transmit the technology; there are other ways. As the technology improves, more choice should be available to the consumer.
I simply do not understand how we can reconcile patting ourselves on the back by importing more renewable and green energy if the cost of that will be to desecrate our natural habitats and unrivalled landscapes at the same time.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Swire for initiating this important debate. I consider myself extremely fortunate to live in a beautiful part of the UK, with all its rolling hills, scenery and landscapes, but I am not the only one who is extremely fortunate—there are all the local businesses, which are dependent on tourism and on visitors who regularly make the trip to visit the area.
Tourism is one of the most important sectors of the rural economy; it is worth over £29 billion per annum and accounts for around 12% of rural employment. In fact, such is the Government’s belief that we should encourage more people to enjoy the countryside and improve the quality of our rural tourism experience that they are making a number of investments, one of which is that Defra will provide up to £2 million to enable local communities to enhance their tourism offer by improving public rights of way.
I believe that, if you were to conduct a straw poll of what visitors to the countryside most want to enjoy, a walk in the fresh air taking in the surroundings would be close to the top of their agenda. People of all ages and mobility can enjoy the experience. It is a magnificent draw for young children to run to their hearts’ content in the fields and exhaust themselves with fresh air and exercise. Young parents or couples can take a break from the busy life they may lead in a city and enjoy some quality downtime surrounded by nature, while the older generation who may not be able to participate in team sport or vigorous exercise are able to work on their daily 20,000 steps amid beautiful scenery.
Spending time in nature helps with anxiety and depression, while at the same time we know that physical exercise has multiple benefits in reducing obesity and maintaining positive mental health. It therefore appears that the benefits of visiting the countryside, going for a walk and enjoying the scenery have multiple positives for both our health and well-being. To quote John Keats:
“Happy is England! I could be content
To see no other verdure than its own”.
It is important that we take special care to retain our glorious countryside and ensure that the use of overhead electrical transmission lines is minimised, given that we have the ability to bury them underground. We already have 4,500 miles of OHL, and of these there are around 356 miles in areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. The Visual Impact Provision project and Landscape Enhancement Initiative is a great example of the energy industry working together with National Parks England, CPRE, the National Trust, Ramblers and others to restore the magical landscapes—but this is only
“in a number of locations”.
Of those 356 miles flagged, what is the actual number of miles of overhead transmission lines going though those areas that could be replaced by underground cables?
Cost is obviously a key factor in these decisions, and there have been a number of studies on this. Estimates for the cost of underground cables range from five to 10 times more than overhead transmission lines. What I would like to flag up is that many people, including myself, believe that the long-term societal benefits of underground cables significantly outweigh the initial investment costs of OHL and result in minimal cost implications to us as the end consumers over a 40-year time horizon.
Data from Germany and the UK indicates that an increase in the use of underground cables would result in a 1% increase in the total electricity bill for the end consumer, or approximately £15 per annum at the higher end. The reason for this is that grid charges make up less than one-quarter of the actual price of a kilowatt hour, with the largest components being generation costs and government taxes and subsidies.
National Grid carried out a study in 2019, the results of which showed a nationwide willingness to pay an additional £6.87 per household per year to underground a further 20 miles of existing lines in areas of outstanding national beauty and national parks. It appears that the majority of end consumers continue to support the removal of overhead lines from these areas, so have the Government had any discussions with Ofgem to investigate the possibility of increasing energy industry funding for the Visual Impact Provision project? If consumers are prepared to pay more, it would seem logical to ask the energy industry to increase their levy contribution to match consumer commitment.
Can the Government also ensure that all ongoing and future public consultations on OHL versus underground factor into the outcome the multiple benefits of underground cables for society, tourism, wildlife and the nation’s health and well-being, so that the real holistic and economic cost can be discussed? We are talking about protecting the UK countryside not just for now but for future generations. That should be of the utmost importance.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for initiating this debate. He and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, outlined some very powerful points for consideration. I will address a different and more parochial aspect, but also the massive expansion we are likely to face in the coming years.
To give a bit of a personal connection to this, during the winter of 2021-22, two very severe storms hit the UK, Storm Arwen and Storm Malik. This had a direct and dramatic impact, certainly in my part of the world, in Aberdeenshire, but in many other places as well. My home was without power for more than four days during Arwen, and more than three days during Malik. Many others suffered much longer disruption and outages.
It is important to take on board that not only were we without power but so were all the mobile phone masts within a fairly large area. This was aggravated by the fact that BT had replaced its fixed lines with digital lines, which require broadband. Those who were wise enough not to respond to BT or who ignored the email found that they had power. Those of us who did what we were told found we had no communication whatever. The power companies were unaware of this, so they were happily broadcasting online all kinds of information that was totally inaccessible to the people it was aimed at. That was a pretty powerful experience of how these things happen.
To share with noble Lords the consequences of all that, the temperature inside our house dropped to 8 degrees. We were lucky compared with some, as we had a contingency back-up, in that we had not replaced an old solid fuel burning stove, which gave us heat in one room and some hot water. Other people in houses whose fireplaces had been removed had no back-up at all. We were incredibly isolated and incredibly disadvantaged.
The point about this is that the overhead power lines were extremely vulnerable to wind and debris, which brought them down, in addition to which the access roads were blocked by falling trees, so even though people were brought in from all over the UK to tackle this problem, they could not access the places where the cables had broken. Indeed, the local council eventually contacted the Ministry of Defence, and, thankfully, 150 members of the Armed Forces came to our area. All they actually did was house-to-house calls to check where people were and what they needed. As the situation progressed, the companies then provided hot food stands, with no charge to anybody who turned up.
I accept that lessons were learned; nevertheless, this was an emergency that people had not experienced on such a scale, although every time the wind blows, we expect some kind of a power cut. I want to stress that I genuinely believe that undergrounding is about security of supply as well as visual impact.
As it happened, at the end of Storm Arwen the house was coming back and my wife said to me, “There’s no point in you staying here. It’s cold—you might as well go down to London”. The BBC asked, “Are you affected by this?” so I posted on Twitter, not with my title or saying who I was but just as a member of the public. The BBC said, “Would you like to come into a studio somewhere?” I said, “Well, I could come into Millbank”. Only when I walked into the studio did they recognise who I was. My point was that I did not do that because of who I was; I was just a member of the public who was affected by this. When the next storm happened, my neighbour, who I have to say is a very staunch Conservative, said to me, “Will you go back on the BBC again? As soon as you went on, the power came back on”. However, there is a serious point here, and the BBC was impressed by the fact that people were completely incommunicado as well as in a serious situation.
I genuinely want to believe that the idea of undergrounding power lines is about security of supply. We were not the only people affected; the north-east of England was badly affected, as were a lot of other places, so that is an issue. However, in the north-east of Scotland we are of course very familiar with the oil and gas industry, and nobody suggested stringing oil and gas pipes on high poles across the countryside; they have all been undergrounded, right from the outset. It was quite disruptive at the time, but it is totally invisible now. On the interesting point about ploughing, and so on, I believe that with proper planning, the cost of undergrounding could be managed. You might say that water and electricity do not mix, but you could use the same trenches with enough separation. The point that I want to make to the Minister is that the Government should be prepared—though not in all situations; we accept that—to have a proper look as to whether this can be done and in an affordable way.
The other point, which is obviously what prompted the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, is the expansion of onshore and offshore wind and the whole drive towards net zero. Again, I can testify just to local situations in my area where we have offshore wind farms coming ashore. We have already had a massive campaign about an onshore station. That is exactly the point: if you are to have them, why not offshore, and why not collect them together rather than having each one? Surely that has to be addressed. I do not know how it is going to be resolved, because the company has said, “We’re not going ahead with that”. However, it has not said what it will do, so it will have to come up with some alternative. It was interesting that the protest was such that, in one of the few Conservative-held constituencies in Scotland, that changed the policy.
The other problem is that once we have it onshore, we will transmit it to the grid, and you are talking about potentially massively additional power lines to those already there. I do not think any of us are saying that in the short run we should demolish the ones we have, although over time maybe we should replace them. But certainly, on the idea that new power lines should not have a proper assessment of undergrounding, the point the noble Lord, Lord Effingham, made about relative cost over the lifetime relating to the cost of electricity, was interesting. Of course, that cost goes up and down rather sharply but, nevertheless, this seems to suggest that, while it is more expensive, it may be not as expensive as it appears. There are also the benefits in security of supply and the lack of interruption, there are big costs associated with restoring the supply, and then there is the visual impact.
This is a valuable debate and, in a way, I am pleased to see the development. Obviously, a lot of people oppose wind farms offshore and onshore. They are controversial. A very contentious one is currently being applied for, literally at the back of my village, which absolutely nobody supports because of the scale of it. I support them, generally speaking, and feel that most of the ones that have gone ahead in my area have been properly and visually acceptable. However, this one is out of all proportion. We are talking about an 1,800-foot hill with 900-foot turbines installed on it, and I just do not believe that is sensible or credible. But generally speaking, they are fine.
More and more offshore is where we are going, and all that has to be transmitted. So it seems absolutely clear that we have to give a serious think as to how we do that. I would say to any Government, “You’re going to get an awful lot of political reaction to this. There will be public anxiety and there will be protests, so it is better to anticipate it and at least think through what could be done, and consider where and how and at what cost it may make sense to put these cables underground”. However, my own belief is that it will secure the supply and will also meet the environmental requirements of the public.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for bringing this debate before us. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for their contributions so far.
The view coming through is clearly that none of us can underestimate the challenges ahead in being able to deliver the UK’s target to achieve net-zero carbon emissions. It is intense, and it is fair to say that we are already witnessing unprecedented change in the way our electricity is being generated. We recognise the demands this is putting on the industry to deliver, but also on the capacity of the electricity grid to catch up and then keep pace with the dramatic investment and build required.
I think we all know the pressure there is on government. In fact, in talking to businesses about the timescales that they are being quoted for connection to the grid, some of the waiting times we hear of are, frankly, eye-watering. The years quoted—we are talking in years here—start at seven years and go up to 12; even longer waits are not uncommon. From our conversations, I think that these are some of the most problematic areas that industry generally and investors are having to grapple with at the moment. Fortunately, other places around the world have a more attractive set of circumstances; they can go more speedily.
Briefings from industry representatives suggest that it can take around 10 years to build a new transmission line, seven of which can be spent on the consenting and planning side, with just three years on construction. Clearly, our debate today with regard to a preference for underground transmission lines or overhead lines with pylons is critical to understanding some of the reasons for this lengthy process. As we have heard, the context is that the Secretary of State should grant development consent for underground or subsea sections over overhead alternatives only if they are satisfied that the benefits clearly outweigh any extra, economic, social or environmental impacts. The mitigation hierarchy must be followed and technical obstacles must be overcome.
The latest government guidance presumes that the lines will be built overhead, with notable exceptions, as we have heard, including areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. The responses on this have been split, not always in predictable ways. To cut to the point: will the Minister tell us whether the Government feel that expediency or landscape considerations should take precedence? Further, how can he ensure that the correct balance is achieved and delivered consistently across the country, when these planning applications are determined? With regard to the areas of natural beauty and other sensitive areas, can he confirm whether it will just be within the boundaries of those areas, or will consideration be given to the aspect—the areas outside those boundaries that are overlooked by people who go into our national parks to enjoy the natural amenities there?
A recurring concern with overhead lines is connected to their ecological impacts. I do not think we have heard much about that. Some of the evidence coming through in responses to consultations might seem slightly perverse, but this is not straightforward. The RSPB has stated that both overground and underground lines can have detrimental impacts on birds and other wildlife, depending on the terrain—for example, wetland habitats or through the impact of hedgerow removal. Can the Minister comment on this and give us his assessment as to whether a more discretionary, rather than prescriptive, starting presumption might be a better way to manage the ecological impact of implementing new electrical lines? It clearly is not possible to have a one-size-fits-all approach in this area.
We know that, before adding new parts to the electricity network, the transmission owners will always consider first whether they can achieve more capacity by upgrading or enhancing the existing networks. This is quite right and as we would assume. When this is not possible, a robust and transparent options appraisal will follow. Further to assessments flowing from this, planning authorities will work on the proposals in line with the national policy statements, ready to take proposals for decision.
Consultation with local communities and stakeholders then becomes a key component in making progress. A transparent process must be established to gain the confidence of all parties in an attempt to avoid confrontation. Achieving a balanced view on all the available considerations is then the responsibility of local planning authorities and, ultimately, the Government if still contentious.
We can all recall when we had a Question on this in the Chamber. It coincided with the Government’s announcement of their national plan, back in November last year. The Secretary of State announced an ambitious programme to deliver a transformation of the electricity network to support energy security and the transition to net zero. This will include plans to halve the time taken to build new transmission infrastructure and will therefore reduce the time taken for viable projects to connect to the grid.
As we know, local objections have delayed many of these considerations. The Secretary of State also announced plans to introduce “a community benefits package” and
“a national communications campaign to improve public understanding of electricity infrastructure and its benefits”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/23; col. 22WS.]
to enable local communities to make the choice before them. Do we have any more idea what these community packages will look like or what the communications campaign will contain? Could the Minster update us on the proposals and inform us when they will be implemented?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Swire for bringing forward this extremely important issue. It is right that we should debate it. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
I remind noble Lords that the revised national policy statements for energy infrastructure, including a specific one with the catchy title of EN-5 on network infrastructure, came into force less than two months ago. Among other things, these set out the Government’s expectations for the use of undergrounding, which is the practice of laying electricity transmission cables underground and the subject of this debate.
That National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure states, as other noble Lords also recognised, that
“overhead lines should be the strong starting presumption for electricity networks developments in general”.
However, in nationally designated landscapes, such as national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty—for example, Dedham Vale, which my noble friend mentioned—
“the strong starting presumption will be that”
developers
“should underground the relevant section of the line”.
That accounts for the importance of protecting the natural beauty of these areas. That strong starting presumption for overhead lines remains flexible, however, and undergrounding may be used in other areas in certain circumstances—namely, where there is
“a high potential for widespread adverse landscape and/or visual impacts”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, acknowledged this point.
I hope that my noble friends Lord Swire and Lord Effingham are at least partly reassured on the flexibility available in certain locations. Such decisions will be weighed up by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, my noble friend Lord Effingham asked what proportion of overhead cables will be replaced with underground ones. I can advise that only those in protected landscapes would be. It is a relatively small or modest proportion. We acknowledge the beauty of our areas of outstanding natural beauty, hence our starting presumption of undergrounding in these areas.
My noble friends also asked about communications with Ofgem. I am not aware of any specific discussions that we have had with it on the possibility of increasing funding for the visual impact provision projected by the energy industry, but my officials will go back to Ofgem and I will write if we discover any further information or discussions on that subject.
The Government arrived at this policy position for various technical, operational, environmental and, of course, cost reasons. I seek the indulgence of the Committee to talk noble Lords through them, but before we delve into the depths of underground cables, if noble Lords will forgive the pun, and before I turn to the specific points raised I will give some context to the debate.
As Members of the Committee and, I assume, everyone taking part in this debate will know, the Government remain committed to our net-zero targets. To get there, we are accelerating domestic energy production. However, it is similarly critical that we expand our network infrastructure—a point recognised by all noble Lords. Without that, how are we to get the electricity generated in the North Sea, off the coast of Aberdeenshire and the rest of Scotland to the consumers who wish to use it?
To achieve this, we need to build about four times as much transmission infrastructure by 2030 as we built in the previous 30 years. I repeat that point: we need to build four times as much infrastructure by 2030—in five or six years’ time—as was built in the previous 30 years. It will require an estimated £40 billion to £60 billion of investment in our electricity transmission infrastructure by 2050. Let me be straight: in practice that will include building more overhead lines to connect supply to demand. I accept that will be an unpleasant pill to swallow for many in the Committee and, undoubtedly, within the country as a whole and some rural areas. However, it is one that we cannot shy away from.
The reason for that is that there are many benefits to so doing. Overhead lines are much easier to maintain. Trying to identify a fault in an underground cable is like finding a needle in a haystack, with multiple disruptive excavations needed, and often takes many weeks to complete. Overhead lines are much cheaper to build, as has been said. Some estimates suggest that undergrounding may be between five and 10 times more expensive, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned. Costs depend on the topography of an area and other factors. Those costs are ultimately passed on to consumers through their electricity bills. That is a difficult case to make to families up and down this country who are struggling with the cost of living, and it sets a high bar to meet for changing the Government’s policy.
I have talked about the urgent need to accelerate the deployment of new transmission infrastructure, and overhead lines are much quicker to build than underground lines. Some of us think that the time taken to build overground lines is long enough, but it would cost much more if we had to put them all underground. As noble Lords will well know, and have raised, time equals money and the longer the delays to rolling out transmission infrastructure, the higher developers’ constraint costs. Network constraints occur when the electricity transmission system is unable to transmit power to electricity users because the maximum capacity of the circuit is reached. The National Grid electricity system operator manages those constraints by paying generators to switch off or turn down in locations where the network is congested, and to switch on or turn off in locations closer to electricity users. Those constraint costs are ultimately passed on to consumers.
Analysis from National Grid indicates that, if delays to network build persist, annual constraint costs could rise from around £2 billion per year in 2022 to around £8 billion per year in the late 2020s. That would be the equivalent of an extra £80 per household per year. Undergrounding more of our essential transmission infrastructure would, I am afraid to say, only increase that cost to consumers even further.
Let me be clear that undergrounding has an important part to play in developing and delivering our critical network infrastructure, and is rightly the default starting position for protecting our most important landscapes, where overhead lines cannot be rerouted. This helps to mitigate the visual impact associated with overhead lines and pylons, which many communities are understandably concerned about—such as with those natural landscapes in East Anglia to which my noble friend Lord Swire referred. Burying cables underground, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, ably demonstrated and pointed out, also protects them against adverse weather conditions.
Another question that my noble friend Lord Effingham asked was about whether all future consultations on overhead lines can factor in the benefits of undergrounding. It is important for me to emphasise that developers, not government, are responsible for bringing forward the preferred design of an electricity networks project. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, asked how the balance was achieved in all cases by developers—and I assure the noble Baroness that developers take into account many things, including regulatory requirements, planning policy, cost, technical feasibility and environmental impacts. In doing so, it is all about striking a balance between all those different and often competing considerations. The consenting process considers and scrutinises those proposals. Undergrounding transmission is, I am afraid, not a simple change that can be made late in the process of a project’s development; it is something that needs to be considered very early in that process.
My noble friend also warned in his speech that something awful was about to happen to our countryside, by which I presume he is referring to the pipeline of overhead transmission infrastructure waiting to be built. It is equally important to emphasise that we must not downplay the environmental impacts of undergrounding. In fact, installing underground cables requires significant engineering works, which not only prolongs the construction time compared to overhead lines but causes significant damage to the surrounding area. The breadth of land needed for trench cabling, for example, is around the width of a football pitch. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about situating water pipes next to underground electricity cables, I am afraid that that might not be such an efficient prospect after all. Of course, it would serve only to widen that trench even wider.
I move on to the point about the environmental and ecological impacts of overhead cables. The environmental impact of undergrounding, as I said, can be significant and indeed permanent, not only during installation but during operation. It can, in essence, create a somewhat sterilised strip of land where there were once trees and hedgerows, causing habitat and species loss. We should ask ourselves whether that is a price worth paying because of the visual impact of overhead lines; we may have different opinions about that. As with many discussions and considerations of energy policy, it is about balancing out different risks and problems in every area.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I understand what the Minister is saying, but we have certainly had experience of quite a number of pipelines being laid from the north of Scotland right across Scotland. That was years ago, but you would not know where they are now. So, yes, there was disruption at the time, but it settled completely.
The Minister acknowledged as well that security of supply could be an issue. Is that a factor that should be weighed a bit more heavily where there are lines that are systematically prone to disruption on a regular basis, so that undergrounding might be a better offer?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, I absolutely concede the noble Lord’s points but, given the modern policy environment and all the legal impacts, much energy infrastructure that was built many years ago would be very difficult to build today. In past generations, consumers were perhaps much more understanding of installations of nationally significant infrastructure than they are now. I absolutely accept the noble Lord’s point. In all these considerations, it is also about balance—balancing out competing factors, of which cost is one and convenience is another, but security of supply is an equal factor that also needs to be considered. I suspect that the noble Lord is probably considering the low-voltage distribution network rather than the high-voltage transmission aspect of the supply.
My noble friend Lord Swire talked about the different creative technologies available for laying underground cables and asked whether the Government had considered those factors. Ultimately, it is not for the Government to opine on those matters. Those innovative solutions are quite rightly being driven forward by industry and they are a brilliant example of how we can use such innovations to support the delivery of our energy infrastructure ambitions and our net-zero infrastructure. The transmission owners and others are the experts in this field and, of course, we will continue to liaise with and support them in their endeavours.
I hope I have—but I suspect I have not—succeeded in persuading noble Lords that undergrounding is far from being the silver bullet in our endeavour to expand our network transmission infrastructure and meet our net-zero targets. In fact, using underground rather than overhead lines may in some respects have the opposite effect and lead to more delays rather than fewer, given that the installation takes much longer. In some cases, the upfront costs are perhaps not worth it in the longer term, as my noble friend Lord Effingham suggested. In our bid to greatly expand our domestic energy production and meet the needs of households up and down the country, I am afraid that we need to act and build networks faster than we have ever done in the past.
It is for those reasons, which I have talked the Committee through, that the Government have decided to maintain our policy position of a starting presumption of overhead lines for electricity network developments in general. That is not to say that the Government stand idly by while communities living in the path of new transmission infrastructure are affected; it is quite the opposite. That is why, at last year’s Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced proposals for a community benefits scheme for communities living near transmission network infrastructure, which the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked about. The communications campaign is due this year and I invite the noble Baroness to get in touch directly so that we can provide more details on it.
I am afraid that I am running out of time, so I will move to my conclusion. I will write to noble Lords if I have not answered any of their points.
I do not need to tell the Committee that, as with so many issues, no policy is etched in stone indefinitely. In fact, the Government would not be doing our job properly if we did not keep policies under review. However, that falls far short of committing to look again at the Government’s current policy on undergrounding less than two months after it came into force. Now is not the time. The Government can determine whether this should be reassessed if and when more evidence is provided by industry. For now, the best place for the majority of transmission infrastructure is—I am sorry to say—up in the air, for technical, operational, environmental and cost reasons and, most importantly, to protect consumer bills.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
May I ask for a written response with reference to the community benefit packages and the consultation package, just to give us an update? Several months have gone by and we should be moving on this.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness on that matter.
Myanmar: Health System
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Crisp
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role that the United Kingdom could play in supporting health workers in Myanmar and contributing to the reconstruction of the country’s health system.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords taking part in this debate, many of whom know Myanmar much better than I do. I also thank the people who produced briefings for us, because we got some very good briefings from a number of different sources.
My locus in this is my interest in global health. I am also patron of THET, which I ought to declare as an interest and which I will refer to later. I want the debate to raise the profile of the health crisis in Myanmar, to discuss what can be done to support health workers now and to contribute to the reconstruction of the country’s health system, which has been very largely destroyed over the last few years.
I will not dwell on the wider situation: the coup just over three years ago, the extraordinary repression and violence, the attacks on citizens, and the persecution of the Rohingya and other minorities, with the Gambia’s referral, supported by the UK, to the International Court of Justice on the basis of genocide. For the purpose of this debate, my focus is on the way that health workers and health facilities have been targeted.
To give just a few figures, health workers were among the first people to object and create the civil disobedience movement in Myanmar. Some 50% of health workers in the country were or are part of that movement. As a result, they have been targeted. Since the coup, there is documented evidence of at least 104 being killed and at least 870 being detained, and of 1,127 attacks on health facilities. These figures will be at a lower level, because these are the documented cases. I am sure that there will be others.
That is accompanied by the declining health of the population. In the World Health Organization’s estimate, a third of the population is in need and 12 million will need humanitarian health assistance in 2024. Some 2.6 million people are internally displaced within the country. Just as an indicator, perinatal deaths have been going up and vaccination rates are down by about 50% for children. This is a dire health emergency, which is affecting health workers as well as the health of the people in the nation.
A month ago, I had the privilege to be one of a number of parliamentarians from both Houses, including the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who had a Zoom meeting with four nurses in different parts of northern Myanmar. It was deeply impressive: these people were essentially in hiding but providing support to their local communities —not in proper facilities, but in whatever facilities they could find. They were really impressive. It was incredibly moving and horrifying, and they were incredibly brave. I think all of us came away asking what we could do to help.
Part of what I want to do is relay what the nurses said to us was needed. First, they were very grateful to the UK. They recognised what the UK has been doing. Indeed, I have seen the replies to the Parliamentary Questions from Fiona Bruce MP, which have just come out, and can see that the Government are indeed taking this very seriously.
The nurses were also very grateful to the Myanmar clinicians who were supporting them from this country through the internet and through training. Part of this is being co-ordinated through THET, the organisation I mentioned earlier. It does impressive work. THET loosely co-ordinates 20 health organisations in the UK and a number of individuals who, between them, have supported training of health workers in the country, because the medical and nursing facilities have been destroyed in a number of places, and with telehealth consultations.
The numbers here are impressive. Something like 2,000 medical students have been supported through their training, and 59 clinicians have gone through training for faculty development to increase the ability to train people outside the traditional medical schools, if you like. Some 280 GPs have been supported in 50 townships. On the telemedicine side, THET regularly runs 24 specialist and four general clinics, and has seen 158,000 patients over the three years. Clinicians in the UK, some of whom are from Myanmar and some are UK citizens, have been making this contribution; it is a big contribution, and they are very grateful to those people for that. There are other groups from the UK, particularly at the border and in the north, who are working on the ground. They represent the great links that there are between the UK and Myanmar.
The nurses, first, wanted their voices heard. In the circumstances where we have Gaza and Ukraine, it is not surprising that they feel that they have slipped off the agenda and want to be heard. They want the UK to do even more in international fora to raise the issues that they are facing and give this a much higher profile.
I shall ask the Minister some questions. First, what can the UK do to raise the profile more in international organisations and with international organisations? Secondly, the nurses are asking for humanitarian corridors to be set up so they can properly support the civilian population. I note that Thailand has reached an agreement with the junta and has taken the initiative about creating some humanitarian corridors, but I also note that there is some controversy about the safety of this. One question for us is how the UK can support the development of humanitarian corridors, and what the UK can do to monitor that they are actually safe and not, in some sense, a trap developed by the junta.
Thirdly, the nurses wanted more aid into the country. There are two questions here. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why there was a cut in aid to Myanmar in the past year and what that was about. Furthermore, they were particularly asking about having more direct aid, not aid going through junta control—more aid reaching people in the increasingly large parts of the country where the junta is simply not in control. I expect that other noble Lords will raise this, but there is certainly demand for different methods of getting aid there. Is it time to relook at what is happening? A lot of the aid is going through international organisations and directly through the junta. Could the Minister provide some thoughts about why the aid was cut and how more aid could be provided directly to the people, without going through the junta?
Fifthly, they want more of the clinician-to-clinician help that I was talking about earlier, which is partly co-ordinated through THET, and some real recognition of the immense amount of work done by the four nurses. Their relationships with nurses in this country are incredibly important to them in terms of support and solidarity, but there are also very practical things that you can do through the internet today, which you cannot do in other ways. Will the Minister consider looking at what more support can be provided to these UK and Myanmar clinicians in this country, who are providing this direct clinical support to clinicians in Myanmar?
In summing up, the situation is appalling and is clearly deteriorating. The civil war is developing, which will have a very long-term impact on the country. At some point, there will presumably be a very long recovery programme. I hope that the UK can be part of that and play a leading role.
The UK is doing a lot at the moment, through the Government, and the nurses wanted us particularly to stress that and all the useful support of the individuals and institutions that are around and have been providing this direct support, clinician to clinician. In requesting this debate and, subsequently, a meeting with the Minister, I wanted to ask whether the UK Government could think about what more it could do—and, of course, for him to answer my five questions.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, very much for initiating this debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to those very pertinent and direct questions.
I have been involved with Myanmar, one way or another, for about 15 years. The first time was when the junta were in charge before. Although I was not able to visit the country, the International Development Committee, of which I was chair, went to a camp on the Thai border where we got a very direct insight into the appalling way in which the junta and the generals were treating their own civilians, for whom they seem to have nothing but contempt. The UK Government at that time were supporting the delivery of medicines through a whole variety of routes, obviously by focusing on diseases such as malaria and TB, but also anything and everything else that they could get. It is probably better not to publicise how they managed it, but they did.
I then had the opportunity to return to Myanmar, after the generals had backed off and the reforms towards democracy were in place. Initially, I went with a cross-party group led by John Bercow, the Speaker, who had also been a very active campaigner on the Burma/Myanmar situation. We were part of that group, along with Fiona Bruce MP and Valerie Vaz MP, and we travelled extensively across the country at a time of hope.
Subsequently, as things improved, I was able to engage with committees in the Myanmar Parliament, under the auspices of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, for which I should obviously declare an interest, having been supported by it to do that. Interestingly enough, my role at the time was in mentoring committees in how they could promote reform and deliver on policy. In particular, I engaged with two of the health committees, which were keenly focused on building up a service which would deliver for people across the country.
What was interesting was that these committees were chaired by medical practitioners who had been in exile and had come back, as they put it, to help the lady. That was how they expressed it. What was shocking was that when they arrived back, they found that the health system was pretty well non-existent. To the extent that there was any healthcare, it was provided only to support the mates of the generals. It was not really going to the people in need.
I have to express a little frustration there was at the time, because very good insights, reports and recommendations were produced by those MPs, but they were frustrated in getting any action from the Government there. I was really disappointed to hear that most of them said they had never met Aung San Suu Kyi, even though they were MPs in her party. They had real difficulty getting action. It is such a pity that things that could perhaps have been done were not done. The point, at the end of the day, was that they were beginning to build back a health service and focusing on how to do that in a fair and objective way. I was in the middle of an inquiry on trying to do just that. Obviously, we reached the situation where all that was swept aside as the generals came back and did what they are now doing.
That previous experience we had as DfID, operating for the UK through both Thailand and where we could within Myanmar, was really effective at reaching people. The situation has changed but there must be experiences there which are valid as to how we can get things through. Also, the junta are not having it all their own way. Unlike the way they were in control previously, it is a civil war now, and parts of the country are clearly not under the generals’ control where we can and should get access. We can support people there, and have to find ways of getting to people in areas where it is more difficult.
It is a matter of experience and ingenuity. We have done it in the past and should do it again. Clearly, it breaks anybody’s heart to see a Government, if you can call them that, who have such little interest in the welfare of their people. It is quite the reverse; they are hostile and the enemy of the people. Their interest in education and health is absolute zero, apart from for themselves, and they are literally destroying that infrastructure. We have got to do everything we can to help people. We can do it and have done it in the past. We could do it again and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some positive replies.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Crisp, both for securing this important Question for Short Debate and for his long and distinguished career in global healthcare and international development. Last year, at his instigation, I took part in a call with health workers and nurses from Myanmar—I will refer to it as Burma, during the debate. That meeting was dramatically interrupted by a cyberattack, which reinforced some of the issues that we were talking about and the fears and anxieties of some who were on the call. From what my noble friend has said to us, it is clear that the situation has not improved and has only worsened, in the meantime.
I declare an interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups on Burma and the Rohingya, and as patron of the Epiphany Trust, which supports humanitarian projects along the Burma/Thailand border.
I first visited Burma—illegally—in 1998, when I met the Karen refugees and internally displaced people on the border. It led to a subsequent letter to me from Lady Mountbatten of Burma, which touched me enormously. She talked about her father’s high regard for the Karen people, whom she described as “our forgotten allies”.
On subsequent visits, I met Aung San Suu Kyi, who is now incarcerated with thousands of other political prisoners. Reports of her poor health in prison, and the concerns that emerged last year that she was being denied proper medical attention, are deeply alarming. Until very recently her son, Kim Aris—I request of the Minister that the Foreign Secretary should meet him—had no contact with his mother and did not know whether his letters and parcels to her were reaching her. A recent letter to her son was, he said, the first confirmation that his mother is still alive.
Since the coup, over 26,000 people have been arrested and over 20,000 political prisoners remain in jail. Their conditions, including inadequate healthcare, are appalling. The humanitarian crisis in the ethnic states is even more shocking with, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, the military engaged in a brutal campaign of air strikes, bombardment and ground attacks against civilians, with devastating consequences. At least 2 million people are internally displaced and thousands more have fled across borders to neighbouring countries.
This week, I received a letter from the UNHCR representative in Bangladesh, Sumbul Rizvi. She described the plight of Rohingya refugees from Burma who fled across the border and are in Cox’s Bazar, and said there had been a 179% increase in serious protection incidents, including 88 killings, torture, abductions and sexual-based violence. What impact will reduced humanitarian aid have on their protection and well-being?
The military is also committing barbaric atrocity crimes at a level of intensity not previously seen. Thousands have been killed. Hospitals and clinics, as well as schools and churches, have been bombed. Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, says that the junta’s crimes include
“burning them alive, dismembering, raping, beheading, bludgeoning, and using abducted villagers”
as human minesweepers. He says that it is
“inhumanity in its vilest form”.
According to the UN, at least 18 million people in Burma—one-third of the population—are now in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. The World Health Organization says that the entire population of 56 million are now facing some level of need, with at least 12 million people in need of humanitarian health assistance this year.
The military regime has directly and deliberately targeted the health system and health workers, as my noble friend described. New restrictive laws target NGOs and health providers. The Government have imposed sanctions, which I welcome, as do my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, but are we still trying to put Burma back on the Security Council agenda? Perhaps the Minister could tell us what discussions are being had with the UN Secretary-General about what more he could do to address the crisis.
We should increase efforts to seek the enforcement of a global arms embargo and, in particular, co-ordinate with like-minded countries on sanctions on aviation fuel, which would be a very practical and much-needed measure to impede the military’s ability to bomb civilians.
Lastly, will the Government urgently increase funding for humanitarian aid? Can the Minister tell us precisely what this year’s figures are, particularly for cross-border help for healthcare initiatives in the border areas to help internally displaced people and to provide much-needed healthcare for those displaced by conflict, including the Rohingya, who have been forced to flee the genocide unleashed upon them? If the Minister has not seen the letter that I received from the UNHCR this week, I would be very happy to share it with him. I have tabled Written Parliamentary Questions to him; if he is unable to give the answers today, I will look forward to reading them in due course.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and to very much agree with his points in terms of the need for more diplomatic action on sanctions on aviation fuel and small steps we can take to stop the flow of arms that are being used to repress the Burmese population. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing this debate. Unfortunately, I was not on that call with the nurses but, given what I heard today, I can only pay tribute to them. I have encountered other people in similar situations who can be utterly amazing.
My connection is that I was in Rakhine state in the late 1990s, up country in the amazing archaeological site of Mrauk-U, where the only other westerners in town were two Médecins Sans Frontières doctors. That was a testimony to the state of the medical system then in that poverty-stricken part of Burma.
I do not wish to repeat the points that others have made but will focus on two issues. One of them arises from what I was doing last night: I was with the High Commissioners of Barbados and Bangladesh, the Ineos Oxford Institute, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy and the APPG on Antimicrobial Resistance. The meeting was preparing for the forthcoming high-level meeting in September of the General Assembly on the issue of antimicrobial resistance. I wish to cross-reference that with a couple of matters. One is the fact that there is increasing research coming mostly out of the Middle East that shows how AMR can be amplified by the impact of modern, heavy weapons, involving heavy metals going into the environment. That can induce resistance to antibiotics in microbes in the environment. There is also an increasingly amount of research that shows how AMR is strongly related to conflict. Obviously, that is partly due to the breakdown of medical systems, wounds that become infected for long periods, and so on. However, there is also increasing understanding about the impact of weapons.
As regards the issue of antimicrobial resistance, a figure that I suspect may shock even the knowledgeable noble Lords in this Committee is that about 50% of medical facilities in the world do not have running water. Wash water and sanitation are crucial. One would think that they are basic in 2024 but I have no doubt that these fundamental issues are enormous in Burma.
My direct question to the Minister—I will understand if he does not have an answer now—is: what are the Government doing as regards three key matters in the AMR area in terms of Burma? What is being done to support the provision of wash facilities, water and sanitation? What can be done to support provision of the appropriate antibiotics? Often in those situations, people just buy whatever antibiotics they can find, which may amplify problems. What can be done to increase the capacity for diagnostics that can operate at a small level, so that, crucially, one can test infections and find what antibiotics they are susceptible to and which they are resistant to? Then one can use the correct antibiotics. So, either now or later, perhaps the Minister can tell me of any work being done in that AMR space, which is getting much global focus this year, in terms of Burma.
I want to look at that, too, in the broader sense. I was in Burma many years ago with the World Health Organization, looking at the process of writing a report on women’s health. One of my more unusual claims to fame is that I appeared on the front page of the New Light of Myanmar shaking hands with the Health Minister. One might say that that was the previous junta’s propaganda rag. I did not have any choice in that. However, seriously, my question is about focus on women’s health and the efforts being made. We know that that issue is crucial to the health of whole communities but it often gets ignored. Rather more broadly, the focus on women’s education and the provision of support for women in those conflict zones and circumstances can be tremendously difficult.
Just as an example, some women from Afghanistan who I have heard from recently were working very hard to provide education—where girls are being denied it—by Zoom. Those technological means are open practically anywhere now. Is any work being done to support women’s education in Burma?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing this important debate and for his commitment to raising the profile of this important issue. This time nearly a year ago, the noble Lord asked an Oral Question about health workers in Myanmar in your Lordships’ House. The picture then was stark, but NGOs agree that in the intervening year, the situation has deteriorated further.
As we have heard, 104 health workers have lost their lives and many more have been detained in the three years since the coup. Although I certainly echo the congratulations to the UK Government on a number of impactful training and partnership programmes, it is clear that more needs to be done. We have heard about the appalling attacks on health workers, which have rightly been thoroughly condemned. However, it is important too to consider the broader humanitarian situation and its impact on the country’s health system. I do not personally have any specific connection with Myanmar but, like many others, I have a concern for how this country can play a positive part in places in the world that are suffering humanitarian disasters and injustice.
To emphasise what other noble Lords have said, we know that where there is internal displacement and humanitarian need, it can become all but impossible to access reliable and high-quality healthcare. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health describes Myanmar’s health system as having all but collapsed, while the number of internally displaced people has now risen to over 2.5 million. In such situations, how is it possible for adequate healthcare provision to be made?
Communicable diseases are on the rise and progress that had been made against diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis has been reversed. Infectious diseases invariably spike in times of humanitarian crisis. Between 2019 and 2022, there was a sevenfold increase in malaria cases in the country, which can primarily be attributed to unrest and a weakened health system. This is having a knock-on effect on neighbouring Thailand, where cases more than doubled over the same period. Displaced people are crossing the border to seek the medical treatment that they cannot access in their own country.
The UK is a significant funder of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. What steps, then, does the Minister think can be taken to ensure that interventions from multilateral organisations such as the Global Fund can be accessed by those who need them in Myanmar? What other interventions, multilateral or bilateral, might effectively be offered by the UK to alleviate the pressing medical need?
The long-term effects of depriving anyone of healthcare, particularly children—I am not sure that they have been mentioned yet—cannot be overstated. Children are not receiving vaccines; that could have an impact on them for the rest of their lives. The WHO has described Myanmar as having one of the lowest health worker availability levels in the whole region. I echo the calls from noble Lords for increased humanitarian aid to tackle immediate need, but might the Minister also be able to report on how the Government might support efforts to build up a larger healthcare workforce in the country for the longer-term?
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate gave me an idea and I was about to write something down, but it is too late.
There are wars we follow on television every day and there are hidden wars, as in Myanmar. We owe a huge debt to my noble friend for focusing on the plight of the health services there. Knowing him quite well, I am sure he will not let this subject go.
I have some nostalgia joining this debate as it takes me back to two visits on behalf of Christian Aid in the 1980s. One was to the Thai border to see how the UN and NGOs managed to successfully reach the ethnic minorities, which they still do with great difficulty. The second visit was to Mandalay, where my host was a famous Karen soldier called Saw Lader. He fought with the British on two expeditions with the Chindits and won the MC. Later, I came to learn of the extraordinary courage and endurance of the people of Myanmar, personified by people such as Aung San Suu Kyi. Now, as we have heard, since the 2021 coup, innocent people, including doctors and nurses, have had to face an onslaught from their own Government.
What we have been watching daily in Gaza is the politicisation of health and education—the destruction of services which were already of a high standard. Something similar is happening in Sudan. In Myanmar, it is an outright attack on the very people charged with the physical and mental care of their compatriots. They are seen by the army as legitimate targets simply because these workers, many of whom are from ethnic minorities, are protecting their own patients and institutions. Then there is conscription, which is finally being enforced and causing a lot of distress to families.
The world needs to protest louder if the people of Myanmar are going to be heard. Thankfully, the FCDO has been quite active. Anne-Marie Trevelyan sounded the alarm a year ago when she said that the 2021 coup had led to millions needing assistance—16 million after two years. These numbers are going up. OCHA now estimates that 18.6 million are in need, about one-third of the population. Millions are displaced, and about 6 million children are cut off from education and healthcare. This also directly hits the national immunisation campaign. Then there is the problem of training, which has fallen away.
We have already heard the shocking figures for the number of outright attacks on health workers. Of course, the numbers are impossible to verify, but there can be no doubt that nurses and doctors, whether or not they protest openly, are being targeted like armed forces. Many have now left institutions for fear of being attacked, and they have to work through much smaller teams.
Despite the ravages of the pandemic, which is also an important factor, health workers are professionally well organised and have set up a shadow health service—a network of volunteers who were part of the National Unity Government, before they were closed down. They have also been skilled fundraisers through NGOs—I know that, like me, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, values the weight of NGOs in development—and international contacts, even recruiting staff to work behind the lines.
However, the army is resorting to brutal methods. Our own medical teams are risking their lives. We must do all we can to raise this issue in Parliament. Internal protest and resistance in any country may be perceived as insurrection. The same is happening in Gaza. As outsiders, we should never be deceived by this idea ourselves.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I appreciate being allowed to speak briefly in the gap. Some of us will have had the pleasure—indeed, the overwhelming experience—of hearing Aung San Suu Kyi when she addressed both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall. A gentle light of hope emanated. Now, we see a country that is almost in freefall, with so much collapsing. There has been a collapse in health care, maternal mortality has increased to a level that one could not have imagined, and there has been such a drop in immunisation, as has been said, that infections are rife.
I was privileged to be on the call that has been referred to, and prior to that had been on a call with doctors from that country. They were risking their lives simply to tell us what was going on. They knew that if they were traced, they would be no more. They knew that their families were at risk. Many of them leave their families to go to provide health care to others, because they cannot bear to see their country’s collapse.
The attacks against hospitals are appalling. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is providing support through its global mechanisms, as other organisations are. I hope the BMA will raise this with the World Medical Association. We cannot just leave this. The journalists cannot get the images out, so we have quite a problem, because people do not realise just how terrible the situation is.
Even drivers transporting medicines are arrested, so trying to move supplies around is really difficult. It all has to be done subtly and underhand. If any of these people are caught, I am afraid that families sometimes find their family member delivered to their front door the next morning, dead. It is awful.
We cannot not intervene somehow. Many of the hospitals that are being bombed could do with early warning systems to detect aircraft, so that people can at least seek shelter. At the moment, they cannot.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing this debate and pay tribute to him for all his work on global health. I am a former trustee of THET and am very glad to hear that it is playing a major part.
As we have heard, the situation in Myanmar is very worrying. Various noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Bruce, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, have demonstrated their personal knowledge of that country. Health workers should be protected under international law. We have seen that in the debates on Gaza. Certainly in Myanmar, health workers and health facilities, far from being protected, have become a particular target. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, many health workers resisted military rule, but most have sought to assist those who have been wounded by the military. Burma Campaign UK notes that they faced beatings, arrest, torture and death.
It is therefore not surprising that many health workers have sought to escape to areas beyond the control of ethnic armed organisations. We hear that, once there, some health workers have joined existing health networks, some have established new clinics and others may have joined new armed forces set up by the resistance. We have heard today how the military has targeted clinics and hospitals in areas not under their control with deliberate and repeated attacks. We just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the effects of this.
The health service was not strong before the military action, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, had been working to strengthen it over a period of years. Having been asked to set up a hospital, he recognised the need for a whole health service, which he worked on delivering. My noble friend Lord Bruce spoke of those who returned to Myanmar to help rebuild the country. It is desperately sad that this has come to absolutely nothing.
As in other countries, the pandemic affected medical and allied health professional universities and training schools in Myanmar. This resulted in the closure of all training institutions in 2020, with no graduation of the health workforce. Since the coup, Myanmar’s health provision has been further severely damaged. The BMA and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health—we have heard about their efforts—are working in Myanmar and note that, since the military coup in February 2021, the health service has largely collapsed, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said. The number of skilled birth attendants has fallen, infant mortality has risen, and acute malnutrition has shot up. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others have said, vaccination rates have fallen dramatically—below 50% of the relevant population in 2021—leaving Myanmar open to large-scale disease outbreaks and unprotected against potential new pandemic diseases. Does the Minister see this as undermining global health security? How might it be tackled? I note the warning that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just issued.
There has been an increase in violence, including against women and girls. Is the FCDO monitoring this, and what is being done to ensure that women and girls have access to family planning? Noble Lords detailed the kinds of attacks, and I see that 385 attacks were recorded against healthcare infrastructure or personnel, in direct contravention of international humanitarian law. The WHO said that the number of people in need of humanitarian health assistance was estimated at 10 million in 2023. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has updated this to 12 million this year—four times the previous rate.
Routine disease surveillance systems have become dilapidated, raising the risk of Myanmar becoming an ungoverned source of potential new pandemic emergence, threatening economic recovery in the region and globally. But the UK’s long engagement in Myanmar has been hit by a 70% decrease in funding. Could the Minister say whether this will be reversed?
Civil society organisations have proposed bans on aviation fuel, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just mentioned, which would hinder the military’s campaign. Could the Minister comment? It is difficult to get aid into conflict areas; it is always a problem. Could the Minister comment on how this is being tackled? I look forward to his replies.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for initiating this debate on an area which we often take our eyes off. The situation is pretty dire. I also welcome the Government’s continued support for NHS partners through the Tropical Health and Education Trust. As the noble Lord said, many of those clinicians are Burmese, and are helping their friends and colleagues there—they do a tremendous job—but also serving the NHS. We should not forget that.
The military are widely opposed by the public and have been accused of war crimes against their own people. Two-thirds of the country is gripped by conflict. The military now appears to have lost control of the country. Of course, the Covid pandemic and military coup left in ruins the already minimal healthcare system in the country. As we have heard in the debate, following the post-coup crackdown on peaceful protests, health workers created informal networks to help to treat those injured by the military. They then become the targets and face beatings, arrest and torture. Fleeing those military-controlled towns and cities, they work with other organisations—some join new armed forces set up by the resistance and civil society organisations.
However, as we have heard, most aid, including for healthcare, is channelled via the military-controlled Yangon and then to international and UN agencies. As was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I ask the Minister what assessment the FCDO has made of the effectiveness of aid going through the ever-shrinking areas of Myanmar that are still under military control. While there is now some welcome flexibility in the way that aid is being delivered, there is a case for a complete review of how it reaches those most in need. They are very often not in those military-controlled areas.
I want to touch on another issue. Despite UN Resolution 2669, the Myanmar military has been targeting clinics and hospitals in areas that are not under its control, with deliberate and repeated air strikes and artillery attacks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, many civil society organisations in Myanmar have repeatedly called for sectoral sanctions to limit deliveries of aviation fuel to Myanmar. I know what the Minister will say when we ask for additional sanctions—that we do not normally announce these in advance. However, I hope that he will address the issue of what we are doing with our allies to reduce the Myanmar military’s access to aviation fuel. What other support can we give those health centres in terms of an advance warning system? With those few comments, I hope that the Minister is able to respond to the questions in the debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, whom I have known for many years, for tabling this debate. I know his commitment to this cause, among many others, and I thank him for his dedication to healthcare provision in his role as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health. I also thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions.
As the humanitarian situation in Myanmar continues to deteriorate and the Myanmar military commit more and more atrocities against innocent civilians, this debate is timely. A number of noble Lords asked how we can give voice to the healthcare workers doing incredibly courageous work, despite the regime. In a small way, this debate does just that, but we want to give much more voice to what they are doing. I pay tribute to those health workers, who continue to demonstrate true heroism in hugely challenging circumstances.
I too commend our partners in the UK, including THET, with which the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, works closely, as we know, for working tirelessly to support Myanmar’s fragile health system. Its work makes it possible for doctors and nurses to provide life-saving assistance to vulnerable adults and children, and we are proud to support it. We have to appreciate the benefit of technology, despite the cyberattack that was mentioned, and the diagnostics that are now available online. We hope that we can continue to support THET. I also recognise the work of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to support nurses in Myanmar, which is enormously important. This addresses some of the points that have been raised about women and girls, sexual health and paediatrics. It is so important that those are supported.
The Government remain deeply concerned about healthcare provision in Myanmar. Since the coup in February 2021, the healthcare system has collapsed and many are unable to access even the most basic services. Child immunisation has fallen significantly, creating the potential for a regional health crisis, and there is limited support for pregnant women, increasing the risks to them and their children. Humanitarian access is challenging, with many parts of the country cut off to the UN and international NGOs.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Northover, made a key point: on top of this, the military continue to target healthcare workers and undertake air attacks, striking hospitals and demoralising the civilian population, as well as injuring and killing healthcare workers. Indeed, according to the World Health Organization, there were 385 attacks against healthcare infrastructure between February 2021 and August last year.
The UK is a leading donor in the response to the humanitarian situation in Myanmar. Despite the substantial operational challenges, that includes work to support the healthcare system. Since the coup, we have provided approximately £125 million in life-saving assistance, supporting those affected by conflict and displacement and providing emergency healthcare and education. The UK is working with local partners to access remote and conflict-affected areas of the country and respond to the Myanmar people’s most pressing health needs.
The UK is the largest funder of the multilateral Access to Health Fund, which we also chair. In answer to the key point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, over 80% of the funding goes directly to local healthcare providers within Myanmar, providing assistance and training to help increase their resilience. These programmes have provided essential health services to approximately 3.3 million vulnerable individuals in 154 townships in Myanmar over the last five years. More than half a million women and children have received maternal, newborn and child health services—a key point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
Over a million people have received education and health services promoting the well-being and rights of women. Some 36,000 children under five and over 6,000 pregnant women in opposition-held areas have received vaccinations. In the wake of the coup, we have had to alter our approach in Myanmar. We shifted away from working with the authorities and created new partnerships with local civil society organisations. The UK has been a pioneer in working with local organisations in Myanmar, allowing us to serve the most vulnerable in areas that other donors simply cannot reach and to respond rapidly to emerging crises by empowering first responders.
In October last year, when new conflicts broke out in the north-east, our pre-existing relationships with local partners enabled us to make a difference immediately. In the first week alone, UK government support reached 18,000 people affected by the conflict. As well as responding to immediate needs, our work with local organisations is designed to support the construction of a much more comprehensive healthcare system for the future of Myanmar—a key point made by a number of noble Lords. Many of our programmes provide supplies and funding to organisations employing doctors and nurses who do not want to support the regime but are committed to serving the people of Myanmar. Our assistance makes it possible for them to continue to respond to the substantial needs of their communities, even when access is constrained. All that sits alongside the training we offer to improve their skills, expertise and capacity.
The UK Health Partnership Scheme, which is delivered through our excellent partner, the Tropical Health and Education Trust, leverages British expertise to address healthcare workforce challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is a patron of that. We have improved the quality of healthcare provision in Myanmar by offering training to 3,000 nurses and by providing healthcare workers with access to learning materials online. We have supplied direct medical services to some of the most vulnerable people, including migrants, and women and girls in volatile areas, through telemedicine services and digital healthcare. This has provided 94% of the population with access to some type of qualified health professional.
A point was raised about the Thailand corridors. We are looking closely at that and will seek to use them as and when they are available but there is some doubt, as was said, about how that agreement will work.
The groups that we support champion a peaceful, inclusive and democratic vision for Myanmar that reflects the aspirations of its people. By assisting them, we are helping to build organisations that will become the backbone of a future healthcare system in that country. Indeed, the UK plays a crucial role on the international stage, encouraging international partners to channel more funding through local organisations, and sharing lessons from our work in order to create a strong, co-ordinated international effort to reconstruct Myanmar’s health system.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about Aung San Suu Kyi and her son. Her imprisonment is an affront to all who believe in the rights and freedoms that we expect around the world. Her son is as courageous as her but she is just one of a great many people who have been held by that Government quite illegally.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Before the Minister leaves that point, will he respond to the request from Kim Aris that he should have a meeting with the Foreign Secretary at some stage? Will the Minister at least relay that back to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will certainly do that. A number of noble Lords asked about the support that we give. Spend in 2021-22 was reduced following the coup. The UK ceased providing funding for policy and capacity development to the Myanmar Government and prioritised humanitarian assistance, and direct support for healthcare and education. Spend rose in 2022, as the number of those in need of humanitarian assistance increased from around 1 million to 17.6 million as a result of the conflict and insecurity.
ODA spend in Myanmar decreased again in 2023-24 due to broader fiscal constraints but, given the unprecedented global humanitarian need, the UK has adjusted annual allocations for specific crises, including that in Myanmar. During 2023-24, the UK will have provided over £40 million in ODA support. This will increase as we return to 0.7% of GNI in, I hope, the near future. The UK is one of the leading donors to the country, having provided approximately £125 million in healthcare support.
A number of noble Lords asked about the diplomatic work that we are doing multilaterally. The UK is the penholder in the UN Security Council on this, and we have consistently demonstrated our ability to use the Security Council to keep the spotlight on the situation in Myanmar, particularly talking about the health of its population in the context of the insecurity created by this wicked regime.
A number of noble Lords asked about the Rohingya. The UK has continued to call for an end to the crisis, including through the UN Human Rights Council and UN Security Council. Earlier this month, we held a Security Council meeting calling for an end to violence in Myanmar and stressing the need to address the root causes of the crisis in Rakhine state and to ensure the conditions necessary for the voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable return of Rohingya refugees. We have done a lot more, and I do not have time to go through it today, but am very happy to talk to noble Lords more about this.
The UK is continuing to support women and girls through our efforts—and I wish that I had more time to go into that. However, the UK welcomes the Thai Government’s commitment to providing humanitarian assistance, and we are working through them to try to reach regime-controlled parts of the country.
On aviation fuel, we are looking to see how we can provide sanctions. We have sanctions against individuals and a great many members of the regime. If we can stop aviation fuel getting to the Myanmar regime’s air force, we will work with partners to achieve that.
There is a long tradition of Myanmar and British healthcare workers collaborating to bring benefits to both our countries. Indeed, 800 members of the Burmese diaspora in the UK work for the NHS, making an immeasurable contribution to our national life. Healthcare needs in Myanmar are increasing and healthcare professionals still face unacceptable threats. Yet in spite of all these challenges, we continue to leverage the UK’s substantial healthcare expertise to train doctors and nurses in Myanmar.
Our work alongside the Tropical Health and Education Trust enables UK health institutions to support medium and longer-term health workforce planning and the development of the ethnic health system. This is improving the quality of healthcare and is making a crucial step towards universal health coverage in Myanmar. When peace returns to that country, the UK will work with local healthcare organisations because we will have laid the foundations for a future healthcare system in Myanmar which can respond to all its people’s needs.
House of Lords
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Retirement of a Member: Lord Goodlad
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Ukraine
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Skidelsky
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to bring about a sustainable peace as the war in Ukraine passes its second anniversary.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, restoring Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and securing a just and lasting peace underpinned by the UN charter is the UK’s foreign policy priority. The quickest path to peace would be for Mr Putin to withdraw from Ukraine. President Zelensky has already demonstrated Ukraine’s commitment to peace in his 10-point peace formula. We must strengthen Ukraine in the fight this year and ensure that Ukraine will win the war. If Mr Putin prolongs it and lays the foundation for Ukraine’s long-term future, we must act and stand with Ukraine.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but I am trying to understand the logic of the Government’s position. Is it still the Government’s expectation that Ukraine will win a complete victory in the sense of recovering the territories it has lost since 2014? If so, can the Minister confirm that this remains the Government’s position? If not—most experts now do not think that is a feasible endgame—should the Government not couple support for Ukraine with a public push for a negotiated settlement, such as has been advocated by many countries in the world, while they still have leverage on the table, not least to avoid the unnecessary slaughter of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s final point, we want to stop the slaughter of innocent Ukrainian citizens. The best way to stop that slaughter is for Mr Putin and Russia to stop the war now. There are no two ways about it; we cannot allow it. This is a P5 member which has invaded a sovereign founding member of the United Nations. We back Ukraine, Ukraine’s leadership is important, and the United Kingdom stands firmly behind it.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I reiterate the Opposition’s support for the Government’s position. We said from day one that a peace negotiation is a matter for the Ukrainians to determine. The best leverage that the Ukrainians can have in those negotiations is our fullest support and the arms behind that, so I hope that we will continue with this. Ursula von der Leyen yesterday urged the EU to use profits from frozen Russian assets to help arm the Ukrainians. Will the Minister reassure us that we are doing everything possible with our EU neighbours to do that and to make sure that the Russians pay for this outrageous war?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge and thank the noble Lord. We are very clear that we speak as one nation in our united stand against Russia’s illegal war. On the point he raised about profits, myself and my noble friend Lady Swinburne—I was delighted she was able to join me for the meeting—have had some constructive talks about the position of the UK and what is happening in the EU, engaging directly with EU colleagues. We need to ensure that any action we take is legally robust; I know the noble Lord supports that.
Baroness Fall (Con)
My Lords, following a bleak winter stalemate, we have arrived at a grim second anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. With Putin’s imminent re-election and troops mobilised, we must be prepared for things to get worse and to step up if need be. Does the Minister agree that standing by our NATO commitment of 2% of GDP is an important part of this? Will he urge others in NATO, including those who seek to lead, to do the same?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree; we are proud to do so. I assure my noble friend, who asked me only last week about the position of Hungary on the accession of Sweden—I am sure we were all delighted to see progress—that we follow through what we promise at the Dispatch Box. When I met the Foreign Minister of Hungary, the first thing he said to me was “Tariq, you mentioned me in Parliament the other day”. I said, “Yes, and I now need an answer”, and we got it.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I do not agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. Has the Minister seen the recent newspaper report of a Ukrainian officer lamenting the fact that
“I have the Russian soldiers in my sights, but no shells to fire at them”?
Does that not summarise the perilous position of the Ukrainian forces? Does it not also underline the urgency of all nations in western Europe, including Britain, giving additional aid now to the Government of Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree, which is why my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary announced on Saturday that the UK will spend a further £245 million throughout the next year to procure and invigorate supply chains to produce urgently needed artillery ammunition for Ukraine.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I associate these Benches with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about supporting the Government’s position on Ukraine. However, we and Ukraine appear to be in this for the long haul, and we will need to spend a lot of money on defence and diplomacy to get this right and ensure that not only Ukraine but the Baltic states are secure. Given that, what are the Government doing to ensure that the citizens of the United Kingdom are wholly behind this as well? We do not want people to start thinking that support somehow is not here in this country. I regret to say that we want the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, to be proved wrong.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned defence and diplomacy. I referred to the additional funding for munitions. I underline the fact that every diplomatic engagement that we are undertaking gives that reassurance directly to the Ukrainians. I was in India last week, and I made sure that I met the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine, who was there. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary has been extensively engaged. He attended the UN Security Council meeting in New York marking the second anniversary of Russia’s illegal invasion, and addressed it. Only yesterday I returned from Geneva, where a key part of my address to the UN Human Rights Council was on Ukraine, and I met its ambassador, together with all our colleagues from the UK mission. It is very clear that this Parliament, the Diplomatic Service departments, government and indeed our people stand with Ukraine, and we are proud of the 140,000-odd Ukrainians who have now made Britain their temporary home—I use “temporary” definitively, because they themselves yearn for a return back home to Ukraine.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Fowler is quite right that this needs the full support of Europe, but it is not just Europe. The trouble is that half of Asia—indeed, half the world—is either neutral or actively supports Russia through its economies and weaponry. What new initiatives are required, beyond general United Nations support—for instance, mobilising all the nations of the Commonwealth or reapproaching, at least on this issue, some aspects of China and other Asian powers? Only then, when Putin feels he is a real pariah and that the whole world is against him, will the Minister get the change he wants.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I recall a previous Question that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, engaged with. When we look to our European partners quite directly, the ability for them to step up and do more in this respect is equally important, and we need that to happen. Of course, we will continue to work with the United States on this important priority, but my noble friend is right that we need to ensure that a diplomatic effort is afoot as well. We have been succeeding. You can count the countries that voted with Russia on a single hand, and that has been consistent over an 18-month period. This shows the strength of British diplomacy, together with our partners. Russia is increasingly feeling isolated, with $400 billion-worth denied to it because of the sanctions. Of course we have to look at circumvention and loopholes, but I assure my noble friend that our diplomacy continues in earnest.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the Minister is reassured by the support on all sides of the House. He has got a clear message that appeasement never works. When he looks forward to the long term, what representations have been made to the Treasury on the future of the defence budget?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord said. It is clear not just to me but to Ukraine that it has strong support from the United Kingdom across the piece, from Parliament and from people. On budgets, of course we are very much seized of this. As I indicated in my Answer, this is a priority for not just the Foreign Office but the UK Government. Of course we work with colleagues, including those in the Treasury, to ensure that we can back the priority that we have made to stand with Ukraine today, tomorrow and until this war ends.
Israel and Palestine
(8 months, 3 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, we support a two-state solution. As I said only the other day, that guarantees security and stability for both Israelis and Palestinians. Our position has not changed. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was clear in his recent call with Prime Minister Netanyahu that a viable two-state solution is the best means to achieve lasting peace. With our allies, we must provide the practical and enduring support to bolster the Palestinian Authority, and the PA itself must take much-needed steps to reform. Importantly, Israel must act to release frozen funds, halt settlement expansion and hold those responsible for settler violence accountable.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, although many of us join the Government in long backing a two-state solution, how realistic is this now, when Prime Minister Netanyahu has firmly ruled it out, Gaza has been reduced to rubble and Israel is expanding its illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, including east Jerusalem, to over three-quarters of a million settlers? What alternative is Israel offering if not permanent siege and oppressed status for the Palestinians? Should we not be considering other options—perhaps a negotiated confederal state, with security and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord said, and this is not the first time I have heard suggested alternatives. Given the current situation and the crisis that has gripped the Middle East, from the abhorrent events of 7 October to the tragedy of the ongoing conflict itself—and, of course, given the rights of the Palestinians—it is clear that we must seize the moment. In my career as a Foreign Office Minister, this is perhaps the first time we have seen not just one country or two standing up, or just me standing up at the Dispatch Box, but real live diplomacy and activity. That is not just between the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Americans, us and the Europeans; the region itself is seized by this moment. Through the tragedy of every life lost in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank—every Israeli and every Palestinian life lost—the strongest legacy we can provide is a viable vision and a two-state solution.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, between 2015 and 2019, the United Kingdom ran a very worthy Middle East peace process programme. It was led by the Foreign Office and supported by the MoD and the then Department for International Development. Will my noble friend the Minister tell us whether there are any plans to revive elements of that programme? Would he be prepared to meet me to discuss this further?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the second question from my noble friend, I am always delighted to meet her and gain from her insights. We are aware of the different programmes. Currently, we are working with key partners on the five points that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has outlined, but I will be pleased to meet her to see how, as these plans develop, component parts of what we already have can also be very much part and parcel of those discussions.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister gave a very positive response to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, seeming to think that this is a turning point in Israeli-Palestinian relations. However, can he explain to the House how he thinks we are going to get to the point of a two-state solution, given the situation as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hain?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the first thing I would say to the noble Baroness is that you have to be positive; if you are not positive in diplomacy, you might as well pack up your bags and stay at home. That is certainly not something that either I or the Foreign Secretary are doing. We are engaging because this is about the moment, from this tragedy. There are challenges on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides, and I have alluded to them already. What is very clear is that this is a moment in time—there is a window and we can shift the dial, and that is where our focus should be.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, Israel’s rejection of a two-state solution comes as no surprise. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on record as saying that Palestinians should be treated like their historical enemies, the Amaleks—kill every man, woman, child and infant in the cradle. The Justice Minister says:
“Palestinians are like animals and should be treated as such.”
Does the Minister agree that we should not allow the cruel, genocidal behaviour of the regime in Israel to fan anti-Semitic attitudes toward hard-working and peaceful Jews in this country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, and I will tell him why. I know Israel well; it is a country that I have visited. There are many in Israel who, whether or not they are religiously driven from the teachings of the Torah, which I have also studied, recognise the importance of faith providing a solution here. Those with conviction of faith can provide the opportunity to come together and respect each other. This is one Abrahamic family; Jerusalem is the centre to three great faiths. Now is not the time for hate to come forward but for real recognition of tolerance and respect. That is where our focus is. I speak for the British Government, not the Israeli one.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, said that we needed to give hope to the Palestinians. One of the ways of doing this is not to wait until the end of the process to recognise Palestine but to ensure that their voice is heard in those negotiations to seek the solution that my noble friend was talking about. The commitment to a two-state solution, ensuring that both sides are properly represented, is the key to solving the nightmare that we are in at the moment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I welcome the points that the noble Lord has made. I also recognise the statement from His Majesty’s Official Opposition about the importance of the two-state solution. I am not saying that it is not challenging—of course it is. It is, perhaps arguably, more challenging than not. What is different—I say this quite personally, having looked at it, but also politically—is that everyone is now engaged on this agenda. It is a priority not for one or two countries but for everyone. We recognise, and Israelis recognise, that stability and security for Israelis means stability and security for Palestinians. It means leadership among Israelis and the Palestinians. That is what we are focused on. On the recognition point, my noble friend has outlined a clear pathway to ensure that a political horizon is provided for the Palestinians. As the noble Lord rightly said, we can never, ever give up on hope.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, to solve an argument, perhaps I will proceed with my question, with thanks.
Last year, it was reported that the Government of Israel were considering plans to build a national park on the Mount of Olives. Will the Minister say what assessment has been made of the impact of these proposals on the Christian holy sites in this area and the holy sites of other faith communities? What impact would such a project have on the prospect of Jerusalem as a shared capital for Israeli and Palestinian states?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate has illustrated my point. Faith does provide a solution, as we have just seen in practical terms.
In all seriousness, I am aware of those plans. The position is very clear: settlements are illegal, whether they are in east Jerusalem, the West Bank or elsewhere in the Occupied Territories. The United Kingdom’s position is very clear on this. What must prevail is the real sense that Jerusalem itself is a beacon for three important faiths, which is an important opportunity to seize. We need to recognise rights of access, and the reverence attached to that, but, equally, central to that is ensuring security and stability for Israelis and Palestinians, for Arabs, Jews, Christians and Muslims. That is the way in which we will find a solution. Inshallah, that is what we are focused on.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
As chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation UK, I agree with my noble friend’s last remarks. I point him to the letter in the Financial Times today, which explains that a two-state solution was imposed on Sudan, where there is now the most vicious civil war. Will the Foreign Office, in calling for a two-state solution, now start talking to interested parties about the nature of it—specifically, whether it will be a democracy, whether there will be a military, and whether there will be access to ensure that there are no tunnels? All these issues must be first addressed before calling for a two-state solution.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend charts a particular process item. That is why my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has been clear that, first and foremost, we must stop the current fighting. That will allow aid to go in and hostages to be released. However, where I disagree with my noble friend is that I think that a two-state solution is the viable option. The rights of people need to be protected and the rights of Palestinians need to be recognised. This is enshrined in international law through the UN Security Council, which of course created the State of Israel. It is important that we work directly with all partners, including Israel and the Palestinians. Democracy is a fundamental objective to ensure that the rights of all citizens—Israelis and Palestinians—are strengthened and protected.
Charities: National Minimum Wage
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support charities which might struggle to pay salaries following the planned rise in the national minimum wage in April 2024, particularly those which provide support for adults with serious learning disabilities, and their families and carers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, charities are vital to the delivery of social care services and to the support of families and carers across the country. His Majesty’s Government have made available an additional £8.6 billion in this financial year and next to support local authorities on adult social care and discharge. In addition, DCMS has awarded £76 million to charities and community organisations delivering front-line services, with a further £25 million to follow.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I declare an interest as patron of the Myriad Centre, a small and very successful charity providing adults with profound and multiple learning difficulties, and their carers and families, with support and a programme of activities in Herefordshire, Worcestershire and the West Midlands. It is heavily reliant on local authority support. It does not oppose the increase in the national minimum wage, of course, but if the minimum wage is increased by 9.8% and the contribution from Worcestershire is going to rise by only around 6%, there is going to be a shortfall that will widen year on year. This is one example. Will the Minister look at the problems of charities in that sort of situation—I have had correspondence from Mencap, which makes the same point—and see whether these gaps can be filled in some way?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord rightly points to the 9.8% increase to the national living wage, a record cash increase of £1.02 an hour from 1 April, which will give a pay rise to around 3 million workers. He is also right to talk about the implications for organisations such as charities. As I mentioned in my first Answer, the Government have made available up to £8.6 billion to support local authorities with adult social care and discharge in the next financial year. That includes £500 million announced last month to support local authorities with the cost of social care. In addition, the accelerating reform fund for adult social care will invest £42.6 million for local projects focused on transforming the care sector. We are providing support to those who are providing important care to vulnerable people in our community.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, many early years providers are charities and voluntary organisations, including preschools and nurseries. Three-quarters of their costs are salaries, and many of their employees are on the national minimum wage. Since 2017 the national minimum wage has gone up by more than 50% but the funding rate from local authorities has gone up by 21%, undermining the viability of those organisations at the very time when entitlement to free childcare is going up. Will my noble friend the Minister make representations to the relevant department to see that the funding rates are increased, so that those organisations can continue to provide a quality service?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will pass on my noble friend’s representations; he is right. The impact assessment for the increase in the national living wage shows that the cost to charities and voluntary organisations is around £200 million over the next six years. That is the evidence we have, which we will share with relevant partners to make sure that they can carry on their work. As I have pointed to, DCMS provides substantial support for charities and all the wonderful work they do in so many ways across our country, including through our energy-efficiency scheme of more than £25 million to help them with the rising costs there.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are very lucky that a lot of charities take on a lot of the heavy lifting that you could reasonably expect the state to do? They provide care for vulnerable groups. If the Government will not support charities directly, do they have a plan for if they fail?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right to point to the important contribution of civil society and charitable organisations—the Government recognise that. We saw that very clearly during the coronavirus pandemic, when we pledged £750 million to ensure that voluntary and civil society organisations could continue their vital work supporting the community during the pandemic. As I have pointed to, we see that in the face of the rising cost of living now.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say whether he has had representations from museums and galleries about this? If so, what steps will the Government take to support them in the light of this change?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, I have discussed the same issue with museums and arts organisations. The rise in the national living wage has implications for employers of all sorts. Through our increased grant in aid, Arts Council England is supporting a record number of organisations in more parts of the country than ever before. I continue to discuss these issues with organisations of all sorts.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased that the Government recognise the contribution that civil society organisations, including social enterprises, make in delivering essential public services and that they stepped up magnificently during Covid. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill currently before your Lordships’ House contains provisions on subscription contracts that charities fear will undermine gift aid provisions. Given that the Bill’s Report stage is fast approaching, what assessment have the Government made of the potential loss of income for charities if they remain subject to the new subscription rules? I accept that the Minister may not have that answer now, but it is an important question.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is indeed; I have been discussing it with my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel and Kevin Hollinrake, the Minister in another place. We have had some useful meetings and representations from a number of charities and arts organisations with which DCMS deals. My noble friend Lord Mendoza has been pressing the issue from the Back Benches. I am glad that conversations are continuing as the Bill heads to Report.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, independent schools are not among the very smallest charities in our country but they are pretty small, with 75% of them having fewer than 500 pupils and 25% having fewer than 150. The issue that this Question raises will affect them. Will not the Labour Party’s proposal to slap 20% VAT on their fees do them grave harm, forcing many of those small charities educating children and families in their local communities to close? I declare my interest as president of the Independent Schools Association, which represents 650 schools, most of which are small, local charities.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend speaks with great authority as the president of the Independent Schools Association, as he mentioned. He is right to point to the valuable work that independent schools do, not just for those they educate but for the community more widely, and to dangers of the policies advanced by the party opposite.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure we all agree that workers in the charitable sector should receive decent pensions, but many charities are currently struggling with their pension provision, both financially and structurally. Will the Minister ask his officials to engage with representatives of the Pensions Regulator and the DWP to try to provide a practical way forward for charities that have this problem?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes. My right honourable friend Stuart Andrew, the Charities Minister, regularly meets charities. I will ensure that the noble Lord’s point is passed on, so that he can have those discussions.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, in the course of this short debate the Minister has produced a large number of statistics involving sums of money that are eye-wateringly large if you look at them on their own, but it is very difficult to understand how those figures relate to the actual need in the sectors to which they are being applied. If I can take him back to the question from his noble friend—the noble Lord, Lord Young—the gap between the need of the early years providers and what is available to fund them is very considerable, and it is not being improved by what is happening in local authorities. Can he tell the House how that gap is to be addressed?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that these are eye-watering figures. As people live longer and the pressures on local authorities to deliver social care grow, we can see the implications for their budgets and spending. Those are part of the conversations that the Government have with local authorities all the time. As I said, just last month another £500 million was announced to support local authorities with the cost of social care, which we know is rising. Overall, local authorities’ core spending power is set to increase by 7.5% this year. We continue to have discussions to make sure that there is money available to local authorities to deliver that statutory responsibility and to continue to support the wonderful arts organisations, charities and others for which they do not a statutory responsibility but which can be part of delivering their statutory obligations by looking after people in so many ways.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister recognise that the problems facing charities because of the rise in the minimum wage also affect hundreds of thousands of small businesses up and down the country? Furthermore, by increasing the minimum wage, surely there is a saving to the Government on benefits, such as housing benefit. Can that saving not be deployed in the interests of those charitable bodies addressed by this Question?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government follow the recommendations of the independent Low Pay Commission. The evidence to date shows that the national living wage has given a pay rise to millions of people and reduced inequalities, without significantly harming employment prospects or having other adverse impacts. There are implications for businesses and charities—the Low Pay Commission’s impact assessments provide that evidence—but we are proud that, through the increase that comes in on 1 April, we will be giving a pay rise to around 3 million workers in this country.
Sudan: Darfur
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number of people killed or displaced throughout Sudan and Darfur during the current conflict, and what assessment they have made of warnings of impending famine.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, after 10 months of war, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project estimates, based on the available data, that over 12,000 people have been killed. Sudan now has the largest number of internally displaced people globally; over 8 million have been displaced overall since the conflict began. Some 17.7 million people face acute food insecurity and 700,000 children are already acutely malnourished. We are providing £38 million in humanitarian aid to Sudan.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, is it not extraordinary that, with thousands dead and over 8 million people displaced, as the Minister has just told us—more than in any other conflict in the world—the tragedy in Sudan has received such little attention? At one camp in Darfur, one child dies every two hours; 700,000 children are acutely malnourished; and widespread atrocities by Hemedti’s RSF—heirs of the genocidal Janjaweed in Darfur—have been described as “textbook ethnic cleansing”. Can the Minister tell us what we have done to establish the role of Wagner and the UAE in supporting the RSF, and the role of Islamist groups and Iran in supporting the SAF, and what the international community is doing to hold to account those responsible for this catastrophic suffering, including the discovery of mass graves? What hope does the UK hold out for both an end to this horrendous war and the restoration of democracy in Sudan?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his great experience and interest in this case. Where I would question what he says is that the UK certainly is not ignoring this. We are the pen-holder on Sudan at the Security Council and have taken a number of diplomatic initiatives, held events, working with IGAD and the quads, to try to make sure that we are moving forward as best we can in diplomatic terms. On aid, I agree with the noble Lord that the most regrettable recent event has been the closure of the Chad border, through which most our aid went, and the impact of that on people is devastating. We have given £600,000 for the Centre for Information Resilience Sudan witness project, which is examining precisely the points he raised and will, hopefully, be able to take forward cases to the International Criminal Court in the future. We are also taking measures to sanction individuals and organisations that we know are responsible for some of the atrocities he described.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister reminded us that the UK is the pen-holder and he talked about how we are working with our allies. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is absolutely right that our eyes have been taken off this dreadful situation in Sudan. Can the Minister tell us what exactly we are doing, perhaps as pen-holder, to secure a further resolution at the Security Council, so that we can get the world to focus once again on this disaster happening in Sudan?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are taking our role as pen-holder extremely seriously. We have held in-confidence sessions within the Security Council to try to bring forward a solution. Alongside Norway, we jointly funded the Sudan humanitarian conference that took place in Cairo in November—an event that brought together Sudanese grass-roots organisations, NGOs and the international humanitarian system to develop co-ordination mechanisms to give greater voice to Sudanese organisations in the humanitarian response. We are involved in a number of different diplomatic efforts, as well as trying to get our aid through in this very difficult situation, with the Chad border now closed, but also through South Sudan. Our post in Khartoum is closed but is operating out of Addis. We have staff in Nairobi where the UN aid programme is being co-ordinated, and we are taking a lead in trying to get as much help as we can to the people of Sudan and then in due course hold those we can to international account for the atrocities they are committing.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the potential impact of this conflict on regional stability? And why have they not renewed the position of the special representative for Sudan and South Sudan at this key time?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am not sure about that last point and will certainly get back to the noble Baroness on that, but she is absolutely right that this has a destabilising effect across the region. I am shortly to visit South Sudan, where I will be able to see what impact it is having on that country, which has considerable difficulties but not on the scale that we are seeing in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan. I will absolutely make available to the House all information we can on what we are doing regionally as well as locally.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, as well as the appalling consequences that were outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is the Minister aware that there are 19 million children in Sudan who have been out of school since April last year? As well as the 700,000 children suffering malnutrition, as has been mentioned, I gather there are another 4 million who are likely to suffer. Is the Minister aware that the RSF has already captured Sudan’s second city, Wad Madani, and—as the noble Lord mentioned the appalling atrocity in Darfur—that the US is sanctioning some of its leaders and also using every diplomatic pressure on those foreign powers supporting the RSF? Can the Minister elaborate further what we have done and what we are going to do?
Lord Benyon (Con)
On sanctions, asset freezes were applied to three commercial entities linked to each party—the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces—involved in the conflict of Sudan. These sanctions, which target entities that the SAF and RSF have used to support their war efforts, are part of our broader efforts to put pressure on parties to reach a sustained and meaningful peace process, allow humanitarian access and commit to a permanent cessation of hostilities. We do not speculate on further sanctions, but I can tell my noble friend that we are keeping this regularly under review and working with other countries to see if we can stem the flow of arms from countries where we have influence to make sure that that is not heating up an already very dangerous situation.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, the Archbishop of Khartoum has been forced to leave his home, along with his family and many of his people; they are now living in exile in Port Sudan. The Church of England dioceses with links to Sudan have tried to transfer funds to support the archbishop and his people, only to discover that banks are either unwilling or unable to transfer funds to Sudan. What assessment have the Government made of the banks’ willingness or ability to transfer funds in support of people who are suffering so terribly?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very happy to work with the right reverend Prelate and anyone who has means of getting support to particular groups such as he suggests—not just faith groups. There is a fracturing of the whole civil society across Sudan, and those are precisely the people whom we need, first, to support those in need in the current situation and, then, to rebuild the country in the future. Something as simple as banking is very important, and I am very happy to look at any suggestions he has about how the Government could influence the banking community to continue to support organisations such as faith-based ones.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned rebuilding. Has his department made any assessment of the damage to infrastructure in Darfur since April 2023—for example, the damage to water supplies, schools, medical facilities and humanitarian aid storage?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We have, and we are. This is obviously a continuing conflict; it appears that the RSF has taken large parts of Khartoum, so that part of the conflict is ongoing. In Darfur, I cannot give precise details, but part of the atrocities being committed is not just against people but against the infrastructure that supports them—such as those that the noble Baroness listed. In our package of international support to rebuild Sudan, we need to make sure we are rebuilding those assets that society will need.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, last year the US made the official atrocity determination for Sudan, citing war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Does my noble friend agree that measures and pressures must be applied not only to companies but to countries that support the RSF through funding, political support and provision of weapons?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. We are working with others to stem the flow of arms and support for these organisations, which is flowing through countries that we deal with regularly. We have a situation where civilians are trapped in the conflict zones, unable to access basic services. There is a lack of supplies and the food security crisis that is increasing day by day has all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing. We want to make sure that we are not only functioning internationally at a diplomatic level but also trying to make sure that we are supporting those in country in the best way we can in very difficult circumstances. Preventing other countries delivering arms into Sudan is a key priority.
Situation in the Red Sea
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my interests in the register, specifically my roles with the Royal Navy. I thank the Government for their Statement and want to make it clear—as my friend, the right honourable John Healey, did in the other place—that His Majesty’s Opposition accept that the weekend’s airstrikes were legal, limited and targeted to minimise the risk of civilian casualties. Before we move on to the substantive part of the Statement, I pay tribute to the total professionalism of all forces personnel involved in the operations, currently numbering in excess of 2,500. As ever, military deployments do not come without risk; I thank those serving and their families for the personal sacrifices that they make every day to keep us safe.
Research from the British Chambers of Commerce this week showed that 55% of UK exporters have now been impacted by the disruption of shipping to the Red Sea. Among UK firms more broadly, 37% have seen the effects of Houthi strikes, with manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers more likely to be affected. This is having a direct impact on our economy and cannot be tolerated. The Houthis are threatening international trade and maritime security, and are putting civilian and military lives in serious danger. We accept that the military action over the weekend was justified and necessary but, as the shadow Secretary of State asked in the other place, was it effective?
Deterrence does not feature in the weekend’s eight-nation joint statement in support of the strikes, and the Defence Secretary said on Monday that the Houthi intent remains undiminished, so can the Minister clarify exactly what our specific objectives are for this UK action? Is it deterrence or are we seeking to degrade Houthi capabilities? If it is both, as I hope it is, what will success look like? How successful have the four missions that we have been party to been in achieving these objectives?
Of course, the Labour Party continues to back the Royal Navy’s role in the defence of shipping from all nations through Operation Prosperity Guardian. Although we are a key partner in Operation Prosperity Guardian, we are now not the only ones seeking to secure freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and to tackle the Houthi threat. Can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on the current co-ordination efforts with our allies?
The EU has launched Operation Aspides with similar objectives to Operation Prosperity Guardian. How is the US-led task force co-ordinating with Operation Aspides and what plans are there for combined action? The Saudi-led intervention into the Yemeni civil war against the Houthis began nine years ago, almost to the day. Can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on the current discussions with the Saudis and the intersection between these efforts and the recent airstrikes? Military action against the Houthis must be reinforced by a diplomatic drive in the region aimed at stopping the flow of Iranian weapons, cutting off Houthi finances and settling the civil war in Yemen. A limited update was shared in the other place about these diplomatic efforts. What additional information can the Minister give us about these efforts, specifically the diplomatic plan accompanying the strikes to manage escalation risks? Can he inform your Lordships’ House what other partners and allies we are engaging with to stop the escalation of these Iranian-backed Houthi strikes?
There is no excuse for the current attacks by the Houthi rebels on international maritime activity. There is an onus on us to protect freedom of navigation, which is why we support the efforts of the UK Government and, as always, thank our service personnel for their bravery, professionalism and dedication.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces for always acting very effectively and professionally. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, we on these Benches support the limited strikes that we have seen so far. It is clearly right that, in line with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United Kingdom supports rights of navigation—in particular the right of innocent passage, which is enshrined in Article 17.
That said, can the Minister tell the House at what point His Majesty’s Government would feel it appropriate to come to this Chamber or, more likely, the other place to talk more fully about engagement in the Red Sea and attacks on Houthi targets? There are questions about parliamentary scrutiny of military intervention. For limited strikes, it is clearly right that the Government say, “This happened two nights ago”, but at what point does the number of limited strikes cumulatively become something that Parliament really should be addressing and able to scrutinise more fully?
Beyond that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, pointed out, what we are seeing from the Houthis is action that is impacting on trade and navigability. It impacts not only the United Kingdom or our conventional western allies; these attacks are affecting global trade. There have been attacks on Chinese-registered companies’ ships and on crews from India, Sri Lanka and Syria. Although we clearly need to be talking with our conventional partners and allies, what discussions are we also having with China, India and other countries about more global ways of tackling this situation? In defending the Red Sea and keeping it open for trade, we are not only acting for the West but looking more globally. Is there scope within the United Nations to be talking much more broadly with a variety of countries that are, perhaps, not our normal partners and which even the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, may not yet have reached in his travels around the world in his first 100 days as Foreign Secretary? There may be opportunities that we could think about.
It is clearly welcome that the attacks so far appear to have been targeted, precise and proportionate. They have taken out Houthi targets, Houthi drone bases and so on but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, asked, what is the Government’s intent? Is it to degrade the Houthi capabilities, which is clearly welcome, or is it to deter? If it is trying to degrade, which the Government are saying has been successful, is that going to be a long-term degradation or are the Houthis simply going to look to their Iranian backers for further military support? In other words, can the Minister tell the House to what extent these limited attacks will remain limited and to what extent we are going to be able to work with partners to try to ensure that the reckless and opportunistic Houthi attacks stop? What is the endgame for the Government? Is it to ensure that there is full deterrence of the Houthis?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, let me start by making it absolutely clear that the Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden are illegal and intolerable. Their reckless and dangerous actions threaten freedom of navigation and global trade, let alone the risk to innocent lives. That is why the UK, alongside the United States and with the support of our international partners, has carried out additional strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen in line with international law and in self-defence.
We continue to take action that is necessary, limited, legal and proportionate in terms of self-defence, freedom of navigation and protecting lives. Our aim remains to disrupt and degrade Houthi capabilities to put an end to this persistent threat, and we will not hesitate to take further appropriate action to deliver this purpose.
I turn to the specific questions raised by the noble Baronesses, which I hope will go a long way to explaining this. First, on behalf of the Government, I continue to appreciate the support from all Benches in the House; it is extremely valuable and very helpful in reaching these decisions, and, of course, we appreciate the immense professionalism of all the Armed Forces and their support who are involved in this continuing and extremely tricky situation.
The effect on commerce goes without saying. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, pointed out, it is really starting to have an impact on European markets and, by definition, it must be having an impact on the manufacturing and supply bases in the Far East that ship towards Europe. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about China and its silence so far on this entire issue, one can only hope that the diplomatic efforts in that direction, when tinged with a little bit of economic reality, may have a slightly more impressive effect.
As for the actual effect of the specific attacks that we have undertaken, it may be helpful to run through exactly what we are trying to do, and to delineate these specific attacks in relation to a more general approach. These carefully targeted sites—and they really are carefully targeted—are attacking deeply buried weapons storage, launch sites, ground-control systems and radars, which are the four things that will stop these attacks. The intention to deter and degrade is absolutely present, and Prosperity Guardian is all about deterrence. These three things are intricately linked. In the attack last weekend, we hit three buildings, destroyed five drones that were ready to be launched, and, as far as we are aware, no civilian casualties were caused. To date, we have had four strikes on seven facilities and 40 targets. The information is that all four have been successful in support of Prosperity Guardian and our American, and other, allies—it is the Americans, of course, who are leading.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, quite rightly raises the question of Aspides, which is the EU stepping up to the plate, to some extent. To put a scale on that, it consists of four frigates and a single aerial asset. It is a defensive maritime security operation, and it will protect commercial shipping from attacks at sea or by air, but it will not involve itself in strikes on land. It started on 19 February 2024, it is based in Greece and it has an Italian force commander. It provides a valuable defensive role, but we do not see it being involved in any degrading or deterring.
On the question of the conversations with wider allies and other countries in the area, the whole purpose of the diplomatic effort is to put pressure on Iran, to try to stop the supply of weaponry to its acolytes. By taking military action—which is a final resort—as well as the diplomatic effort, we are doing all we can to restrict weapons and finance. It is consistent with our whole approach; it is appropriate and backed up with force.
My final point goes back to the question of global trade and the point that was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that it is not just the allied shipping that is under attack. The idea that the Houthis are attacking only ships that are proving to be in support of something going on in Gaza is completely spurious. They attack whatever they like, including, as I am sure your Lordships are fully aware, the one ship that brings aid to Yemen, to support the UK and international partners. So that claim is just complete nonsense.
Finally, I will respond to the question of when these individual strikes become something more of a sustained campaign. It is a very difficult question to answer and it is not an easy one to grasp, because we do not quite know what level of effect these strikes are having on the overall capability of the Houthis. These are limited and deliberate strikes in direct response to the Houthi attacks on commercial shipping, our Navy and coalition ships in the region. There is no doubt that we have degraded the Houthi capability and we will continue to urge the Houthis, and those who enable them, to stop the illegal and unacceptable attacks on UK commercial and military vessels, and on those of our partners in the Red Sea and the wider region. Beyond that, it is very difficult to see how a broadening of this action may evolve.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Would my noble friend agree that it is highly desirable that other countries that have substantial military assets should use them to participate with the United States and the United Kingdom in the relevant military action against the Houthis? There is no reason why we should be confined to doing it by ourselves with the United States; other countries should play their part.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend’s point. However, it is the decision of each individual sovereign state to decide at what level they wish to become involved.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that HMS “Diamond” is replenishing with missiles in Gibraltar—which, I have to say, confirms the strategic importance of Gibraltar? I have a question for the Minister, and if he does not know the answer, perhaps he could write to me. The future fleet solid support ships must have the ability to replenish vertical launch missiles at sea. As I understand it, that is not in the spec at the moment; could the Minister please check that, because obviously the whole point is that we could have replenished Diamond out on station, rather than having to send her 1,500 miles home?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. I do not know the precise situation of where we are, but I know that there is great flexibility in transitioning to the new fleet. I will find out and respond.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will remember that, at an early stage in the crisis, the UN Security Council called on the Houthis to desist. What consideration are the Government giving to further action at the United Nations? Are they, for example, seeking to put together a majority in the UN Security Council, calling on all member states to stop supplying weapons to the Houthis and stop helping them in their illegal actions? If the first resolution went through, is there not a chance of getting something a little stronger by building on that?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Yes, there is quite some activity, but I am sure I need not point out to your Lordships that the Houthis pay scant regard to anything that the United Nations says.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces. The noble Lord, Lord West, makes an interesting point, but it also exposes a slightly uncomfortable truth: we are using multi-million-pound missiles to defeat drones which are a fraction of the cost. This is ultimately unsustainable. What is the plan? Are we going to learn lessons from Ukraine, where there is a rather more layered approach to defeating drones? Ultimately, are we going to find some other way of defeating these weapon systems?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I admit that I look at this from a slightly different perspective. We are launching a missile in self-defence at an incoming attack vehicle, which is attempting to hit something behind us, which is probably worth half a billion pounds and well in excess of 100 lives. Having moved into position, there is no question that we are doing absolutely the right thing in deterring, degrading and reducing the Houthis’ effectiveness. On lessons from Ukraine, I assure the House that there is an enormous amount of activity going on in precisely that area, about what action can be taken to update and diversify all the weaponry at our disposal.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned the intention to disrupt the Houthis’ ability to make these attacks. What steps are being taken, if any, to stop the shipment to Yemen, from Iran or elsewhere, of offensive weapons for use by the Houthis?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord makes an interesting point. As part of the international force dedicated to degrading the Houthis’ effectiveness, our partners are diverting and searching vehicles, both at sea and elsewhere, to ensure that as much as possible can be stopped from arriving in Yemen. At the same time, we are looking at disrupting the manufacturing capability behind this, which of course is based in Iran.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in lessons learned, I hope the Government are also looking back at Operation Atalanta, which the noble Lord may recall was an EU operation commanded by the UK through Northwood, dealing with the Somali threat. Indeed, I recall—I was then a Minister—that there were some informal contacts between that UK-led force and Chinese naval vessels, which were also in the area. On the question of degrading, if the Houthis are mainly using speedboats and drones, how easy is it to degrade their capability over more than a very short period? Those are cheap and easy to move and therefore able to operate through all sorts of places. Are there limits to how far we can maintain having degraded them for more than a few weeks?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the point is extremely well made. All parties are conversing at a certain level. Degrading these small drones and unmanned boats is not just a question of physically destroying them but also of disrupting their ability to land where they are supposed to.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, further to the question of my noble friend Lord Hailsham about the help we are getting from allies, can my noble friend confirm that the two biggest economies in Europe are Germany and France, in that order, which are importing significant quantities of goods from the Far East and China through the Suez Canal and therefore have a big interest in protecting shipping in the Red Sea? What is either country doing to suppress the Houthis’ missile systems?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. To be honest, I do not know precisely what they are doing; I will find out and write. They are definitely supportive of Aspides, and that is certainly a move in the right direction.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, has the FCDO sufficiently studied the people of north Yemen, who are quite different from those in the south? In the view of some experts, they are irrepressible. What is the reaction of international diplomacy to that?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point—one brought out earlier by the involvement of Saudi Arabia. It is very difficult to answer. We must take action to deter the disruption going through the Suez Canal because we believe so passionately in global trade. One would hope that there comes a point when diplomatic efforts and other activity in the region may bring a halt to this very unfortunate situation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, Maersk, which I understand is the largest container company in the world, and Hapag-Lloyd, based in Germany, have taken the decision for commercial reasons not to risk going through the Red Sea but to take the long way around. Does my noble friend agree that this is possibly one reason why Germany and other European countries have not committed their forces against the Houthis at this time, as is the increased threat seen to Denmark’s home security and the fear of repercussions at home were it to do so?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. These enormous shipping operations have clearly taken some commercial decisions, which are almost certainly the right thing to do for them and their customers. One can see why there may be some reticence for sovereign states to get involved in more direct action, thereby threatening some of those countries’ commercial assets.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, a clause in the Statement says:
“Intelligence analysis indicates that the strikes were successful”,—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/24; col. 25.]
yet elsewhere, the Statement notes:
“The Houthi intent remains undiminished”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/24; col. 27.]
Picking up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, there is little or no evidence thus far that there has been a meaningful diminishment in capacity. Is the word “successful” right, or should perhaps the Government not be saying something such as “achieved its objectives”?
I very much welcome the fact that the Statement says:
“Military action is only one aspect of our approach”,—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/24; col. 25.]
focusing on diplomatic action but, on the countries we are working with, it talks about G7 partners, the US and the Sultan of Oman. However, many countries have been significantly impacted by this. For example, in Bangladesh, 65% of its garment exports, which are so central to its economy, go to Europe. The cost of containers is already up by about 50% and expected to go up by another 20%. Should the Government not be looking to do more to bring in countries such as Bangladesh, the Philippines and Indonesia, with so many seafarers being put at risk? Is this not a real opportunity to look truly globally and internationally, to try to get the international community working collectively—not necessarily but possibly through the UN—acknowledging that it cannot just be about a few countries?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness says. The countries involved in the specific action we are taking are doing everything they can to get a situation where the Red Sea returns to being a safe passage of water. It is globally important; it is not just important for a few countries, as the noble Baroness rightly points out. That is precisely why we are acting as part of an international force to deter the Houthis and degrade their effect.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Minister to the UK-registered merchant vessel “Rubymar”, which was hit by Houthi missiles two days ago. Mercifully, none of the crew were injured, but the vessel is drifting and sinking. It is carrying a very volatile cargo of fertiliser and there is already a fuel leak, so we could well be looking at quite a major maritime environmental disaster. What is HMG’s assessment of the situation at the moment and what efforts will be made to make sure that this injured, badly damaged vessel is towed to the nearest safe port?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that it is potentially quite a severe issue. The Government and others are looking at what can be done. It is obviously unstable in an unstable environment and it is important that something is done about this relatively quickly.
Windrush
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
That this House takes note of the Windrush scandal and the implementation and effectiveness of the Windrush Compensation Scheme.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, lives have been ruined, people have been falsely accused of lying and breaking the law, many have faced mental health issues and some have died without compensation—no, I am not referring to the Post Office scandal but to something equally shocking and unjust: the Windrush scandal, which I prefer to call the “Home Office scandal”, because that is what it is, the Home Office’s scandal. I have stood in this House on a number of occasions over the years, highlighting and drawing attention to this disgraceful state of affairs, and I am frustrated to bring this debate before the House once again to demonstrate that the matter is still as distressing as ever for the thousands of victims.
As we approach the sixth anniversary of the scandal emerging and the fifth anniversary of the launch of the Government’s Windrush compensation scheme, it is with great sadness—and extremely unfortunate—that we are still talking about the scandal today and not focusing on the extraordinary contribution the Windrush generation has given to our nation. The Windrush generation should be defined not by the scandal but by the enormous contribution they have made to Britain, starting back in 1948 when they were invited to come and help rebuild Britain after the war, many leaving their children and families behind. I am part of that generation and it was with great pride that I chaired the Windrush Commemoration Committee to oversee the creation of the magnificent, award-winning National Windrush Monument designed by Basil Watson, which proudly stands at Waterloo Station to celebrate this important part of our British history.
It has become a symbolic place of pilgrimage for adults who recall their trauma—and they weep. Many children who are studying Windrush visit the monument, which is so uplifting. But, sadly, the shadow of the scandal hangs over us as it remains clear that the injustices suffered by the Windrush generation still need to be addressed in a more urgent and timely manner than is currently the case. Victims are suffering from trauma and serious ill health, both physical and mental.
The number of people affected by the scandal is likely to be much higher than estimated by the Home Office. Figures vary dramatically and can be confusing but, as far as I can gather from lawyers, out of the potential 7,500 Windrush claimants—that is, those who have obtained status documents and have suffered detriment—only 2,097 have received compensation. That is £75.9 million out of the £500 million put aside.
The Home Office scandal caused by the hostile environment policy resulted in untold harm to the hard-working people of the Windrush generation. These citizens lost their homes and became homeless, living on the streets or being accommodated by friends or family in overcrowded properties. They lost access to their bank accounts and had to borrow and beg for money to survive. They lost their driving licences and their pensions. They suffered the humiliation of having to borrow from or take handouts from their adult children. They could not access benefits. They could not access the NHS, so their health suffered and many died as a consequence of the lack of timely medical treatment.
Their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren also had their British citizenship denied. Many young people’s higher education stopped as they could not establish their citizenship. Many were unlawfully detained in detention centres, causing them humiliation, shock, embarrassment and mental anguish. That, in turn, affected their physical and mental health. Many were unlawfully deported, as admitted by the Government. Some were taken to countries they did not know and had to live on the streets without family support. Many died without receiving compensation.
This is a human story, full of injustice and emotional trauma. The survivors of the scandal feel let down and unheard, and their situations misunderstood. They are not illegal immigrants, refugees or asylum seekers; they are British citizens who entered the UK lawfully to study or work.
After years of work and dedication to Britain, it has been pointed out by Age UK that one of the many hidden consequences of losing employment and entitlement to benefits due to the scandal is that many drew their private pensions early to make ends meet. This has led to reduced private pension pots. In some cases, a loss of employment may have led to the loss of a private pension. However, loss of private pensions is not currently included in the scheme’s calculation of loss of earnings. This is despite repeated calls from campaigners for the inclusion of private pensions.
While being locked out of employment, claimants have also missed out on their workplace pensions which they have accumulated over many years. This is particularly important because the majority of the Windrush victims are of, or approaching, pensionable age. Estimating these losses is complex but, as they are a direct result of action taken by the Home Office, Age UK believes that the Government should find a way to cover them in the compensation scheme. So will the Government consider including loss of future earnings, which is not currently compensated for, under the scheme?
One of Britain’s largest unions, Unison, has told me that its fears were realised as reports came in of compensation claims being delayed longer than a year, complex forms, small payments and high levels of proof. The compensation scheme has placed victims under scrutiny, treating their claims with suspicion and placing their applications and lives in limbo. This has to end.
Thankfully, there are a number of lawyers, and individuals such as Patrick Vernon, who have got organisations to join together to set up the Windrush Justice Clinic to support and assist Windrush victims. They have all told me that victims are nervous about coming forward, for they know that the same people responsible for deporting them are also dealing with the compensation scheme and believe that this scheme should be overseen by an independent body. I have received dozens of case studies to justify this.
The Government must understand that victims are coming from a starting point of having their core beliefs destroyed by this scandal. They have little or no trust in authority, meaning that lawyers assisting them must first get over the hurdle of persuading them to trust and believe that they and others are there to help—others such as Glenda Caesar. She came to the UK as a baby, lost her job as an NHS administrator in 2009, faced deportation and was denied the right to work for nearly a decade. She now represents other Windrush victims and their claims for compensation. Just last week, someone working here on the Parliamentary Estate contacted me about problems they are having with a Windrush compensation claim. I connected them with Glenda and with other agencies.
Windrush victims need support similar to those affected by the Post Office scandal. The former government adviser to the Windrush compensation scheme, Martin Forde KC, who has since become one of its fiercest critics, said that the process for the Windrush victims to claim compensation
“is still very document heavy”.
It moves very slowly and the scheme cries out for legal aid.
Retired judges, senior parliamentarians and forensic accountants all are working on the postmaster scheme. Why are the Government not applying this kind of expertise to the Windrush compensation scheme? Anyone who has seen the form will know how complex it is, especially as many claimants are in their 60s and 70s and have no access to the internet. Even lawyers and solicitors say that they are having problems with the three different types of form: the primary application form is 44 pages long; the close family member application form is 24 pages long; the representative of estate application form is 46 pages long. All come with vast online support notes and the requirement of a large number of supporting historic documents. Lawyers have told me that these forms are one of the biggest hurdles to getting people to apply.
The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee agreed, and said that the scheme should be transferred to an independent body. This is something I called for from these Benches back in 2019. I was told by the Minister that it would take up to two years to implement. That was five years ago. This scandal is not going away. As the Justice 4 Windrush campaign, led by Colin McFarlane, has shown, this has wide support from all sectors of society across the country—the campaign’s online letter to the Prime Minister has also called for an independent body to be established.
No amount of compensation can ever erase the hurt and humiliation that the Windrush generation have suffered since their arrival in the motherland, when signs in the windows read, “No Irish, no dogs, no coloureds”. I witnessed those signs. We have heard so much about righting the wrongs for the Windrush generation but the Government’s good intentions must be matched by good outcomes. The Wendy Williams compensation recommendations were accepted by the Government with good intentions, only for three important ones in the report—including having a migrant commissioner—to be rolled back on in the most disrespectful way, as I highlighted in this House last year. It is clear that the Government must demonstrate their well-crafted words of intent through well-crafted actions, and stop this further humiliation and undignified treatment of the Windrush generation.
There is an automatic payment of between £10,000 and up to £100,000 for those British citizens who have been granted documentation through the status scheme, as they have suffered a high level of impact on life. This should be decided in six weeks, said the Government, but it has taken much, much longer. Why?
To make matters worse, it has emerged that children born in the UK after 1983 are now being rendered stateless. This highlights the need for a renewed approach, working in partnership with national organisations that support those affected on a daily basis, to ensure not just that wrongs are addressed but that related issues faced by those caught up in the scandal are fully considered.
It is now more important than ever to properly resolve this situation for the thousands of people affected, with compassion, consideration and empathy, as quickly as possible in view of their age and trauma. Once they have been sorted out, their descendants’ lives can also be sorted out.
We have had five Secretaries of State dealing with the Home Office scandal, yet only one has taken the time to meet with the Windrush victims, some of whom are sitting in the Chamber today. They are proud, hard-working people who have contributed to British society, but they have been humiliated in the most disrespectful way. Will the Minister show empathy and take time to meet them personally after this debate? For progress to be made, it is essential that trust and confidence in the relationship between the Home Office and the Windrush generation is restored. Sadly, we are far, far from this. The solution should be for an independent body to deal with this scandalous, heartbreaking, cruel and shameful episode of British history, because trauma lasts a lifetime.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, on securing this important and timely debate. The noble Baroness has done so much to champion the cause of Windrush and to celebrate the contribution of this valued community to British society. The personal journey of the noble Baroness is faithfully documented in her autobiography, What Are You Doing Here?—a very good read.
My involvement in Windrush was awakened as a result of a Question I was down to answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, in your Lordships’ House on the need for a dedicated national Windrush day on 22 June, the anniversary of the arrival at Tilbury of the “Empire Windrush” so many years before, in 1948. I was convinced. It was a privilege to work alongside the noble Baroness.
The Government were moved, ultimately. There was a dedicated Windrush day and a dedicated national service of celebration, the first at Westminster Abbey, and a celebration at Downing Street hosted by the Prime Minister, Theresa May—all of this with the vital three words, “with a budget”. Organised via the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as it then was, and securing afterwards exhibitions, music, dancing, food, historical perspectives and celebration of the vital contributions—economic, cultural, social and sporting—that have been given by this valuable community, giving an injection of diversity into national life, it was truly a great success. There were celebrations throughout the country, at Tilbury, Brixton, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds and Nottingham, and in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I remember working alongside Paulette Simpson, Sonia Winifred and others, and the Voice magazine, all well and good. As has been mentioned, the noble Baroness headed up a committee to provide a lasting national monument. I see it regularly as I arrive at Waterloo station en route to your Lordships’ House—it is very fine indeed. Nobody could have done more than the noble Baroness—all this positivity and hope.
Meanwhile, alas, shamefully, the Windrush scandal was unfolding. The original Windrush settlers arrived in 1948, over 75 years ago. They were the first members of a generation who had been encouraged to move to the United Kingdom—our country—to help rebuild a new, regenerated United Kingdom after the ravages of the Second World War. And help rebuild it they did, with vital contributions to national services and national life.
My Lords, fast forward to the Immigration Act 1971. This Act gave Commonwealth citizens the right to live and work here in the United Kingdom; this was, after all, their country. People had built their lives here and generations followed them. Then, in 2017-18, it was revealed that many citizens who had lived here totally legally for generations, many of them from the Caribbean, were wrongly refused access to basic public services or charged for services that were theirs by right; in some cases, people were detained and deported. Just ponder that for a while. They were people with every right to be here—our fellow country men and women. This was, and is, a matter of national shame.
Our Government—a British Government—had no proper records and no appropriate paperwork and had, in many instances, seemingly destroyed landing slips for boats that had recorded people’s arrival dates many years before. This rightly caused horror and outrage at the injustice and the hardship inflicted. There was a need for drastic action. As has rightly been stated, the scandal raised serious questions about the Home Office, race and our country—and still does. Theresa May apologised and some positive action did follow: close to 16,000 people who did not have documentation then received it. Some—the accent is on “some”—compensation was paid, but not enough and not quickly enough in view of the massive losses inflicted.
Meanwhile, in June 2018, a review was set up. The Home Office appointed Wendy Williams, then Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, to conduct an independent review of the Windrush scandal, focusing on events from 2008 onwards. The review was published in 2022 and did not pull its punches. It is worth noting that, alongside this review, a transformation unit was set up in the Home Office to deal with the Windrush situation and carry forward Windrush policy. This was a reform agenda that successive Home Secretaries—Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and, initially, Suella Braverman; I stress “initially”—pledged to follow. My first question to my noble friend the Minister, who is certainly not personally to blame for the stuttering policy and serious errors that have been made, is this: why was that unit disbanded? I hope that he will do better than suggest that it is due to the significant progress we have seen—a suggestion that has been made previously and is, frankly, not credible. It is what might be called, if I may borrow a couple of phrases from across the pond, baloney or hogwash—or worse.
This brings me to the Wendy Williams review. I ask my noble friend: how many of the 30 recommendations that were accepted in full by the Government at the time have been implemented in full, and how many are yet to be completed? As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, three key recommendations were ditched by Suella Braverman although they had previously been accepted in full by the Government. The ditching of those recommendations was bemoaned and labelled a mistake by Theresa May in her compelling review of what happened in her book, The Abuse of Power. The recommendations included, as the noble Baroness said, the appointment of an independent migrants commissioner; the review and strengthening of the role of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration; and the organisation of reconciliation events between members of the Windrush generation and officials and Ministers. Why did the Government go back on their acceptance of these key recommendations? Why, why, why? Was it all down to the personality of that particular Home Secretary? If so, will the position be reviewed by the current Home Secretary and those recommendations restored? I do hope so.
Let us be honest about the position we are in. Among a generation of people and their descendants, largely from the Caribbean, many have been treated abominably. There was recognition of that by Theresa May, the then Prime Minister, and some action, but not enough and not speedily enough. Rather than take our foot off the accelerator and apply what appears to be a handbrake turn, as was done under Suella Braverman, we should press full steam ahead. Every time the Home Office feels inclined to veer to the complacent, the smug and the self-congratulatory, it needs to remind itself of the people who have died without a penny piece of compensation. It needs to remind itself of the backlog of claims and the complex forms that had to be filled in. Above all, it needs to remind itself of the outstanding compensation claims that exist and of the searing, justified, burning sense of injustice rightly felt by a section of our own community—by our very own country men and women.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it is the 1950s. Ferdy, Bernie, Dennis and Lennie arrive in London from the West Indies full of optimism about their futures. That is the opening premise of the musical, “The Big Life”, which has returned to the Theatre Royal Stratford East. Life turns out to be harder than they expected.
I mention this because it is where Shakespeare’s “Love’s Labour’s Lost” meets the Windrush generation. It is not just a great ska musical; it is also a timely reminder of how much we owe each other and how much we have all benefited in different ways, as was highlighted so strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. Another reminder is the welcome decision by the Mayor of London to choose Windrush as the designation of one of the untangled Overground lines. Appropriately, the Windrush line goes through Brixton—we will leave for another day the unfortunate fact that it does not stop there—and, as has already been mentioned, there is a Windrush sculpture in Waterloo Station.
Recognition of the Windrush generation’s role in these different ways is of course welcome; equally, what would be even more welcome is fulfilling the promise of compensation for the British citizens from the Commonwealth who were wrongfully deported, detained and denied their rights. A promise made is not the same as a promise delivered. Much more needs to be done to address fully the harm caused by past policies and neglect, which is why I heartily welcome today’s debate and thank the noble Baroness for her excellent, compelling speech. I also welcome the strong speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. He mentioned many people who have been involved in this campaign but I particularly welcomed his reference to the work of Sonia Winifred. I look forward to the Government’s response to the powerful arguments being presented—although, at this stage, I must say that I do so without a lot of optimism.
The Government’s failures concerning the Windrush generation must be highlighted in five key areas. The first is legal status and documentation. Changes in immigration law over the years did not account for these individuals, leaving them without easy access to the necessary paperwork to prove their right to live in the United Kingdom. Given the passage of time and complexity of the issues involved, the burden of proof should be appropriate, which it clearly is not at the moment.
Secondly, we must account for the “hostile environment” policy that ruled for too long. Without documentation to prove their legal status, many were denied access to healthcare, housing, employment and benefits. Some were detained; some were even deported. These harms were not one-offs: they echoed throughout their lives and down the generations.
I mention here the case of the significant number of British citizens who were chronically sick and mentally ill but sent to Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean between 1958 and 1970. The policy was that each patient should have
“expressed a wish to return”
and be sent only if there would be “benefit” to the patient and “suitable arrangements” in the receiving country. In practice, it has to be asked whether vulnerable patients had the capacity to make such decisions, and it is far from clear that the receiving countries had the capacity to provide these people with adequate care.
The third issue is the lack of government support and action. Although the Government have acknowledged the injustices faced by the Windrush generation and established the compensation scheme, the process has been too slow, too complex and inadequate to address the losses and hardship experienced. This has already been explained clearly. A major problem is the lack of support for claimants. I understand from an excellent report in the latest edition of the Brixton Bugle that Southwark Law Centre is taking the Government to the High Court for refusing legal aid to a claimant through the Windrush compensation scheme, and I wish them every success.
Another concern, in the research from the King’s College legal clinic, is that, of comparable compensation schemes, the Windrush compensation scheme has statistically
“the lowest success rate and highest refusal rate for applicants, with only 22% (1,641) of those applying receiving compensation and 53% of initial applications being refused”.
We must ask how many of those are because of the sheer complexity of the process rather than the fact that they were not entitled. I hope that the Minister will address these concerns in his response. Additionally, are sufficient resources being provided to the relevant high commissions so that they can support claimants resident in those countries?
The fourth aspect is that this is part and parcel of the racial discrimination that the Windrush generation has had to face as part of the broader issue that all people from minority-ethnic groups have faced within the UK’s immigration system. The challenges continue to demonstrate systemic issues of racism and discrimination, which need to be addressed. A dedicated unit is the only real answer to that problem.
Then there is the impact on people’s lives. The Government’s failures have had a profound impact on the lives of many members of the Windrush generation, affecting their mental health, financial stability and sense of belonging to the United Kingdom. I highlight the mental toll on claimants and their families caused by the Government’s inadequate response. Even after the initial crisis, victims continue to face negative experiences because of these policies. The trauma experienced by the Windrush generation can be passed down to subsequent generations. Families must grapple with the emotional aftermath, affecting the mental well-being of children and grandchildren.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give us some hope in his response that these issues will be addressed.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)
My Lords, I also pay tribute to my dear noble friend Lady Benjamin. She is right to say that this scandal should not define the Windrush generation, but she is equally right to say that we must address it and effectively deal with it.
As has been said by many, the treatment of the Windrush generation is one of the country’s greatest contemporary scandals. Six years ago, almost to the day, the nation began to wake to the reality of a hostile immigration environment that had been in place for decades. Only then, six years ago, were the trauma, heartache and pain laid fully bare, thanks in no small measure to the dogged determination of those such as Amelia Gentleman, Patrick Vernon, Lee Jasper and many others. As a matter of fact, back in 2019 I joined Lee Jasper and other campaigners in a march on Westminster demanding justice.
It is worth reminding ourselves of how this scandal affected tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people’s lives, some directly and many others indirectly. More than 160 individuals were deported or detained. For example, grandparents who had lived here for more than half their lives were deported to countries they had not visited since early childhood. Some went on holiday to visit families and were not allowed back into the country. Many were financially ruined or sacked, found themselves destitute and were blacklisted—I hate that term—from jobs, unable to open bank accounts and denied life-saving medical treatment. These British citizens were demeaned and hounded by the state—the state that this most loyal of British generations called the mother country.
Think about this for a second. Can you ever ask for a greater loyalty than from a generation whose ancestors were enslaved and then colonised by the UK but who nevertheless fought in two world wars to ensure the freedom of that nation and then, after the war, accepted the pleas of politicians such as Enoch Powell—there is an irony there—to come and rebuild a post-war broken Britain? These remarkable citizens, with the purest of hearts, rightly or wrongly referred to this nation as the mother country.
It is this generation, my mother’s cohort, who the King of England and much of the Commonwealth described as pioneers. He went on to say, as part of the Windrush 75th anniversary celebrations:
“History is, thankfully and finally, beginning to accord a rightful place to those men and women of the Windrush generation … It is, I believe, crucially important that we should truly see and hear these pioneers who stepped off the Empire Windrush at Tilbury in June 1948—only a few months before I was born—and those who followed over the decades, to recognise and celebrate the immeasurable difference that they, their children and their grandchildren have made to this country”.
For the record, the King held two wonderful events to celebrate the 75th anniversary: one at Buckingham Palace, which I and my noble friend attended, and another at Windsor Castle. In sharp contrast, I am not aware of any celebratory events that No. 10 or the Home Office held for the 75th anniversary celebrations, but I am very much aware that this Government and subsequent Governments have treated this generation with utter contempt.
Around the week of the Windrush 75th anniversary celebrations, for example, the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman—not one for much empathy towards people of African descent, Muslims, and those who crossing the channel—did little or nothing beyond announcing the abandonment of three of Wendy Williams’ key Windrush recommendations.
They are worth noting again. Recommendation 3 is that the Home Office should
“run a programme of reconciliation events with members of the Windrush generation … Recommendation 9 … introduce a Migrants’ Commissioner responsible for speaking up for migrants and those affected by the system directly or indirectly … Recommendation 10 … Review the remit and role of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, to include consideration of giving the ICIBI more powers with regard to publishing reports”.
Since those six years, what has changed? What has been achieved? Well, according to Age Concern and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, not enough. Simple facts: about 15,000 undocumented people have been given paperwork by the Home Office since the scandal, proving that they have, and always had, the right to live here. Officials initially expected that a similar number might claim for compensation, and anticipated paying out somewhere upwards of £200 million. Some progress has been made—so far, the scheme has paid out £75 million to 2,000 claims—but the scheme remains slow and bafflingly complex, and demanding of sophisticated legal advice.
Navigating this process is difficult for any legal advisers, so how can someone stripped of their dignity, and not working, even begin to navigate this complexity? The victims of the Windrush scandal are not offered legal aid and, as such, this House should note and recognise, with great shame, that people are literally dying while waiting for justice. To date, 53 individuals have died waiting.
Have the Government and the Home Office learned anything from this very brutal abuse of power scandal—one which, as has been said, has similarities with the Post Office scandal? It appears not.
According to the indomitable Amelia Gentleman, the Home Office team that was tasked with transforming the department after the Windrush scandal has been formally disbanded. Three teams with the directorate were working on post-Windrush issues: one on ethics—think about that for a second—another on training and monitoring progress on reform commitments and a third on engagement, who were told, “Your work is over”.
After many years of deep suffering, how do we properly right this wrong to a generation that deserves better? Step one—urgently—take this away from the Home Office. It has proven incapable and/or unwilling to effectively deal with this. For me, it is a little bit like an unrepentant burglar being asked to give back the booty they have stolen from victims: it ain’t happening. Step two—give free legal aid and fast-track compensation, with clear published targets. Step three—lower the burden of proof for claims and compensate fully for losses and impact on life. Step four—reimplement those teams that were engaged with the work on ethics. Might I suggest that, right across government, a standing item with every prospective policy legislation should have this? Step five—full implementation of Wendy Williams’ review, with a turbocharged team to deliver.
Finally, I would like to see, and my friends visiting today would like to see, a gathering of all those Prime Ministers still alive and with us from the 1970s to come here, collectively, and sincerely apologise. They include John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. We need a collective, heartfelt apology for the damage caused, before it is too late.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Benjamin on securing this debate, for the eloquent and passionate speech she made today, and for the brilliant monument installed at Waterloo station last year, to which her tireless campaigning led.
Although many people will have heard about the Windrush scandal, they—like me—may not know how it arose. The tale is worth retelling, because it sets the context of how the Windrush scandal was allowed to arise, and how it went from bad to worse. Under the Immigration Act 1971, foreign nationals ordinarily resident in the UK were deemed to have settled status and given indefinite leave to remain. However, many people were not issued with any documentation confirming their status, and the Home Office did not keep a full register confirming who was entitled to this status. So the fault for what subsequently happened lies, at least in part, at the door of the Home Office.
Then we had the “hostile environment”, initiated by Theresa May in 2012 with the intention of deterring illegal immigrants—but the Home Office started checking more widely. By late 2017, media coverage started to pay attention to individual cases of long-term residents facing hardship due to their difficulties in proving their lawful immigration status. Jobs, homes, healthcare and welfare benefits were lost, as we have all heard. People were detained, removed from the UK and denied re-entry to their homes following trips abroad.
I can only imagine what it must have felt like to be faced with billboards saying, “Go Home or Face Arrest” and the psychological distress felt by people whose residence was suddenly called into question after so many years. Research by the University of London found that psychological distress suffered by the Windrush population rose markedly after the Immigration Act 2014 and the subsequent Windrush scandal came to light. This had a worse psychological effect than the coronavirus on the general population.
Some interim measures to redress the damage were introduced and Theresa May apologised in words to the effect of, “But I didn’t mean you”. But it was too late—the hostile environment had spread and infected large parts of the white British psyche.
We have heard that, in 2018, Wendy Williams began her review of “lessons learned” and made 30 recommendations, which were accepted in full by the then Home Secretary Priti Patel. The compensation scheme was introduced in 2019, administered by the Home Office. It is shameful to note that by 2023, fewer than 2,000 claims had been settled—only 13% of the outstanding claims.
UNISON has commented that the Home Office administrators of the compensation scheme have
“placed victims under scrutiny … treated their claims with skepticism and placed their … lives in limbo. For too many of those affected, the compensation scheme feels like more of the same rather than … justice”.
The Home Office, aided and abetted by the “hostile environment”, was clearly the source of the problem. I cannot see it being capable of delivering the solution any time soon, given its record so far. It seems clear to me that administration of the compensation scheme, as has been called for by so many others, should be placed in independent hands. Age UK and many others, including the Lib Dem group here, are calling for this.
Even when compensation has been offered, some offers were insultingly low and arguably the most important element of all—loss of private pension—was not considered, consigned to the “too difficult” box. Many of these individuals are now pensioners, with no opportunity to make up the lost pensions they would have received.
After Priti Patel accepted the Wendy Williams recommendations in full, the next Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, reneged on three—to have a migrant commissioner to engage with migrants directly, to have a review of the remit and role of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, and to have reconciliation events with Windrush families. Wendy Williams said that the Home Office must
“open itself up to greater external scrutiny”
and advised it that it was
“vital to improve the accountability, effectiveness and legitimacy of the system”.
UNISON is currently working with other parties to provide a legal challenge to this decision and has been given permission to go to the High Court this spring. In September 2021, Wendy Williams reviewed progress and said that the Home Office was
“potentially poised to make the … changes it needs to”.
Given that in 2023 it was only 13% through the case load, I wonder whether she is anywhere close to being satisfied.
I will ask four questions of the Minister. First, will the Government ask Ms Williams to include a further independent review of progress as part of her current wider remit to look at the Home Office’s functioning more generally?
Secondly, a Home Office source said that they were worried that reneging on three of the recommendations previously committed to signalled that it was
“rolling back from the commitments that we publicly made about not repeating those mistakes”.
What evidence does the Minister have that this is not the case, and that the hostile environment is a thing of the past?
Thirdly, will the Government hand the management of the compensation scheme to an independent body? It would help to restore trust and confidence. If the Minister was considering responding by saying that this would prolong completing the job even further, perhaps he could consider that it could hardly be slower.
Fourthly, on pensions, will the Government consider creating a team of actuaries to work solely on pensions claims? That way, it would not hold everything else up.
Before I sit down, I will refer to another, bigger picture that we might want to consider here. I wonder how many, if any, illegal immigrants actually gave up and went home, or were deterred from coming to the UK at all by the “hostile environment”. It certainly has not stopped people risking their lives in small boats in the channel—as we saw only yesterday from the tragedy in the news.
We can conclude that the Government’s immigration strategy is a failure, except in one sense. It has succeeded in helping to stir up racism and racial intolerance in this country and has fostered hatred against all immigrants and even people of second, third and further generations back. After all, the Home Office only responds to the tone set by the Government of the day; unfortunately, the Government of the day have been the Conservative Party, which has been setting the hostile environment tone for far too long.
Lord Adebowale (CB)
My Lords, it is quite hard to contribute to this debate following the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for whom respect is required, the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, Lord Davies and Lord Woolley—we are good friends—and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull.
My humble contribution is in honour of the people sitting in the Gallery, because they are dignity incarnate. I am pretty certain that the Windrush generation will not be known as a result of this scandal. It will not be their legacy. But the Home Office will be known. The Home Office’s culture, standards, values and purpose will be known as a result of this scandal.
This is outrageous. We all know it—not just those sitting in this Chamber but those outside. We all knew it when those lorries were driving around London talking about a hostile environment. We all knew that it did not just mean illegal migrants. On my journeys through London, the looks and comments I received—it was permission. It was the lowering of the standards of tolerance, grace, acceptance and dignity that this country is known for throughout the world. It was underlined by the Windrush scandal.
The Home Office’s culture is simply not fit for purpose if it cannot protect or administer for all citizens of this country equally. It should be of deep concern to this House that British citizens were abandoned by the Home Office, which as taxpayers they actually contributed to paying for. The apology was woefully inadequate then and, frankly, is woefully inadequate now.
The compensation process can be described only as cruel. It is almost designed to avoid the recognition of the continued trauma of the loss of income and pensions, already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. Why has it taken so long for this outrage to be resolved in favour of British citizens who have been so badly treated and wronged? One has to wonder why these victims of injustice have had to wait so long.
It is true that Age UK should be thanked for maintaining the spotlight on this outrage, but we should also pay tribute to my good friend Patrick Vernon, Amelia Gentleman and Colin McFarlane, whose film must be required watching and listening for anyone who takes seriously their role as a legislator in this country. Their tireless campaigning has kept this disgrace on the books.
In the context of the Post Office scandal, where the pace was immediate and the response instant, the Windrush scandal is glacial by comparison. What are we waiting for? What is the Home Office waiting for? What are the Government waiting for? I have to tell the House that, as the son of a nurse and the chair of the NHS Confederation, I note that many of the victims of this scandal have given loyal service to the NHS for many years.
The reason why the Windrush scandal is so important and goes beyond the incalculable pain and anguish of the victims is that it sends a signal not just to the Windrush generation but to all those people who look like them, speak like them, admire them or are younger than them. It sends a signal to people in this country who live with the Windrush generation about how much we care. The fact is that five Home Secretaries, given the responsibility of resolving this matter, did not even meet them. What greater signal could that send? We all know that what the chief executive does, what the chair does, sends a signal throughout the organisation. This is the Home Secretary we are talking about; it was unacceptable, incompetent and uncaring. Saying sorry just is not enough.
Seeing this outrage as urgent is the Home Office’s primary duty—a duty that it has ignored to date. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, commented on “We don’t mean you”; I am sorry, but you do—you mean me, my family and all those people who care. In support of my noble friend Lord Woolley’s excellent recommendations, I say that it is critical that a specialist unit be set up to expedite the Windrush claims now. There is no excuse for the Home Office to continue the abuse of these good people. A second apology is due not only to the victims of the Windrush scandal but to the Windrush generation as a whole. I do not want to see parties; I want to see apologies. It is a generational scandal.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, asked a pertinent question about why. Why under Suella Braverman was an anchor placed on the progress and procedures that had been put in place to reverse this outrage? I would like an answer. We need to send a different signal not just to the Windrush generation but to the country as a whole. That signal needs to be a message of gratitude, dignity and apology to that generation who helped build the NHS and fought in two world wars, often going unrecognised, and who have built, with many others, this great country.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for securing the opportunity to debate this important topic. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, for his speech; it is an honour to follow him and with him I wish to acknowledge and honour those sitting in the Chamber today. I am personally indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for being an inspiring role model. Being one of her “Play School” babies—I was born in 1973—I grew up with her visibility firmly in my view. However, as a child, and even as a young adult, I had no knowledge of her story or indeed of the narrative of the Windrush generation and the scandal associated with it. She has had an indelible impact on my life and being in her company in this House is a tremendous honour.
In the other place yesterday, a Question was asked about another matter of delay, the infected blood scandal compensation. This, and other areas of concern, such as Grenfell and the Post Office, mean that we have a tapestry of issues with recurring themes of redress, compensation and delay. Yet these are not just issues; they are about lives and they are about justice. I must note the disparity in processes that the noble Lord just mentioned.
I am only too aware that the Church of England is rightly getting its own house in order, albeit not fast enough. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, is working tirelessly in his role as chair of the Archbishops’ Commission for Racial Justice. In her closing speech in a debate at the Church of England’s recent General Synod, the Bishop of Dover reflected that representation at all levels of the Church is not yet where it should be. In 2020, the members of the General Synod voted unanimously to apologise for the Church’s racism and to give thanks for the contribution of the Windrush generation and their descendants to British life and culture.
In my own context of north-east England, the city of Newcastle is passionate about its sport, particularly football. It is well documented that children of the Windrush generation changed football in Britain for ever. They confronted discrimination not just on the pitch, but, as the anti-racism charity Kick It Out reports, these players
“have had to cope with the additional pressure of beating racists on the terraces … in the media and in the boardroom”.
In 1996, the former Newcastle and Trinidad and Tobago goalkeeper Shaka Hislop, from his own experience of racist abuse, helped to found the charity Show Racism the Red Card. From its north-east origins, this charity now works tirelessly across the UK and plays a vital role in tackling racism within professional and grass-roots football. With this sporting context in mind, this issue is not a siloed one; it is about all of life, recreational and cultural, and especially about the lives of those who still wait for recognition and compensation. That is why we are here today, shamefully.
In my own life and work, calls for justice and reconciliation are deeply ingrained throughout the biblical narrative. Other faith traditions also speak into these themes. I find it deeply distressing that, as other noble Lords have pointed out, people have died waiting for their Windrush compensation claims to be processed. The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, told us that there have been 53 deaths. In 2023, there were more than 2,000 claims where victims received a zero payment, more than double the number in the same period in 2022. It is not hard to see or understand the impact of delays, and it is not surprising that claimants distrust and feel suspicious about the Home Office. They must feel that they are being retraumatised. They are being retraumatised by being asked for documents and proof in the same way that they were asked to try to prove their residency in the first place.
This scheme was meant to be designed to compensate for the failings of the Home Office in the Windrush scandal and to provide justice for those people, yet it seems that the tenor of many claimants’ interactions with the Home Office does not reflect that. A new report by University College London has found that government policies had a worse effect on the mental health of black Caribbean people than the pandemic lockdown had on the wider population, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, mentioned in her speech. This increase of psychological distress deepens the trauma and injustice.
Calls from victims, Members of this House and of the other place and many campaign groups to address all these matters are ongoing and are also seeking to ensure that legal aid is guaranteed to all eligible claimants, because this is a huge barrier, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said. I, too, ask the Minister whether the Government will provide this or at least a system to recover legal costs, as the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, indicated in his excellent speech.
In the progress report on the “lessons learned review”—this has been referred to in many speeches—and in follow-ups, Wendy Williams said that the review of the compliant environment policies remains essential to ensuring that the Home Office learns from past experience and adopts a more compassionate approach. That matter was raised again in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, in November last year. Once again, I ask the Minister: what has happened to that review? We must surely rebuild the public’s trust in our Government. I fear there is a risk that the compensation scheme meant to redress injustice is becoming part of the problem and a source of injustice in itself.
Again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tableting this debate today. I commit to following her tireless work in this matter and to offering what support I can in my role.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I feel that there is little I can say that will deepen the feelings we have heard expressed, mitigate the experiences that have been described to us or strengthen the arguments that have been put forward by the noble Lords who have spoken before me. I do not want simply to offer a gesture of support. I can only undertake in my daily life to put into practice the high ideals that they set and to live by the tenets of justice to which they have appealed. In that respect, therefore, I do not expect to have much of substance to say in this debate, but I did not want to miss the chance to say even that.
I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Woolley—and, in a moment, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, by anticipation—are people who have kept us on our toes. However, I want to say a word of respect for one other contributor to this debate from across the Chamber: the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. It takes a bit of guts when you are in government to speak from the Government Benches as openly and frankly as he has. Yesterday, he was in an audience to which I spoke, and he said nice things to me afterwards; I am so delighted to have the chance to return the compliment today.
In thinking about this debate, I was on two tracks as to any contribution I might make. The first was to take the report of Wendy Williams and make it the basis for our debate, but I would want to do that only if we went one at a time through the 30 recommendations she made to see what progress had been made in respect of each one. I know that we would pause at recommendations 3, 9 and 10 and possibly have rather longer debates there, but I would rather like to see how we measure the progress against all 30 of them. Granted, even 10 minutes each would not allow us to do that.
In the time available to me now, I can say only this: what a contrast it has been for me, as a member of your Lordships’ House, in the past three or four years as we have dealt with three pieces of legislation relating to immigration—the Nationality and Borders Act, the Illegal Migration Act and, soon, the Rwanda Act—which, when they were before us, commanded energy and support from the Benches opposite. Where there is a will, there is a way. The Government were definitely showing that they had a will: they therefore wanted to push matters through with energy and as quickly as possible. Contrast that with the length of time it has taken to deal with these proposals. Do not the Government feel that it would be a good thing to be able to say to the House, “Here are the proposals”—they may well be in line with those of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley—“and they will be enacted in the next year. We will put the same energy that we put into those other migration-related pieces of legislation into getting this sorted once and for all”? Would that not be simply wonderful? However, I suggest that noble Lords look at the well-peopled Government Benches today and ask themselves whether that will could possibly be mustered in respect of this matter.
Again and again in the debates surrounding the three Acts of Parliament that I mentioned, we have been told that it is important to stop the boats because the people of Britain want it. I do not know on what basis those who said those words really understood what they were saying but I know that, if we can get this matter wrapped up and dealt with quickly, it will be what the people of Britain want.
On that note, I am very happy, with four minutes of credit to everybody concerned, to take my place again.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port. The comparison that he made between the cascade of immigration of legislation we have seen being pushed through the House and what has happened with the Windrush scheme was telling. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for securing this debate for us—although I join her in regretting that she has had to—and for introducing it so powerfully.
It is an honour to take part in this debate of the absolute highest quality so it seems unfair to single people out—but everyone says that before they do it anyway. I particularly single out the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, for so powerfully setting the scene of the enormous contributions made. I should warn the noble Lord that I intend to clip his speech and put it out on social media—be warned. I also join others in crediting the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, who has today powerfully carried the Back-Bench flag for his own Benches all on his own.
I will not apologise for briefly repeating some of the things that have been said before because it is important to see that they are driven home. It is telling that a number of people have referred to the Age UK report, which came out today. The fact that it is Age UK that produced the report is a reminder that there is huge urgency in dealing with this matter; people are dying before they receive compensation, which is important, but also before they receive the acknowledgment that comes with it, which is even more important to many people. As Age UK has said, it must not be too late. We cannot let more people go to their graves uncompensated for the enormous harm that they and their families have experienced.
We have heard the figures: by the end of 2023, fewer than 2,000 individuals had been offered compensation, and it was often clearly inadequate. That is fewer than one in seven of those who had been estimated to be eligible. Only around 7,600 claims have been made—little more than half of what was thought to be needed. What do we do? I offer strong Green Party support to the idea, which others have mentioned, of an independent body to take over this. For all the reasons that have been outlined by almost every speaker, the Home Office is inappropriate to handle the situation; indeed, it is not handling it. People are fearful of approaching the Home Office as it is associated with the hostile environment, and the administrative delays and errors in the appeals process mean that it just is not adequate. I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and others, that the scheme must include compensation for the loss of private pensions and future earnings.
I also agree with the noble Baroness and others that this should be called the Home Office scandal, but I am afraid that I would turn that round and say that the Home Office is a scandal—a long-standing, enormous blot on the landscape of our governance. The Green Party’s position is that we need to split the Home Office in two. It is impossible for it to be both the policer of immigration and the body that is supposed to facilitate people’s entry into the UK and welcome them. However, we would go wider than the scandal and the failure of the Home Office; quite simply, our Government are not working at the moment. The Windrush scandal is a powerful demonstration and illustration of the fact that it is the most vulnerable and the poorest who pay the highest price for government dysfunction; this is something that is systemically true, not just true in this case.
I again echo the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that no amount of compensation can make up for the suffering. However, it is an acknowledgment, and that is crucial. It is an acknowledgement not just of individuals but of the continuing problems in our society. A point that has not been highlighted is that it could be a powerful step towards healing the problems of racism in our society if an independent body is created and this situation is resolved as fast as possible, and people get the compensation they deserve.
While thinking about this, I have been looking at some of the recent reflections on racism in our society. Kalwant Bhopal, professor of education and social justice and director of the Centre for Research in Race and Education at the University of Birmingham, has focused on what is happening in our universities. She says that they are often taking tokenistic measures and failing to confront their complicity in racial injustice. The professor noted:
“There are only 100 black professors in the whole of the UK, and only four … Vice Chancellors”
from minoritised communities. Curricula remain underweighted on issues of slavery, colonialism and imperialism. When people work on racism and social justice issues, it is too often considered personal research and something affecting them, and not something that gets the proper professional weight.
Reflecting on racism today, there is a major study, which I fear has got very little attention, from the University of Manchester, the University of St Andrews and King’s College London. The evidence for equality national survey, carried out by the Centre on the Dynamics of Ethnicity, reports that more than one-third of people from minoritised communities in Britain have experienced some form of racist assault. The report stresses that
“tackling racism is not just a case of merely removing ‘bad apples’ from workplaces and institutions … we need to seriously transform the policies and procedures”.
This has been a hugely powerful debate. I am not going to use my full 10 minutes because I want to keep the focus on the key points about Windrush. However, I will finish with a final question. If the Minister cannot answer this—I am aware it is not within his departmental responsibility—I hope that he might be able to write to all of us. It is important for us all to know how much is being taught in primary and secondary schools about the Windrush generation and the injustice they have suffered. It is crucially important that future generations know what has happened and have an understanding of the processes of what happened. The point, of course, is to make sure that we have change and do not find ourselves in your Lordships’ House in 10 or 20 years confronting a new, similar scandal.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, all of us who have spoken so far in this debate have done so because of our profound respect and love for the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, but also because the Windrush reality confronts us, and we feel angered and aggrieved at the obvious discriminatory outcome that the Home Office is facilitating. The facts speak for themselves. We have said them; we know them; we understand them. If this was another ethnic group of people, it would not be this way. We encourage the Home Office to deny it.
My father came here in 1952. He came from Savanna-la-Mar, in Westmoreland, in Jamaica. He came here to join the NHS as a dentist. He brought my mother, who was a young nurse. My brother and I are the product of their adventure to Great Britain from Jamaica. When he and my mother came here, they told us stories of people’s comments and misunderstandings. I remember so clearly my mother, with me as a little four year-old boy at her side, being asked by a kind white lady in a northern town who did not understand, “Before you came here, did you really live in trees?” We chose to take no offence at that, but it never left me, because it told me that people did not understand what we had come to give over many decades.
I do not get angered and aggrieved unnecessarily at what people say to me, but I feel fury for our friends, who are here today, and for the multitudes around the country and the families of those who have died, who feel that they were scandalised and dismissed by a complacent department of government that arrogantly ignored their commands and demands, and simply felt that they were not worth it and could be put to one side.
We have said so much in this debate that does not need to be repeated. When the Minister replies, could he go back to the three points in the Wendy Williams report which a previous Home Secretary thought good to ditch? If it was fine for South Africa to have a truth and reconciliation commission, for the much-adored Rwanda to have a truth and reconciliation commission, and for Northern Ireland to have a truth and reconciliation commission, why is it not fine to have reconciliation for those who have been abused by careless public disregard, deliberately undertaken by a department of government which is evidently failing? If the Home Office could be inspected by Ofsted or a HMI, it would be in the red box, and we know that. Is it not time, seriously, to hand over the Home Office payments system either to an independent department or, maybe, to the Department for Business? When it comes to the Horizon Post Office issue, we have seen pace, energy, impact and speed.
The Government have seen fit to set a £75,000 immediate payment for everyone in the Post Office scandal, with £600,000 for those who were criminalised. Why can we not do the same here, instead of scrapping over whether it is £10,000, £15,000 or £100,000? Just blanket set it and pay it—and end this. If it is good enough for the postmasters, it is good enough for people who have served with their lives and many of whom have lost their futures as a consequence of this careless, arrogant, complacent and disregarding department.
We are not asking anyone in the Home Office to justify what has gone on or to explain that it will be better, because we are already convinced that it will not be. We are asking this department, which has had so many Home Secretaries rushing to Rwanda—although nobody else has—to spend some time rushing towards those who have been victimised by its own careless, arrogant and complacent disregard.
In conclusion, handing back many more minutes than previous Members have, I will make one final point. Would it not be right for this Government to go to the public in an election this year and say, “We fixed all these unfixed scandals: infected blood, the Post Office issues, the Windrush issues and a multitude of others. We fixed them because we’re fixers who get things done, rather simply handing them on to another Government to have to scrap around”? Get it done, get it done.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Benjamin on securing this important debate on the Windrush scandal and the compensation scheme. I will focus mainly on the implementation and effectiveness of the compensation scheme. But first, like other speakers, I note my noble friend Lady Benjamin’s extraordinary contribution to challenging Ministers and others about the Windrush scandal over many years. The right reverend prelate the Bishop of Newcastle referred to being a “Play School” baby. I had the privilege of working on “Play School” with my noble friend Lady Benjamin as a brand-new trainee floor manager in the mid-1970s, and I have to say that it was a complete joy. As others said, and as she herself said, my noble friend Lady Benjamin chaired the Windrush memorial committee. I agree that the memorial is uplifting and moving. It is also a constant reminder, to those of us in the public eye, that something was got wrong and has still not been righted.
Others have spoken about how we have heard about the Windrush scandal in other parts of our lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked a question about children in schools. My noble friend Lady Benjamin’s book Coming to England is the most beautiful story about a Windrush arrival, and it is in almost all the primary schools I have heard about. I know that the children write to my noble friend Lady Benjamin because she and I talk about it. My own grandchildren were shocked by the racism that she faced as a six year-old. Our hope for the future is that, through the dramas and books, we will have a new generation who will not accept what has happened and will continue to fight.
What has happened at the hands of officials and Ministers is dreadful. As my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, members of the Windrush generation were never illegal migrants, so people being thrown out of their jobs, losing their homes and pensions, and being imprisoned and deported over many years is now a real disgrace. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, talked about plays. We have now seen documentaries, dramas, screenplays and books. The Windrush generation has shouted from the rooftops—are we listening properly yet?
The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, rightly said that we respect the Windrush generation, and our problem remains specifically with the Home Office and successive Governments. The Windrush generation’s perseverance and contribution to our country must be noted, and we need to be reminded. It has served large elements of our public services over the last 60 or 70 years—the NHS, transport—but it is now a key participant in every part of our working, social and community lives.
I will not go into the detail of what happened after 2017—many other noble Lords have talked about it—when media coverage started to bring attention to individual cases. But the way the Home Office has reacted, then and now, means that it is not held in any sort of regard at all. I do want to mention one person: former MP Norman Baker, who was the Home Office Immigration Minister in 2014. He resigned because he was not aware of those vans going round—he was not told before he actually saw them on the streets—and he felt that the lurch to the right on immigration of Theresa May in particular, and the Conservative Government, meant he could not continue to serve.
My noble friend Lady Burt reminded us of when and how the press and wider society became aware of the treatment of the generation. She set out the timeline of the government apologies in some detail. In 2018, Wendy Williams’ review and report focused on events from 2008—well before the coalition Government came into place. But absolutely at the heart of her findings was the fact that, despite the Government saying that they were taken by surprise by the scandal, she found that, over the years, officials and Ministers repeatedly ignored the warnings. She said that
“those in power forgot about them and their circumstances”.
This was compounded by successive Governments wanting to be tough on immigration by
“tightening immigration control and passing laws creating … the hostile environment … with a complete disregard for the Windrush generation”.
As with other departments and scandals, there were also institutional blockages in the Home Office that have made everything much, much worse. Wendy Williams also said that, while she was unable to make a definitive finding of institutional racism within the department,
“I have serious concerns that these failings demonstrate an institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race and the history of the Windrush generation within the department, which are consistent with some elements of the definition of institutional racism.”
As others have said, she made 30 recommendations, which have been grouped under three headings. The first was acknowledgement: that the Home Office needed to acknowledge the wrong that had been done. The second was transparency: that the department must open itself up to greater scrutiny. The third was culture changes: that the department must change its culture to recognise that migration and wider Home Office policy were about people and, whatever its objective, should be rooted in humanity.
Many noble Lords have talked about the three recommendations that the Home Office initially accepted and then rejected. It is appalling that the third one, on reconciliation and training of Home Office staff, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred, is gone. The ninth was on the commissioner, to which other noble Lords referred, and the 10th was on the review of the remit of the ICIBI, ensuring that it works closely with the migrants’ commissioner. These are at the heart of the cultural change of the Home Office, so will the Minister say whether those three recommendations will be reinstated now that Suella Braverman is no longer Home Secretary?
Time is short, so I will not say very much, but Wendy Williams, in her review in 2022, said that the Home Office had “obscured the full extent” of her original findings and this had led to “misunderstanding and incorrect implementation”. Can the Minister, therefore, say whether she will be asked back again, a further two years on, to complete that review, as other noble Lords have asked for, to ensure that the implementation and that change in culture do happen?
Turning to the compensation scheme, I have been speaking in your Lordships’ House on both the Post Office Horizon scandal and the infected blood scheme. There is a systemic problem in this country, with numerous Governments over many decades, about how these schemes are instituted. I absolutely agree with the recommendation from Age UK that, for this Windrush scheme, a separate, independent scheme should be set up. There is a much bigger ask—and I raised this in the Post Office compensation Bill, which went through in one day last month—that we actually need a truly independent body to oversee all compensation schemes where any public service is involved. The one lesson that we should have learned over the last 50 years is that the Government, their departments and their arm’s-length bodies cannot be independent when trying to administer compensation schemes. Will the Minister tell us if this is likely to happen?
The other points that have been made have also been covered in the other schemes. Despite people saying that the Post Office Horizon scheme is moving ahead swiftly, the postmasters are getting derisory amounts offered to them. They are still competing with a simplified form that is utterly bemusing. They still do not get any money for legal advice to help them apply. That is exactly true for the Windrush scheme as well, and this needs to be followed through.
As other noble Lords have said, the problem with a badly working compensation scheme is that it revictimises the victims. From these Benches, we absolutely want to see the Government put this scheme alongside the Post Office Horizon scheme and the infected blood scheme, at the heart of working at pace—a phrase they frequently use. The Windrush generation has supported and helped us in our country—their country too—for many, many years. Why are they still being treated as different?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for putting down this debate on what she calls the Home Office scandal. The theme in this debate has been to induce the Government to meet their commitments to the Windrush generation. I thank all noble Lords who, through this debate, have kept up the pressure on the Government to live up to their commitments. I would go so far as to say that this has been potentially an historic debate; it has been a strong debate that will resonate, and I hope it will resonate to make the Government act faster.
My noble friend Lord Rosser put down a Written Question, which was answered in February of this year, comparing the Windrush compensation rollout with the Horizon compensation rollout—a theme that has been picked up by a number of noble Lords. That was not to criticise the Horizon scheme but to highlight the problem of those seeking compensation through the Windrush scheme.
On 7 February 2024, my honourable friend Vicky Foxcroft asked Laura Farris, a Minister at the Home Office, what discussions she had had with the Secretary of State on the time taken to process claims to the Windrush compensation scheme. Responding, Ms Farris stated:
“As of December 2023, 91% of all claims either had received a final decision or were less than six months old. The Windrush scheme has reduced the time taken to allocate a … casework decision from 18 months to less than four months”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/24; col. 233]
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that those figures are accurate.
Also, in November of last year, my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton asked the Government what the reasons were for the Home Office’s decision to disband the team responsible for the Windrush policy in the department and what assessment they had made of the
“likelihood that this decision will undermine their commitments to the Windrush Generation”.
The Minister, who is again in his place today, responded by saying that, given the “significant progress” that the department had made since 2020, its response to the lessons learned review had been “embedded into everyday activities”. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, described that as “baloney”—that is not a word that I would use myself; nevertheless, it is fair to say that he was sceptical about the response from his noble friend. The Minister also said that the
“embedded approach will better sustain the improvements made so far, and thereby our commitments to the Windrush generation and their descendants”.
Additionally, he noted that the teams working on the Windrush scheme and compensation scheme would “remain in place”, with there being
“no plans to close either scheme”.—[Official Report, 28/11/24; col. 1009.]
I look forward to the Minister updating the House on how they are planning to work at pace—a phrase we often hear in this House—to move towards a resolution on more of the cases.
In July 2023, the House debated the 75th anniversary of the arrival of the Windrush generation. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, led the debate, and she acknowledged that some progress had been made, but she urged the Government to redouble their efforts to ensure that appropriate funds are distributed.
As noble Lords will know, there is a long history to this scandal Suffice it to say that, on 16 April 2018, the then Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, apologised to the Windrush generation from the Dispatch Box in the other place. The following day, the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, also apologised to Caribbean leaders at a meeting in Downing Street. The then Home Secretary then went on to outline several actions that the Government were taking to address the issues faced by the Windrush generation. The actions included: first, conducting reviews of historical Caribbean cases that the Home Office wrongly actioned for either deportation or removal; secondly, establishing a Windrush scheme to issue confirmation of status documents and, in some cases, the granting of British citizenship free of charge for applicants; thirdly, creating a Windrush task force to assist individuals who may be eligible under the Windrush scheme; and, finally, establishing a Windrush compensation scheme. How is all that going?
I would be grateful if the Minister can correct any of the following figures—various have been cited, but I have some more. First, in 2023, more than 2,000 victims received zero payment, despite the Government accepting that they are victims. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, raised the issue of the loss of future earnings, and that should be part of the calculation. If it were part of the calculation, would the Government revisit those zero-payment decisions for those 2,000 victims? That happened despite the Government guaranteeing that all those eligible would receive full compensation in 2020. Can the Minister say whether there is any flexibility in revisiting those cases, or do the Government regard them as closed?
Secondly, as of January 2024, 1,932 people have received compensation so far, out of an estimated 15,700 victims. How long do the Government think that it will take to process the remaining claims?
A further point that a number of noble Lords have made is that the application process is still cumbersome and costly. There was talk about a 44-page document and other lengthy documents. There has been expert evidence from accountants and psychologists about what is needed to complete those forms. There is a strong case for some form of legal aid to help people do that. One of the organisations that has put this forward is the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit. My noble friend Lord Davies gave figures for a very high refusal rate, and spoke about pension compensation. Will the Minister comment on the points he raised? In addition to this, Human Rights Watch has recommended that, in the interim, independent oversight of the scheme should be guaranteed, with access to legal aid and the right of appeal to an independent tribunal. In fact, Human Rights Watch also recommended that the whole scheme should be independent and not run by the Home Office itself. Do the Government agree with those recommendations?
Comparisons have been made with the Horizon compensation scheme and the public consciousness of a historic injustice which is acknowledged by the British state. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and other noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate will continue to ensure that the Government follow through on their commitments and that justice is done for the Windrush generation.
I comment on only a couple of many outstanding speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, “Let’s be fixers. Let’s just get it done”. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke about the other scandals dealt with in the Victims and Prisoners Bill: the Horizon scandal, infected blood and Windrush. There is an impatience in all those scandals about how the Government are handling them. I acknowledge that it is complicated, but there is a sense of urgency which the Government need to follow through on. I also want to pay tribute to a particular journalist, Amelia Gentleman, who has done a lot of work exposing this scandal and really followed through on bringing it to public attention.
I want to conclude on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the new generation. I went to a London comprehensive school and so did my children. There is an absolute lack of understanding on behalf of my children and children generally who been brought up in London about the extent of racism that was common in previous generations. I see that as a sign of hope. It is in part because of the ongoing work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and others. While of course we urge the Government to do more, it is right to say that there is hope of an improving situation in racial tolerance in this country, which we should celebrate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—they have made some very powerful speeches indeed. I start by offering my considerable thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for securing this debate of course, but also more widely for the outstanding work that she has done on Windrush—whether it is celebrating the enormous contribution that the Windrush generation has made to our society, something we did last year for the 75th anniversary, or whether it is highlighting the injustice of the Windrush scandal. She has been nothing short of a shining light on this issue. For my part, I would like to personally salute the contribution of the Windrush generation, and of course their descendants. I associate myself with the introductory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, who earned much credit for them.
This is an issue of deep personal resonance to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, of course, but it matters to us all, as the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, explained very powerfully. It has been clear from all the other contributions as well, and for that I am thankful. I too use Waterloo station and, like my noble friend Lord Bourne, I commend the memorial statue there: it presents a powerful and vital image. We all wish we could turn back the clock and prevent the pain and suffering that the victims of the Windrush scandal have had to endure. I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, that numerous events were held across all departments last year. He will know that flags were flown, No. 10 held a reception hosted by the Levelling-Up Secretary and the Home Secretary, and the largest-ever Windrush Day grant scheme was launched.
We cannot turn back the clock, but we can strain every sinew to provide the people affected with the help they need and the compensation they deserve, while ensuring that the failings that happened previously can never be repeated. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, is right: the Government have a responsibility to all our people. Righting the wrongs is, has been and will continue to be a priority for the Government. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that we are fixing things, and to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that there is an urgency to do this and to get it right. We are determined to ensure that everyone who suffered because they could not demonstrate their lawful status in the UK receives every penny of the compensation to which they are entitled. There is no cap on the amount that can be awarded, and our priority is to award the maximum compensation at the earliest point possible. I repeat the promises made by successive Home Secretaries that there is no end date for the Windrush compensation scheme, nor for the Windrush documentation scheme.
Reference was made to the 15,000 people and the figure of £200 million in compensation, but I stress that these are from the very early planning assumptions published when the compensation scheme was launched. It did not represent a budget or a pot of money to be drawn from. Despite extensive and ongoing outreach efforts, significantly fewer claims have been received and the Home Office has adjusted its planning assumptions accordingly. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, asked about individuals and their documentation confirming their status or British citizenship. The number who have been provided with that documentation is now more than 16,800 and our experience has been that many of them have not suffered losses or detriment owing to being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK, so they have not needed to claim compensation, but the Home Office encourages anyone who wishes to make a claim to do so. As I said, the scheme has no end date and there is no cap on the amount of money the department will pay.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Is there any estimate of those who are not entitled to compensation but would be entitled if pensions and future earnings were part of the scheme?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will come back to the subject of compensation. I am going to attempt to address all the questions raised in the appropriate order. There is a lot to say and I have only 20 minutes to say it, so I ask noble Lords to bear that in mind when contemplating interventions. I will do my very best.
We have paid over £75 million in compensation. As of December 2023, over 80% of claims received had received a final decision and the majority of live claims were less than six months old. Payments to date include some very significant sums. More than 120 claimants have been paid over £100,000 in compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about the 91% figure given by Laura Farris in the other place. As I said, 80% have had a final decision and 91% have had a final decision or have outstanding claims less than six months old, so that figure is correct.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and others raised the question of speed. As I said, the Home Office’s priority is to award the maximum compensation at the earliest point possible. The changes that the Home Office has made to the scheme since its launch mean that people now receive significantly more money more quickly—I referred to the 80% figure. However, in answer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, about blanket amounts, I say that there are 14 different categories and each person’s experiences and circumstances will be different, so it is right that the Home Office takes the time to ensure that each claim is considered and understood carefully, so it can offer people the maximum compensation to which they are entitled. That said, the Home Office continues its efforts to reduce the time it takes to process claims. The length of time that individuals must wait for their claim to be allocated to a substantive decision-maker is now less than four months, down from around 18 months a year ago, and the four-month period includes all essential eligibility checks, together with a preliminary assessment to make an initial payment of £10,000 wherever possible.
The department is committed to ensuring people receive the compensation to which they are entitled, in all cases, including those where, understandably, there is limited documentary evidence. The scheme operates entirely on the balance of probabilities, and decision-makers receive in-depth training to ensure that this approach is applied fairly and consistently. Decision-makers use all the data and information available to them, and exhaust internal and cross-government routes before asking for more information from individuals. The Home Office also gathers information from third parties, paying for this where needed so that costs do not fall to claimants. That can include information from employers, HMRC, GPs and so on. We have a quality assurance team and an independent review process in order to ensure that all decisions are subject to a very high degree of scrutiny.
The compensation scheme was designed to be accessible to anyone, without the need for legal advice or assistance. For those who want or need support to make a claim, the Home Office provides free assistance through its independent claims assistance provider, the We Are Group. It has extensive experience of dealing with isolated and vulnerable people, and the Windrush team is also available on the phone to provide information and to discuss the process. In 2021 and 2022, the Home Office published new claims forms, developed in collaboration with stakeholders, which are simpler and easier to complete. Were our applicants allowed to recover legal costs in applying to the scheme, this may serve to encourage organisations to take advantage of potentially vulnerable people, charging them for unnecessary support.
On feedback and engagement with stakeholders and the community about the effectiveness of the scheme, as evidenced in the changes to the scheme since its inception we have continued that process, because the overhaul to the scheme in December 2020 significantly increased the amount of compensation awarded, and indeed the speed at which it can be paid. In 2021 and 2022, we published revamped claim forms, to which many noble Lords have referred. They were developed in consultation with stakeholders and are easier to complete. They are longer, but they are easier to complete, because they include more targeted and closed questions. The new forms have a Crystal Mark from the Plain English Campaign. As I have said, the changes were made in consultation with stakeholders, including the Windrush National Organisation, key advocates in the community who work collaboratively. Considerable changes were made to the forms while they were being redesigned, but if anybody cares to add to the process and make observations about the forms, the door is open and we are happy to listen.
In 2021, we launched a package of support to help those making, or those who have already made, claims on behalf of a relative who has passed away to obtain the legal documentation required to process their claims. In 2022, we broadened the homelessness category to allow awards to be made to people who were already homeless and then continued to be homeless due to an inability to demonstrate lawful status. We also introduced a fourth “living costs” category for close family member claims for costs incurred while supporting someone who lost their employment or benefits because they were unable to prove their immigration status. Last year, we made changes to the employment category which mean some people will be compensated for longer periods and receive more money, better reflecting their unique circumstances. Whenever changes are made, they are applied retrospectively.
To come back to the points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about why the scheme does not cover loss of employment opportunity, it is because this is a highly speculative issue, stretching across many facets of an individual’s life. The scheme cannot make financial determinations of this nature, since they will vary significantly from individual to individual. They depend on a multitude of factors which will be difficult and timely to assess in a fair and consistent manner.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the scheme does not cover occupational pensions because of the variable and complex nature of impacts on and future performance of those. However, through employment awards, individuals will recuperate the contributions they would have made into an occupational pension scheme at the time. Processes are also in place so that, where individuals were unable to work because they could not demonstrate their lawful status in the UK, their national insurance record is corrected so that their state pension entitlement is not affected.
On moving the Windrush compensation scheme from the Home Office, the Home Office firmly believes that moving the operation of the compensation scheme would risk significantly delaying vital payments to people. This was reinforced by Professor Martin Levermore, independent adviser to the scheme, in his report published in March 2022.
We continue to work to promote new applications to the scheme, and to engage with and gain the trust of affected communities. The scheme’s engagement team ensures there is regular dialogue with stakeholders from Windrush communities, who provide feedback and scrutiny. The compensation scheme engagement team supports events with external stakeholders from Windrush communities to provide the opportunity to speak to them about the impact the scandal has had on them and on their family’s lives. These engagement events also ensure that individuals and stakeholders get the correct information about the schemes—the Windrush documentation scheme and the Windrush compensation scheme.
Since February 2023, the Windrush compensation scheme engagement team has attended more than 30 events nationwide, including in the West Midlands, Bristol, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire and London. This week, officials attended an event in Northampton which received positive feedback, commending the informative presentations and the benefit of over 120 conversations with Home Office staff. Events are planned during the first quarter of this year, including in London, Edinburgh, and Nottingham again. We are also looking at opportunities to work with communities in Wales and Ireland. These engagement events ensure that individuals and stakeholders receive accurate information about both schemes, and a large number of such engagements have taken place.
All noble Lords asked about scrutiny of the scheme and how the Home Office considers claims. As I have explained, we have a multilayered review process to ensure the compensation scheme has an appropriate level of external scrutiny. If I may, I will go into detail on those layers. The tier 1 review is conducted by a separate team that has not worked on the claim in question. The tier 2 review is an independent review process with the adjudicator’s office. The independent person, Martin Levermore, to whom I have already referred, regularly engages with officials and publishes annual reports on the scheme. His third report was published on 1 November 2023 on GOV.UK. The Home Office has published a fact sheet and granular transparency data on a monthly basis, which provides detail on a wide variety of aspects of both casework and review. The Home Affairs Select Committee provides external scrutiny and visited the department to scrutinise proceedings. The Home Office has also hosted other stakeholders, such as the Windrush Defenders Legal and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, on open visits, giving access to Home Office caseworkers.
On the subject of the Windrush programme and the lessons being learned, the Home Office is absolutely determined to deliver on its commitment to righting the wrongs of Windrush. That work continues at pace, and I am not ashamed to use the phrase. As one would expect, and should expect, in any government department organisational structures change over time to ensure that delivery for the public is effective and delivers value for money. It has been decided that responsibility for delivering various Windrush response projects and recommendations will no longer be managed through a dedicated team in the transformation directorate but will instead be embedded in our everyday activities in other parts of the department. I forget who, but someone referred to it as being part of the departmental DNA. I can confirm, albeit anecdotally from my experience, that this is something that is considered in pretty much every aspect of the work that we are currently doing.
Most noble Lords asked about the promises that were made in regard to recommendations 3, 9 and 10. Wendy Williams recognised the scale of the challenge that was set by her 2020 Windrush Lessons Learned Review and applauded the department’s response in rising to the challenge. As the former Home Secretary set out in her WMS of 26 January 2023, she did decide not to proceed with some of the recommendations in the original form. I am afraid I am unable to comment further because there are legal proceedings in train on that particular subject. However, as I have just said, work remains ongoing on the majority of the recommendations, by way of embedding them into the DNA of the department, and that work will not stop.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
I am very interested in the ditching of those key recommendations—most contributors felt that was wrong. Can the Minister confirm that the current Home Secretary will consider reinstating them, whatever the nature of the legal proceedings, as they are a vital part of the Windrush policy?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, I have to apologise to my noble friend. I would like to answer the question in detail but am unable to as a result of the legal proceedings. However, I will of course make sure that the Home Secretary is well aware of his and the House’s concerns about this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about overseas engagement, particularly with regard to high commissions. We engaged with UK-based Caribbean high commissioners but we have also worked with British high commissions overseas to raise awareness of this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, asked about education, which is incredibly important. On Windrush Day, the Department for Levelling Up launched a set of educational materials, which were uploaded to the National Windrush Monument website as part of the monument’s legacy programmes.
I have to confess that I have not read the book from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin—I will—but perhaps, as book recommendations are being handed out, I should also commend one from my noble friend Lord Popat, A British Subject, which is a very good read on this topic as well. I am more than happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, at any time. Just to be fair to my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Murray attended two Windrush National Organisation conferences, so he did make himself available.
The Windrush story is one of the most powerful and uplifting in our country’s history. The people who arrived on that day in the middle of the 20th century and their subsequent generations have contributed so much across so many areas of our society, as has been noted by all speakers. That they would go on to suffer as they did is a source of profound sadness to them and us all—and shame. We owe it to them to put it right and significant progress has been made, as I hope I have set out. But the job is not done and noble Lords have my assurance that the Government’s determination to right those wrongs is undimmed.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
I thank the Minister for his comments and all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate for their kind remarks. We are friends all over the House—on all sides of the House—which is great. It is what I try to do. I thank them all for their passionate speeches, which have shown that everyone across the House who has spoken cares about fairness and justice above everything else.
Perhaps I should declare an interest as part of the Windrush generation because I came to Britain aged 10 on my elder sister’s passport in 1960. Fortunately, when I was 17 my mother wisely decided to apply for passports for all her six children. Had she not done so, I could easily have become a Windrush victim.
The Home Office did not seem to have much difficulty in identifying people accused of being illegal and was prepared to deport them as quickly as possible. Yet it does not practise the ability to identify those who are eligible for compensation at the same speed.
I am naturally disappointed with some of the answers the Minister has given us—but not surprised, because the reality of the Windrush victims’ experiences is not as happy or as positive as he might have pointed out. He does not agree with me and noble Lords from across the House who have spoken that we need an independent body. It is a common-sense solution to end this unfortunate scandal. Members of this House have agreed with that for so many years now.
My noble friend Lord Bourne and I have been allies over the years, and I thank him for his support and kind words. It is always a joy to work with him, especially on the National Windrush Monument. I thank him.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, reminded us of the contribution the Windrush generation has given to the country and mentioned the new Windrush line, which will for ever keep it in public memory thanks to the Mayor of London. I thank the noble Lord for mentioning that.
I thank my noble friend Lord Woolley for his passionate and moving speech. He reminded us that the King has shown empathy with the Windrush generation by commissioning those 10 portraits, which will be part of the Royal Collection, celebrating the 75th anniversary of the arrival of Windrush pioneers. The Prime Minister held no such celebration, even though I wrote begging him to meet the Windrush victims.
My noble friend Lady Burt pointed out the low payments offered to claimants with no justification and, like other Peers, asked why the three Wendy Williams recommendations were dropped. I note what the Minister said, but we need to find out why this has happened. We have also called once again for that independent body.
My noble friend Lord Adebowale asked for an apology to not just the Windrush victims but all the Windrush generation and the majority of the people in this country who feel ashamed of the blot on the landscape of this British history saga.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, my “Play School” baby, spoke with passion in calling for trust to be restored, as the nation deserves it. It feels ashamed of what has happened to these Windrush victims.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for reminding us that this is not a party-political issue but a national issue.
Like others, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, agreed that there should be an independent body. That is coming over time and again. She also pointed out that racism is still present in our society. Even children are facing this injustice, as I had to 64 years ago when I arrived in this country.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who is an inspiration to me and a towering figure in the House. He suggested fixing the problem immediately, before the election. What a joy that would be. I will not have to call another debate if that happens.
I thank my noble friend Lady Brinton, my “Play School” colleague, for she has continued to support me on this issue and has pointed out that schoolchildren across the country are reading my book, Coming to England, and do not want to grow up in a society where we are dealing with this scandal. They see it as unfair and unjust. They write to me and say, “Floella, when I grow up, I will not be racist. I understand about Windrush. I want to be a decent human being in this country, embracing all people”. That is what children are understanding. That is what we have to show them as examples.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, outlined the timeline of the Home Office scandal, which is very focused in showing the injustice of this human story.
I thank all the organisations and individuals who have assisted with and contributed to this debate, including Action for Race Equality, Justice 4 Windrush, the Windrush National Organisation, the Windrush Justice Clinic, Age UK, UNISON and many more, all the lawyers who have advised me and the dozens of Windrush victims who have shared their harrowing stories. We have all come together, collaborating to bring this unhappy saga to a satisfactory conclusion. We have reached out to the Government and hope that they listen and act on what has been said today, because the fight for justice will continue. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this important debate—and, yes, let it be the last time that I do so.
Security of Elected Representatives
(8 months, 3 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, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the security of elected representatives. This House brings together our nation. People from every part of our United Kingdom, every background, are represented here to debate—to argue—the best course for our country to take. That is the way it should be, because this House does not belong to any one community or interest group. It belongs to every citizen from every part of our country.
The decisions we take do not just affect the lives of our friends, our neighbours and our community. They affect every community, and every community’s voice—even those we disagree with—must be properly represented. That principle is at the heart of who we are as a country, and as a democracy. Our democracy works only if those who elect us are free to choose the individual they want—and if the individual they choose has the freedom to say what they think.
In recent weeks, we have seen those principles waver and the strain of rising community tensions is beginning to show. Instead of debate and accountability, we have seen intimidation and threats. Members of this House have told me that they feel they have to vote a certain way, not because it is the right thing for their communities or even that the majority in their communities want it, but because a few—a violent few—have made them fear for their safety, and the safety of their families. Even this House, which has persevered through fire and through war, has been pressured into changing the way we debate.
We all understand why. The assassinations of our friends Jo Cox and Sir David Amess have marked us all. We know there are extremists out there, and the truth is clear—the danger is real. But we also know that bending to the threat of violence and intimidation is wrong. It does not just betray those who sent us; it encourages those who, through us, are bullying them. Last Wednesday, demonstrators threatened to force Parliament to ‘lock its doors’. What these thugs are actually asking us to do is to put our constituents second, and to bow to those who are shouting loudest. That is more than a threat to us. It is a threat to the democratic principles and values that define who we are as a country. They must fail. If we stumbled or succumbed to their pressures, we would not see just this House diminished, but communities across our country suffer.
These pressures always existed but, since the 7 October attacks on Israel, they have spiked, along with a dramatic rise in anti-Semitism. They have been accompanied by demonstrations, some of which have caused profound distress and fear in the Jewish community and beyond.
British Muslims also face threats. Islamist extremists claim that other Muslims are apostates unless they are willing to destroy the society that gave everyone—including the many expressions of Islam—the freedom to worship as they choose. Far-right extremists are trying to say that Islam has no place in Britain. Both are trying to say that Britain is a divided nation, not a United Kingdom—and both are wrong.
The Government reject that agenda of isolation and fear. We are working to ensure that all voices in our democracy are heard. We are ensuring that those who have been elected to serve their community are able to do so without fear. That is why we are committing an additional £31 million of funding to protect the democratic processes and our elected representatives. This funding will primarily support MPs, councillors, police and crime commissioners, and mayors.
The Operation Bridger network, which already provides police support to MPs, will be expanded so that all elected representatives and candidates have a dedicated, named, police officer to contact on security matters where needed. Forces around the country will be able to draw on a new fund to deliver additional patrols, so they will be better able to respond to heightened community tensions. Working closely with Parliament and the police, we will provide access to private security for Members who face the highest risk.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Policing Minister and I met senior policing leaders to discuss these issues. Together, the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and the College of Policing have agreed a new Defending Democracy Policing Protocol. It contains seven key commitments to implement minimum standards of policing at democratic events, to prevent intimidatory protest at home addresses and to ensure that protests at party offices, town halls, Parliament or other democratic venues do not inhibit democratic processes, with an emphasis on local risk and threat monitoring. PCCs and chief constables have been asked to report back on the implementation of these measures by April.
Before I finish, I pay tribute to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which keep us safe. This additional funding will help them to support us in undertaking our democratic duty. The people we are privileged to represent deserve nothing less. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Does he agree that there is no place for anti-Semitism on Britain’s streets and that those who perpetrate that poison must face the full force of the law? As well as seeing a rise in hostility and threats towards MPs, we have also seen a rise in intimidation and threats directed at local councillors. Can the Minister set out what action is being taken to ensure that there is robust protection in place for councillors and elected mayors who represent their local communities?
The scenes that we saw play out in central London, near the Cenotaph, on Armistice weekend last year were unacceptable and wrong. Yet, instead of working with the police in the run-up to that highly charged weekend, the then Home Secretary chose to attack the police and inflame tensions. Does the Minister agree that that was an irresponsible way for a Home Secretary to behave and that it was right she was sacked?
The Government’s strategy on countering extremism is now eight years out of date and there are reports that work countering extremism has been dropped or fragmented across departments. What urgent action are the Government taking to address that gap, and when will they come forward with an updated strategy?
In June last year, the Home Office downgraded recording requirements for non-crime hate incidents, meaning that the personal details of people who perpetrate anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are currently not recorded by the police. This will limit the police’s ability to monitor and prevent escalation within communities and will potentially leave victims feeling less safe. Will the Government back the Labour Party’s plans to reinstate the full collection of personal data for people who engage in anti-Semitic or Islamophobic hate?
A week ago, a DLUHC Minister in the other place said that the Government are
“not intending to publish a hate crime strategy”.—[Official Report, 21/2/24; col. 599.]
This is despite the last strategy now being four years out of date. In the context of recording high levels of anti-Semitism and Islamophobic attacks, can the Minister explain why this work has been abandoned?
The theme of the Statement is preventive measures. We welcome it as far as it goes, but what about the causes of these increased tensions? As the Minister said when he quoted the Minister in the other place, Britain is a united kingdom, not a divided nation. We enjoy and have vigorous debate on many issues within Parliament as a whole; people look to Parliament to air the most difficult subjects in our country, both on these shores and beyond. What thought have the Government given to addressing the causes of the increased tensions that we are seeing on our streets while maintaining our traditions, democracy and free speech, not only in Parliament but beyond?
In conclusion, although the Statement focuses on elected representatives, we in this House are, of course, not elected. However, quite a number of colleagues in this House are high-profile. They have their own vulnerabilities because of the views that they express in this House and outside it. What can the Minister say about the enhanced protection measures for colleagues in this House?
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement to the House and note that this additional funding will be spent primarily in supporting MPs, councillors, police and crime commissioners, and mayors. I am particularly happy to hear that police forces around the country will be able to draw on a new fund to respond to heightened community tensions. However, we must not forget other front-line services staff who are also experiencing increased levels of violence and intimidation.
I was appalled to hear the Minister in the other place say that Members had told him that
“they feel they have to vote a certain way … because … a violent few … have made them fear for their safety, and the safety of their families”.
That elected MPs can be targeted in this way simply beggars belief. We also know that women, particularly women from ethnic minorities, are disproportionately targeted for abuse and intimidation. This has got to stop.
When I came into politics it was generally accepted that those who stood for election did it to help their communities and/or their country. The public are now much more sceptical about politicians of all parties, and the perception that politicians are “fair game” for abuse on social media has a pernicious and dangerous effect.
That a small but very vocal minority can get away with using online platforms to bully and intimidate is a matter not just for the Government but for the platforms themselves. Too often we hear them say that they will not tolerate this kind of thing, but they do little to stop it because their prime concern is to grow bigger than their rivals. This has a major effect not just on politicians but on their families.
I suspect that the Minister does not spend a lot of his time reading Liberal Democrat policy papers—
Baroness Doocey (LD)
But I commend to him our paper from 2019, setting out proposals for the creation of a new online crime agency to effectively tackle online crimes such as personal fraud, and threats and incitement to violence on social media. We must work on a cross-party basis to tackle this scourge, and I know that we in this House, and all parties in the other place, will be united in this.
Politicians also need to be careful about the language they use. Talking about “no-go areas” in London or describing people exercising their democratic right to protest as “mob rule” is not helping anyone. Nor is the entry of Trump-style conspiracy theories into the mainstream of British politics—that should worry us all.
Politicians have been elected to do a job and should be able to do it without fear for their own or their family’s safety. It is also essential that they can continue to run face-to-face surgeries, which are an essential glue between the elected and the electors. We must all stick together to ensure that this contact does not disappear from our democracy, and that people from every background, gender and sexual identity can enter politics and represent people in safety.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their questions. I will start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about anti-Semitism—of course I agree, and he heard me make statements on that subject from the Dispatch Box last week. In terms of how this is a societal problem, and how anti-Semitism may start with Jews but does not finish there, I refer the noble Lord to the comments from Lord Sacks that I quoted last week.
I also highlight, because I think it is important, that the Prime Minister yesterday committed to four years of funding for the CST—Community Security Trust—at £18 million a year. This is a subject that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, asked me about in that debate, which I was unable to help him on. The Prime Minister announced that yesterday, and it is very welcome when it comes to combating, and protecting people against, anti-Semitism.
In terms of local communities, yes, Operation Bridger is the police network that introduces dedicated points of contact for all elected representatives. I stress the “all”. That can be “where needed”, which also applies to the noble Lord’s question about Members of this House—although I would also refer to parliamentary security, which is available. There is also a new local communities fund for the deployment of additional police patrols in England and Wales in response to increased community tensions. Local forces can draw down in response to potential flashpoints, which we think will bolster police visibility and help public confidence.
There is much on this in the defending democracy protocol announced by the Prime Minister yesterday. He explained, and it is outlined in the protocol—I will go into some detail on this—that:
“Protests at representatives’ parties’ offices, democratic venues (such as Parliament or Town Halls) or at political events (such as constituency fundraisers or meetings) should not be allowed to (i) prevent or inhibit the use of the venue, attendance at the event or access to and from it or (ii) cause alarm, harassment or distress to attendees through the use of threatening or abusive words or disorderly behaviour, in keeping with public order laws”.
So I would say that the answer is a strong “yes”; there is a lot in place to protect local councillors.
Where I have to say “no” is to the noble Lord’s invitation to me to comment on the previous Home Secretary’s comments. That seems to be asked of me in every single debate at the moment and, just for the record, I will never comment on previous Home Secretaries’ remarks.
In terms of the counterextremism strategy, the Security Minister in the other place said earlier today that work is ongoing on this. I cannot give a clear commitment beyond what he said there, in terms of timing and so on. In regard to non-crime hate incidents, that is of course kept under control. We will not be adopting the Labour Party’s proposals on this. The noble Lord will be aware that there were many difficult instances that were reported widely with regard to this in the past, and we will not go back to those at the moment.
Of course, I agree with him on the causes of the various incidents we have seen. I would expand that and say that it is not just government that needs to look at the causes; it is all of us. It is a societal problem, not just a political one.
I think I have answered all the noble Lord’s questions, so I will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. Of course, I completely agree about social media. The Home Secretary was actually in California this week, and I know that he was talking to a number of the corporates the noble Baroness referred to. The Online Safety Act has been passed by Parliament; it has just come into force, but let us see if that does what it is intended to—one would certainly hope so. I can assure the noble Baroness that I do not read Liberal Democrat party policy papers; I doubt that she is all that surprised about that. But I would also say that she has a direct line that is not available to me to at least one of those major online corporates—so I would entirely agree with her that it is a cross-party issue to be resolved. Perhaps she could help.
It goes without saying that I agree that language and its use, and the care taken to express oneself, really does need to be very carefully observed by everybody who has any sort of platform.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this important Statement. The protection that will be offered to our elected representatives is vital, because this is a period of time of immense concern. As has already been mentioned, the impact, particularly on women and women of UKME heritage, both in person and online, is deeply troubling, as is the abuse suffered by Muslim and Jewish colleagues. Anti-Semitism has been said to be a “light sleeper”, but it is very much wide awake at this time, and a lot of Islamophobia is built on immense ignorance and stereotyping of people.
Those on these Benches work hard at community cohesion across this nation, and we often work very closely with leaders of other faith communities, trying to live out that injunction of Jesus to love our neighbours as ourselves. As the Minister has rightly said, all parliamentarians need to be careful in the use of the words with which we describe issues and things, to be careful that we do not incite further trouble. We need to learn that art, which is seemingly fast being lost from our society, of disagreeing agreeably. So I ask how, in the work of government, that sense of mirroring and modelling disagreeing agreeably might be lived out all the more. Given the ignorance around many other faith communities, how might priority be given to religious literacy across education and within our public institutions?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments; he makes some very interesting points. We have been very clear that anti-Muslim hatred has no place at all in our communities, and that it will be stamped out wherever it occurs. It is a growing concern, as I think the right reverend Prelate has highlighted, for all of our communities. To effectively respond to it, we must properly understand it in all its forms and manifestations. We have been seeking the views and perspectives of experts in this field, which I hope would include the right reverend Prelate, to explore how religious hatred is experienced across all British communities. But it seems self-evident that one of the ways to combat this sort of ill-advised and poorly informed hatred is to educate and improve general understanding of the issues under discussion.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I commend my noble friend the Minister for his wise words today. Yesterday in this Chamber, we spent some time talking about the importance of the freedom of the press. Against a background which we all accept as pretty serious and worrying, it is vital to maintain freedom of speech. People should be able to express their thoughts clearly. I speak as somebody who started on life at Hyde Park’s Speakers’ Corner in the 1960s, where I enjoyed tackling all sorts of issues and had feedback from all those who listened. Does the Minister not think that we ought to do everything possible, particularly in this year, to encourage people to come out and speak without fear of reprisal or of any effect they might or might not have?
If we look ahead to this year, there are two particular questions I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister. First, we are going to get a Dissolution of Parliament. If there is to be general election in May, it will come at the end of next month. What is going to happen so far as protecting candidates is concerned? As soon as there is a Dissolution, MPs are no longer Members of Parliament. What will be done to make sure that the protection will continue during what could potentially be a very testing period? Secondly, does this protection extend to the devolved nations? We must ensure that equal protection is given to all those who have elected office in whatever capacity in the devolved territories and that there are sufficient funds to make sure that they are adequately covered.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend raises some good points. I entirely agree that we should be encouraging debate around these subjects, that we should be tolerant of freedom and that we should encourage freedom. It seems to me self-evident that you can expose widely held fallacies only by, in effect, letting sunlight in as the perfect disinfectant. In terms of debate, the only sunlight you can let in comes via speeches, words and testing opinions and widely held fallacies. On that subject, we have to be careful around the taxonomy that we use when defining some of these hatreds because, again, we would not wish inadvertently to make certain discussions beyond the pale, shall we say.
As regards the devolved nations, defending democracy is a sovereign matter, but policing is devolved. We will work with the security services in those Administrations on the safety of their Governments. Any additional requirements on devolved policing will be funded in the appropriate way. I reassure my noble friend that the Government are looking at how to maintain security requirements during the Dissolution of Parliament when, as he rightly points out, MPs will no longer be MPs. However, Operation Bridger is very clear. A full-time, single point of contact in each police force will be introduced with responsibility for supporting all elected representatives where needed. Obviously, if an MP has stood down for that time, that does not mean that they are not still protected, where needed.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the other place is in a sense the vox populi that has an enormous influence on debate and on the tenor of how people feel in this country? The Whip system in both our major parties is extraordinarily effective in getting their adherents to vote along party lines, however much they might dislike it, demonstrating a commendable degree of discipline. It would be nice to see that discipline applied equally to those members of each party who choose to use inflammatory language, which is clearly unhelpful to them as individuals and certainly to their staff but also to all their colleagues.
My second point is that, in the event that a general election is called, the individuals running for office will no longer be MPs and the whipping system as such will therefore no longer be in effect. What role or responsibility will the central offices of the major parties have in trying to ensure a degree of discipline and coherence in what those who are running under their particular flags say during the election campaign? GB News is a good example of how a small flame can quite quickly create a gas explosion. I am worried about a lack of discipline unless, frankly, all the major parties are aware of this issue and are taking active steps to do something about it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes some good points. I would say that the other House is not the vox populi; it is elected to represent its constituents’ concerns, whatever those concerns might be. I take his points about the Whip system. I noticed that that system was enacted speedily and swiftly in circumstances that I suspect he was referring to earlier this week.
With regard to the general election, the ultimate decider of whether or not the messages being delivered on the doorstep are acceptable or appropriate is the electors in those constituencies. It is clear that parties—I would extend this to all parties—have clear rules about what is and is not acceptable, and I am sure they will be enforcing those rules as ruthlessly as necessary.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement, but I want to ask for some clarification. The Statement explains the support that the police are giving to ensure that the marchers and demonstrations do not have the appearance, to people going about their daily business, of being intimidatory. Could my noble friend explain more precisely what powers the police have to curtail marches in public places or where people are going about elected office, whether in town halls or in these Houses of Parliament, and whether they will use such powers to stop the very aggressive flag-waving and surrounding of buildings by marchers, which has the appearance to many people of being intimidatory? I note here that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police did not think that flashing or having banners saying “From the river to the sea” was anti-Semitic or intimidatory when the subject was first raised with him some months ago. Do the police have any powers to stop such inflammatory and, to my mind, anti-Semitic slogans being posted publicly or advertised, which are taken as intimidatory? To clarify, I am asking about the very aggressive flag-waving on some occasions of Palestinian flags and the flashing or use of that slogan on public marches.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend asks some interesting and, if I may say so, slightly difficult questions, because there is an invitation in there to comment on operational policing matters, as she describes, around Parliament and indeed on protests in general. I think the police have sufficient powers. Obviously, those coalesce around intimidation, harassment and intent, but it is a matter for context-specific decisions to be made by the police at the time. They are accountable for those decisions after the facts, but at the time it is difficult to second-guess why or how they did what they did.
With regard to projecting things on buildings, the legality of slogans and so on, I am sure that is one of those matters where we all have our own opinions. The act of projecting light on to a building is not itself illegal in the UK and it is not obviously likely to engage public order offences, but it is possible in principle to do certain things about it. This is a debate that will continue, and I do not think I should go any further on it.
Pollution in Rivers and Regulation of Private Water Companies
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
That this House takes note of (1) the state of pollution in rivers, and (2) the case for regulation of private water companies.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the House is sadly becoming used to Questions and debates on sewage overflows, the quality of waterways and water company CEOs’ pay. I do not apologise for raising the issue again.
Water companies continue to discharge sewage into rivers, lakes and coastlines. At the same time, the Government are watering down environmental protections and allowing sewage discharges to continue until 2050. Liberal Democrats are calling for this to end much sooner in order to improve the quality of the water in our rivers, lakes and beaches. England’s sewerage companies have been allowed to get away with discharging sewage into our waterways for far too long.
In England, over the last three years, 2020 to 2023, there have been 1,760,659 overflows, lasting for 7,523,601 hours. Over the summer, beaches across the south-west were closed because of sewage pollution, impacting holidaymakers and tourists alike, while national parks, such as the Lake District, have not been spared spills. Meanwhile, over the same period, water company executives have paid themselves £73 million in remuneration, including £41.2 million in bonuses. In 2022, the then head of the Environment Agency even suggested that executives might deserve to go to prison.
The Conservatives have done nothing to stop water companies dumping sewage into our rivers. They have consistently voted against tougher action to stop sewage overflows, while the water regulator Ofwat said that only three of the 11 sewerage companies were top performers and had met their sewage overflow targets.
The Conservatives’ plan to reduce these sewage discharges is a licence to carry on as normal. Under their plan, water companies will be permitted to continue discharging sewage until 2050 and bill payers will see hikes in their bills to pay for it. The Government are even watering down environmental regulations, such as nutrient neutrality rules, which is likely to make the sewage problem even worse. Liberal Democrats are calling for an end to sewage dumping. Water executives should be banned from paying themselves bonuses until illegal sewage overflows stop on a regular basis.
The Secretary of State is proposing to block payouts to executives of firms that commit criminal acts of water pollution with effect from the financial year beginning this April. Can the Minister say how this information will be collected and monitored? What will be the criteria for preventing payouts?
The Liberal Democrats are calling for four actions. First, England’s water companies should be transformed into public-benefit companies. Secondly, Ofwat should be abolished and replaced by a new regulator which has effective powers to intervene. Thirdly, a sewage tax should be introduced to fund the clean-up of the most polluted lakes, rivers and coastlines. Fourthly, compensation should be introduced for swimmers who fall sick after swimming in dirty waters.
In Wales, things are no better. There have been 287,836 overflows, lasting for 2,290,674 hours over the last three years. The bosses of Welsh Water have been paid £3.5 million, including £841,000 in bonuses, benefits and incentives. The top executives of Wales’s other water company, Severn Trent, paid themselves £15 million, including £11.2 million in bonuses, benefits and incentives. In Wales, Welsh Water is not-for-profit and is still responsible for vast amounts of illegal sewage discharges. The Labour Government in Cardiff Bay are responsible for the regulation of Welsh Water and sewage overflows within Wales. Labour has systematically underfunded Natural Resources Wales, which is responsible for monitoring water quality, and has provided nowhere near enough oversight of Welsh Water. Liberal Democrats are also calling for a ban on sewage bonuses for directors in Wales.
Up in Scotland, illegal sewage discharge is also a problem, but its sewerage company, Scottish Water, is publicly owned by the Scottish Government. Over the last three years, Scottish Water allowed sewage overflows 37,396 times into Scottish rivers, lakes and coastal areas, lasting 403,230 hours. However, of the 3,614 overflows in Scotland’s 31,000-mile sewerage network, only 4%—that is, 144—are currently monitored. The Ferret website made a freedom of information request and, on 22 September, revealed that more than half of Scotland’s bathing waters—49 out of 87—have been contaminated with sewage. Meanwhile, Scottish Water’s top executives took home £2.9 million in remuneration, including £1.13 million in bonuses, benefits and incentives over the last three years. This is unacceptable. However, the SNP and its Green Party partners have failed to tackle sewage discharges, despite being directly responsible for them. Due to their failure to monitor, we do not even know the full extent of the problem.
Liberal Democrats are calling for an end to sewage discharges and a ban on bonuses for Scottish Water bosses until the discharges end. Scottish Liberal Democrats have also called for targets to be set to reduce discharges. Renationalisation will not be effective and would make no difference to the issue. Scottish Water is publicly owned, and we simply do not know how many illegal sewage overflows are taking place. At least in England, according to the Government, 100% of sewage overflow outlets are monitored. However, it is unclear who is doing this monitoring. Can the Minister give information on this please?
We need strong action from the Government to regulate these water companies to stop illegal sewage overflows, coupled with a truly independent water regulator, to ensure that companies are held to account with transparent reporting, plus the acceleration of measures to upgrade sewerage systems and tackle overflows.
In the 2023 round of accelerated infrastructure delivery decisions, we sadly saw a number of nature-based solution project proposals rejected by Ofwat for not being able to reach technical specifications designed for concrete engineering. Ofwat needs to wake up and ensure that it is getting a lot more for its money than just carbon-creating concrete solutions.
Government communications are also not helping. Last July, the Secretary of State sent a communication to water companies through the EA, raising concern about the affordability of environmental investments and encouraging deferral of these investments to keep water bills low. I begin to wonder why the Government spent so much time getting the Environment Act through if they were going to undermine it from the start.
I am sure the Minister will tell the House that Ofwat is independent. However, a recent article in the Guardian of 1 February indicated that water company executives and the chairs of Ofwat and the Environment Agency went for dinner at an exclusive private members’ club to discuss how to quell public anger over rising bills and sewage spills—at an estimated cost of £1,200. It does not appear to me that either the Environment Agency or Ofwat are independent of the water companies—quite the opposite. A cosy chat over dinner about how to alter public opinion, without addressing the root cause of the problem, hardly seems likely to reassure the public.
On Tuesday this week, Southern Water was fined £330,000 over a raw sewage spill at a rural beauty spot. That killed more than 2,000 fish, with staff ignoring an alarm about the emergency for five hours. The YMCA Fairthorne Manor, an outdoor activity centre popular for school trips, had to stop water activities for 10 days after the incident and cancel more than 1,000 sessions. The health implications of sewage are why Liberal Democrats have previously called for sewage sickness victims to receive compensation, and we repeat that call today. It is not right that, as water companies make large profits, swimmers get sick. If someone is poisoned by sewage, they should be compensated for it.
A recent report by Surfers Against Sewage found that the number of people who fell ill after entering water between October 2022 and September 2023 was 1,924. This is three times the number reported in the previous year. The sewage spill that Southern Water was fined for on Tuesday, and many other spills like it, show the need for an effective Environment Agency.
Defra is heavily dependent on the monitoring and intervention of the Environment Agency. However, cutting the Environment Agency’s budget from £170 million in 2009-10 to £76 million in 2019-20 is not likely to assist this hard-pressed organisation to act effectively. A general rule of life is that you get what you pay for. It is essential that the Environment Agency is provided with adequate funding to conduct inspections and take remedial action.
According to a Guardian article on 13 February, the Levelling-Up Secretary, Michael Gove, proposed an amendment to the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that would strike at the directive on preventing extra sewage going into waterways in sensitive areas by either updating infrastructure or buying biodiversity credits. The Secretary of State’s action would allow developers to ignore the rules that were so strenuously fought for in this Chamber by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and others. The Government are not taking this issue seriously. There is then the issue of axing the right of developers to connect to already overloaded sewerage systems, which is not currently anywhere on the horizon.
On Tuesday afternoon, as I sat in this Chamber waiting for the next business, a message came through to my private email from Southern Water, of which I am a customer. The heading was, “Tired of hearing about storm releases? Us too”. There then followed some excellent nature-based solutions that it is prioritising. Obviously, it was trying to head off criticism. However, when I got home and watched the local television news—delayed due to the football overrun—I saw the news of Southern Water’s fine, to which I referred earlier. This sewage discharge was in the next village to where I live. The worst aspect of this is that it took from 2019 until this week to come to court and be dealt with. No wonder water companies include the cost of possible fines in their business plans. To them, it appears to be all part of their operation.
The country cannot wait any longer. The countryside and our waterways are submerged by pollution. A radical overhaul is needed of the way in which water and sewage companies operate, and a more accountable replacement Ofwat needs to be delivered without delay. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Water, and last year I chaired a study organised by the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management into bioresources strategy. I also worked with the water regulator for Scotland, the Water Industry Commission, between 2015 and 2018.
At the outset, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on securing this timely debate on river pollution and the case for the regulation of private water companies. I, for one, recognise that privatisation has permitted the massive investment required to move UK water from being one of the dirtiest in Europe to upgrading our drinking water, rivers and bathing waters to infinitely better quality than they were in the 1980s. We can always improve regulation, although some might say that there is already a wealth of regulators for private water companies: Ofwat, the Environment Agency, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, and now the Office for Environmental Protection.
Let us examine the causes of the pollution of our rivers. A recent phenomenon has been surface water flooding, which was first recognised in 2007, with run-off from our roads spilling into combined sewers. Does my noble friend the Minister, whom I welcome to his place today, think it right that national highway authorities are not held accountable for surface water run-off? There is also the case of inappropriate developments, whereby water companies are required to connect wastewater—sewage—to antiquated infrastructure, causing further spills when mixed with flood water entering the combined sewers.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
We are on a timer, so I will take advice on whether we are permitted to take interventions. Does the Clock stop if I take an intervention?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am afraid that I cannot give way.
Large-scale developments built in inappropriate places, such as zone B flood plains, compound that with poor connections. We must tackle the problems of sewage at source, before it enters the rivers and sea. While the Government make the case for building on flood plains in certain circumstances, that should not be encouraged. In any event, such homes will not be insured under the Flood Re scheme if built after 2009.
I will also raise the vexed issue of misconnections. The Government made two commitments under the storm overflows discharge reduction plan that could help to address the issue: to give water companies the right to repair defective drains on private property, and to give water companies the right to alter drainage systems on private property to reduce impermeable areas connected to the combined sewer network. An important part of tackling misconnections is getting to the drains on private land, so that water companies can take action, as the majority of misconnections are on private land. Will the Government also allow water companies access to government-owned land, such as hospitals and schools, to make the necessary repair work and to repair drainage separation work where required? That measure alone would prevent excess water entering combined sewers.
Having examined the causes of pollution in our rivers, is there a case for further regulation of private water companies? Water companies have a positive role to play in areas such as creating natural flood defences—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, pointed out—particularly by working with farmers and others. I pay tribute to the work of Yorkshire Water and United Utilities in that area. Defra should encourage other private sector players to contribute to that. What plans does my noble friend the Minister and his department have to do so? The Slowing the Flow scheme in Pickering, with which I was associated, is a good example of a natural flood defence combined with a small reservoir—not an overengineered project, such as those to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, objected—although all those involved were from the public sector. I urge the Government to lever more private sector funding into that. If we are to follow through with linking renumeration to performance, I invite my noble friend the Minister and his department to look at the corollary of that by giving water companies the tools to do the job.
The Government promised in this place and the other place that Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 will be implemented as it has been in Wales. Will my noble friend confirm that this will happen in England before the election? It is extremely important that we stop the automatic right to connect, whereby water companies are expected to connect pipes from three, four or five-bedroomed homes to antiquated Victorian pipes that simply cannot take the amount of wastewater and sewage coming out of these new builds. The Government must insist on mandatory SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—for all new builds. I hope they will also commit to an ambitious programme of retrofitting to existing developments, where appropriate. Obviously, that raises the question of who will maintain the SUDS, which is an open question at the moment.
Will the Government look favourably on rewarding farmers for storing water on flood land? According to the NFU, over half the most fertile farmland in Britain is on flood plains. The farming community and landowners are performing a public good by preventing communities downstream from flooding. However, there is great uncertainty as to how farmers can benefit from public funds. Often this flooding will include sewage. Can my noble friend clarify who will be eligible to apply for both the flood recovery framework and the farming recovery fund, and what level of damages can be recovered? Equally, will Defra recognise that the role farmers play in storing floodwater is a public good? Will the Government look positively at a whole-catchment area approach, and more slow-the-flow schemes such as those successfully implemented in Pickering and elsewhere protecting downstream communities from flooding?
I applaud the action that the Government have taken on holding directors to account, particularly the instruction they have given to Ofwat and the work Ofwat has done on executive pay. Ofwat has been very clear that companies need to demonstrate that performance-related executive remuneration is linked to performance for customers and the environment. In June last year, Ofwat confirmed that where companies do not demonstrate that executive pay is linked to performance, it will stop companies recovering the cost of bonuses from consumers.
I welcome the level of investment announced in the five-year business plan that Ofwat has yet to approve. It will factor in £96 billion in the next investment period 2025 to 2030, of which £11 billion will be allocated to reduce overflow spills. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, identified an area which has only been recognised for spend—innovation—since 2014. I hope that Ofwat will go much further, recognising the natural flood defences to which the noble Baroness referred as innovative projects under the spending review. I think this will help many of the issues the noble Baroness identified. We do not want overengineered projects, we want natural flood defences—and these schemes have to be approved as part of the price review.
Finally, the NAO report in November 2023 made a number of very apt recommendations to increase resilience to future flood events, such as reprofiling capital spend, maximising long-term value for money and ensuring flexibility to switch money from capital spend to asset management. My preference is to establish a single budget for all flood spending.
Finally, will my noble friend look favourably on the use of SUDS and natural defences to ensure no overspill of raw sewage into combined sewers, so that it will not enter the rivers. Will he look favourably at a whole-catchment area management approach, to make highways authorities responsible for water run-off of pollution from these surfaces into combined sewers? Will he address the issue of missed connections and permit water companies to enter private land and government property in schools and hospitals? Will he look at giving water companies the right to alter drainage systems, consider the recommendation from CIWEM for a comprehensive independent review of water management, inform the public of the importance of water efficiency and address all the recommendations of the NAO report of November last year?
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for securing this debate and congratulate her on setting out the issues in her superb speech. I will concentrate on regulatory issues.
The key principles of effective regulation are that the regulator must be independent, must levy effective sanctions, must be publicly accountable and must empower stakeholders to curb abuses. Water and sewerage regulators fail these key tests. In any system of regulation, capture of the regulators by the regulated is a recurring problem. However, this is the starting position in the water industry. Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who previously worked at Ofwat. Water company directors and the chairs of Ofwat and the Environment Agency regularly meet at exclusive clubs to discuss how to quell public anger over bill rises and sewage dumping. The cost of these lavish lunches and dinners is passed to customers, but no agenda papers or minutes of such meetings are made publicly available. We all know that secrecy breeds corruption and the water industry is full of that.
The revolving doors deepen cognitive capture and the cosiness is all too evident. Water companies have an operating profit margin of 35%, even though they have no competition. Water bills have risen by 363% since privatisation, and over 40% in real terms. Up to 28% of customer charges cover the interest paid on debt, which would not be necessary if Ofwat had been vigilant and curbed high leverage at water companies. It has completely failed to protect customers.
In the debate on 22 February, I drew attention to the number of times some water companies have been sanctioned since 2010. I gave the example of United Utilities, which has been sanctioned 215 times. In reply, the Minister seemed to regard that as a sign of success. Imagine an offender hauled in front of the same judge every three weeks for identical offences and given a puny fine, only to reoffend again. Nobody would consider that to be a regulatory success—but the Minister thought it was somehow a success story. I hope he will explain why the Government consider repeat offences by the water companies to be a success—that was just an easy question for him.
Despite the repeat offences, bonuses continue to flow. Again last week, in response to my suggestion that customers should elect water company directors and vote on executive pay, the Minister said:
“Remuneration committees for each water company independently determine the appropriate level of remuneration for their water company executives”.
This is simply not true. First, remuneration committees are staffed by non-executive directors who owe their position to favours from the executive board. They have absolutely no independence from the executive board and they very rarely bite the hand that feeds them. None is a substitute for direct representation of customers on company boards.
Secondly, the Minister added:
“Ofwat expects water companies to take into account the legitimate concerns of stakeholders when making decisions on the application of remuneration policies”.—[Official Report, 22/2/24; cols. 758-9.]
Every opinion poll has shown that people are concerned about high bills, pollution, lack of investment and poor regulation. Relying on failed structures and practices cannot give us effective regulation, yet the Minister was defending them, for some reason. Maybe he has had second thoughts since; I do not know.
In the debate on 22 February, the Minister defended water companies with the claim that, since privatisation, £215 billion has been invested in infrastructure. I do not have any confidence in that number because it has been manufactured by dubious accounting practices. I will give two examples, both relating to the accounts for 2022-23 published by Thames Water.
First, on page 134 of those accounts, the company states that it
“capitalises expenditure relating to water and wastewater infrastructure where such expenditure enhances assets or increases the capacity of the network. Maintenance expenditure is taken to the income statement in the period in which it is incurred. Differentiating between enhancement and maintenance works is subjective”.
What does that mean? It means that the amounts that are capitalised to show higher investment cannot be independently corroborated. It just depends on the whims of the directors; there is absolutely no solidity to it. Will the Minister write to the House after this debate and say how much of the repair and maintenance costs have been capitalised since privatisation by water companies so that we can remove it from the £215 billion?
Secondly, on page 143 of Thames Water’s annual accounts, it states that
“£215.2 million of borrowing costs were capitalised in the period”
and gives a comparison of £114.8 million for 2022. So, the investment made by Thames Water in those two years alone has been inflated by £330 million. The crazy logic of this policy is that, when a company mends leaks by borrowing money compared to one that uses retained earnings, it is somehow investing more and its assets are worth more. That simply is not true. We know a company that used such imprudent policies: Carillion. I have a slight declaration to make here in that I was an adviser to the Work and Pensions Committee for that investigation—and we know what happened to Carillion. This is where water companies are heading with the full blessing of the Government, Ofwat and all the other regulators. Again, I ask the Minister to write to the House and explain both how much interest has been capitalised by water companies since privatisation and what the consequences of such practices are. Are those companies going to go the same way as Carillion? I fear they are; Ofwat certainly has no financial nous to check these things.
After 35 years of failure, we can all see that the current regulatory structures are highly deficient. We cannot have that; we need to change it. Ofwat and the Environment Agency need to be replaced by bodies that are pluralistic, with direct representation of stakeholders on their boards. The regulators and the regulated do not need to have a hostile relationship but there must be distance between them. They cannot be in each other’s pockets or cosy. Regulators must owe a duty of care to stakeholders so that they can be sued for failing the public; that is virtually impossible at the moment. All significant board meetings must be in the open so that we can all see how appropriate evidence submitted to regulators is weighted, filtered or acted on. At the moment, there is complete secrecy. All board minutes, working and agenda papers need to be publicly available. If the Minister possibly feels uncomfortable with those suggestions, it would be helpful to know why he is afraid of openness and democracy. Why is he afraid of empowering stakeholders and the public at large? We need to bring public pressure upon the water industry and its regulators so that they clean up their act.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is such a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who really does his homework. I advocate to the Government Benches reading his speech in Hansard just to make sure that they have got the full picture.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on bringing this topic up again. When I was thinking about what to say, I wondered whether I should just print off my speeches from six months, a year or two years ago. We have debated this issue a lot; there is strength of feeling here. The Minister might stand up and say, in his innocence, “But we’re doing more than any other Government have ever done on this issue”. That may be true but, unfortunately, the situation has got worse and the Government are not doing enough.
We have had some really good briefings on this issue. The Rivers Trust produced a very good report saying things such as this:
“No single stretch of river in England or Northern Ireland is in good overall health”.
That is shameful. It also said that 85% of river stretches in England have failed to reach good ecological health, and that toxic chemicals pollute every stretch of English rivers. What a legacy this Government have left us. This will come up on doorsteps—I am going to make sure that it does if I have anything to do with it—and the Government will be shamed.
We also had a very good briefing from Sustain. It made the point that the main cause of river pollution is livestock farming—that of chickens and other animals. This is perfectly true but it does not mean that sewage will not be important; somehow, the general public have heard the word “sewage” and will ask questions about it.
We had a briefing from Windrush Against Sewage Pollution. It talks about the inadequate monitoring and the fact that there simply is not enough data to know the full picture. This is something that the Government have not taken seriously. The Freshwater Future briefing called for the regulation of private water companies.
Clearly, we are all tired of talking about this and of the Government replying in platitudes, saying how it is going to be fine and that they have done everything anyone could possibly do. They have not. I think that even the two noble Lords on the Front Bench know that water regulation has failed; I would be very disappointed if they did not know that basic fact.
I have all sorts of facts and figures here but, quite honestly, I will have to cut those bits out of my speech because the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has used them all. It is time that all politicians of all political parties question and reject the ideological belief in water privatisation; it has failed. Once you are free of that ideological straitjacket, when the water companies say, “We’ll go bankrupt if you don’t let us raise the average water bill by £150 a year”, you can say, “No problem. We can take you over; that is fine. You failed. We’ll buy you for 50 pence”, or whatever.
The water companies had the public money to invest but, instead, they paid it out in dividends. Either they can do what they were paid to do already or they can go bankrupt. As I say, we can buy them. An even better solution has been put forward by the charity We Own It, which suggests that, instead of the stupid, paltry fines that the water companies keep getting thrown at them—they pay them quite happily because they just do not care; it is not much money—we could take shares from them every time. We could be quite strict and tough about it, then we would have them in no time.
The water companies are saying that they need the predicted £150-a-year rise in bills with which they are insulting us at the moment in order to invest over the next 27 years. However, the £57 billion that the Government are offering is the same amount of money that those water companies have paid to shareholders in the previous 27 years. Where is the guarantee that any money we give to these water companies will actually be spent on the things we care about? I would argue that we have absolutely no guarantee.
Of course, Ofwat has failed and the Environment Agency has failed. I feel very sad about that. Instead of our regulators acting years ago to clamp down on CEO bonuses and shareholder dividends, they are still going to private dinner clubs with the water industry to discuss how to quell the public anger at sewage and rising bills. As I said, there will be anger over this at the next general election. The cost of living will be the major concern but sewage will come up.
I have had quite a lot of people saying to me, “Oh, we should just take all these CEOs and top execs to court, throw them in jail and forget about them, basically”. I am not a big fan of putting people in prison. What we should do with all these top execs is give them community service. They should be out there on the riverbanks and the beaches clearing up the mess that they have made. A couple of years of doing that and possibly other CEOs would learn that you cannot carry on polluting our natural resources in that way.
I will cut huge chunks of my speech out now, which I am sure everybody will be very happy about. Local campaigners in West Oxfordshire have worked with the district council to ensure that planning applications have conditions set for Thames Water to upgrade illegal sewerage systems before accepting the occupancy of new housing. The effectiveness of the conditions is being tested, with the first examples under way. The Environment Agency has been prodded into action, and on one application of 1,450 houses north of Oxford it said clearly that the Oxford sewage works is operating illegally and has failed to upgrade, despite the water company having had the money years ago.
I do not want there to be a shortage of housing. I do not want us to stop building new housing; I want to stop our polluting some very precious ecosystems. The same rule that I have just talked about would apply to any new housing served by the Oxford sewage works and every other illegally operating sewage works in the country. It will stop a new deluge of sewage being dumped into local rivers due to overloaded systems.
How many sewage works around the country are currently operating illegally and do not have the capacity to handle the existing levels of sewage? This is a very important question. If we do not have the data on that, we really ought to. Perhaps the Minister can write to me and to everybody about that, because it is a crucial question. You cannot fix a problem if you do not know what it is and how big it is.
Lastly, can the Minister explain how water companies that are blocking new housing from being occupied and have never invested the money given to them to produce a modern sewerage system can now be expected to do so? We have let the water companies run rampant over our very precious land, rivers, waterways and all sorts of ecosystems. It is time we stopped them.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Bakewell and all those who are speaking. I will talk about the scale of the pollution problem in our rivers and the causes, and will suggest some possible solutions.
The scale of the Government’s overall environmental ambitions is to be commended. This is the first Government to have set a target to leave nature in a better place than they found it, but there is much to do and time is short. My overall message is that more must be urgently done at scale and at pace to meet the targets that the Government have set themselves. Clear plans, clear policy direction, clear timescales for action, monitoring regimes, and a clear and consistent direction of travel and political messaging are all vital to secure the planning, investment and action needed to achieve these objectives at scale and on time.
Water quality was awful but, thanks mainly to EU measures and their enforcement and monitoring, it improved in the past. Progress is either slipping back or stagnant at best. Nowhere is the scale of the challenge clearer than the daily scandal of raw sewage being discharged into our waterways unabated while water company bosses continue to pay themselves millions in bonuses with seeming impunity from the harm their companies do. Our rivers and inland waterways are in a desperately sorry state. The combined impacts of sewage discharges and pollution from farming and agriculture, chemicals, road networks and urban spaces are taking their toll.
The recently published Rivers Trust State of Our Rivers Report found that, of our rivers:
“0% are in good overall status … 0% are in high overall status … 23% are classed as in poor or bad overall status … 85% of river stretches fall below good ecological standards; only 15% achieve good or above ecological health status”.
The report found that very little had changed or improved since the last full report in 2019. Worryingly, river sampling has also decreased, with nearly 6% fewer river stretches receiving health clarifications compared with 2019.
What a sorry situation this is. From Pooh-sticks to the simple pleasures in life of sitting by a cooling river on a warm day, and for the 7.5 million people who regularly wild swim, our rivers and lakes are precious and life affirming. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, people care passionately about our rivers, which occupy a deep and sacred place in our natural soul and well-being. Their health is an election-defining issue that this Government need to invest more commitment and energy into.
The Government should be aware that there is a reason for the Liberal Democrats going on—and, at times, on—about sewage in our rivers. It is not just because my party cares about these issues but because we know that the Government’s voters care just as much. My party is committed to protecting our natural environment. That protection will be at the heart of our overall policy approach. Everyone should be able to enjoy access to nature, free of this mess and its risk to their health.
The water companies have failed to invest in water infrastructure, especially at a time when interest rates were historically low. In 2011, for example, Defra’s Water for Life paper found that only 1% of public sewers were replaced between 2000 and 2008. At that continued rate, it would take 800 years, or 10 times longer than a life cycle, to replace them all. This lack of investment has continued until today, with Ofwat finding a £587 million water company underspend for the years 2020 to 2023. At the same time, the shareholders continue to receive record bonuses. Poor regulation and enforcement across several sectors are making things worse. The Environment Agency saw its environmental budget more than halve in 10 years, from £170 million to £76 million in 2019-20.
As a result, it is struggling to monitor and enforce the rules. Ofwat has similarly failed to hold water companies to account. It has prioritised low bills for customers over the need for investment in networks and environmental protections. We have seen a revolving door between Ofwat and the water companies. The question remains: who regulates the regulators? We need clear and enforceable statutory regulations for long-term improvements in overall water health to be added to the Environment Act 2021.
Sewage may be in the public consciousness—and, in too many cases, people’s nostrils—but it is only a small part of the overall pollution problem. Land management practices must change. This is an issue that the Government have failed to tackle. ELMS has been rushed. Too much money is given to big agricultural businesses. Our small farmers are excluded and are suffering. Many more small-scale farmers must be brought into the scheme, and more help must be provided for them to make applications. The programme must adequately compensate farmers for the nature-friendly practices that we all need and depend on. There is far too little monitoring of our waterways and far too little understanding of the dangerous cocktail of chemicals, and for ever chemicals, that are still present. When do the Government plan to bring forward their chemicals strategy, a key call of the recent OEP report?
The impacts of climate change are real and are happening now. The average UK winter has become around 1 degree warmer and 15% wetter over the past century. We are seeing more rain and it must go somewhere. We must work to separate rainwater from our sewerage systems. Climate change puts increased pressure on the systems and overwhelms them. Heat will increase pressure for water abstraction, and floods bring increased risks of pollution events. I warmly welcome the £25 million of government money that was announced last week to work with nature, not against it, to help with flood management. It is a welcome sign of a change of direction, but we could have had £250 million and that still would not have been enough.
We need more whole-catchment-area, nature-based approaches to slow water, hold and release it slowly to protect soils, and to filter rainwater prior to it entering our waterways. We must do more to work with nature, not against it, in an age of extreme weather. We need long-term plans and greater ambitions from this Government. Ambition must be accompanied by consistent political will, determined action, adequate investment and regulatory regimes that are statutory, well-funded, enforced and fit for purpose.
My party is clear: we are determined and committed to real change in these areas. We will transform the private water companies into public benefit companies. Our view is that Ofwat has failed to get to grips with the problems and define solutions, so our policy is to abolish Ofwat and replace it with a more effective regulator with more powers to directly intervene with speed and much-needed enforcement teeth. We will ensure that there is more adequate funding for regular monitoring of all our waterways. The Liberal Democrats are also committed to introducing a sewage tax on water company profits to fund the clean-up of the most polluted inland waterways and our coastline. We will also introduce compensation for swimmers, and others, who fall sick after exercising in water. These are our policies for change. I kindly ask the Minister: what plans do the Government have to offer?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville for tabling this very important topic for debate. She has described the consequences for our rivers of discharging raw sewage from storm overflows; the health problems that follow can be very serious, but I will start with some history.
Nearly 170 years ago, sewage was discharged into the rivers that served our great cities. In London, it was the Thames, and one hot summer in 1858 the smell that resulted from the raw effluent was dubbed the Great Stink. It affected Parliament to such an extent that the curtains were soaked in chloride of lime in a vain attempt to reduce the overpowering smell. The failure to deal with a long-running discharge of raw sewage into the Thames had literally got up the noses of MPs and Peers; something had to be done, of course, and it was.
The great Joseph Bazalgette was a civil engineer who then set to work and created the sewage system for central London, including for Parliament. Standards for sewage systems for the whole country followed in 1875, when a Conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, overcame the laissez-faire attitude of his party and passed the Public Health Act, which required local authorities to create or repair sewers at significant cost to ratepayers. It is salutary to think that, over 150 years later, that investment in the sewerage infrastructure has been so neglected that, today, communities across the country face a modern equivalent of the Great Stink.
In Yorkshire, where I am happy to live, the rivers create a beautiful environment, as well as providing water for habitats and a focus for recreation but also water abstraction for domestic consumption. Sadly, too often, these great rivers are also used to carry sewage from storm overflows. I hasten to add that, despite all else that pollutes our rivers, the water companies and the Drinking Water Inspectorate ensure a very high quality of drinking water.
These are some of the more recent incidents. Over 2020 and 2021, two Yorkshire rivers, the River Nidd and the River Wharfe, received almost approximately 1.4 billion litres of untreated wastewater—for “wastewater”, read “raw sewage”. The River Nidd saw 870 sewage dump incidents in 2022, according to Environment Agency figures. Testing of water pollution in the River Nidd at the time showed that the harmful bacteria E. coli was at “concerningly high” levels.
In 2016, the Environment Agency received a report of pollution in Hookstone Beck in Harrogate. Investigating officers traced it to the nearby overflow, which had blocked. The investigation found that almost 1,500 fish had been killed and that water quality was affected for 2.5 kilometres downstream. A series of further blockages and discharges took place in the following months.
These are just some of the pollution incidents relating to the discharging of raw sewage in our great Yorkshire rivers. The question for the Minister is this: why have these pollution incidents been permitted without earlier intervention by the regulators and the Government?
The EU water framework directive has been retained by the Government as retained EU law. Prior to 2019, the water framework directive was a key driver to very significant capital investment by water companies in their wastewater treatment works and sewage systems. In Yorkshire, there were some very large schemes to improve wastewater treatment facilities and the system attached to them. The Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 only requires
“water companies to have eliminated all adverse ecological impact from sewage discharges at all sensitive sites by 2035, and at all other overflows by 2050”.
The Government are apparently satisfied that raw sewage discharges can continue for a further 25 years. What is worse is that these aims in the plan are not even legally binding.
Further, the Government’s Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan of 2022 set a target for 75% of overflows close to high-priority sites such as SSSIs and so on by 2035. This is a considerable dilution of the water framework directive, which set a date to restore all surface water bodies—rivers, streams et cetera—to good ecological status by December 2027. Yet the Government are apparently okaying 2035 for the most sensitive areas.
One hundred and fifty years ago, a Government were able to accept, first, that they had a responsibility and, secondly, that taking responsibility meant having a duty to act. The situation we suffer today is that Conservative Governments have been keen to outsource these critical responsibilities of providing clean drinking water and treating sewage so that the end-result can be discharged to rivers or the sea without causing pollution.
It is time for the Government to appreciate that discharging raw sewage into watercourses is not acceptable. It is a public health scandal. But, of course, public health is underfunded, as is the Environment Agency, to tackle these health challenges. Disraeli understood that his Government would be judged by the approach to public health. That same challenge exists today, and we are yet to see the Conservative Government rising effectively and with determination to that challenge.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests, which may be relevant to this debate. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on securing this debate. I am slightly saddened to hear, from various sides, party-political views on this matter. In my opinion, this is not a party political issue. I think that all parties in this House, and those with no party affiliation, share a determination to try to do something about this serious situation.
There is no doubt that pollution in our rivers affects the whole population, and there is wide public support for legislation to clean up our rivers and beaches. Unfortunately, despite many improvements made by this House to the Environment Act 2021, and despite various plans and intentions published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency and Ofwat, the situation does not appear to be improving.
The Office for Environmental Protection—a new agency created by the Environment Act—stated in its recent annual report:
“The current state of the water environment is not satisfactory. Despite historic improvements, the pace of change has now stalled.”
It is well known, and a number of noble Lords have mentioned it, that only a small proportion of our rivers are in a good ecological state. In a report by the Rivers Trust, published earlier this week and referred to by several noble Lords, this country’s rivers are described as being in a
“desperate state … plagued by sewage, chemical, nutrient and plastic pollution”.
What can be done to encourage an improvement in our rivers? As the Office for Environmental Protection clearly states in its report, the Government’s ambitions can be achieved only with
“effective management of the farmed landscape and engagement with the nation’s farmers and landowners”.
Unfortunately, the rollout of the environmental land management schemes has been slow, and this will have impeded the reduction in the pollution in our rivers coming from agricultural activities. We have been slow in dealing with the slurry from intensive farming systems located in certain river catchment areas.
However, the inexcusable cause of river pollution is the continuing discharge of raw and untreated sewage. This has been happening for decades, and planning authorities throughout the country have been insufficiently insistent on improvements to sewage treatment plants to cope with new housing developments and so many house improvements. The various parts of central and local government have been insensitive to the scale of sewage pollution entering rivers and lakes. With hindsight, I think it is now clear that the regulatory structure created when the water companies were privatised over 30 years ago has been shown to be inadequate.
In the short term, it will be necessary to enforce to a greater extent compliance with new regulations for slurry management and the control of other farm waste. For the water companies, it will probably be necessary for Ofwat to insist on an even greater level of investment in sewage treatments—including, where possible, nature-based systems. I know that many ambitious investment plans have been announced, but I fear they are not adequate for the dire situation in which we find ourselves. I also fear—and it is uncomfortable to say this—that all this may involve increases in water charges greater than the rate of inflation. This must be coupled with a reduction or elimination of dividends until the discharges have been reduced to a minimum.
In the medium term, we must review the structure of regulation. I realise that this would be complex and that the transition could be disruptive. As the Minister and all the party spokesmen are here participating in this debate, I ask them to discuss with their respective colleagues whether all parties should include in their manifestos at the next election a commitment to an independent review of the structure of the regulation of the water industry. Such a review might well conclude, as I have, that it is necessary to have a single regulator, rather than the continuing splitting of responsibilities between the Water Services Regulation Authority—Ofwat—and the Environment Agency. The water companies are, of course, monopolies in their own geographic areas, and must therefore be regulated. I cannot think of other monopolies where the regulation is divided between two different agencies.
I do not suggest that it would not be complicated, and have other consequences, to change the manner in which water companies are regulated and held to account, and any change would not have an immediate effect. But the present system of regulation has meant that it has taken us decades to realise the full extent of the pollution damage, while the industry has become increasingly indebted and yet has paid out regularly dividends to shareholders, who in many cases are not the public shareholders who originally bought shares from the Government but private equity firms that may not share the same environmental objectives as the Government or the public. Some noble Lords have mentioned bonuses. I agree that it is rather shocking how much has been paid out in bonuses to companies which have been polluting regularly our rivers.
I realise that there is no quick fix for the current state of our rivers, lakes and beaches. But we must continue to keep pressure on the Government, local authorities and the regulators to reduce the discharges of sewage and the agricultural waste entering our river systems. A greater sense of urgency is now required.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville for her excellent speech and for securing this important debate. It follows on from the one held in the Chamber on “Water and Sewage Companies: Directors’ Remuneration” on 22 February. I urge your Lordships to read that debate closely.
I will talk about my local river, the River Swale, said to be the fastest-flowing river in England. It is supposed to be watched over by Yorkshire Water. This company was privatised in 1989, at which time it had no debt; that debt is now £6.1 billion. It wants to increase our water bills by 6%. I will speak more about it later. I am indebted to a number of individuals and organisations who have helped me with my research, among them the Save our Swale group, the Rivers Trust’s State of Our Rivers report, the Sustain alliance, Daniel Callaghan, and the Local Government Association, to name but a few.
In Richmond, we are fighting back. In July 2023, the Save Our Swale group was founded by a local resident, Deborah Meara. She held a meeting in our town hall, which was attended by more than 100 people. Microbiologist Keith Thomas addressed the audience, as did Ron Wood from a local angling society; there was also a representative from the Rivers Trust. The meeting was told that the sewage treatment works on the Swale at Richmond had discharged untreated sewage into the river for a total of 1,113,013 hours; that the number of releases was 371; and that the average time per release was 3.8 hours. This was during 2022, which, as your Lordships will recall, was a drought year. Indeed, the standard precipitation index between March and August that year stated that the Swale was severely dry. Dry dumping is illegal.
The Save Our Swale group is applying for designated bathing water status—DBWS—as this is its only way, if it is successful, of forcing the Environment Agency to test the Swale’s water quality regularly. This is not a simple task, especially as Defra has recently changed the criteria yet again to make ultimate success less likely. The application will go in at the end of this year and the end of the bathing water season. A mass of volunteers, a number of whom are scientists—here I must declare an interest as my husband is one of them—will be doing the Environment Agency’s job for it by testing the water quality at various points along the Swale.
This monitoring has been going on at seven sites along the river on a monthly basis since September 2023. The volunteers have found unexpected and as yet unexplained spikes in phosphate levels above what are regarded as safe levels. It is clear that the River Swale is polluted yet neither the Environment Agency, Ofwat or Yorkshire Water appears to be doing much about it. Since the Environment Agency began criminal investigations into non-compliance by water companies back in 2021, we, the public, are no nearer to understanding just what is going on. Can the Minister advise me? Ofwat has also indicated that it has enforcement cases against six water companies, including Yorkshire Water, but those still have not been made public. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what is happening and when we might see some transparency.
Before we left the European Union, we were signed up to the water framework directive. This required member states to have good chemical and ecological status in their waterways by 2027. We were promised huge improvements to our way of life by leaving the EU, so can the Minister tell me where we are on those timescales? Can he also help me on what the Government mean by saying that there is an exemption on this timescale until 2063? The Liberal Democrats put down an amendment to the Environment Bill that would have placed a legal duty on water companies to make improvements. We are also calling for a sewage tax, as we have heard. I quote my noble friend Lady Bakewell:
“This would be a 16% tax on pre-tax profits, providing a £340 million fund to clear up the rivers that have been damaged and to fix the sewerage system”.—[Official Report, 22/2/24; col. 754.]
That may be one solution to this burgeoning problem. We should transform England’s water companies into public benefit companies, abolish Ofwat and put in its place a new regulator with proper teeth to tackle sewage dumping, as we have also heard. I am yet to see where the many improvements the Government say they are making are being demonstrated.
On 22 February, the Minister said:
“The Environment Agency and Ofwat have recently launched the largest ever criminal and civil investigations into water companies’ sewage discharges, and into over 2,200 treatment works, following new data coming to light as a result of increased monitoring”.
It is citizen scientists who are providing data and doing their work for them. Why did it take those agencies so long to see what should have been before their eyes? They have known about these discharges for many years. The Minister went on to say that
“this Government are going further and faster than any before to protect and enhance the health of our rivers and seas. We are holding water companies to account on a scale never seen before”.—[Official Report, 22/2/24; cols. 759-60.]
Of course it has never been seen before; the water companies have been allowed to get away with committing environmental vandalism on a huge scale, all on the Conservatives’ watch.
I fear that this all comes down to a board of directors who are perfectly happy to take huge sums of money, paying out £62 million in dividends in 2022-23 to its parent company—the Kelda Group—to
“cover costs including debt interest”
but going on to say that the money did not go to external shareholders. Who are they kidding? They have paid £1.2 billion in dividends to shareholders over the past 10 years, as we have just heard, while not even carrying out their primary functions of maintaining and investing in sewage infrastructure—improvements that we were promised in 1989. In August 2022, the Yorkshire Post reported that the Yorkshire water bosses paid themselves more than £3 million in bonuses despite leakages running at 283.1 million litres a day. That is absurd. Bonuses should be banned today.
It is said that, in the 7th century, St Paulinus baptised thousands of people in the River Swale. I wonder whether he would have been happy to baptise people in there now as sewage dumping in the Swale continues to be legal until 2050.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, a certain degree of nostalgia comes in as I speak in this debate because, looking around the Chamber, I see that I am the only survivor here today of the Committee that dealt with privatising our water industry. Throughout that process—I do not mean to dump this on the Minister—I was told repeatedly by a variety of individuals, most of whom are not in the House, “Don’t worry, the regulator will deal with it. It’ll jump in”. If you raised a concern, that was what you were told. We heard it so often that it almost became a joke. In those very late hours towards midnight, which were normal then, I lost count of the number of times we were told on group after group that the regulator would deal with it.
It is now quite clear from what we are hearing that that model did not work. This might be because the regulator did not expect to deal with what was going on but lots of different parties have had lots of chances to intervene here. We have known for a long time about global warming, about the fact that warmer air has more water in it and about the fact that the increased water vapour in the air comes down as rain. We have known for a long time that this was coming—we should remember that one of the last acts of Baroness Thatcher as Prime Minister was to talk about the fact that we do not own the planet but are merely leaseholders on it; I think that was the term—yet we have permitted this model for the water industry to carry on despite the fact that it does not do anything. I remember, when we finally finished that process—once again in the small hours—picking up the Times, I think, and seeing a cartoon of a classic yuppie of the era looking at a computer screen and saying, “We’ll all get filthy rich”. That was somebody who got it right.
We have known that this has been coming. It is not something that is removed from us—a dreadful problem but not one to worry about—because it is starting to affect other bits of our lives. The thing that caught me, which was suggested by some of my noble friends, is that it is affecting leisure activities on water. You would have thought that being able to canoe, fish, swim or go rowing is something that you could take as read most of the time on a river or inland waterway in Great Britain. On the River Trent in Nottingham is our national water-sports training centre. The one thing I regret about getting older is that I am becoming long-sighted, so I will put my glasses on: last autumn, 5,106 hours of training were lost to our elite centre there due to red-flag water notices—amazing. Think about that; that stretch of water has been taken so that elite athletes can use it for canoeing and open-water swimming. There have been cases recently of open-water swimming where everybody got sick. At the World Triathlon Championship, people got sick from their training programmes. We have something here which is directly affecting human health.
Some people might shrug their shoulders at sporting activity and say that it does not really matter that much—that it is only a bunch of people running around and that they can all go to the gym. But sport is a bit bigger than that. It is a representation of bringing people together and getting them outside, giving them status and—in the case of these athletes—national pride. If you cannot keep a place like that safe for activity, what other types of activity lower down the sporting food chain are going to be affected too? When news gets out, people will say, “Do we want our child, brother, sister or father to be anywhere near that water if it is dangerous?” The Government should keep that in mind.
Let us talk about another group: anglers. We are affecting our waterways. Everybody should pay attention to anglers because there are an awful lot of them. They are the biggest participation group in the country by a long way. We are damaging the environment which allows them to have that pastime. From the invertebrates to other animals and activities in water, it will all be reflected in the food chain to the angler. I suggest that, as a body, anglers do not punch their weight. I hope that they will get out there and start to put a bit of pressure on the Government. That might mean that they will have to work with the canoeists and rowers, who they do not like—they disturb each other—but I hope that someone will come in and say, “Get together and make people listen”.
The historical analogy of the Great Stink and Bazalgette’s inspiration is one I hope we do not have to get to. I hope that others can say that there is a problem coming, because there is. It is starting to affect the smaller outlets. The fact that water companies have been making lots of money but have not even done the basic function of making sure that raw sewage does not get into the water system is unforgivable. They have failed in that basic requirement. We knew that higher rainfall was coming; we knew they were making money. Why did the regulator not do something about it? I do not know if the regulator needs bigger and sharper teeth—a more powerful jaw, if you want to follow the analogy through—but I know that it needs encouragement to use those implements to make things very uncomfortable for those who pollute.
If we do not do that, this current model of ownership of water—a natural monopoly, because it is expensive and heavy, and you cannot move it around the country without huge energy costs—will fail. We must make sure that this pays. The cost to us all is a worse environment and probably worse health. Surely that is worth making sure that the regulatory function fulfils its basic duty and that those who run water companies can be satisfied with simply having a perfectly solid blue-chip investment, as opposed to something rather better.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Addington, whose practical examples are extremely useful in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville on explaining so vividly why untreated sewage going into our rivers is an issue.
I will turn to something slightly different—treated sewage, or sewage sludge—and explain why it is still a problem for our rivers and land. Sewage sludge is recycled to land, where it can act as a useful fertiliser containing nitrogen, phosphorus and organic matter. The regulation governing this dates from water privatisation in 1989 and, appropriately, its acronym is SUAR, pronounced “sewer”—Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations. Those regulations are over 30 years old, and were devised simply to deal with the human faeces element of sewage. But, in the 30 years since, the water companies have been selling more and more of the services to industry, so the industrial effluent element of the sludge has increased, as have the variety and toxicity of the pathogens, chemicals and heavy metals in the resulting sludge.
That sludge is spread on to farmland and, in theory, it should stay there, drilled into the grasslands that feed our livestock. Whether you think that toxic cocktail is a good thing in the grasslands that feed our livestock is a different issue, one I will not talk about today. But what happens as the ground becomes waterlogged, like it has been for these last few months? Farmers are given guidance to avoid run-off. The guidance says they have a responsibility to make sure that liquid sludge does not run off into roads, adjacent land, rivers or waterways. If it rains heavily enough to cause run-off, the spreading must stop. The guidance says that spreading must not take place on
“frozen, waterlogged or very dry ground”.
But, with climate change, the ground is nearly always either waterlogged or very dry.
The Environment Agency was very concerned about this growing issue of toxic chemicals, so it commissioned some consultants in the spring of 2015 to undertake a study of all this. They worked with about 50 farms and undertook a much wider paper trail review. The Environment Agency’s conclusion was that the trade in sewage sludge and other waste had changed radically, making it much harder for the Environment Agency, the regulators or farmers to know what was being spread on fields—microplastics, pesticides, residues and all sorts of other things.
The Environment Agency came up with a plan. It developed a strategy for safe and sustainable sludge use, which was published in 2020. It explained why the regulatory changes are needed—of course, there have been many changes in the supply chain industry feeding into the sewage sludge—and it identified the new hazards that were emerging. It said:
“Modern sludge practices may harm the environment”.
It proposed a number of things, particularly more soil testing and improved record keeping, and more upstream sludge treatments—such as the sewage treatment works and those through trade effluent controls, which are key—as well as better storage and pre-spreading control. It had a plan, because some of the elements in this sludge are very toxic—zinc, cadmium, mercury, chromium, selenium, arsenic, antibiotics, dioxins, furans, phthalates and microplastics. Is there a legal limit for the amount of sludge that can be spread on to farmland? Who sets the limit, and has it been changed recently?
As I understand it, there are no restrictions on using treated sludge on growing crops of cereals or oil seed rape, and treated sludge can be used on grassland so long as there is no harvesting or grazing within three weeks of use. Given the list of toxins that I have just outlined, it seems that three weeks is pretty minimal.
So there is a big issue here, and it is particularly an issue because all of those toxins can still wash out—and do wash out—into streams or get absorbed into the soil and so into the ground water. The water company or supplier of the sludge is responsible for the testing of potentially toxic elements in the soil. Can the Minister say how often that happens? Does his department actually see the results of this?
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who is not in his place, said that this should not be party political. However, the party-political element of the issue that I have just raised is the fact that the regulator—the Environment Agency—did actually suggest the solution that we revoke the regulations from 1989 and bring them up to date with environmental permitting regulations. There was a deadline set of 2023. Well, that simply did not happen. Why not? The Government could have put all this into the Environment Act; or, as the Environment Agency suggested, it might need a small, additional legislative change. None of that has happened, however, and that was a purely political choice. So that toxic cocktail will continue to be spread on our agricultural land, and a large element of it will continue to end up in our waterways.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing me to speak in the gap. I want to make three brief points, while declaring my interests as living in the Meon Valley in Hampshire and as a volunteer warden of the St Clair’s nature reserve on the River Meon, run by Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife trust.
My noble friend Lady Bakewell, in her excellent opening speech, drew attention to the recent prosecution of Southern Water in our area. We are near neighbours. This happened on 21 July 2019. When two pumps failed, the sewage overflowed from a pumping station, and three kilometres of river were affected. Two thousand fish were killed and the legal limit for the ammonia level was exceeded by 25 times. It was a pretty serious incident, so it was shocking in what I know is quite a small stream. What is particularly concerning is that it took four and a half years for the prosecution to come to fruition and the case to be resolved, when, on the face of it, it looked like a pretty open-and-shut case.
Therefore, can the Minister say whether the Government have considered whether this expensive and lengthy legal process is really necessary in this sort of case? Is it actually helping to get the long-term issues resolved? Are the Government looking at quicker means of resolving and dealing with the problems so that the industry, the regulator and the water companies can learn lessons quickly and concentrate on improving investment levels? That is my first question to the Minister.
Secondly, is one of the problems that the Environment Agency is seriously understaffed and underresourced? Has it not actually had, over the past 14 years, quite a lot of cutbacks in resources? Did this cause a delay in bringing this sort of prosecution? I hope the Minister can address this in his closing remarks.
Thirdly, there are three significant chalk streams in my part of Hampshire: the Itchen, the Test and the Meon. The first two are pretty well known; the Meon is the lesser-known treasure. The Itchen and the Test are designated as areas of special scientific interest. This gives them extra protection. A local councillor in our area, Jerry Pett, is leading a campaign for this designation to be granted for the Meon, and he is being told that Natural England is holding back on further designations as it is short of resources to promulgate them.
Can the Minister say whether the intention is to cover this issue in the review on the chalk streams strategy that, as I understand it, is being led by the Defra Minister Rebecca Pow, when the Government finally publish their chalk streams recovery package? When can we expect that to be published?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. I, too, congratulate my noble friend on getting the timing of this debate exactly right. We have heard that, within the last 48 hours, Thames Water has been lobbying the Government to increase charges by some 40%, to decrease the level of fines and to loosen up on dividend control. Of course, that is there partly because Thames Water is very much under threat of both itself and its holding company going under water. Can the Minister confirm those conversations? Also, as my honourable friend Sarah Olney asked in the other place, do the Government have a contingency plan in case Thames Water finally dies and drowns in its own debt? That is very important to a very large proportion of the population of this nation.
My noble friend Lord Addington said that he was here during water privatisation; I did not know that the House had people in short trousers at that time, but he obviously looks far younger than he is. When I was young, I used to enjoy board games, and my parents got fed up with me because I was far too competitive. One of my favourites was Monopoly. Noble Lords who are Monopoly fans and players will know that one of the squares you did not want to land on was the water company, because it was boring and had very low returns. What you wanted to do was to get on the properties, become a red-blooded property developer and get hotels. In a way, before their privatisation, the water companies were exactly that: they were boring and a utility—that was their asset class, if you like—and had low returns.
I guess that the first members of Ofwat had that in their minds and thought, “Hey, this is a fairly easy job. We’re going to agree investment and price increases and, frankly, after that we can probably go home and it will run itself”. But what they did not realise is that the people who were going to buy those purchases—as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, will know well—were private equity firms who were greatly into financial engineering, and they thought, “Hey, there’s a real opportunity here”—and at the time, Ofwat was nowhere near capable of controlling or regulating that industry. You can say that it was naivety or negligence or that the people who were there at the time did not see it approaching. The result has been that we have rivers and waterways that are indeed polluted by sewage.
I will echo, in some ways, my noble friend Lord Russell on why rivers are important. One of the things that often used to be said in the social area was that you can tell how good a society is by how it treats its prisoners. Well, I would say that you can tell how good an environment is by how good the quality of its rivers is. Because the rivers are the lifeblood and the veins of our nation; they support biodiversity, they have all sorts of ecosystem services and, clearly, they provide water. If they are not straightened, they can provide flood prevention. That is why they are important—as well as for human health. And because they are not healthy—in all the ways that we have heard—we have that challenge to both biodiversity and to human health. And those are the challenges that we have here. Of course, we also have, as we know, not just effluent in terms of pollution but, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, plastics and other urban waste, and the phosphates that come primarily from agriculture.
I was glad that the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who is not in his place at the moment, mentioned ELMS. It seems to me that one of the important things here —perhaps the Minister, as a Defra Minister, might like to comment on this—is the question of how we can help farmers and the agricultural sector to get away from this issue of phosphates. Will there be, through the ever-changing environmental land management scheme, an exit route—a ramp off—where we can offer the agricultural sector help on that? Then, there are the intensive parts of cattle-rearing, obviously; I would not say that those companies are always the best in terms of the environment but, generally, the agricultural sector reacts only to the financial incentives that it is given by government. So what ways are there to do that?
A number of noble Lords mentioned the Environment Agency. In my work with local nature partnerships and some of the schemes that we—along with the Environment Agency—are looking at in Cornwall at the moment, I have never come across anybody from the Environment Agency who has not wanted to be on the right side of this argument, to be out there, to warn, to change and, ultimately, to enforce the fact that river health is really important. Yet, as a number of Peers have said, Environment Agency funding has fallen substantially over the years. It has started to come up again in terms of environmental enforcement, perhaps, but we are still way behind. I make this plea to the Minister: in the past, when the Chancellor has said, “I need some money”, Defra has been a department that usually puts up its hand. That should stop. We need to have Natural England and the Environment Agency funded well.
I was pleased to hear mention of natural systems and the way we should tackle this problem, not through hard concrete so much as through nature-based solutions. This is talked about a lot. It can sound a bit clichéd but I really believe that it is the way forward. If there are planning issues or Ofwat regulatory issues around it, that needs to change; that is one of the ways in which we need to move forward.
Again, coming back from privatisation, I remind noble Lords that we have been through this process once before. I come from the south-west. When water was privatised, bills went up by 100%—in fact, by more than that at the time. Households were really squeezed. What we need here is a solution where we do not have, as Thames Water would want, bills going up by another 40% over the next few years. We need this to be financed in a different way and, with the squeeze on household incomes at the moment and everything on that side, we need to find a different way to do it; that needs to be through the water companies rather than through consumers.
Lastly, I come back to the regulator. After a financial crisis in 2013, the reputation of the Financial Conduct Authority was shot. The Government—it was the coalition Government at the time—decided that that reputation had gone too far and that we had to change, so the Prudential Regulation Authority and the FCA were brought in to have a new system. I say to the Minister and to the House that Ofwat’s reputation is shot, I am afraid. We need a different, far cleverer and more adept regulator; that would be one of my biggest asks. I also agree—absolutely and definitely—with my noble friend Lady Bakewell that we need to bring these companies into some sort of social ownership.
So there is a real challenge here. Rivers are key to the health of our nation and our population. We need to get those things right. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said that we should pay them 50p. I suggest something different: if you look at a Monopoly board, the water company is two spots before “Go To Jail”—just out of interest—but its cost is £150. Perhaps that would do instead.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for bringing this debate forward today and for her excellent, thorough introduction to this issue. As she said, we have had this discussion a number of times over the past 12 months or so.
Noble Lords have mentioned the data from the Environment Agency showing that only 14% of our rivers in England have a good ecological status, with no rivers in England having a good chemical status. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee said this in its 2022 report, Water Quality in Rivers:
“Getting a complete overview of the health of our rivers and the pollution affecting them is hampered by outdated, underfunded and inadequate monitoring regimes”.
Monitoring has been mentioned a number of times by noble Lords. The report also suggested that the current range of pollutants being monitored is “too narrow”, focusing on nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and ammonia but not routinely monitoring other substances that contribute to poor water quality, such as metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals and plastics. Will the Government consider monitoring those other substances?
I thank the Rivers Trust for its excellent recent report, to which other noble Lords have referred. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, hosted a meeting at which we spoke to the trust. It is an incredibly important report; I hope that the Minister will take account of what it says. It draws attention to the fact that, as noble Lords have said, sewage and urban pollution, agricultural pollution, industrial pollution and chemical pollution are all contributing to this problem. According to Defra, agriculture is the main cause of river pollution incidents in England with intensive livestock farming being the major reason for the complete collapse of the River Wye, as we have often heard about in this House. Untreated waste from chicken, pig and dairy units is routinely spread on land, adding to the problem. Such has been the growth in the intensive livestock industry in recent years that soils across England are receiving significantly more nitrogen and phosphate than they can cope with and absorb; that excess is contaminating our rivers and having an impact on our wildlife.
Looking at the River Wye, it is so concerning that the group River Action has brought a judicial review saying that a loophole in the law is allowing poultry waste from 25 million chickens intensively farmed in the catchment to poison the river, and that the Environment Agency and the UK Government have failed to protect it from catastrophic decline. We all await the outcome of that judicial review with great interest. In his speech to the recent NFU conference, Alan Lovell, chair of the Environment Agency, said that pollution from agriculture and rural land is “roughly equal” to that coming from the water industry. Farmers, who need to play a really important role if this is to be resolved, say that they need help with both expertise and financial support. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in particular, talked about the help that farmers will need if they are to tackle this.
The outgoing president of the NFU, Minette Batters, has said that farmers need better access to funding through the environmental land management scheme, which the noble Duke mentioned, in order that they can create buffer strips along waterways. They also need much faster planning permission for slurry storage and incentives to grow the right crops in the right places. Will the Minister look at ELMS in light of these comments? Our transition out of the EU common agricultural policy into ELMS has been pretty challenging for farmers, with too much uncertainty. This has also added problems.
The complicated current system has made it difficult; it is not easy for farm businesses and land managers, who can feel lost in the system. It has also been harder for them to make long-term strategic plans. We need to look at cross-sector regulation; we cannot just regulate the water companies or the farmers. We need a fair and transparent system in which everybody understands what is happening and what role they have to play in reducing the pollution going into our rivers. We are still waiting to see the promised land use framework, to help balance all the demands on our land, and that includes land use to help with water quality and biodiversity targets. Does the Minister have any update, or is it still going to be published “shortly”?
Chemicals, of course, cause a lot of the problems around pollution in rivers; they can come from cleaning products, medicines and even the food we eat. Using chemicals clearly has a number of benefits, but we know they can cause some really appalling damage when they leak into the environment. We also know that they can persevere in the environment for weeks, months or even years, causing significant harm to wildlife, particularly in fresh water and the sea.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the Rivers Trust report. I pick out of it the work the Rivers Trust has done in collaboration with the Wildlife and Countryside Link chemicals task force. They have recently analysed Environment Agency data on levels of just one of the many toxic for ever chemicals: perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS. They looked at that within English fresh water fish, and their work revealed that the PFOS levels in English fresh water fish are on average 300 times higher than the levels considered safe by the European Union. Is the Minister aware of that? If not, this really needs to be picked up.
We have also heard that much pollution comes from urban environments, such as the amount of plastic that we throw away—you only have to look at your local river to see how much plastic can end up in it. We know that plastics break down into toxic chemicals and harmful microplastics, and then rivers become a major pathway for plastic reaching and polluting our coasts and oceans. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talked about road run-off, which again is very problematic. You get oil, diesel and petrol spills, plus the particles from tyres and the roads wearing down, getting washed into our rivers and drains. This is a really important area that we need to deal with. We know that urban wetlands, reed beds and other nature-based solutions can help intercept this run-off and reduce the pollution, and it is really important that the Government properly invest in these mitigations. What investment are the Government making? Perhaps the Minister can give us a clue.
We have also heard an awful lot about the problems around regulation and enforcement. The poor quality of our regulation enforcement in recent times has compounded all the pollution that is coming from several different sectors, making things even worse. In her opening speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked a lot about England’s sewerage system being not fit for purpose, as did other noble Lords, particularly the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. We have heard again how, over the past few decades, Ofwat has simply failed to ensure that water companies have invested sufficiently to upgrade, or even just maintain, our water infrastructure. Delivering the necessary improvements to save our rivers now, at speed and at scale, has become a truly enormous task.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Sikka on his forensic analysis of the water companies’ finances. The work he did was very important, and I encourage the Minister to have a good look at Hansard, because I expect he may need to write to my noble friend at the end of this debate.
We need more enforcement from the Environment Agency, but we have heard that the Government have cut the protection budget hugely—in half—in the last 10 years. With the failure to monitor and investigate pollution incidents, and the failure to enforce the legislation and rules that are supposed to protect our water environment, it is particularly worrying that this has included instructing EA staff not to attend low-level pollution incidents, requiring water companies to self-monitor and self-report. This is simply not going to get the change that we need. We need a strategic direction for water regulation.
The Government’s Plan for Water was published with great fanfare in April last year. The plan included creating a new water restoration fund that would use money from water company fines and penalties taken from their profits—not from their customers—to support local groups and catchment projects such as re-meandering rivers and restoring habitats, which are really important. Nothing has appeared on this since. Can the Minister provide an update on when we are likely to see this? If the Government are to make great announcements and publish lovely plans, they are no good if what they say is going to happen does not then actually happen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on securing this debate and thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions.
It might be helpful to remind noble Lords that the combined water and wastewater infrastructure that is managed by water companies is a system designed by our Victorian ancestors and allows, as it has for more than 150 years, for sewage to be spilt into our rivers at certain times and under certain circumstances—as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, described so well. This may not be deemed desirable or even acceptable today, but it is a reality from which we cannot escape. In heavy rainfall events, of which we have more and more, there is a binary choice between sewage going into our rivers or backing up into our homes. I make reference to this to differentiate between what water companies are legally allowed to do and what I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and many other noble Lords are mainly seeking to address, which is the illegal spilling of sewage into our rivers, as well as how to address reducing sewage spills altogether.
I think we can all agree with the comments that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, made last week in a similar debate: the volume of sewage going into our waters is not what any Government, any Member of this House or the public would wish. We rightly expect to see the quality of our water improve and water companies to play their part.
In tackling this challenge, it is really important to be clear that there are both legal and illegal discharges of sewage, as I have already explained, and that the Government are taking action to reduce both. However, I will heed the advice of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Hayman, and spend my weekend rereading the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and preparing to write to him on his detailed accountancy questions, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the number of water companies operating illegally and blocking developers.
In April last year, the Government published the Plan for Water. We are delivering this with tighter regulation, tougher enforcement and more investment. We committed in the 25-year environment plan to restore three-quarters of our water bodies to be close to their natural state, and this plan will help us to achieve that by directing £2.2 billion of new, accelerated investment into vital infrastructure to improve water quality and secure water supplies. This includes £1.7 billion of funding to tackle storm overflows.
This is on top of the water companies investing £7.1 billion in environmental improvements between 2020 and 2025, including £3.1 billion invested in 800 storm overflow improvements, such as the Thames Tideway super sewer. Storm overflows causing the most harm are being addressed first, so that we can make the biggest difference as quickly as possible. We are the first Government to address and implement 100% storm overflow discharge monitoring, so that the public and our regulators can see exactly what the water companies are doing and set clear targets for them to significantly reduce legal storm sewage discharges. We expect water companies to use the next five-year price review period—PR24—to set bold and ambitious plans that deliver on this plan for people and the environment. This means cleaner rivers and beaches, fewer leaks and supply interruptions, and substantial improvements to tackle storm overflows.
In addition, the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, published in September last year, will see the toughest ever crackdown on sewage spills, driving the largest infrastructure programme in water company history, with around £60 billion of capital investment over 25 years. Companies will upgrade storm overflows individually, depending on how they impact the targets set out in the plan.
Meeting these targets will result in hundreds of thousands fewer sewage discharges. By 2035, we will have protected all our designated bathing waters and the vast majority of our most sensitive and protected habitats from storm sewage discharges, and by 2050 there will be an 80% reduction in all storm sewage discharges.
This Government are the first to face up to the fact that, as a country, we need to fundamentally change how we deal with sewage. That cannot change overnight and will come with some cost. Eliminating all discharges could cost up to £600 billion, increasing annual water bills to an unacceptable level. The Government are committed to reviewing the targets in the storm overflow discharge plan in 2027 to establish whether companies can go further and faster to achieve the storm overflow targets without hiking up bills to unaffordable levels. If they can go further, the Government are clear that they must.
These initiatives work alongside a raft of other measures to improve the quality of our rivers and seas. As a result of our work, 90% of designated bathing waters in England met the highest standards of “good” or “excellent” in 2023, up from just 76% in 2010, despite stricter standards being introduced in 2015. Last week, we announced that we would consult on 27 potential designated bathing sites in England, the largest number we have ever consulted on, and encourage all interested individuals, businesses and organisations to respond to the consultation by 10 March this year.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to nutrient neutrality. On 25 January this year, we designated catchments in which water companies will be required to upgrade wastewater treatment works to reduce nutrient pollution by 2030. This will help unlock the homes that communities need, while also reducing pollution at source.
This Government are committed to increasing the quantity and quality of sustainable drainage systems—usually referred to as SUDS—in new developments, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned. SUDS reduce the pressure on our traditional infrastructure by slowing down the overall amount of water that ends up in the sewers and storm overflow discharges. The review and decision for making SUDS mandatory in new developments was published on 10 January last year. A public consultation on the implementation proposals will take place shortly, and I am encouraging my department to progress this as quickly as possible.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised points about roads. In the Plan for Water, we committed to reducing pollution from roads by improving water quality through the road investment strategy for 2020 to 2025. So far, National Highways has delivered over 30 water quality initiatives. It is important to make it clear that National Highways is not responsible for pollution from roads, which are managed by local highway authorities.
My noble friend is also right that we must improve water efficiency. She will be pleased to hear that we have a new legally binding target under the Environment Act 2021 to reduce the use of public water supply in England per head by 20% by 2037-38. To help meet this, in our 2021 Written Ministerial Statement the Government set out our approach for a range of water efficiency measures, including our mandatory water efficiency label, leakage and metering.
As for fixing misconnections, water companies have the power to lay, inspect, maintain and repair or alter pipes falling on private land. I will write to the noble Baroness about access to government land.
I commend my noble friend for her tireless campaigning for farming and its part in storing floodwater. Since 2015, we have protected over 900,000 acres of agricultural land, along with thousands of businesses, communities and major infrastructure via our flood investment programmes. In addition, there will be measures that benefit flood risk mitigation in all three environmental land management schemes, the sustainable farming incentive, Countryside Stewardship and landscape recovery, which will include payments that relate to floodwater storage.
I move on to the issues raised about the Environment Agency. The Government’s work is backed by enforcement action from the regulators. Where there is evidence of wrongdoing, the Environment Agency and Ofwat will not hesitate to hold water companies to account. In 2013, the Government directed water companies to increase their storm overflow monitoring. In 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. As of December last year, we are at 100%. This has given us a clear sense of all discharges, which we never had before. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on who is responsible for monitoring storm overflows, it is the Environment Agency.
The Environment Act requires water companies to monitor the operation of storm overflows and the water quality upstream and downstream of their assets. This is helping regulators to identify and enforce storm overflow discharge offences and permit breaches. We are providing an extra £2.2 million per year in this spending period for the Environment Agency, specifically for water company enforcement activity. We have legislated to introduce unlimited penalties on water companies that breach their environmental permits and expand the range of offences to which they can be applied.
Last week, we announced that we are significantly increasing our oversight of the water industry. Every water company should expect their wastewater treatment sites to be regularly inspected. The number of inspections, including unannounced inspections, will rise to 4,000 by the end of March 2025—a fourfold increase. Our consultation on increasing permit charges for water companies to enable these inspections is under way and due to close shortly. This will be backed by around £55 million per year. More inspections will allow the Environment Agency to conduct more in-depth audits to get to the root cause of incidents, reducing the reliance on operator self-monitoring.
Since 2015, the Environment Agency has concluded prosecutions against water and sewerage companies, securing £150 million in fines, including a record £90 million fine for Southern Water. These will go into the water restoration fund to protect and enhance the water environment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned, I will report on that date shortly.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, questioned the effectiveness of Ofwat and the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency, with Ofwat, recently launched the largest criminal and civil investigation into water company illegal sewage discharges at over 2,200 treatment works, following new data coming to light as a result of increased monitoring introduced by this Government.
In May last year, Ofwat announced that its enforcement capacity would be trebled, following the approval of £11.3 million in additional funding by the Government. If water companies fail to meet their statutory or licence obligations, Ofwat can issue an enforcement order or financial penalty of up to 10% of a company’s turnover. Following the Water Company Performance Report 2022-23, Ofwat published the financial penalties and payments for all water companies. Ofwat has required 13 companies to return £193 million to customers for underperformance in 2022–23. This money will be returned to customers through bills over 2024-25. Ofwat has also required each lagging company to prepare service commitment plans outlining the actions they will take to deliver the levels of service that customers expect. Ofwat has reviewed these plans and is regularly engaging with companies over them.
This month, the Environment Secretary announced that Ofwat will be consulting on banning water company executives from receiving bonuses if a company has committed a serious criminal breach. The consultation will seek to define the criteria for a ban, which we expect to come into effect later this year. This could include successful prosecution for a category 1 or 2 pollution incident, such as causing significant pollution at a bathing site or conservation area, or where a company has been found guilty of serious management failings. I will, however, consider the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, of community service for the chief executives. This builds on Ofwat’s announcements last year to tighten restrictions on bonuses using powers given to the regulator through the Environment Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, asked about open investigations into Yorkshire Water. I am afraid I am not able to comment on those or, indeed, on any open investigation.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, brought up the issue of anglers. As the past chair of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, I have the greatest sympathy with him and with anglers. He also mentioned that they might start to bring pressure to bear on the Government. I can assure him that the Rivers Trust, WildFish and Fish Legal and many celebrity anglers are already applying considerable pressure. I should add that, as a keen angler, I am not against canoeists at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about the testing of sludge. This is regulated by the Sewage Sludge in Agriculture code of practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, referred to an investigation with Southern Water, and I will look into the speed of that response and what can be done to speed these things up in the future.
The noble Lord also commented on the chalk stream strategy. The Plan for Water recognises chalk streams as a priority for the Government and identifies action to protect and include them in the chalk stream recovery pack that is due to be published later this year—I hope by mid-summer. It will set out the Government’s policies that act together to address the key pressures on chalk streams from abstraction, agriculture and wastewater.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised the issue of Ofwat and the monitoring of water companies. The Government remain confident with Ofwat’s approach and have contingency plans in place in the event of any public service failing.
The noble Lord also brought up other points relating to farmers and farming. We are taking significant action to work with farmers to reduce diffuse pollution and deliver improved environmental outcomes. We have doubled our catchment-sensitive farming budget to £15 million per year, which enables farmers across England to receive face-to-face advice on recurring water and air pollution issues. We have also budgeted for an additional 50 Environment Agency farm inspectors to work with farmers to meet their legal obligations. Our environmental land management schemes are being rolled out to pay farmers for the delivery of environmental benefits that include activities to improve water.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked again about the land use framework. I am afraid that the answer is the same: it will be published shortly. That is about all I can say on that at the moment.
As I have set out, this Government are going further and faster than any other to protect and enhance the health of our rivers and seas. We have set out clear targets for water companies and are holding them to account on a scale that has never been seen before, making sure that the Environment Agency and Ofwat are equipped to take enforcement action where there are failings. This Government are fully committed to addressing the historic issues that are causing pollution in our waterways, and we will continue to strive for healthy and thriving water environments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate, especially the Minister for his response. I appreciate that he has inherited this problem, and I thank him for his very detailed response, which I shall study in Hansard. We have had a very varied debate; at the same time, there has been much agreement across the Chamber in condemning the overspills of sewage when there have been no unusual weather conditions requiring them. Until quite recently, water companies have discharged sewage and untreated water on hot, sunny days with impunity. We have heard how this has affected different people. I believe that we may possibly be on the cusp of a change.
I am grateful to my colleagues, who have spoken so passionately, knowledgeably and entertainingly on this subject. It is often overlooked that, at the point of privatisation, water companies were debt free. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond also raised this. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, makes a really excellent forensic accounting contribution—there is a role for him in another place if he should decide that this is enough. Although the water companies were debt free when they went private, that changed when the new private owners saw the glint of money for themselves and borrowed money to increase share dividends. Not all water companies followed that course, but many did. Some invested in the infrastructure, but this was often based on concrete solutions instead of the cheaper and more carbon-efficient nature-based solutions. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has been campaigning for nature-based solutions for a considerable time, as has the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who is not in his place.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for raising the issue of farmers and phosphate discharge. Farmers have a role to play in improving the quality of our waterways, at the same time as producing food. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, referred to the role of farmers.
I do not intend to return to the debate and run through every contribution, but I draw attention to one particular contribution. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer has referred to the SUAR sludge. Many of the chemicals that she listed are known as forever chemicals. We need to deal with this problem, because it is extremely worrying that these chemicals should be on the land for ever.
All sides of the House are concerned about sewage pollution of rivers and waterways. The Minister referred to the Victorian sewer infrastructure, as did my noble friend Lady Pinnock. However, surely it is time that we had a better solution than the Victorian sewers. The regulator is not fit for purpose and needs to be replaced. I am not sure that it is comforting to know that everyone in the House agrees on this issue, but the power in numbers is considerable. I hope that the Minister is listening and will act accordingly, although I know that he is doing as much as he possibly can. It is time to introduce more stringent measures to improve the quality of our water, which should be crystal clear and gurgling in the streams instead of brown, sluggish and smelly.
Ukraine
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the barbarity of Putin’s regime is evidenced by Ukraine’s bombed-out cities, the raped civilians and the children kidnapped to Russia. Ukraine’s resistance in the two years since Putin’s full-scale illegal invasion is testament to the courage of its people. In two years Ukraine has retaken half the territory seized in 2022 and pushed back Russia’s Black Sea fleet—demonstrating the pretence of Putin’s attempt to claim that Russia is winning the war.
As Andrew Mitchell said yesterday,
“we understate the extent to which Putin is being beaten back”.
Although the Russian advance into Avdiivka did take place, those two kilometres cost between 40,000 and 50,000 Russian deaths.
Our message—Labour’s message—to Ukraine is simple: whoever is in government, Britain will support Ukraine until it prevails. We support the further and significant military and financial support that the Government have announced, but the war must be a wake-up call to all of Europe. There is more that we, along with our allies, must do together. The fact that South Korea is sending more shells to Ukraine than the whole of Europe combined is telling.
We also welcome the French President bringing world leaders together this week. Yesterday, Minister Mitchell stressed that the
“United States’s support is absolutely vital for Ukraine’s success”.
He also said he was
“hoping Congress will follow the lead by passing the relevant Bills swiftly, following its return from recess.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/24; col. 346.]
I hope the noble Lord can reassure us on that point this evening.
This morning, the noble Lord reassured the House that the Government are working closely with the European Union on our collective security. As David Lammy said yesterday,
“Labour has outlined plans for a new UK-EU security pact to complement NATO ties and strengthen our whole continent”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/24; col. 344.]
Labour very much welcomes Sweden’s accession to NATO, which strengthens our whole alliance, but what recent conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with his NATO counterparts regarding a pathway for Ukraine’s membership?
We welcome the sanctions against six individuals that the UK announced in the wake of Mr Navalny’s death. Yesterday, in response to David Lammy’s concern on the range and enforcement of sanctions, Andrew Mitchell said that
“we will be introducing an ability to sanction ships”.
What is the timetable for this?
Last December, an Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation report showed that there had been zero enforcement measures for post-February 2022 sanctions breaches in relation to Russia. In response to that point, Andrew Mitchell said:
“Last week, a Turkish company, three Chinese entities and two Belarus entities were sanctioned”,—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/24; cols. 345-46.]
but why not consider every individual on the full Navalny list? Why not support a new international anti-corruption court? Why not support Labour’s whistleblowing rewards scheme to crack down on enablers?
This morning I raised with the Minister yesterday’s statement by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on using interest on frozen Russian state assets. Yesterday Andrew Mitchell said:
“I hope that in due course we will have more to say on the specific provision”.
I suspect that I will not get much more out of the noble Lord tonight, but can he give us a bit more detail on the timeframe for this? These are urgent questions and resources are urgently needed.
Yesterday Brendan O’Hara raised the £2 billion from the sale of Chelsea. Andrew Mitchell said that
“there is immense frustration that the Chelsea fund is not out and operating at this time. We are doing everything we can, within significant and irritating levels of difficulty, to get it deployed. We will do that as fast as we possibly can”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/24; col. 348.]
That money is urgently needed to support people in Ukraine. I hope the noble Lord can be a little more reassuring tonight that we will resolve this matter as speedily as possible.
What support are we giving to the ICC in preparing a case against Russia for deliberately targeting and bombarding civilians? This is important in holding to account those responsible for committing these crimes.
Finally, I welcome the Government highlighting the case of Vladimir Kara-Murza. I know that my right honourable friend David Lammy met his wife today. Can the Minister give us an update on the case and what we are doing? Can he also reassure us that there will not be any backtracking on this and that we are taking specific steps? I hope the Minister can update us on that.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to this House for us to address this evening.
As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, made clear, we are agreed across all parties in our support for the Government and for Ukraine against the aggression of President Putin. We are two years on, and I remember the start of the war. At the very start, I was linked to a vice-president of Ukraine as she was from a sister party. On WhatsApp she sent me a list of military hardware that was urgently needed. I have never before received such a request—certainly not weapons and body armour—on WhatsApp. I forwarded this shopping list to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and am grateful that, as ever, he took it forward. Fortunately, I have not received any further military shopping lists, and direct and appropriate liaison is clearly happening with the UK Government, but this showed the desperate situation Ukraine found itself in.
Where are we, two years on? Putin will not have anticipated this, but they are well dug in in the east of Ukraine. Having been at the UN for a parliamentary hearing last week, I noted unanimity on needing a ceasefire in Gaza but less global support for Ukraine. We know that the increase in food and fertiliser prices caused by the invasion has negatively affected countries around the world. We know that there are more populist and authoritarian regimes around the world watching Russian actions with interest—see the actions of Venezuela against Guyana. China will be watching too.
This makes it even more important that we assist Ukraine and make every effort to ensure that Putin is not allowed to succeed. Can the Minister tell us what discussions we are having internationally to help further isolate Russia, in particular with our Commonwealth partner India, which has been taking oil from Russia?
Sanctions have been used to try to have a major effect on the Russian economy. At first, they seemed to have an effect; then the Russian economy seemed to bounce back. What is the Government’s assessment of whether, with oil prices where they are, these sanctions will bite harder and what do the Government anticipate within the Russian economy? Are we nearer in terms of redirecting funds from oligarchs to support Ukraine, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Collins?
President Zelensky has flagged a lack of ammunition. How are allies scaling up production? What encouragement can we give to the US Congress to move things forward as far as the United States, a key ally, is concerned?
Russia has regressed dramatically in terms of human rights in recent times. The murder of Alexei Navalny showed that Putin, ahead of elections where he already has total control, clearly does not care what the world thinks but sends the warning that he will kill opponents, whether in his prisons or in other parts of the world. Are we effectively gathering material to take to the International Criminal Court on these crimes and others, particularly those against women and girls, in Ukraine?
I hope that our security agencies are focused, especially prior to the elections here and in the US, Russia and elsewhere, on threats emanating from Russia. No doubt the Minister will not answer that directly, but nevertheless I hope that that is the case. We have a Foreign Secretary who has experience on the world stage. I hope that we are using those skills and experience effectively, with the rise of global tensions in Ukraine and the Middle East. He may have only a few months in his role, but this could not be a more key time. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. It is nice to see her back in our trilateral conversations, debates and discussions. I thank them specifically for the strong support. We have previously talked about the importance of acting as one, and that has been reflected in terms of our diplomacy. The noble Baroness mentioned my noble friend Lord Cameron. She herself served in the Government under my noble friend. I agree with her that, not just on Ukraine but on many global issues, including the Middle East, the ability to work with someone who has the stature, experience and insight that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary brings to this brief is extremely important.
I recall the text the noble Baroness referred to. It reflects the strength of support we have given Ukraine and its affection for and appreciation of the United Kingdom. Yesterday, I met the Ukrainian ambassador in Geneva. She articulated that the friend that stands out most among all in the top category—and there are many friends that Ukraine can count on—and is seen in that light is the United Kingdom. Why? Because we were there not just when the shocking events of two years ago happened but when Crimea was invaded and annexed, and we have been consistent in the military support we have provided through Operation Orbital.
The noble Baroness asked specifically about military, humanitarian and fiscal support. On the munitions point, we have provided a further contribution. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we are working with all key partners. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary attended the conference in Paris where there was representation at senior level from over 27 countries to ensure strong co-ordination with partners in support of Ukraine.
I turn to some of the specific questions that have been asked. First and foremost is the issue of sanctions, which both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord referred to. The UK continues to sanction individuals, including the sanctions that we have recently announced. There are now 2,000 individuals and entities under the Russian sanctions regime, over 1,700 of which have been sanctioned since the full-scale invasion. On 22 February, the UK announced more than 50 new sanctions to further diminish Russia’s capacity and weapons arsenal.
I note what the noble Baroness said about the economy of Russia, but we have seen some real challenge there. Even today, Russia continues to announce the need for more people to be recruited into its army because the cost to the country has been immense, not just to its economy, with £400 billion denied to its war chest, but to its people. I am sure I speak for the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and indeed all of your Lordships’ House, when I say that our fight is not with the Russian people.
The shocking nature of the death of Alexei Navalny, which was referred to by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, was the focus of my speech yesterday at the Human Rights Council. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that, on the case of Vladimir Kara-Murza, there was a specific call at the Human Rights Council, which I echoed, that Russia should do the right thing immediately and unconditionally release this British citizen. We will continue not just to advocate for but to demand the release of this British citizen, to ensure that families can be reunited. In the case of Alexei Navalny, we welcome the news that, finally, his remains have been released to his family. As I understand it, and as noble Lords will know, the funeral will take place tomorrow.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord raised the issue of sanctions enforcement. The Government have rightly committed £50 million to support our new economic deterrence initiative, which strengthens our diplomatic and economic tools. We have acted specifically, as I have said before, in sanctioning particular companies: in August 2023, a UK company was fined £1 million in relation to unlicensed goods in breach of Russian sanctions.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, says. We need to remain vigilant to ensure that, where there are loopholes and sanctions are being circumvented, whether at home or abroad, we must seek to act. However, I repeat the point that I know the noble Baroness and the noble Lord appreciate: the most effective way to prevent sanctions circumvention is to act in unison with our partners in the United States and the European Union.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised the issue of US funding. I assure both of them that we have been at the forefront of imploring the US to continue its support for Ukraine. We welcome the US Senate’s passing of the national security supplemental Bill, and it is noticeable that that was with a significant majority. We hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned, that the House of Representatives will pass the Bill swiftly when it returns from recess. My right honourable friend in the other place said that US support is vital, and I agree with him. Equally important is that our other allies, including those in the European Union and within NATO, step up to see what further support they can give to Ukraine.
The noble Lord asked about Chelsea funds. I share his frustration every time I see a sanctions debate or SI, but work is being done to make sure that we focus on that. The noble Lord will appreciate the need to be legally watertight on whatever actions we take, but we are working closely with our colleagues in His Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that we can move forward in a way that ensures that those current frozen funds are utilised in support of Ukraine.
I know we are discussing Ukraine at regular and short intervals, and rightly so. That shows the continuing support of your Lordships’ House, as demonstrated today, and, equally importantly, the dynamic nature of this ongoing war against Ukraine. It is therefore vital that we support some of the initiatives of countries that have sought to engage directly. We were delighted that the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was able to visit Kyiv last year, which the UK had encouraged, and to announce humanitarian support. We note that President Zelensky has been visiting that region recently, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is important to widen the scope of support for Ukraine, and we will continue to do so.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the leadership role the Government have played in supporting Ukraine from the very beginning. I also welcomed this week the fact that the final obstacles to Sweden joining NATO have been cleared, which is another powerful strengthening of the alliance as a result of Putin’s invasion.
The House of Lords European Affairs Committee, which I have the privilege to chair, published a report a couple of weeks ago on the impact of the invasion of Ukraine on EU-UK relations. We took a lot of evidence about sanctions policy and the seizure of assets, which is, frankly, the next big opportunity to help support the financing of the reconstruction of Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary, when he gave evidence, said that there is a legal route to the seizure of assets. As has been mentioned, the EU is looking at the seizure of windfall profits of assets—although the real game-changer would be to get at the underlying assets themselves. It is important that we work in co-operation. I wonder whether I could press the Minister a bit further. Can he assure us that we are working closely with the EU and the US, with the aim of getting to a place where we can start doing this quickly, because the needs in Ukraine are obviously very pressing?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his insights. He brings great experience to our discussion. I agree with him about the importance of co-ordination, and categorically reassure him that we are doing just that. Earlier this afternoon, I stated to your Lordships’ House that we are dealing with the key agencies and institutions involved with the assets. The noble Lord will know that Europe works differently from the United Kingdom. As previously announced, we have about £8 billion of assets here in the United Kingdom. In ensuring that the intertest of those assets is utilised, we are very much seized of the work that the European Union is doing and how that might be replicated in the context of the United Kingdom. I add again the important caveat that, in doing so, we need to ensure that, whatever action we take, it is legally robust.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend share the concern I feel after the reports of Putin’s state of the nation speech today, in which he claims that he has no intention of invading Europe but does not exclude the option of using nuclear weapons? That behoves some response from His Majesty’s Government. How does my noble friend expect the Government to respond to that scenario?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, nothing surprises or shocks us in what Mr Putin articulates. It is not the first time he has made such comments. It is irresponsible and it is wrong. The use, or threatened use, of such weapons is, frankly, quite deplorable. Whether he is saying this with intent or as a shock tactic, I cannot speculate. I am sure I speak for everyone in your Lordships’ House when I say that the last thing anyone wants to hear right now are threats to use such weapons.
What we have seen over the years, from the Cold War and the subsequent relationships that developed positively during Mr Gorbachev’s era, is a recognition that the deterrent value of those weapons was clear. We pursued them in that light. Mr Putin could reflect on his own history, and that of Russia, to see that the only way forward is to ensure that he pulls back now, brings about peace on the continent, and stops the war on Ukraine.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the effort that he and the Government are making to help Ukraine. In addition to what we have been so rightly doing to help Ukraine, we have to recognise the damage and disaster that has been caused in many parts of the country, and the fact that an awful lot of voluntary work is going on in this country to try to provide support. I will name just two organisations, which I happen to be involved with. The first is the Global Ukraine Rail Task Force, which tries to raise money in Europe, here in the UK and in the United States. Network Rail has contributed to it. It has been very helpful to keep the railways going, because they are absolutely essential in Ukraine for passengers and freight—it is a very big country.
It is difficult to give the Ukrainians bits of second-hand railway goods because we have different gauges and everything, but they have worked out that they want second-hand buses and coaches and old railway equipment, which they can use as shelters, medical centres, play areas and things like that, to try to replace what has been damaged. Can the Minister encourage the railway and bus companies to look into sending second-hand equipment that is no longer used to Ukraine to help it rebuild its communities, in addition to resisting all this horrible bombing?
There is effectively a war in Europe, and one problem that I hope the Minister can deal with is that it is very difficult to get things across frontiers and to get some of the permissions that are needed to get into Ukraine. Anything he can do to help will enable organisations like SHAP—the Swindon Humanitarian Aid Partnership —to get this equipment there and try to provide voluntary support for the people in Ukraine whose buildings have been destroyed. I hope the Minister can do something on that.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord’s valuable insights from transport. He touched on an important issue: it is about not just the transport system but the recreational element. A whole generation of children in Ukraine is impacted, so what more can be added?
I recall my first visit to Poland when the war started. There were some valuable examples of what civil society and community groups were doing. The noble Lord may recall that the structures of the international system, particularly the UN bodies, were not equipped or set up to deal with the kind of conflict we were seeing in Ukraine. No one desired such a conflict to happen. While that was being stood up, it was the community groups that were providing vital links. I remember a Polish charity group going in and saying, “We load up our minibus, we take whatever we can, we go as far as we can and then we unload where we can”. That reflected the spirit of community, which is very much in evidence here in the United Kingdom.
Of course I will look into this. There are, of course, challenges of security, and there remain real concerns with, and challenges in, attempts at reconstruction within Ukraine, which the UK has made. As we heard earlier from my noble friend, Mr Putin leaves no stone unturned not just to threaten but to act, as he has done with missiles recently in Kyiv. No part of Ukraine is safe from Mr Putin’s war machinery. But of course we remain committed, which is why we hosted the recovery and reconstruction conference. One hopes this dreadful war is brought to an end by Russia stopping it and Ukraine again being an independent sovereign state with all its territory. As this evolves, we can look to see how we can best support transport infrastructure and explore recreational support for the next generation of Ukrainians as well.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in the context of the terrible death of Alexei Navalny, the Minister referred to Vladimir Kara-Murza. I also had the opportunity to meet with his wife, Evgenia, and I know how much she appreciates what the British Government have done to champion her husband’s cause. Given what the Minister said about having raised this at the Human Rights Council in the United Nations as recently as in the last few days, does he have a plan for what more can now be done at every opportunity to raise his plight?
In the context of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about sanctions, and specifically the point Brendan O’Hara made yesterday in the Commons about Chelsea Football Club, I have a Written Question today specifically about that. I hope that, when the Minister responds to that, he might also deal with the amendment I moved to the economic crime Bill that the Government accepted in spirit and said they would bring forward in secondary legislation. How is that going? Are we able to reclaim as much as we can from the oligarchs who funded, aided and abetted so much of what Putin has done in Ukraine?
Building on the Minister’s patience earlier today when he was good enough to meet with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, Amal Clooney and myself to talk about accountability in the context of the Yazidis, may I ask him about the international crime of aggression? I recently met Philippe Sands, the author of the wonderful book East West Street, which is based in Lviv and looks back at the relationship between his family and that of Raphael Lemkin who, after all, authored the genocide convention. At our discussion, we heard more from the Ukrainian authorities about the international tribunal that is needed to try the crime of aggression. The British Government have insisted in the meantime that there should be a hybrid tribunal. This does not seem to be going anywhere fast. We all want to see those responsible held to account. Where are we up to in resolving that issue? I said to the Minister earlier on that we all regard him as having the patience of a saint; I am extremely grateful to him for the way in which he engages on these questions.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Perhaps I could extend that patience to the great Lady Ahmad as well; she has endured much over the years.
Picking up on the specific points, I raised the case directly at the Human Rights Council, and rightly so. I assure the noble Lord that we will do so not just through international for a but with those countries that have direct influence over Russia. It is important that we leverage that; we will do, and are doing, so. Of course, we retain our diplomatic presence in Moscow. We will use that bilateral level of engagement at a diplomatic level through the ambassador and his team to ensure that this remains very much at the top of our priority list in terms of what we demand from Russia.
The noble Lord talked about accountability. I was conscious of time earlier but I assure both the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—as well as the noble Lord, Lord Alton —that we are fully engaged on the issue of accountability directly with Ukraine. I work closely with the prosecutor-general on the specific requirements; I know that the Attorney-General of the United Kingdom is also fully engaged on the support that Ukraine needs. We work closely with the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan. Again, I commend his efforts and real courage when he issued those arrest warrants against the Commissioner for Children as well as the Russian President; that was an important step forward. We are working in a very collaborative way there.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about the international tribunal. Of course, we are aware. There are three or four different versions of that, including derivatives thereof. I assure the noble Lord that I recently asked for a summary of the pros and cons of each approach. We understand the call that Ukraine has made and we want to work with international partners to ensure that the model presented is something that is consistent with, and complementary to, existing accountability measures. At the same time, we fully understand that this crime should be investigated and the perpetrators brought to account.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the Minister speaks of working with our international partners—I absolutely endorse that—but, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, he reiterated his view that one must not give in to Russian threats, which we have heard before. Not giving in to Russian threats also involves working closely with partners to accept that we need to look forward and work co-operatively. Can he tell us why His Majesty’s Government dismissed within minutes the suggestion from President Macron of France that we will perhaps need to do more to confront Russia in Europe and may well need to defend ourselves? Why did the Government dismiss this so quickly? The only leadership that we have seen in Europe recently has come from France. I am afraid to say that, in Germany—about which I know quite a lot—the Zeitenwende policy has not delivered the pivot that we expected to see. I am extremely sorry but I wonder whether the Minister might reflect that, when you rule out options so fast, you also run out of options. That is the risk you face.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I have to disagree with the noble Baroness on that point. We work very closely with France and all our European allies. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, alluded earlier to the NATO membership of Sweden; we used every opportunity to achieve that. I said to my noble friend Lady Fall earlier that I knew that I was going to meet the Hungarian Foreign Minister, and our brush-by in India was the moment to endorse the need for Hungary to act and expedite direct engagement with Sweden and also its accession to NATO.
The United Kingdom has shown nothing but leadership on this agenda, so I am surprised by the noble Baroness’s call. Of course we work closely with France; we evaluate what our allies will say and ensure that we move together on this. If the noble Baroness were to ask the Russians directly—not that I expect that she would be able to—she would find that, quite often, when they challenge or attack the West, there are two countries in Europe at the forefront, both beginning with “U”: one is Ukraine, directly, and the other is the United Kingdom.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I will come back to the Minister, since we still have a few minutes. Perhaps he will recall that it was the United Kingdom that was a signatory to the Budapest memorandum that gave security guarantees to Crimea. It was also the United Kingdom that stood idly by, that February, exactly 10 years ago, as Russia invaded Crimea. I suggest that a dose of humility might come handy occasionally.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am afraid that, if you look at the history of Crimea, and at 2015, you find that if there has been one country that has stood consistently with Ukraine it is the United Kingdom. I am the first to accept that humility is an endearing aspect of anyone’s character, but I am sure that, on this occasion, the noble Baroness will find herself in a minority view.
The United Kingdom has been consistent. Who provided military support and training to Ukraine? The United Kingdom. That started in 2015, and has continued since then. Who was the first to point out that the Russian invasion was imminent? Two countries—the United States and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has led on economic support, military support and humanitarian support. We have 140,000 Ukrainians in the United Kingdom. When we say “Slava Ukraini”, we mean it, and not just with words: we walk the walk, talk the talk and deliver.