House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
Getting people active is absolutely vital, particularly those who are not active at the moment, which will include those from low-income families. That is why we have a sport strategy to get 3.5 million people more active. It is why we are investing around £400 million in grassroots sports facilities up and down the country, including £4 million in Newcastle upon Tyne Central. We are ensuring that that money is targeted particularly on the most deprived neighbourhoods.
Chi Onwurah
I hope the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating Newcastle United women on their promotion to the championship. This season, they have helped inspire more than 300 young girls to take part in Newcastle United Foundation’s Premier League Kicks sessions, but with a third of young people in Newcastle inactive and our childhood obesity rates the highest in the region and among the highest in the country, we cannot leave it all to the foundation. How frequently does the Secretary of State meet the Department for Education to ensure that disadvantaged young people have access to sporting opportunities in schools? Specifically, what comparison has she made between sporting facilities in the state and private school sectors?
Lucy Frazer
This is a really important area, and I congratulate the Newcastle United women on their success and, indeed, all women taking part in sport. That is why, through the future Lionesses fund, we have invested £30 million for 30 pitches across the country to make sure that women get more activity and more opportunities to take part in sport. The specific question was about engagement with the Department for Education, which I have regularly. In fact, it sits on the taskforce I was talking about to get more people active, as do other Departments. We all need to work together to make sure we get more sport in school, more people active and equal opportunities for young girls in schools across the country.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
More than 1 million girls who considered themselves sporty while at primary school drop out of sport as teenagers. I was one of those girls, and I did not do any sport from puberty until my late 40s, when I discovered running. This weekend, I will be running my second London marathon in aid of Bristol Refugee Rights—feel free to donate. On this Government’s watch, inequality between girls and boys on physical activity has got worse, with 22% fewer girls than boys taking part in team sports. I do not want any tepid words about things the Secretary of State says she is committed to. We have 860,000 girls missing out on the joy of physical activity—why?
Lucy Frazer
I hope the shadow Secretary of State does very well on Sunday, and I wish her the best of luck. I am absolutely committed—these are not just warm words—to ensuring that more girls and women get involved in sport. I say that they are not just warm words because we have a plethora of policies already in play on this issue, whether that is: investing in football and working with Karen Carney on her women’s football review; building pitches to ensure that girls and women have priority access to sport; the £400 million for multi-sport facilities, which goes across the country; or the taskforce that I talked about, which will get 1 million children more active. We are particularly prioritising people who are inactive at the moment, which unfortunately does include girls.
Mr Speaker
I call Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi to ask question 3. [Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State answer the question and allow the shadow Minister to come in?
Mr Speaker
Can you sit down, please? Question 2 has been withdrawn. We are now at question 3.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
Our Department speaks regularly to industry stakeholders about how to make sure that live music continues to reach a wide range of audiences. Ultimately, ticket pricing strategies are a matter for event organisers and ticketing platforms, but they have to comply with the relevant laws to ensure price transparency, allowing consumers to make a fair and informed decision.
Mr Dhesi
Whether it is on music or other entertainment, this Government have consistently failed to act in the interest of fans when it comes to ticket touting. Last year, they rejected the recommendations and warnings of the Competition and Markets Authority to strengthen legislation and protect consumers from illegal reselling practices in the secondary ticketing market. Will the Minister concede that the problem has got much worse for fans? When will the Government finally put a stop to that?
Julia Lopez
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government brought in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which was strengthened by the Digital Economy Act 2017, which brought in anti-bots regulation that dealt with some of those secondary ticketing issues. It is a tricky problem to solve. We are trying to do so through those regulations, but if there is more that we can do, we will look into that.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member complained about the other question, but it is not my fault that no Government Members have stood to ask a supplementary question. I keep a political balance, and I am not going to break that for him. I call Thangam Debbonaire.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Ticket touts are a scourge on our live music industry. Secondary ticketing websites inflate prices and pocket the profits, which makes cultural and sporting events unaffordable for many families and damages the relationship between fans, artists and venues. While the Government fail to act, Labour has committed to tackling soaring ticketing prices on the secondary market. Surely the Minister agrees that only Labour will put fans back at the heart of music and cultural events.
Julia Lopez
Surely the hon. Member would not expect me to agree with such a ludicrous statement. We brought in laws and we have anti-bot regulations, and we have had ticket touts arrested for their activities. I know that Labour has brought forward its own proposal—effectively a price cap on resale—which we do not think is workable. We have seen that in Ireland, and it simply increases fraudulent activity; it does not deliver for fans. We simply do not believe that what she is proposing will make any difference.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
Earlier this year, we published a review of the barriers faced by owners of historic homes to reducing their energy consumption. It made a number of commitments across planning, skills and finance to assist the heritage sector on its journey to net zero, including consulting on the role of local listed building consent orders to drive change at the local level.
Mary Glindon
In 2022, North Tyneside’s world heritage site Segedunum was successful in accessing funds through the museums estate and development fund for urgent repairs. That will contribute to reducing the site’s carbon footprint. Currently, other than the Heritage Fund and potential regional government funding, there are no other sources of funding that would help cultural and heritage sites meet climate change targets. What are the Government doing directly to ensure that heritage sites can be resilient against climate change and have sustainable futures?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. She talked about one of the substantial funds that we have to help repair and restore museums, heritage sites and other activities. I am glad that that is making a big difference in her constituency. We have been looking into the important area of how historic buildings can reduce their energy consumption. It is obviously difficult, since 2% of buildings in the UK are listed. We want to help them to reduce their energy consumption, which is a particular challenge for owners of historic homes. Historic England has guidance to help museums, and we will look at what more we can do.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
When it comes to valuable heritage assets, I am really concerned about those housed in the grounds of our many military estates which are not bound by any of the obligations to maintain and care for them. In many cases, the Ministry of Defence and others are pursuing a policy of managed decline, which is allowing those valuable heritage assets to rot under our very noses. May I encourage the Minister—in fact, the Secretary of State—to speak with Ministers in the Ministry of Defence to challenge that policy and see what can be done to address it? I give her advance warning that I am keen to look at that as part of a Select Committee inquiry.
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. It is something that we support when an asset is in the community rather than on the existing military estate. I recently visited the battle of Britain bunker at RAF Uxbridge, where there has been an amazing partnership with the local council. She raised an issue specifically about MOD sites that are still in use, which we shall be very happy to look into for her.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Heritage Alliance estimates in its refreshed manifesto that the UK needs to double the number of conservation-skilled retrofit workers if we are to meet our net zero targets by 2050. Our built environment is at risk, yet the Government have stalled on training and have no plan to upskill the next generation. Labour will change the apprenticeship levy, making it more flexible to ensure that workers have the skills they need for the future. What is the Minister doing to meet the workforce challenge of retrofitting our heritage buildings?
Julia Lopez
Our Department has a huge number of initiatives under way to help people to deal with skills shortages, not just in the heritage sector but in the creative industries. The Secretary of State and I were discussing that with the Creative Industries Council just this week. One of the challenges that we face is the dynamism of the workforce and the need to ensure that it has the specific skills of the kind that the hon. Lady mentioned. We are looking at bootcamps and T-levels, which are much more practical vocational skills. I am happy to look into and discuss with the noble Lord Parkinson what more we can do with the heritage sector.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the financial issues facing Torquay United. I urge all parties to find a swift solution to this distressing situation. The Government are seeking to support the professional game through the Football Governance Bill, which will establish an independent football regulator.
Kevin Foster
As the Minister knows, recent weeks have been difficult for Torquay United fans, with the club entering into administration following years of fans struggling to get answers from the owner, and a completely flawed plan for a new stadium, which made no progress whatsoever. What role will preventing the circumstances that have dragged down Torquay United and other clubs play in future developments in how the game is governed?
Stuart Andrew
I agree that meaningful engagement with fans is crucial. I want to put on record my thanks to the Torquay United Supporters Trust for its action to support the club and the fans. I share the concerns about the financial situation right across the game. That is exactly why the Bill will give powers to the regulator, which will be able to monitor and enforce financial regulation and deal with club ownership, fan engagement and club heritage issues, to ensure that clubs are protected for the very fans who are their bedrock.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
Between 2021 and 2025, the Government have committed more than £325 million to grassroots sports sites across the whole of the UK. That is part of our commitment to ensure every community has the facilities it needs. So far, almost 2,400 sites have been supported, creating more opportunities for people of all backgrounds across the country to get active.
Virginia Crosbie
Thanks to the UK Government’s multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, almost £100,000 has been invested across Anglesey to improve sports facilities at Holyhead Hotspur, Plas Arthur in Llangefni, Tŷ Croes and Bodedern. Sport helps families across Ynys Môn be more active, healthier and happier. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking Ynys Môn gymnastics club, Barton Dance and Drama Academy, Ynys Môn Celts basketball club and all those working hard to make my summer activities fair at the Canolfan Holyhead on 8 June a success?
Lucy Frazer
It is fantastic to hear about the community events taking place in the hon. Friend’s constituency. I am delighted that she has put together such an active and exciting event, and I wish her all the best on 8 June. Such events bring communities together. I wish her and everybody a wonderful time.
Andy Carter
Cromwell Athletic, who play at Mary Ann Meadows in my constituency, have had to cancel almost 70% of their grass pitch games this season because conditions have made the ground simply unplayable. The pitch improvement programme shows that we need around eight 3G pitches in Warrington to cope with demand. Could my right hon. Friend set out what support is available to clubs with significant junior membership? I invite her back to Warrington to see some of the teams who are struggling to access 3G pitches, to talk about how we can help them.
Lucy Frazer
Through our investment via the Football Foundation in England, we are actively supporting teams such as Cromwell Athletic up and down the country to get new artificial grass pitches. We funded the goalposts at Barrow Hall Primary School and put in a new artificial grass pitch at Cardinal Newman Catholic High School. It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss this issue further.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
The correct use of many national symbols, such as royal names, state emblems, the royal arms and the Government coat of arms, is already subject to Government regulation.
Andrew Rosindell
I think many people would be quite angered by the way certain national organisations have tried to change our national flags, the cross of St George and the Union Jack. Is it not time that we protected and cherished our national symbols by appointing a Minister of the Crown from the Cabinet Office to oversee that? Will the Minister also look at the Union Flag Bill of 2008, which would enshrine in legislation the protection of our cherished national flag?
Stuart Andrew
The Union Jack should be a unifying symbol for the whole country. It has looked the way it has for the past several hundred years and I see no point in messing around with it. I am not sure that we need legislation; we just need some common sense.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Would Ministers be equally keen to prevent organisations, such as political parties, using images of His Majesty the King in their propaganda?
Stuart Andrew
I do not know how to answer that question, if I am honest! [Laughter.] Our party has always been proud to use the Union Jack, because we are a proud Unionist party, and we will always be proud to support the royal family.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
The Government are investing millions to support charities across England with cost of living pressures, and that includes the Community Organisations Cost of Living Fund, which is awarding critical support to frontline services.
Ian Lavery
What does it say about the state of the nation when, during the worst cost of living crisis in living memory, charities and voluntary organisations such as Calmer Therapy in the Wansbeck constituency are struggling simply to make ends meet? Like many other charities, Calmer Therapy is having to do more with less. It is facing more pressures and continued pressures, with crumbling buildings and excessive bills. What conversations has the Minister had with the Chancellor about plans to support charities and those who are desperately relying on them to survive?
Stuart Andrew
I want to put on record my thanks to the charities up and down the country that have done some incredible work over some of the most challenging times. I recognise that when costs are rising and donations are falling, demand for their services often increases. That is why I had conversations with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and why we secured a significant package of £100 million to support those charities. It was welcomed by the sector. I am grateful to the National Lottery Community Fund for helping us to get that money out as quickly as possible to so many charities around the country.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I have discussed the issue of dementia with the Professional Footballers’ Association, specifically around the Premier League’s promise to allocate funding towards the new brain health fund for football players impacted by dementia. I am pleased that the fund was launched in September last year, and I will be writing to the PFA shortly to seek its assurances on the current workings of the fund and how the PFA is engaging with former players.
Duncan Baker
My constituent is the former Celtic, Chelsea, Blackburn and, more importantly, Norwich City football legend, Chris Sutton. He has recently brought to my attention the very distressing fact that former professional footballers are four times more likely to die of CTE—chronic traumatic encephalopathy—dementia than the wider population due to repeated head impacts. Chris is just one of a group of former players who are championing these issues and pushing for better provisions to support the wellbeing of ex-players and their families. Can the Minister reassure me that the football industry will create a properly financed dementia fund to help players, and of course their widows, who are affected by the CTE dementia scandal?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is right to raise this incredibly important issue, and I want to record my thanks to Chris Sutton and all those involved in this important work. We welcome the practical support that those involved in sports give former players in these circumstances. The PFA and Premier League’s brain health fund has an initial amount of £1 million in financial support for former players and their families, to improve their quality of life. The fund will remain in place until the PFA and the Premier League establish a charity that will involve a great many football stakeholders so we can provide a much longer-term support vehicle. I can reassure him that I take this area of work incredibly seriously and will continue to put pressure on those involved.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and hope we will hear more in that regard.
The number of children who are vaping continues to rise at an alarming rate. Statistics from 2022 show that current use—within the last 30 days—among 15-year-olds was 25%, but the percentage will obviously be significantly higher now. We know about some of the harms to which vaping leads, which should cause us grave concern, but we certainly do not know about all of them. In that context, does the Minister think it is a good thing that the strips of football clubs such as Blackburn Rovers are sponsored by vaping companies? If not, will he join me in seeking to change that?
Stuart Andrew
I know that there have been many discussions about sponsorship within various sporting bodies. It is for the individual clubs and the football authorities themselves to set guidelines of that kind, but the hon. Lady has raised an interesting point and, if she will allow me, I will give it further consideration.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Everyone deserves to feel safe playing the sport that they love. In the context of, sadly, too many former professional players suffering from dementia, what steps is the Department taking to ensure that sports governing bodies have the guidance they need to ensure the safety of professional players?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady has raised an important point, as have other Members. The Government are leading work on concussion in particular. We have worked with stakeholders and developed the first guidelines to be distributed to the grassroots, which have also aided professional sports. The evaluation of this is ongoing and will be invaluable in helping us to improve sport-related education and health. We have also convened a sports concussion research group to identify the questions that still need answering, as well as an innovation and technology panel, whose members are looking at the practical, technical solutions that will aid safety and mitigate concussion. However, as I have said, this is an incredibly important area and one on which we will focus.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
The statutory levy represents a generational change in funding arrangements, and we have to consider properly the evidence provided during the consultation. We will publish a response setting out our final decision soon, but we remain on track to introduce the levy via secondary legislation this summer.
Liz Twist
It has been months since the consultation closed, with no response, and about 10 other consultations relating to the White Paper are also awaiting a response. Is the Minister trying to kick change into the long grass, and if not, will he please confirm when the responses will be published?
Stuart Andrew
I reject that accusation. There are 62 proposals in the White Paper, half of which will be finalised as a result of the consultation or are complete. A further three consultations have ended, and we are now analysing those. The levy is a priority, because we want the funds to be directed where they are needed most, on the basis of evidence, and we are working at pace to ensure that happens. I also point out that it was this Government who introduced it.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
High-quality affordable workspaces are essential to ensuring that we can retain our finest creative talent. The Government are committed to encouraging local authorities and property owners to make spaces available for cultural activities. Arts Council England is already supporting artists’ spaces through funding and brokering partnerships. The national portfolio boasts numerous workspaces that receive revenue funding, such as Spike Island and Yorkshire Artspace, which offer space for artists to create work and gallery space for exhibiting new work.
Andrew Selous
Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable and many other parts of my constituency are blessed with an abundance of artists, painters, sculptors and others, but they have very few places where they can create their work—they need more studio space and more workspaces —and even fewer places in which to exhibit. Providing such spaces should be essential—it aids economic activity, increases footfall and increases wellbeing—so how can we ensure that it is essential, as the Minister said, and not an afterthought? It really does matter.
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for raising his concerns about the creative community in Leighton Buzzard—it sounds like a buzzing creative community. As I say, we support creative industries primarily through Arts Council England, which has initiatives that look at workspaces. I encourage organisations in his constituency and community to make applications for grants, because there are specific funds available.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Arts venues are vital to our local culture and our communities, but they are also hotbeds for new talent to display or perform their latest works, which is critical to the UK’s creative sector. Pubs are increasingly used for showing artworks as much as they are for performing music—think of pubs such as the Crown Inn back in the day, or the Hope and Anchor in Islington. That is why it is so important that we save pubs such as the Punch Bowl in Warwick, which a developer wants to convert into a house. Last year was the worst year for the closure of music venues. What is the Minister doing to stop that rate of closure?
Julia Lopez
We share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about grassroots music venues, which is why we have a specific fund set aside to help save some of the most treasured community venues. We also have the Localism Act 2011, which allows communities to designate a particular community asset of value, giving communities time to raise funds to save those kinds of assets. It is something that we are talking about a lot with music venue groups, and we are also looking at giving them help to buy the freeholds of properties so that those kinds of assets can stay within communities and remain a talent pipeline, as he suggests, for many years to come.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
As my hon. Friend will know, the Football Governance Bill was introduced to Parliament last month, and it will help with the financial sustainability of football as a whole. I have met the Premier League, the English Football League, many stakeholders and parliamentarians to ensure that the legislation is appropriately drafted. I have met over 90 clubs and senior executives from the leagues many times.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. We do not have to look too far across the east midlands to see that clubs such as Nottingham Forest, Derby County, Coventry City and Leicester City have found themselves in some form of difficulty, so I welcome the Government’s plans to introduce a regulator to bring some stability to the football pyramid. However, how do we ensure that we strike a balance so that we do not strangle and over-regulate the best league in the world, the premiership?
Lucy Frazer
As my hon. Friend mentions, the Premier League is world leading. It is worth £7 billion, and we absolutely want to ensure that it stays first and world class. That is why the legislation takes a proportionate approach. It takes on board the fact that the regulator will have to work very closely with the leagues, including the Premier League. We call it an advocacy-first approach, and having worked very carefully with the team, I am very confident that the legislation takes a balanced and proportionate approach.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Football is nothing without the fans, and the Secretary of State may recall that a while ago I mentioned to the Sport Minister the idea of a postponement promise. That was in response to a spate of fixtures that had been cancelled at very short notice. The Minister said that he would raise it with the EFL, and I understand that he did so. I am grateful for that, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State agrees that we need to keep the momentum going forward. Will she and the Minister continue to work with the EFL to come up with a solution that works for fans?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member is absolutely right about the importance of fans and communities to football, which is why the Government are bringing forward legislation to protect fans across the country. My junior Minister is a valued colleague who supports me and works very hard across his portfolio. I know he has raised this issue with the EFL, and I will talk to him about it.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
This Government recognise just how important the arts are, which is why the Chancellor used the Budget to extend, introduce and make permanent a range of tax reliefs to drive growth and investment in our creative industries. We have provided tax reliefs worth £1 billion over the next five years for museums, galleries, theatres, orchestras, independent film productions, film studios and the visual effects industry. In addition, as Sunday draws near, I want to wish all those running and taking part in the London marathon the best of luck—in particular, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire).
Alex Davies-Jones
With Monday marking the 35th anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy, we will always remember the 97 victims who were killed unlawfully. Does the Minister agree that, in their memory, we must take a stand against those who think it is acceptable to ridicule this disaster in order to rile up rival teams? If so, what is she doing to tackle this issue of so-called tragedy chanting?
Lucy Frazer
Tragedy chanting is absolutely abhorrent and has no place in football, or indeed in any sport. The Government fully support the football leagues and the police in their efforts to identify and deal with the culprits. Tragedy chanting can be prosecuted as a public order offence, with guilty individuals being issued with football banning orders preventing them from attending matches in the future.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Lucy Frazer
First, I extend my congratulations to Romford football club on reaching the final of the FA vase—it is a wonderful achievement and I wish the team the best of luck at Wembley. On the issue of BBC Essex, as my hon. Friend will know, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent of the Government, but I know that my hon. Friend has raised his concerns directly with the BBC, and I am sure that it will get back to him.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the SNP spokesman, John Nicolson.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Since we last met, the media regulator Ofcom has again reprimanded GB News for breaching impartiality rules. Ofcom says that news programmes should not be presented by politicians. The Tory Benches host a plethora of Ofcom rule-breaching MPs who leave this place to freelance as pretendy news presenters on a channel that spreads conspiracy theories and disinformation, and that undermines Ofcom. I am on the side of journalism, not disinformation. Does the Minister agree with me that GB News should drop the propaganda and obey the regulator?
Lucy Frazer
I am in favour of media plurality; I think it is important that there are channels for everybody to watch, and GB News is a very popular outlet. I think that the person to regulate GB News is Ofcom, not those on the shadow Benches.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Crewe Amateur Musicals Society opens what I am sure will be a fantastic production of “Kinky Boots” at Crewe Lyceum this evening, but I am concerned that Arts Council funding does not do enough to support existing groups and activities. As well as joining me in wishing the Crewe Amateur Musicals Society good luck this evening, can my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss Arts Council funding?
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
I wish the Crewe Amateur Musicals Society the very best of luck with their performance. We channel a very large amount of money to Arts Council England. With lottery funding and Government funding, that is about £444 million every year. We also have a number of tax reliefs for the performing arts. I also encourage the groups in my hon. Friend’s constituency to apply for the latest cultural development fund round, which opened in February and supports organisations such as the one he cites.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Julia Lopez
It has been a particularly difficult period for a number of music venues. Obviously, we went through the pandemic and then an energy crisis, and we tried to support venues through those difficult times. We are now working very closely with the Music Venue Trust, which has access to Arts Council funding that is helping it to buy the freehold of some music venues. We also have a grassroots music fund that is helping with some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman cites, and I am sure it would be happy to look into the particularly treasured venues in his constituency.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the proposal by Universal Studios for a theme park in Bedfordshire—a £10 billion investment in the country. She will also be aware of the strong local support, led by Conservative Mayor Tom Wootton, so can she assure me and other Bedfordshire MPs that she is working hard with the Treasury to get a response to that proposal, and that a Government proposal will be forthcoming before the summer?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is right to raise this very exciting opportunity for Bedfordshire, which I am pleased to have discussed with him. We are liaising closely with the Treasury, and I am also happy to continue liaising with my hon. Friend.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
This country is proud to have hosted the Commonwealth games twice in the past decade, most recently in Birmingham. I have had conversations with the Commonwealth Games Federation on its plans, and I know it is currently considering a host of options. I will see what it comes out with before I commit to any further engagement.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the magnificent and mighty Portsmouth football club on winning League One and securing promotion to the championship this week? Does she agree with me that Pompey’s fantastic victory demonstrates the magic of football in bringing communities together, inspiring young people and encouraging health and fitness?
Lucy Frazer
I am very pleased to congratulate Portsmouth football club on its success. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of local clubs and what they do in their communities. It is not just the match on a Saturday; it is also about what they do to encourage people to get involved in their community and to get fit and active. Going around the country, I have seen some fabulous examples of what sports clubs—not just football but rugby and cricket—do for their local areas.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Lucy Frazer
I am pleased to have spoken to Karen Carney on a number of occasions about her review and the importance of women’s football, and I am also pleased to take on board all her recommendations. The Government approved all the review’s recommendations, and I am pleased to chair the first implementation group, which is ensuring that the recommendations will be implemented by the Football Association and others.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Since I last raised the closure of small music venues, two a week continue to close. There is now a growing consensus within the live music sector that a £1 levy should be put on large music venues and those who are making massive profits at live events. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is looking at this, and I have listened very carefully to the evidence. If it is recommended, will the Minister put in place a levy similar to the one in other countries across Europe?
Julia Lopez
We are very sympathetic to that concept, which has worked well in football. We are closely watching the industry discussions about the idea of a levy that would support grassroots music venues which, as we all know, are the talent pipeline for our world-leading music industry. We do not want to see them wither, so we are watching this matter closely and I have had recent discussions with relevant organisations on it.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Further to that question, and as others have said, brilliant grassroots music venues all over the country are struggling with spiralling costs. The Grayston Unity is one such venue that is crucial in not only ensuring access to music, but developing the skills pipeline for people working in that sector and, we hope, becoming the stars of tomorrow. What is the Minister doing to ensure that she understands, and reassures those venues that she gets, the spiralling costs they face?
Julia Lopez
As I have said, we have a number of initiatives under way. Arts Council funding is supporting the Music Venue Trust in relation to owning freeholds of properties and we have our supporting grassroots music fund, which has been topped up recently because of some of the issues cited by the hon. Lady. We want to try to help music venues through these difficult times, because we believe they are so valuable, not only to the talent pipeline, but in giving communities access to local music and performing opportunities. We hope that these venues will continue long into the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. If we have very brief questions and answers, I will try to get everybody in. I call Chi Onwurah.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The “Space Investigators” exhibition at the Great North Museum celebrates the amazing history of the north-east in designing and manufacturing telescopes. What support does the Minister offer so that regions such as ours can better understand and promote our great industrial heritage?
Lucy Frazer
I am pleased that work has been going on in the hon. Lady’s constituency on these important matters. Of course, through Arts Council funding and through Department for Culture, Media and Sport funding, we support institutions across the country that support the history of, and what is going on in, their local communities, as well as arts across the country.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
This is the 900th anniversary of the founding of Edinburgh city and St Giles’ cathedral. Celebrations are planned to mark it, so will the Minister tell us whether the Department is going to be working with the devolved Administration and supporting the local council in celebrating that anniversary? And would she like to come and join the party?
Julia Lopez
It sounds like a superb party and I shall certainly send the invitation to Lord Parkinson, who is the ministerial lead on these issues.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
At the most recent British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, I asked the Irish Tourism Minister about their ticketing policy and its success, and they said it was very much a success. So may I suggest that rather than dismiss Labour’s proposals, the Government should look at the evidence from the Irish Government, rather than listening to outlaw companies such as Viagogo?
Julia Lopez
I spoke to officials this week about the Irish example and they were concerned that it had led to an increase in fraudulent activity. However, we will obviously keep this under review.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Omaze has had a big impact on charity fundraising. Although it is raising money for extremely good causes, does the Secretary of State agree that when people buy tickets for fundraising they should have some idea of what proportion of the money they are spending is actually going to those charities? Should we not have more transparency in this area?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will be aware that we have looked at a range of issues in relation to gambling, lotteries and society lotteries. The prize draws are an area of work we are examining at the moment to get a better understanding of what the market is like. He rightly says that it is important that people are aware of how much of the money they are spending is going to charities, and we will continue to work in this area.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
Although we do not yet have confirmed numbers of worshippers for this Easter just gone, our clergy report high attendance, among all ages, at services, which supports the post-pandemic trend of people returning to services on Easter day in person to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.
Kevin Foster
The future of the Church is reliant on younger families attending and receiving the good news of the Holy Gospel. What assessment has the Church made of initiatives like the pupil chaplain scheme and regular “Messy Church” at All Saints Torre in achieving that?
Andrew Selous
I was delighted to learn about the pupil chaplain scheme that All Saints Torre is running with Torre Church of England Academy; I will bring it to the attention of the Church nationally. The Church of England has committed £40 million since 2022 to increase provision for children and young people across the country. I thank Father Paul Jones for his service at All Saints Babbacombe and his wife, Jackie, who has led a Rainbows group at the church for many years. Their important work, which includes inspiring the next generation, has been noted and appreciated.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The committee has regular discussions with the Electoral Commission on issues relating to electoral integrity. The commission is working to ensure upcoming elections, including those in May and the next UK parliamentary general election, are well run and command public confidence. It continues to make recommendations to UK Governments and legislatures to further safeguard the UK’s electoral system, where appropriate.
Mr Carmichael
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her newly acquired responsibilities in this area. I am sure she brings the same diligence and independence of mind that her father brought to matters in this House for many years. We will be well served by her.
Spotlight on Corruption wrote to the National Crime Agency in December last year highlighting the dangers of UK elections being exposed to dirty money and foreign influence. The commission no longer has powers to raise prosecutions, but it can investigate. Will the hon. Lady use her offices to bring the Electoral Commission’s attention to the Spotlight on Corruption report and see what assessment it makes of it?
Rachel Hopkins
I will bring the report to the attention of the Electoral Commission. The commission has said that it takes all possible steps within the current regulatory framework to prevent unlawful foreign money from entering UK politics, and it publishes information about donations to ensure transparency. It can sanction political parties that accept impermissible foreign donations. It works with the police, who can investigate unlawful foreign money entering UK politics through permissible donors. However, it cannot take enforcement action against organisations based outside the UK. The commission will continue to recommend changes to ensure voters can have greater confidence in political finance in the UK.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
The House of Commons Commission takes food waste extremely seriously. We work with organisations, such as FareShare, to use unused food and distribute it, but we also take food that is not eaten on one day and safely use it in other recipes on another day.
Patrick Grady
We have probably all been to events and occasions here where the hosts have perhaps enthusiastically over-ordered. It would be useful to be assured that none of that food goes to landfill and that ways are found to reuse it. These days there are a number of initiatives and apps where venues and stores can make food available at discounted prices at the end of the day. Could that be something that could be extended to staff—obviously not to Members—particularly those who work late on the estate, so that absolutely no food in this place goes to waste?
Sir Charles Walker
We will always look at suggestions. I can reassure the hon. Member that our catering team recently achieved the highest mark in the Sustainable Restaurant Association “Food Made Good” rating. One of the areas that we were assessed on was our commitment to reducing food waste, but clearly we will look at the hon. Member’s suggestions and we will act on them if they have merit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Theresa Villiers—not here.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The report of the joint Archbishops’ Commission on Families and Households was enthusiastically received by the General Synod at its meeting in February. The Archbishops’ Council is now incorporating the report’s recommendations into the work programme.
Mr Hollobone
The key messages from the Archbishops’ Commission are unambiguous: families, relationships and love matter. The No. 1 action point from the commission is
“to maximise the protective effect of families”.
What steps is the Church of England taking to achieve that in Kettering and across the whole country?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this important area. I can tell him that the commissioners have had meetings with Departments and with the children’s commissioner to work alongside Government to strengthen family relationships, parenting and marriage. The Church itself wants to play a more active role in this crucial area and is producing new resources to help parishes do so. I am sure he will know that, in his own constituency, St Andrew’s Church is already exemplifying much of this good work under the excellent leadership of the Reverend Tom Houston, who trained as a youth worker prior to ordination.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Same-sex couples are able to show love and be a good family as well, so why will the Church of England not recognise same-sex marriage?
Andrew Selous
The hon. Member will know that this is an issue with which the General Synod continues to be involved through the living in love and faith process. We are working through these issues and the Church will have heard very clearly what he has said, and I can assure him that that work is being taken forward.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Andrew Selous
The Church of England believes that the foetus is a human life with the potential to develop, while recognising that there can be strictly limited conditions under which abortion may be morally preferable to any available alternative. The Church also believes that every possible support, especially by Church members, should be given to those who are pregnant and in difficult circumstances. The Church would support new clauses 15 and 34 and believes that, while women should not face criminalisation, anyone coercing a woman to have an abortion, or providing one beyond the legal limit, or supplying an abortion kit for a late-term use should be prosecuted.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I welcome the support for new clauses 15 and 34. I think the Second Church Estates Commissioner has given implicit opposition to the new clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), but I am gobsmacked not to have had a clear statement on the criminality of terminating a pregnancy up to the moment of birth by whomsoever. Is the intention to drive us into the arms of Rome? Is he as gobsmacked as I am?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his interest in these serious issues, which, given their importance, I am sure the House will want to treat sensitively. I will convey his comments to the leadership of the Church, but just to repeat: the Church is supporting the two-week reduction in the age of viability from 24 to 22 weeks, based on the latest available evidence that foetuses do survive from 22 weeks onwards. It is also supporting protection for Down’s syndrome children to make the case that abortion beyond the legal limit should not be acceptable for such children. The Church supports the continued prosecution of medical practitioners who assist with abortions beyond the legal limit.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The committee has had recent discussions with the Electoral Commission on the matters raised. The commission recognises the risks posed to the integrity of elections by disinformation and misinformation. It runs campaigns raising awareness of the voting process, so voters have accurate information on which to rely. The legal regime that the commission regulates is focused on ensuring that political finance is transparent and that campaigner materials include an imprint showing voters who have produced the material. It does not have a role in regulating the content of election campaign material, but encourages all campaigners to undertake their role responsibly and transparently.
Kirsten Oswald
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s answer. Recently, we have seen a decrease in the effectiveness of search engines such as Google, with material generated by AI, which is designed to produce only things that sound like information, poisoning the well, so to speak, with a marked impact on search results. With this automation of fake news and fake oracles, what plans does the Electoral Commission have to put out guidance on AI-produced materials?
Rachel Hopkins
The commission encourages all campaigners to undertake their role of influencing voters responsibly and transparently, and indeed encourages voters to think critically about the campaign materials that they see. It expects anyone using AI-generated campaign material to use it in a way that benefits open and transparent political debate, and to label it clearly so that voters know how it has been created. Campaign material must also carry an imprint telling voters who has published and paid for it. The commission’s role is to ensure that the financing of campaigns is transparent. It does not have a role in regulating the content of election campaign material, such as preventing the use of deepfakes.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Bishop of Southwark has raised this issue repeatedly in the other place over the past six months, and it remains an ongoing and very concerning issue. Only 15 days ago, an unlawful eviction was led by the Israeli police within the premises of the Armenian Patriarchate, with no court orders or permits presented.
Sir Edward Leigh
Those of us who are good friends of Israel need to call out the violent activities of the settler movement. The Armenian Christians have enjoyed the best part of 2,000 years in their part of the old city in tranquillity. The appalling incident on 3 April was led not just by thugs but by an Israeli officer called Assaf Harel. Frankly, there was downright intimidation and an attempt to force out Armenian Christians. The Christian population in the old city has declined from 25% a century ago to just 1%. Will the Church of England stand up for Christians in the old city?
Andrew Selous
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his sustained interest in this really important issue. It would be an absolute tragedy if there were to be no Christians left in the Holy Land. The House will have heard the figures that he has just presented. The pressures facing the Armenian church exemplify those faced by other churches in Jerusalem and the west bank. The Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem is one of the custodians of the Holy Land and overseers of the four quarters of the city. The Church of England is absolutely clear that the historic settlement and the status quo of Jerusalem need to be maintained. The lack of any call for restraint from the Israeli Government is escalating tensions in Jerusalem, and that remains a great concern.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Andrew Selous
When the Church Commissioners sell land, they seek to engage all those who are affected by a sale or development. The commissioners are not aware of any land that they own being for sale in North East Bedfordshire.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response. The word “engage” is interesting in this context. It is the case that there is a church in my constituency where there was local opposition to the sale of allotment land. Discussions were held initially with the diocese, and then at Church House in Westminster. My hon. Friend will be aware that in such discussions there is an imbalance of power, so can he assure me that there is adequate guidance to enable parishioners and local communities to combat effectively pressures to sell land where there is clearly local opposition?
Andrew Selous
I particularly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of allotments, for which there is often a very long waiting list. The land at Henlow is owned by the diocese of St Albans, and I will ask the diocesan secretary to contact him. Of course, he can also speak to the Bishop of Bedford and the Bishop of St Albans, whom we both know well. Charity law places a fiduciary duty on organisations to gain best value from the sale of their assets. That may be an issue that my hon. Friend would want to raise with the relevant Government Minister, in the context of what is happening in his constituency.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Andrew Selous
The Church of England educates more than 1 million children in its 4,700 schools, which includes 40% of all primary schools in England. Church schools in Harrow East do incredible work, and among them is St John’s School in Stanmore, which has many children for whom English is not their first language and who are from disadvantaged backgrounds. That school achieves a reading progress score of 4.5 compared with the average score in the rest of the local authority of 1.1. That excellent achievement is to be warmly commended.
Bob Blackman
I am very proud of the fact that parents in Harrow East have the option of a Church education or the religious-ethos education of their choice. However, as we all know, the birth rate is dropping, as is the number of children who need primary places in Harrow. There is therefore a direct threat to the rolls at St John’s and other religious-based schools, which may become unviable. What action is the Church taking to enable young people, particularly those who have recently come to this country, who may be of a Christian faith but not necessarily of the Church of England faith, to identify with a Church school and get that sort of education?
Andrew Selous
It may surprise my hon. Friend and the House that there are some Church of England schools in which all the children are from other faiths. That is because Church schools are community schools and welcome all. I will draw his concerns about falling roll numbers both to the diocese of London and to the national education department of the Church of England. However, in my experience, parents have a pretty good nose for finding their way to a good school. The results at St John’s, about which I have just told the House, should help in this case.
Business of the House
(6 months, 2 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 22 April will include:
Monday 22 April—Consideration of a Lords message to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, followed by debate on a motion on hospice funding. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 23 April—Second Reading of the Football Governance Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords messages to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.
Wednesday 24 April—Remaining stages of the Renters (Reform) Bill, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.
Thursday 25 April—Debate on a motion on Lesbian Visibility Week, followed by debate on a motion on the Buckland review of autism employment. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 26 April—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 29 April includes:
Monday 29 April—Consideration in Committee of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill.
Tuesday 30 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.
Wednesday 1 May—Remaining stages of the Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords].
Thursday 2 May—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the early May bank holiday at the conclusion of business on 2 May and return on Tuesday 7 May.
Lucy Powell
May I take this opportunity to put on record my deepest sympathies to Mr Speaker on the loss of his dear father, Doug Hoyle? I remember him as a real character and an important figure in the Labour movement over many decades, serving both as an MP and then as a peer. He was a proud northerner and represented the traditions of the Labour movement. I know that he was incredibly proud of Mr Speaker, and I know how much Mr Speaker and Cath cared for him in his later years. My thoughts are with them both.
The attacks by Iran on Israel have rightly been condemned by all sides of the House. Thankfully, its intentions were thwarted, and we join together in calling for restraint and de-escalation in the aftermath. We cannot let those recent events deter or distract from international efforts to bring about a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza and create the conditions for a lasting two-state solution.
As global conflict increases, it is unacceptable that the Government have rejected recommendations from the cross-party Procedure Committee for the Foreign Secretary to be accountable in this House. It is simply not the case that he or the Government have been “forward-leaning” in that regard, as the Leader of the House has said. Statements by his now deputy—the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—have been few and far between, and his appearances at Select Committees have all but dried up.
Many times in these exchanges, the Leader of the House has assured us that Members would have the opportunity to question the Foreign Secretary, saying that
“When the Procedure Committee brings forward measures… I am sure those measures will be put in place”—[Official Report, 30 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 1061.],
so why has she now blocked that—or did she lose the argument in Government? She seems to struggle to be heard in Government lately. I know that she is keen to talk about defence spending too, although apparently No. 10 blocked her. Does she want to take the opportunity today? I know that she, like me, will be concerned to hear that the UK now spends less on defence as a percentage of GDP than when Labour was last in office.
The Leader of the House is not listened to when it comes to legislative business before the House, either. I was really puzzled that she was unable to support a flagship piece of Government legislation, as she apparently thinks it is unworkable. Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but is it not the job of the Leader of the House to ensure that any Government legislation tabled is well drafted, thought through, and will achieve its aims? She chairs the Government’s legislation committee, does she not? She has more influence than nearly anybody else on the drafting of a Bill, so what went wrong?
After our Easter break, we have returned to groundhog day. It might be a new term, but it is the same old story: more decent Conservative Members announcing that they are standing down; Treasury Ministers hitting the airwaves and getting the numbers wrong; a weak Prime Minister who cannot face down his own party, running scared from his own legislation and refusing to say how his cuts to national insurance will be funded; the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), still unable to show any contrition for her actions directly costing mortgage holders hundreds of pounds a month; Cabinet splits and rival factions all on open display, with ever more extreme positions and platforms taken; and yet more Tory sleaze and scandal.
Today’s revelations about the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) are extraordinary. They raise very serious questions about the misuse of funds and the pressure put on others to facilitate it. Perhaps more importantly, they also raise questions about how these issues are handled by the Conservative party. There is a worrying pattern of cover-up and inaction, so can the Leader of the House shed some light? What did the Chief Whip, the Prime Minister and the party chairman, the right hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), know and when? Why did it take the publication of the story today for the Whip to be removed? Has this matter been referred to the police, and if not, why not?
It seems that yet again, like with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and so many other recent cases of sleaze and scandal, the Government are too weak to act decisively, and instead choose to brush things under the carpet. The truth is that they have given up on governing, and given up on winning the next election: it is all about saving their own skin and the inevitable leadership battle. I can tell the Leader of the House that we on the Labour Benches have been there before, and it does not end well. The public do not easily forgive politicians who put party before country and do not focus relentlessly on fixing the problems they face.
Penny Mordaunt
I join the hon. Lady in formally conveying my sympathies to Mr Speaker on the loss of his father; I have spoken to him privately, and written to him as well. I also congratulate 3 Dads Walking on being awarded the petition of the year by the Petitions Committee for their important work on suicide prevention, and wish all colleagues—18 of them in total—and everyone else running the marathon good luck.
On Monday evening, the very special Jewish festival of Passover begins. Like their ancestors before them, Jewish families around the world will gather around their Seder tables to retell the story of the Jewish people’s exodus from Egypt. However, this year many of them will be leaving an empty seat open at those tables for those still held captive by Hamas in Gaza. I hope this will be the last Jewish holiday where they are unable to celebrate with their families, and wish chag sameach to all those celebrating. I also thank all hon. Members for their resolve and support with regard to Israel’s security—that is an important message that we send from this House.
The hon. Lady mentions the issue of the Foreign Secretary, and the Government’s work in that regard, being accountable to this House. Since the Foreign Secretary was appointed, we have had eight Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office statements, three prime ministerial statements on foreign affairs, a general debate in Government time on the situation in the Red sea and 17 Westminster Hall debates responded to by FCDO ministers, as well as oral questions in both Houses. We are sticking with the usual precedents of both Houses.
The hon. Lady asks me to comment on defence, and I am very happy to compare this Government’s record with the last Labour Government’s record. We have had the largest uplift to the defence budget since the end of the cold war. When we came into office, we inherited a defence budget and equipment programme with a £71 billion black hole, on Royal United Services Institute figures. I remember from my own constituency that Portsmouth, Faslane and Plymouth were having to state the case to continue to be naval bases in this country. The previous Labour Government knew their record with members of the armed forces was poor, because in 2005 they disenfranchised all of them by changing the rules on voter registration.
The hon. Lady points to the vote on smoking. I think free votes in this place on such matters are good. However, whatever our difference of opinion, in future years I am hopeful there will be fewer fag packets around on which Labour economic teams can do their sums, and I think that is a jolly good thing.
Labour Members seem to be continuing to push their line on national insurance contributions. Good look to them in that respect, but let me just point out some of the reasons why it will not get traction. National insurance contributions receipts do not determine the NHS budget or pensions, it is only the Labour party that has cut the NHS budget and it is actually Labour’s policy—at least, it was when I came into the Chamber—to support our tax cuts. I hope that is helpful information for the hon. Lady.
The hon. Lady mentioned some very serious allegations and other incidents that came to light during the recess. These are very serious matters and some of them are under police investigation, so she would not expect me to comment on them, but we take these matters very seriously. We have taken action again this week to improve online safety and other matters.
The deepfake phenomenon is more widespread than we might think, and the public may well be fooled into thinking that something is the case when it is not, or that a person they know is manifestly different, and we need to expose such scams. The hon. Lady talks about defence, and someone might be tempted to believe a person is committed to this nation’s nuclear deterrent, but note that, in reality, the same person was content to serve in the Cabinet of the last Labour leader and that six of his Front Benchers voted to end our nuclear deterrent. They might think that the Labour party is the party of the NHS, but as we know, it is the only party that has cut the NHS budget. They might be tempted by the sound of “securonomics”, only to discover that that is built on unfunded pledges and unspecified tax increases.
Someone might be tempted by the look of the shadow Chancellor’s commitment to end unpaid internships, only to find that she has used them herself, or of Labour’s campaign against fire and rehire, only to discover that that is exactly what Labour HQ did under the current Labour leader. They might be sucked in by talk about its wanting to protect pensioners and then learn that it will not commit to our triple lock, and that hundreds of thousands more pensioners were living in absolute poverty under the last Labour Government. Businesses might be flattered by email and online ads from Labour, unaware of the 70 new regulatory burdens that would be piled on to them under a Labour Government.
My advice is: “Don’t be tempted!” People should not be fooled by a shadow Foreign Secretary who nominated the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to be Prime Minister; a shadow International Development Secretary who wants to turn our armed forces into a hippy hit squad; a party that, until last year, had a shadow Minister for disarmament; a shadow Energy Secretary whose poor judgment on national security and our interests led to disaster and to Op Shader; a shadow Deputy Prime Minister who holds others to standards she does not think should apply to herself; or a party that talks tough on borders, but as of yesterday, has voted 132 times again strengthening them.
The Leader of the Opposition has spent four years in office posting pictures to his profile of Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher. Do not be fooled: behind that profile sits a man with no plan for this country, except the vested interests of militant unions, and support for the arguments of those who would do this nation harm. It is deepfake Labour led by catfish Keir. Do not fall for it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before we proceed may I, on behalf of Mr Speaker, thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, and all other Members who have expressed their sympathy to him on the loss of his father? Lord Hoyle, Doug Hoyle, was a dedicated parliamentarian, an inspirational, kind and amusing gentleman, and a very proud father. He will be very greatly missed, and I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our sympathy to Mr Speaker and his family. Our thoughts will be with them as they make arrangements for Lord Hoyle’s funeral.
I call the Father of the House.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
We will remember Doug Hoyle’s smile, we will remember him with a smile, and I remember that he got elected eight months before I did.
Questions on the Cass report in this House were followed yesterday by those in the other place, and the Lords Minister said that he would respond to a number of points in writing. If information is given by the Minister that was not given to this House, could it be put in a written statement or put in the Library? Many of the points, especially those made by Baroness Hayter, were important. We need an inquiry into how things got into the state that had to be exposed by the four-year review by Dr Hilary Cass, for which we all thank her.
One thing that has not yet happened, but may happen in the next week or two, is the publication of the report from the Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill through its hybrid procedure. It is coming later than we anticipated, and may contain some interesting recommendations or decisions. Will the Government say, as soon as possible, whether they intend to go on trying to ram this proposal through? They have already spent more than £30 million achieving nothing in the last eight and a half years, so will they have a roundtable and consider spending £20 million getting a memorial up in the next two years, during the lifetime of some of the holocaust survivors, and moving the learning centre to the Imperial War Museum?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I will certainly ensure that his request about the Cass review is undertaken. He knows that a process is being gone through at the moment for the memorial, and I will again ensure that the relevant Secretary of State has heard what he said today. There are also questions to that Secretary of State on Monday, and he may wish to make use of that opportunity.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
May I associate myself with the remarks about Passover and about Mr Speaker’s late father, and send my sincerest condolences to him and his family?
Since we last met for business questions, the Leader of the House has been keeping busy, and I thought that one of her social media posts on X during the recess was particularly eye-catching. Indeed, it was unique because it asked her constituents to contact her directly, so outraged was she by a burning injustice. It started:
“Damn right. I know many people will have strong feelings on this…email me…and I will make sure your concerns”
are heard. Those are such strong feelings that you may wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, what caused that righteous anger, which was not just from the Leader of the House but from Members across the Chamber.
Was it children getting sick swimming through human faeces in the rivers of England, or perhaps the endless strikes in the NHS in England? Was it arms sales to Israel, or an economic crisis that was triggered by a former Prime Minister, now saviour of the west? Was it the cruel, immoral, illegal and ruinously expensive Rwanda scheme? Perhaps the angry post was just a response to the Leader of the House’s constituents in Portsmouth, who are now furious—rightly enough—about the likely demolition of the brand new border control post in Portsmouth, which is among a herd of such white elephants around the UK, and a direct result of the right hon. Lady’s ongoing Brexit confusion that will cost a fortune. No—that was not what prompted the outburst. The Leader of the House and many of her colleagues were furious about England’s new football top—“damn right” they were.
So, no, the farce of the doomed border post on the right hon. Lady’s doorstep has not figured in the busy social media output we see from her. Her Government’s disastrous Brexit import charges are none the less coming in on 30 April, causing even more costly confusion and raising very real concerns about food shortages, as well as her own local difficulties. May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on these new Brexit charges and the ongoing catastrophe of Brexit, which Scots rejected, yet are forced to suffer the ill effects of? Her constituents will be interested to hear an answer—ideally before she wastes more time launching into another anti-Scotland video script.
Penny Mordaunt
First, I should thank the hon. Lady for her concern about Portsmouth port, which is doing very well. We have a brand-new passenger terminal and an enormous number of new ship visits, which are projected to increase our local economy by £300 million over the next few years. That is in addition to massively increasing and diversifying the freight coming into that port. I hope she will welcome the news that the United Kingdom is exporting more and has just become the fourth-largest exporter in the world. We are doing very well.
I am always keen to facilitate my constituents who wish to make complaints to all sorts of organisations in their ability to do that. I just say to the hon. Lady that our nation’s flag is important to the people of Portsmouth. I suggest that she might like to think twice before she mocks that view. These things and these traditions are important. They are not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.
The hon. Lady has been busy, too, during the recess, penning articles about how much my colleagues and I hate Scotland and the Scottish people. She has done it again in her opening remarks and her questions to me. At some point, she will have to say why she thinks that is the case. I know that the Scottish rugby team has being doing well against England, but that is not grounds to justify her accusations against me. The SNP seems hellbent on exposing hate where there is none. I understand that of the 9,000 hate crimes reported under the SNP’s new law, with 3,419 made on 1 April alone, only nine will qualify under this new law, and seven of those nine have now been dismissed. Police Scotland deserves our thanks and our sympathy. I am sure that those police officers joined the force to do something much more helpful for their communities. It is only the Conservatives who have stood against this lunacy, and we will continue to do that. Other parties had the opportunity to repeal this law and chose not to. We on the Government Benches know that laws and movements based on hate and division always try to curtail freedom, and we know that in the end such movements always fail.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I associate myself with your remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the late father of Mr Speaker.
The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), is with his family right now, because his daughter-in-law is still extremely ill. I am sure the whole House will send our sympathy and best wishes for a speedy recovery. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the allocation of time for the hospice funding debate. I hope that will take place on Monday. It is heavily subscribed, I believe, and a lot of Members will want to take part. We have now filled our Chamber time. On 2 May, there will be a debate on security in the western Balkans and another on pension schemes. On 9 May, if we are given the time, there will be debates on miners and mining communities and on the BBC mid-term charter review, both of which are popular matters for discussion. We have also allocated all the time available to us in Westminster Hall. If the Leader of the House has more time that she needs to allocate to the Backbench Business Committee, we can readily fill up that time if she wishes.
The Mayor of London made a solemn promise before the last mayoral election that he would not expand the ultra low emission zone to outer London. No sooner had he been re-elected than he started a consultation on expanding ULEZ to outer London. The fact that 66% of respondents objected seemed to have no bearing on his decision; he immediately introduced ULEZ to the whole of outer London, and people are suffering as a result. At this election, he is promising not to introduce pay per mile if he is re-elected. Can we trust him? Not a bit of it. The reality is that his adviser—
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
This is a speech. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. If the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) was out of order and had to sit down, I would tell him so. I do not need the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to tell me how to conduct the affairs of the Chamber.
Bob Blackman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the Mayor’s key advisers has let slip that the Mayor is planning to do precisely that if he is re-elected. Can we have a debate in Government time on promises made at elections and promises broken?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I thank my hon. Friend for stepping up in place of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. I am sure that all Members will join him in sending our thoughts and love to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and his whole family at this difficult time. I also thank him for the advert for future Backbench Business Committee debates.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the abysmal record and broken promises of Labour’s London Mayor, whose war on motorists will, I am afraid, continue. He is targeting people through the ULEZ and low-traffic neighbourhoods, which disproportionately hit those on low incomes. Meanwhile, Transport for London is not in a financially stable position, and every year, 15,000 fewer homes are being delivered than the Mayor promised in his London plan. Labour has a record of failing not only those in Wales, Birmingham, Nottingham and countless other places, but Londoners, who will be safer with Susan Hall. I urge all hon. Members to support her.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that he would hold a general election in June or July if the results of May’s election were not that bad for his party. May I ask the Leader of the House to persuade the Prime Minister to consider the good of the country when considering and deciding on the timing of the general election?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for that innovative question. Dates of elections are way above my pay grade, but I will again urge everyone to vote Conservative when that opportunity arises.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Last month, Niyak Ghorbani was wrongly arrested for holding up a placard saying that Hamas are terrorists. He was later de-arrested. Yesterday, just yards from this place, the same man was once again arrested for holding the same sign. He was then de-arrested again. Hamas are terrorists, and we should all say so and defend freedom of speech. Will my right hon. Friend organise a debate in Government time on how we can end two-tier policing and restore public confidence in the Metropolitan police?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. This is an important matter that other hon. Members have raised in the Chamber, particularly when the first incident happened. The policy is clear, and I am pleased that, in both situations, the arrest was reversed, but it goes to show the importance of our having in place not just the right policies, but the operational policing plan, as well as training being undertaken to ensure that officers, who often face difficult and confusing situations, know exactly what they should be doing and when. I shall ensure that both the Home Secretary and the head of the Metropolitan police have heard his remarks.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
It is over a year since Sir Brian Langstaff made his final recommendations on compensation. The Government have accepted the moral case for compensation to be paid. More than 100 people have died in the last 12 months, and still no money has been allocated for compensation. It was a step forward yesterday that amendments were tabled to the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the other place, but the amendment that this House agreed, which included a three-month timeframe for a compensation body to be set up, has been removed by Government amendments in the other place. Could we have a statement from the Minister on why it is taking so long to set up this compensation body, and to get compensation paid? If the Government wanted to, they could expedite matters, as they have done with the Post Office scandal, and could bring a stand-alone Bill to this House. I am sure that the House would get that Bill through to get compensation to these people before they die.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank again the right hon. Lady for her diligent work on this incredibly important issue. She met the Minister concerned—the Paymaster General—yesterday, and he will have given her an update on his work. We recognise that many victims have waited too long for compensation. This Government established the inquiry, and the Minister established the compensation review that was done. The Government amendment that the right hon. Lady referred to includes a provision for interim payments to be made to the estates of people who were infected by contaminated blood products, have passed away, and were registered with the infected blood scheme or its predecessor schemes, where an interim payment has not already been made. I have regular meetings with the Minister who is overseeing this matter. She will know that he is working at pace. I am glad that we have gripped this issue, but we need to get those interim payments and full compensation to people swiftly, and I am confident that that will happen.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
One of the biggest issues that my constituents raise on the doorstep is the condition of our roads. A lot of work is being done to fix the roads in Gedling and Nottinghamshire, but cash is a big issue. I warmly welcome the fact that, as part of the new East Midlands Combined Authority, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire will have one of the largest devolved transport budgets. Given this change, could we have a debate in Government time on infrastructure and investment in the east midlands? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate would be a good opportunity to highlight the fact that, having done so much work to secure a devolution deal for the east midlands, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) is the person best placed to lead the east midlands into this new future?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is right that on 2 May, those in the east midlands will have the opportunity to ensure that that happens. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley)—that is not how his name will appear on the ballot paper—has helped to secure the biggest single devolved transport budget in the country. He has plans to invest that in road resurfacing and better bus and train routes, and he has a plan for how that will attract jobs and investment. In contrast, the Labour party has wasted £38 million of taxpayers’ money on its failed Robin Hood Energy scheme, and like other Labour local authorities, Nottingham City Council has declared itself bankrupt, which raises council tax and makes the hard-working people of Nottinghamshire pay for Labour’s failures. If my hon. Friend secured a debate on this topic, it would be well attended.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I add my sincere condolences to Mr Speaker and his family on the loss of his father.
A report from the Jo Cox Foundation called the abuse of MPs a “threat to democracy”. That applies to abuse of not just MPs, but elected members at all levels, particularly local councillors. According to the Local Government Association, 70% of councillors have had similar experiences to MPs. I had a meeting with the Bath and North East Somerset group leaders last week, at which I heard harrowing stories. We MPs now get extra security through Operation Bridger, but local councillors do not get the same protections. Is it not time that the Government put their mind to protecting elected members at all levels? May we have a statement on that, please?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises a very important matter. She will know that the defending democracy taskforce, headed by the Minister for Security, is looking at these issues, and is, in some cases, providing support to councillors or councils across the country. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology also met Mr Speaker and me earlier this week about online abuse that hon. Members face. There needs to be more focus on what platforms are doing, their stated responsibilities, and whether they are living up to them. I will ensure that that Secretary of State and the Minister for Security have heard what the hon. Lady has said today.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I applaud the Government’s efforts to try to sort out the Gibraltar-Spain border. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how encouraged I was by the agreement announced last Friday. However, the EU Commissioner has been contrary on the issues of airport goods and mobility, and we have been given only some detail on the direction of travel in those areas. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo, has gone on record to say that Gibraltar will never be Spanish, a sentiment in which I am sure the whole House will share. In the light of the comments by the EU Commissioner, will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate in the House, in which it can be made clear by all parties that the House will never compromise on British sovereignty on the Rock, or its people’s right to self-determination?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for affording the Government the opportunity to state again at the Dispatch Box that we will never compromise on the British sovereignty of the Rock, or the right of its people to self-determination. Gibraltar is incredibly important to us strategically and culturally. Gibraltar enables us to defend its interests and ours, and as a consequence, we will defend Gibraltar from anyone who has other ideas.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
May we have a debate in Government time on the role of regional Mayors? Lord Houchen, the Conservative Tees Valley Mayor, seems to believe that his role is to benefit his mates, while distancing himself as far as possible from the Conservative party in whose name he is standing, whereas Chris McEwan, our Labour party candidate, and Kim McGuinness, our fantastic candidate for North East Mayor, believe that their role would be to bring opportunity to every corner of the region, and to be a voice for everyone in the region. Who is right?
Penny Mordaunt
The fact that Ben Houchen irritates the Labour party so much is a testament to his good work. He saved Teesside Airport from closure, and it is now delivering new flights for local people. He secured the UK’s first and largest freeport, which is already securing billions of pounds of private investment, with the Teesworks site having secured investment from Thai banks. The demolition and decontamination of land has been delivered ahead of budget and time, ready for reinvestment, and he has done many other things, but the statistic that stands out most is that he has increased the employment rate in the area by 3% above the national average. He is doing a great job. He is a good man, and I hope that he will have the opportunity to continue to do that good job in the wake of the appalling smears by the Labour party.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for allocating a slot on Monday for the hospice debate. Does she agree that the Prime Minister’s decision to establish the Darlington economic campus, following relentless campaigning by me, my fantastic Tees Valley colleagues and our marvellous Mayor Ben Houchen, was a game changer for Darlington? Does she further agree that saving our airport, launching Teesworks and restoring Tees pride are further examples of why Ben Houchen should continue to serve Teesside, Darlington and Hartlepool? Can she find time for a debate on the modernising revolution that Ben has unleashed, which is benefiting every part of our great region?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for asking another question with regard to our Ben Houchen, because his achievements simply could not possibly be crammed into one answer. He is also enabling Net Zero Teesside, the world’s first industrial scale carbon capture, usage and storage facility. He is delivering over £200 million of investment in Darlington, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool’s rail stations to improve rail capacity, and he is using reallocated High Speed 2 money to transform local transport, including the long-overdue Darlington northern link road. Again, I urge anyone who has the opportunity to vote on 2 May to enable him to continue that good work to do so.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
One of my constituents recently got in touch after fleeing domestic abuse in his relationship. Owing to societal stigma, male survivors are often overlooked, leaving them without adequate safeguarding services or police support. Given that one third of domestic abuse victims are male, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate, in Government time, about improving support for all victims of domestic abuse?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. Many of the measures that we have introduced to deal with domestic abuse or with people trying to control others in one way or another, including financially, apply to everyone who is in the unfortunate position of being a victim. Advertising these services to everyone who might be affected is also important, so I shall ensure that the relevant Home Office Minister has heard what she has said.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s work to expand the role of community pharmacies as part of our healthcare system. I particularly welcome the Pharmacy First scheme, which was successfully piloted in Cornwall. However, while we are placing more demand on pharmacies, the number of community pharmacies in Cornwall is falling, with both Boots and Asda announcing closures. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) has written to Asda opposing the closure of its pharmacy in Bodmin. Pharmacy owners tell me that the current funding arrangements are not adequate to meet the growing demand. May we have a statement from the Department of Health and Social Care on the Government’s plans to maintain, and hopefully increase, the number of community pharmacies, particularly in rural areas, and ensure that they receive the funding that they need?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the excellent service Pharmacy First, which is a much appreciated and convenient scheme that enables people to access certain prescription drugs without having to go to their general practitioner. Given that pharmacies are private businesses that receive NHS funding for pharmaceutical services, closure decisions are obviously made by those commercial organisations, but my hon. Friend’s local care board will have a responsibility to ensure good coverage of those services. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has heard his concerns, and that all his constituents are able to make use of all available services, including Pharmacy First.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
I join the Leader of the House in wishing the Jewish community, whom I am proud to represent, chag Pesach sameach.
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Bernard, Jonno and the entire team at Radcliffe football club on reaching their highest ever position as champions of the northern premier league? They will be lifting the trophy this Saturday. Will she agree to a debate in Government time about the importance of grassroots football and its benefit to local communities? But more importantly, up the Boro!
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that the whole House will want to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Bernard, Jonno and the whole team on their incredible achievements. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have recently held debates on the importance of community sport to not only helping communities but providing a pipeline of new talent. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has heard what he has said.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
For years, the town of Amlwch has been forgotten, but not on my watch. Anglesey freeport and the UK Government’s recent purchase of the Wylfa nuclear site mean jobs and investment coming to the north of the island—but I am not stopping there. Along with a local resident, Mandy Jones, I have launched a campaign to get the supermarket Aldi to come to Amlwch to give my constituents the opportunity to shop locally. Will the Leader of the House support my Aldi to Amlwch campaign, and if it is successful, will she join Mandy and me in cutting the ribbon?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all her achievements: the freeport; the partnership between the county council and Stena Line, which will be a huge boost to the local economy; and of course her championing of energy projects, the prosperity park and the inaugural trade centre of excellence in Wales. She has helped to secure all those things. I will be very happy to do all I can to help her latest campaign, which sounds like a good one. Although I cannot commit to a date until she gives me one, I hope that if I am able to attend, I will be able to help cut the ribbon—perhaps with a sword.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I was recently able to visit California, in the United States, with the Scottish Affairs Committee to look at the opportunities there and the ecosystem that has been created. Everyone we spoke to in the space sector spoke very highly of our universities and the sector in this country. However, we regularly hear of a skills shortage in that industry, which is a massive opportunity not just for Scotland, but for the whole of the UK. It is some time since we had a debate in this place on the opportunities in the space sector. Would the Leader of the House consider setting aside time for such a debate?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for all she is doing to support this growing and important sector in every part of the United Kingdom. The Government are very aware of the need to ensure that we have skills and a growing workforce that can contribute to it. We are delivering on our commitment to build a whole-UK space ecosystem by working with business, academic institutions and the devolved Administrations, and we have backed that with funding. She will know how to apply for a debate, but I shall make sure that the Secretary of State has heard her keenness to give this very important matter more of an airing.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Can we have a debate on the importance of improving NHS services and expanding capacity in Barnet so that I can update the House on the excellent progress made towards the enlargement of Barnet Hospital A&E, with planning permission secured, work under way, more staff arriving, and patients expected to have a significant improvement in facilities by January?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all the work she has done on this matter, particularly securing the £6.5 million redevelopment of the urgent and emergency care unit in her local hospital. I think that the timeline she outlined is correct, and the work will certainly have a massive impact on improving patient waiting times and reducing ambulance handover times by creating additional capacity. She will know that she can air questions to the Secretary of State on this matter on 23 April, which is next week.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am absolutely delighted to tell the House that 81 students from the Bobby Moore Academy in West Ham will be welcomed to the Royal Opera House today to watch a performance of “Swan Lake”. I hope that they absolutely love it and that it inspires a lifetime of getting joy from the arts. I am sure the Leader of the House will agree with me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition that every child should have the opportunity to fall in love with the arts. Can we have a debate in Government time where we can explore ways that we can give working-class communities like mine greater access to the arts?
Penny Mordaunt
I hope that all students from the Bobby Moore Academy have a wonderful time watching “Swan Lake” today. The hon. Lady knows that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that every child can experience high-quality performances. The funding that we have distributed has been across the whole of the UK, which is very important. She has just missed the opportunity to raise this issue with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, so I shall make sure that she has heard what the hon. Lady has said today.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Can we debate whether changes to the Standing Orders are necessary? They are the nearest thing that we have to a written constitution. Yesterday, there were multiple references to guests in the Gallery. A few weeks ago, when an hon. Member made such as reference, the fellow actually got up and took a bow. It may be that the current Standing Orders are no longer fit for purpose and that allowing such references should be in the gift of the Chair, but we ought to make the change, rather than just go on ignoring the Standing Orders.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising a question that is actually in my brief, which is quite a new experience for me. Other Members have raised similar concerns, and I will make sure that Mr Speaker hears that. I think some flexibility is appreciated, as we quite often have particular people that we in the House want to acknowledge and send support to in that manner, but I will make sure that Mr Speaker has heard that point. It will be a matter for him, as well as for the whole of the House. In the meantime, I am sure that we can rely on my right hon. Friend to loudly tut whenever that happens.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
On Tuesday, the Prime Minister was able to rely on Labour votes to pass his flagship smoking Bill. Does the Leader of the House agree that, sadly for Government Members, that shows a Prime Minister in office but not actually in power?
Penny Mordaunt
We have free votes on some matters in this place, and after the initial shock, confusion and pressure from having to decide which Lobby to go into, that is appreciated by hon. Members. On that vote, the Prime Minister put forward world-leading legislation, which he had passed by this House. I think that that shows that he is very much in control.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
My local newspaper, the Grimsby Telegraph, carried a recent report praising the work of community police officer Dave Cave, highlighting the importance of community policing. I am pleased to say that, in Humberside police, both chief officers and the excellent police commissioner, Jon Evison, also support community policing. Could we have a debate in Government time to explore policing methods and the importance of community policing?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that everyone in the House would want to send their congratulations to PC Dave Cave for his near 20 years of service. I am sure that all colleagues would join me in doing that and would congratulate him on that well-deserved award. He exemplifies what it means to be a police officer and a fantastic community champion. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows how to apply for a debate, but such an opportunity would also afford us the ability to shine a spotlight on the very good work done by our police forces. We do not note and praise them enough for it.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Constituents of mine in Pontypridd and Glyncoch have got in touch regarding concerns about the operation of Craig-yr-Hesg quarry. Will the Leader of the House support me in securing a debate to ensure that real-time silica dust monitoring is invested in up and down the country, so that my constituents and many others living near quarry sites do not have to live in fear?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency. The next questions to the relevant Secretary of State are not until 9 May, so I will write and make sure that he has heard what she has said.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
As a keen motorcyclist, I welcome the Government setting out an ambitious vision for the moped, motorcycle and entire powered light vehicle sector in their 2021 transport decarbonisation plan. A road map to realising that vision is in their joint action plan with the Motorcycle Industry Association. The key to reducing emissions and alleviating congestion is improving access to the sector through a full-scale licence review. Can we please have a debate in Government time on the Motorcycle Industry Association’s A Licence to Net Zero campaign?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that campaign. He will know that the Department has been meeting with that body—I think that they met at a roundtable on 17 January—and with other parts of industry on the issues that he touches on. Although there are no current plans to reform category L vehicle licences, officials met stakeholders at the end of last year, and I think that they are due to have a follow-up ministerial roundtable with the relevant Minister shortly after the May recess, which that particular trade body will be attending. However, I thank my right hon. Friend for continuing to campaign on its behalf.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I echo the condolences paid to Mr Speaker and note that mass was offered in the crypt chapel last night for the repose of Doug Hoyle’s soul.
We have heard the Leader of the House reinforce the Government’s rejection of the Procedure Committee’s recommendation for the Foreign Secretary to be scrutinised at the Bar of the House. She has also written to encourage the Procedure Committee to investigate the operation of the Standing Orders governing Opposition days. What is the point of the Procedure Committee investigating matters on her recommendation if the Government simply dismiss its recommendations?
Penny Mordaunt
It is important that I raise these matters with the Procedure Committee, but it is up to the Committee what it decides. On the latter point, the Committee had a meeting yesterday to discuss my correspondence. I think it does a very good job, and the Government do not dismiss its findings. More often than not, we agree with its findings. Where we have disagreements—and we disagreed with only part of that particular report—we publish our response. Of course, the other place also has a stake in this matter.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Last month I was targeted by a honeytrap plot, which I immediately reported to the police and the authorities. I put on the record my sincere thanks to Leicestershire police, who have been exemplary in taking it on. I also thank the Whips for their support. However, I have significant concerns about how this was handled by parliamentary security. Will the Leader of the House ask Mr Speaker to conduct a full review of the system for reporting and investigating incidents reported by MPs, so that lessons can be learned and no MP has to go through the same experiences?
Penny Mordaunt
I was very sorry to learn of what happened to my hon. Friend. I thank him for putting on the record his thanks to his local police force, which has been fantastic in its work. I will of course ensure that not just Mr Speaker but the whole House of Commons Commission has heard his concerns. I know that the head of security here takes these matters very seriously, and I am sure this will be followed up.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House on the sad passing of Lord Hoyle, who was a much-loved icon of Warrington, and in wishing my fellow Jews chag Pesach sameach.
My constituent Adam Rowland recently met the Prime Minister, who promised live on television, no less, that he would be in touch with him regarding his negative reaction to the covid vaccine and his difficulty accessing the recommended treatment on the NHS. Since then, despite repeated requests, Adam has had no response from anyone in Government and feels like he is being treated as some sort of pariah and anti-vax conspiracy theorist. He is not. He is just a man who did the right thing in taking up the vaccine and was one of the unfortunate minority who became ill, and he needs some support. Will the Leader of the House please help Adam get the response he was promised?
Penny Mordaunt
Of course I will do that. If the hon. Lady gives me the details, I will follow it up straight after this session. Those who are injured by vaccines need access to support, healthcare and answers, and we should ensure that they get them.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Government are absolutely right to fund the doubling of dental training places over the next five years, because they understand how important access to NHS dentistry is for our constituents. For a person growing up in Broadland, the nearest dentistry training place is currently in Birmingham or London, because the east of England is the only region that does not have a dental training school. May we have a debate on the importance of having a new dental training school in East Anglia, and preferably at the University of East Anglia?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that increasing the number and making sure that every region has medical schools and dental schools is vital, and not just for growing the workforce but for ensuring that the workforce is located where it is required. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he has said today. My hon. Friend will know that we have had a huge catch-up job to do since the pandemic. We are doing that with 23% more treatments delivered in the last year alone, with an additional 1.7 million adults and 800,000 children receiving NHS dental care, but more needs to be done to ensure that everyone can remain dentally fit.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Let me join other Members in sending my sympathy to Mr Speaker and his family on the loss of his father, Lord Hoyle.
I have written to the Health Secretary four times on behalf of a constituent to ask why 65 to 69-year-olds have been excluded from the recent so-called “expansion” of the roll-out of the NHS shingles vaccine. Those who are turning 65 are eligible for it, but those already 65 to 69 are missing out and must wait until they are 70 to become eligible, despite the extra vulnerabilities of their age group. Not a single response out of the four from the Minister gave me a straight answer as to why 65 to 69-year-olds are being excluded from this vaccine roll-out. Will the Leader of the House advise me on any other way I can get a clear response from the Minister that lays out clinical or practical reasoning to back up her Department’s decision to exclude 65 to 69-year-olds from the shingles vaccine?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises an important question. If the Department had responded to her— I will certainly ask why it has not—the reply would have talked about the step change in the roll-out and how the Department is going to manage the expansion of access to that vaccine. That is understandable, but I know that it is not acceptable to many Members in this House, because from the logic of that it follows that there will be a vaccine available to people who would benefit from it, and the evidence shows that it is clinically effective and cost-effective for those individuals, but they will not be able to access it now. Members are right to press the policy on that front. Obviously, she can raise this issue at questions, but I know it is a concern for a large number of Members and so will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard this and will ask the committees that look at this policy to sense-check what it is doing.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Progress has been made at Alstom in Derby, with a potential order of 10 trains approved for funding. We hope that will secure the site’s future, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary for his hard work on this matter in recent months. However, questions remain about the future of rail in the UK, including, of course, about the future of Great British Rail’s new headquarters in Derby. May we have a debate in Government time on the issue?
Penny Mordaunt
First, let me thank my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing to ensure that this new HQ is established quickly. I know that a lot of close working has been undertaken with Derby-based partners, including the city council, to create a shared plan for that HQ, and that she has been diligent and has been tabling written parliamentary questions on this matter. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State has heard her continuing campaigning on it today. She will know that the next Transport questions will take place on 16 May, which will be after that timetable has been confirmed.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I have been dealing with a long-running case involving constituents who lost their investment in the Paradise Golf and Beach Resort in Morocco. Some 800 investors, the majority of them British, lost investments in the resort after construction abruptly halted in 2016. I have contacted the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office numerous times, as well as writing to the relevant ambassadors. The FCDO confirmed the Moroccan ambassador’s willingness to meet investors, but no meeting has been arranged to date. May we have a debate in Government time on how the FCDO can best support those, such as my constituents, who have been left high and dry in this situation?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about that situation and will of course make sure that the FCDO knows that the hon. Lady has asked about it again today. The next questions to the ministerial team will be on 30 April, so I shall make sure that they have heard that she might raise the issue then. If my office can facilitate getting either consular assistance or more long- term assistance for those investors, please do call on us.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
As someone who grew up in Birmingham, it pains me to see the total financial mismanagement of Birmingham City Council by the Labour party. Its record stands in stark contrast to that of Mayor Andy Street. If growth, regeneration and house building are left to the Labour party alone in the west midlands, it will mean no progress at best, but regression at worst. Does my right hon. Friend agree that voters should support Andy Street in May, to ensure that they keep a Mayor who can at least actually get things done?
Penny Mordaunt
Whatever people’s political persuasions, they recognise that about Andy Street. He is above politics. When it has come down to fighting for the people he represents, he has chosen to side with them, in some cases against the policies of his own party. He delivers for people. He has built more homes for young people and families than in any other region. He has secured new and improved rail services across the region. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on redeveloping wasteland instead of building on Birmingham’s green belt. Some £10 billion in Government investment has been secured for the region, and 10 times the amount of transport funding than anyone else has ever managed to get in. He has secured some 100,000 new jobs from his covid recovery plan, 4,000 apprenticeships and four metro extensions. And that is all without raising a single penny of additional tax. If people want that record to continue, they need to let Andy Street continue as their Mayor.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will have followed the efforts of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to oppose plans for an incinerator in his constituency. She will also be aware that Ministers have now issued a direction to the Environment Agency
“to temporarily pause the determination of certain environmental permits for new waste incineration facilities”,
saying that will give Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials the chance to
“lead a piece of work considering the role of waste incineration in the management of residual wastes”.
She will also be aware that the majority of permits for incinerators are considered and granted by local authorities rather than by the Environment Agency. Much to the annoyance of residents across Calderdale, this pause does not apply to permits applied for from local authorities rather than from the Environment Agency. Does she agree that unless all permits are paused and all applications are considered as part of this piece of work, it looks as if it is one rule for Government Ministers and another rule for everybody else?
Penny Mordaunt
From what I know of the situation, I do not think what the hon. Lady says follows. There will be different considerations in different cases. I suggest that she raises this at the next departmental questions if she is concerned about other projects. I will ensure that the Department has heard what she has said today. If she is going to make such accusations, she needs a bit more evidence than that which she has furnished us with today.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I know that the Leader of the House will be looking forward to next Tuesday, 23 April, which is St George’s day, as we celebrate with the Royal Society of St George, hosted by Mr Speaker in Speaker’s House. Will she ensure that we have a debate in Government time about English affairs? We often hear about Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh affairs, but how about a debate on England? Also, can we please have a public holiday for St George’s day, perhaps combined with May day, so that we have one great celebration for our country?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for affording us all the opportunity to come to the event that he has put together next week and have a jolly good knees-up to celebrate St George’s day. I hope that he has extended the invitation to many Members, although the SNP spokesperson may not wish to attend, given the comments she made earlier about the English flag, or she might need a little encouragement to do so. He is right that we should be celebrating our national, regional and cultural heritage across the counties of England, and I hope that the event next week will give us the opportunity to do so.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
In January, the Bank of Scotland branch in Brodick closed. In March, the post office in Brodick closed. In May, the post office in West Kilbride will close. And in October, the Royal Bank of Scotland branch in Largs will close. As banks abandon our towns, especially across North Ayrshire and Arran, and as our postmasters struggle to stay afloat, will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out the importance of access to cash and financial inclusion? Does she share my view that we need minimum service standards for banks and post offices, including physical outlets in our towns?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important matter. There is that expectation. She will know that, in particular, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has a programme of work and shares good practice about how these services can be maintained—and physically maintained as well—even if particular branches are closing. I will make sure that that Department knows that the hon. Lady may benefit from some advice in that respect, but I know that colleagues from across the House have had similar situations, but have managed to retain access to banking, which is vital for local businesses in particular, and also those services from the Post Office as well.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I bring good news from Kettering, where Northamptonshire police has been pleased to announce that, after five years of its groundbreaking Operation Crooked, burglaries have now been halved. A key feature of this campaign has been that, since 2019, specialist burglary teams have ensured that every burglary victim gets a visit from the police, while the quality of investigations, forensic analysis and intelligence gathering has been improved. May we have a statement from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to congratulate Northamptonshire police and all its officers on this tremendous work and to encourage other police forces to follow Northamptonshire’s example?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us more good news from Kettering and congratulate him on the work that he is doing there. I will, of course, join him in praising and congratulating Northamptonshire police on this huge achievement, which I know will have taken a great deal of effort and determination on its part. He will know that, since 2010, our communities are safer, with neighbourhood crime such as burglary and robbery down by 48% on roughly the same resource, and a large part of that in recent years has been the additional recruitment of 20,000 more police officers, which means that we are just shy of 150,000 officers in England and Wales, higher than the previous peak before the police uplift. That is a huge achievement and we should praise his local police force for its part in it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Conservatives have cut 21,000 police officers, decimating our local neighbourhood teams. There are now 10,000 fewer police officers and police community support officers in our neighbourhood teams than in 2015. And the percentage of people reporting never seeing a police officer on their street has doubled since 2010. Can we have a debate about the number of police officers and the Conservatives’ claims about what they are doing about it, so that they can explain why they cut 21,000 police officers in the first place? We can also then talk about Labour’s pledge to put a neighbourhood team in every community.
Penny Mordaunt
I think the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. We have record numbers of police officers. On roughly the same resource—when we leave aside online fraud—we have halved crime. The outliers across the country are in Labour-controlled areas. They are in London, under the current Labour London Mayor, where knife crime and serious and violent crime have soared. They are also in areas such as the west midlands where there is a Labour police and crime commissioner. The stats speak for themselves. A person is 40% more likely to be a victim of crime if they are in an area that has a Labour police and crime commissioner. Our police have done a tremendous job since 2010: we have halved crime on roughly the same resource. That is what people get with the Conservatives.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Hajj begins in mid-June, when thousands of British Muslims will travel to Saudi Arabia for their pilgrimage to Mecca. Last week, I met City of London Commander Khan who highlighted to me the growing issue around Hajj fraud. Thousands of Brits are being targeted by rogue tour operators and when they get to Saudi Arabia they discover that they have no hotel and no tour. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time highlighting the growing issue around Hajj fraud and economic fraud in general?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend has provided her own answer. I thank her for raising awareness of this important issue, and sending a clear message to anyone who might be targeted with such appalling fraud. These kinds of crimes are terrible in any circumstance, but trying to exploit people undertaking this particular pilgrimage is really unpleasant. I thank her for raising the matter. She will know that the Government take it very seriously, and had a recent campaign to combat this type of fraud. I will certainly ensure that all relevant Departments are aware of her campaign, and assist her in any way they can.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Following the publication of the Cass review and its damning conclusion that children were given unscientific medical advice, does the Leader of the House stand by her statement that
“trans men are men and trans women are women”?—[Official Report, 1 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 60.]
Does she still believe that this is the starting point and ending point of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and will she make a statement on how we are going to protect our children and young people from dangerous indoctrination by gender ideology?
Penny Mordaunt
When I was Minister for Women and Equalities, I set up the first inquiry looking at why so many children were being referred into trans services. There was a 4,000% increase in the number of girls, for example, who were being referred into trans services. The Government have consistently raised such matters. The Cass review is an important review. The gender recognition consultation that looked at whether we needed to reform the 2004 Act was also an important piece of work for Whitehall. It had a record number of responses—more than 100,000—and although I did not read them all, I read the ones from healthcare professionals. They raised concerns that the rules about referring people into such services were too restrictive and looked only at one particular type of condition as opposed to the raft of conditions that they were dealing with. I hope that work informed Whitehall. It certainly led to other reviews, including the Cass review. I think that was important.
These issues need to be gripped, but while we do so, we need to send a clear message to people who are trans that their rights and their ability to lead a good quality of life are also protected. That is the aim of the current Minister for Equalities. I refer the House to her many statements, including on the provision of same-sex spaces. She has always taken care to mention certainty and support for trans people.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Last summer, I was a lone voice among the Warwickshire MPs in calling for Warwickshire not to be subsumed into the West Midlands Combined Authority under Andy Street. Thank goodness I did. It is forecast by PricewaterhouseCoopers to be the worst-performing economic region in the country. Andy’s trams are not running. We now understand that in eight years he has built only 46 social rent houses—that is six a year—despite 64,000 people being on the waiting list. Last night at a hustings, he said that he did not realise that it was his responsibility, or that there was a need for that housing.
By comparison, Mayor Khan started 11,000 council homes in 2022-23, and the Labour candidate for the west midlands mayoralty, Richard Parker, has promised 2,000 social rent homes a year. Even in Warwick, my little local district council has built more than Andy Street. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for council housing, I ask for a debate in Government time on the importance of delivering social rent housing.
Penny Mordaunt
I think there is a pattern to Labour’s questions here. While we talk about the records in office of Conservative Mayors, the Opposition try to smear them. However, it does afford me the opportunity to recap on Andy Street’s record. He has won £10 billion of investment from central Government, has secured and delivered the 2022 Commonwealth games, has recovered the regional economy after covid, has secured the investment zone, has extended the metro, is making Coventry an all-electric bus city, has reduced and retained low bus fares, and has built more homes for young people and families than any other region. Some 15,690 homes were built in the west midlands last year alone, and it is the only region that is on track for its housing targets. In stark contrast, the Labour London Mayor has missed his targets. Andy has delivered 4,000 apprenticeships and has been a champion for community cohesion in some very difficult times. He is standing on his record; he is standing on the fact that he has stood up and fought for his constituents and those he represents. The London Mayor’s much more deficient record sits in stark contrast.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Springburn Winter Gardens Trust has submitted a bid to the community ownership fund to stop our winter gardens—once the largest glass house in Scotland—collapsing. Could we have a debate in Government time on the need to protect our built heritage?
Watching and listening from the Public Gallery today was my four-year-old constituent Callie Lang—until she got bored for some reason. I am sure that you care, Mr Deputy Speaker, as do the Leader of the House and I, about girls’ voices being heard. In keeping with that, Callie would like a Bill that guarantees a free annual seaside holiday for all children. She said that she will accept an amendment to apply the legislation just to children at Scaraway Nursery School in Milton in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House advise Callie on how she might make that happen?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for raising the important work that her constituent does. I notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) is not in his place and is therefore unable to tut, but no one else was tutting, and we welcome Callie to the House today. I will certainly ensure that the relevant Department has heard the ambitions that the hon. Lady has outlined, and that it furnishes her with all the advice it can.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Can the Leader of the House explain what has happened to some of the Government’s flagship law and order Bills on her watch? The Sentencing Bill is nowhere to be seen; in effect it is now the suspended sentencing Bill. The Criminal Justice Bill is now the criminal justice delayed Bill. The House will be aware of her previous career as a magician’s assistant. Can she explain why we are witnessing these baffling disappearing acts?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman knows that I will announce future business in the usual way. I hope to give all Members early sight and warning of when legislation is coming back to the House, and I will continue to do that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I understand that the hon. Lady wishes to raise a point of order arising directly from matters that have been raised at business questions. For that reason and that reason alone, I am prepared to take it now in order to ensure that the Leader of the House is here.
Lucy Powell
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to give the Leader of the House the opportunity to clarify something she said in response to me earlier when I asked about the allegations relating to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies). She suggested that some allegations had now been referred to the police. Was she referring to these allegations or to allegations regarding other Members? If it was the latter, I think people outside this place have been given the wrong impression.
Mr Deputy Speaker
As the hon. Lady has indicated, although that is a point of order, it is not strictly one for the Chair. Given that the Leader of the House wishes to respond, I am quite prepared to permit that as well.
Penny Mordaunt
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to clarify. The hon. Lady was asking about a raft of allegations, starting with those relating to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). My understanding is that that particular issue is being looked into by three police forces. I am not aware of any other police investigations.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier, I asked a question relating to Gibraltar, and I feel that it would be remiss of me not to bring the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and mention that I visited Gibraltar on behalf of the Gibraltar Government several years ago.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Again, that is not strictly a matter of order for the Chair, but it is now a matter of record, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I also thank the Leader of the House and the Opposition Front Benchers for their attendance.
Commons Scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
We now move on to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Procedure Committee. Dame Karen Bradley will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not speeches. I also emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not to the relevant Minister. Front Benchers therefore may take part in questioning.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I start by adding my own condolences to the many that have been expressed today to Mr Speaker and his family. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for this statement and pass my regards to the Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Procedure Committee’s report on Commons scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords, which was published yesterday. Following the appointment of the noble Lord Cameron as Foreign Secretary in November last year, Mr Speaker wrote to the Procedure Committee, asking us to examine how Secretaries of State who sit in the House of Lords could be scrutinised by this House. The Committee published its report on 23 January this year, and following its publication I made a similar statement to this House to explain our conclusions and recommendations. In that statement, I urged the Government to act quickly on the matter, given the strength of feeling across this House. The Government sent their response only after the House had risen for the Easter recess. It is for that reason that the Committee was unable to publish it until yesterday afternoon, once the Committee had met. Despite that, I hope all right hon. and hon. Members have now had the chance to read the Government’s response in full.
It is with regret that I make this statement to inform the House that the Government have rejected our recommendations. The reasons put forward by the Government for rejecting the recommendation that Lords Secretaries of State should be scrutinised by this House at the Bar of the House are that it is “untested” as a method for routine scrutiny, and that our recommendations would have “significant constitutional implications”. I am sorry to say that I find those arguments unconvincing. Our report was clear that while our recommendations may be novel in the modern era, they are not wholly untested. Moreover, our recommendations were limited to this Parliament to deal with issues that this House faces now, without setting a precedent for the future—we were very clear on that. I suggest that the Government have not made the case that our recommendations could have unforeseen constitutional implications, and have failed to adequately set out what they think such implications could be. The Committee is still of the view that the Government should agree to our recommendation to use the Bar of the House to allow questions to be put directly to the Foreign Secretary by all Members of this House.
In rejecting our recommendations, the Government suggested that there are sufficient mechanisms in place—scrutiny in the House of Lords and in Select Committees of both Houses, as well as responses by other Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers to Members of this House at departmental questions, statements and urgent questions—to discharge the Foreign Secretary’s accountability to this House. Our report dealt with those points in detail. We were clear that we have great respect for the work that the House of Lords does in its scrutiny of the Government. Moreover, the Foreign Affairs and International Development Committees do excellent work holding the FCDO to account, as do other Committees in both Houses. However, their work complements and adds to the scrutiny that is undertaken in this Chamber; it is not, and cannot be, a substitute for that scrutiny. As we noted in our report, Select Committees and this Chamber have unique mandates, functions and purposes—they are not synonymous. The Government said nothing in their response to make us think again about this matter.
All Members of this House must have the ability to scrutinise FCDO policy by questioning the Foreign Secretary in this place. The alternative proceedings through which the Foreign Secretary has been, and will be, subject to scrutiny have the potential to exclude some Members of this House from being able to conduct effective scrutiny on behalf of their constituents. I suggest that this is an unacceptable state of affairs, and I respectfully submit that the Government’s response misses this key point entirely. Scrutiny by elected MPs on behalf of their constituents is a fundamental part of our modern democratic system, and while I welcome the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) to the position of Deputy Foreign Secretary earlier this week, the point still stands that the current arrangements do not allow all Members of this place to put their questions directly to the individual with ultimate responsibility for the work of the FCDO.
Lastly, the Government argue that our proposals risk undermining the constitutional balance between the two Houses. My Committee respectfully disagrees. Our report was clear that our recommendations were to enable scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords at the Bar of the House of Commons, not to require it or to summon such individuals. We recognise and continue to respect the right of the other place to govern its own affairs. However, by rejecting our recommendation on scrutiny at the Bar of the House on this basis, the Government are putting the cart before the horse. They are using concerns about comity to pre-emptively exclude the possibility of even having discussions with the other place about how to facilitate the arrangements we have recommended. The Government’s refusal to engage with our recommendations in a meaningful way means that we will never know whether the other place would be willing to engage with us in facilitating such opportunities for scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords. This is a regrettable situation for us to find ourselves in.
The Government response to our report is most disappointing. It ignores the genuine concerns of many Members of this House that the holder of one of the highest offices in the land, the Foreign Secretary, is unable to be scrutinised by all the Members of this House. It does so at a time of increased international uncertainty, when the lives of many of our constituents are directly affected by crises abroad, for which the Foreign Secretary holds ultimate ministerial responsibility. The Government response misreads the mood of the House on this matter and undermines the principle of accountability of Ministers to this democratically elected House. I urge the Government to think again on our recommendations and to revisit this matter urgently.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Lady. We will now take questions to the Chair of the Select Committee, and I call the shadow Leader of the House.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chair and all members of her Committee for their diligent work, which was carried out in good faith in the expectation that their recommendations would be taken forward. Does she agree with me that there is wide support across this House—cross-party support—for her recommendations, and that the Government have misread the mood of the House? What plans does she have for the House to express its view on her Committee’s report and perhaps to take forward its recommendations, despite the Government’s response to them?
Dame Karen Bradley
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for her question. She is correct that we as a Committee took evidence from all Members of this House. We listened to representations and we conducted an all-Member survey. It was very clear from those responses that there was a desire to ensure there were opportunities for proper scrutiny by Members of this House of the Foreign Secretary. We are not as a Committee proposing to do any further work on this matter. As I said in my statement, I urge the Government to rethink their response and perhaps come forward with some other suggestions.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I thank the Chair for her statement. Was it not predictable that this was going to be the Government’s response? As I said in the Adjournment debate I had on this topic just before Easter, if the Government had wanted to make arrangements for the Foreign Secretary to appear at the Bar of the House or be otherwise scrutinised by the House as a whole, they could have brought forward such provisions without any reference to the Procedure Committee. That also applies to the point made earlier about Opposition days. The Government can at any time bring forward recommendations and changes to Standing Orders. Would it not make more sense if the Government presented us as a Committee with their recommendations, which we could scrutinise, rather than asking us to come up with recommendations that they then reject out of hand?
Dame Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a fellow member of the Committee, for his question. I think he is reflecting the sense of frustration that was felt in the Committee when we met yesterday afternoon. It is in the Government’s gift to change any matters they wish to change. They control the Order Paper and can make such decisions. As a Committee, we stand ready to scrutinise and to be consulted on proposed changes. However, it is often helpful if the Government give us some indication of the changes they may want, so that we can at least spend our time productively in giving advice on those recommendations, rather than see our recommendations rejected out of hand.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for her work as Chair of the Committee. She mentioned the announcement this week that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) has been appointed Deputy Foreign Secretary, and she will also know that the Foreign Secretary has specific responsibilities for oversight of MI6. He or she appears before the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I sit on, and obviously the nature of some of those issues cannot be discussed publicly. Does the right hon. Lady have any information on whether the remit of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has been changed so that he can reply to non-secure questions that Members might have, for example on the operation of MI6?
Dame Karen Bradley
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The appointment of a Deputy Foreign Secretary is what happened in the past—there is precedent for that, for example when Lord Carrington was Foreign Secretary and in previous times. It is something that we had been keen to see, because it means that the House has more opportunities to scrutinise a senior member of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office team. I am afraid I do not have sight of the changes that may have been made to the portfolio of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, and perhaps that is something that the Leader of the House, who is in her place and listening intently, could inform the Committee about at some point.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
In principle, no one should be in government who cannot be scrutinised in the elected Chamber representing the people of this country. That is the principle that all Governments should apply, and I do not think that this appointment should have taken place until that issue was sorted out. Is there a view from the Foreign Secretary himself, Lord Cameron, on whether he should be here answering questions in this Chamber?
Dame Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but that is definitely above my pay grade.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Chair of the Committee has, in the view of the Liberal Democrats, done great work on trying to bring the noble Lord Cameron to the Bar of the House. She is right to say that the last time one of the four great offices of state was occupied by a Member of the other place was 1982. Lord Carrington resigned from the role of Foreign Secretary after Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. He did so partly because Back Benchers in the House of Commons had been warning about that possibility, and there was a feeling that the Foreign Office had not heeded their warnings under Lord Carrington. Given that the UK’s relations with some of it adversaries are as tense as they have been since the early 1980s, does the right hon. Lady think that the noble Lord Cameron might want to avert such an outcome by answering questions at the Bar of the House?
Dame Karen Bradley
The Committee considered all the points carefully, and looked at the evidence and at precedent. That is why we came to the conclusion that the Bar of the House was the right place for scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords. We were keen to ensure that proper scrutiny could be done by this place, because we as elected representatives will often reflect what our constituents are telling us and what we are seeing on the ground in a way that no other body in this place can do. Members of the other place do extremely good work in scrutinising the Government, but without constituents they are perhaps not able to reflect what we hear from people on the ground. Likewise, members of Select Committees do not generally ask constituency-based questions in their work; they tend to ask questions on a theme or on the overall topics of the day. We have that unique role in this place, and that is why we were keen to ensure that there could be some form of scrutiny. We are disappointed that the Government have rejected that.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work she does on the Committee, and for being so mild-mannered in reporting to the House today the feelings of the Procedure Committee. Does she accept that there is strong anger on the Committee, not so much about the response from the Government—we expected that they might reject our recommendations—but about the nature of that rejection, and the failure to answer any of the points or put forward any detailed justifications for rejecting our recommendations? Does she agree that it almost makes us members of the Committee feel that we are held in contempt by the Leader of the House?
Dame Karen Bradley
I feel that my hon. Friend has made his points effectively, and I thank the Clerks of the Committee for helping me perhaps to tone down the response, based on the Committee meetings we have had. There was also real concern that we did not receive the response before the House rose for the Easter recess, during which we were all focused on our constituencies and not necessarily in Westminster. The need to bring Committee members together and for the Committee to be quorate meant that we were unable to report the response until yesterday. That is another matter of great concern to the Committee.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Committee, and the Committee for their excellent work on this piece. I am a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, representing a diverse constituency with many diaspora communities from countries that rarely get much of a hearing in this place, such as Sudan, Bosnia and Kurdistan. Does the right hon. Lady share my concern that whereas the Secretary of State is an experienced statesperson with knowledge of the different areas across the Foreign Office, having more junior Ministers represent the Department here means that they do not have that expertise across the piece? It is right that all Members of this place are able to question him accordingly.
Dame Karen Bradley
I think that all Ministers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are exemplary and carry out their roles with distinction. The hon. Lady is correct to say that the Secretary of State has a unique role in any Department, and they have the overarching view. That is why Select Committees call in the Secretary of State at least three times a year for an overarching evidence session on all the work of a Department. I am a great fan of the noble Lord Cameron and delighted that he is in his role. I think he represent the United Kingdom superbly, and I would love the opportunity to see him at the Bar of the House. It would be incredible to see him, because he would answer questions thoroughly and rigorously, and we as Members of Parliament would take much from those sessions back to our constituents.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The seriousness of what we have just heard from the Chair of the Procedure Committee cannot be understated. The world is more divided and dangerous than at any moment I can remember in my 24 years in Parliament. We have war in Ukraine, war in the middle east, and an increasingly assertive China. Last night the Government effectively rejected the Procedure Committee’s recommendation for the Foreign Secretary to take questions from this House, and it is untenable that in this time of disorder, the Foreign Secretary—a great office of state for a reason—refuses to be accountable to this House.
My party thought that having a Foreign Secretary in the Lords was absurd 100 years ago in the days of Lord Curzon, and the appointment of the first ever Deputy Foreign Secretary this week is an unconstitutional sop. We have not needed it in 223 years of this Parliament, and he is not the man who meets the Foreign Secretaries of Israel, of our Arab partners, or of the United States. He simply does not have the accountability of the Foreign Secretary. Given what we have heard, and given the strength of feeling across this House, what now to get the Foreign Secretary to take questions from Members of Parliament at this most dangerous of geopolitical moments?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the point of order and for giving notice of it, but he has heard the statement and the exchanges on the Select Committee report, including the responses by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), and I am afraid that there is nothing I can add to them from the Chair. I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for answering seven questions.
Backbench Business
Access to Redress Schemes
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the challenges faced by individuals and businesses in accessing effective dispute resolution and obtaining redress in cases of injustice; believes that the Government needs to address these specific challenges, namely a fragmented and inconsistent redress landscape; considers statutory guidance to be an essential measure to ensure compensation and redress schemes follow common principles and lead to fair and independent outcomes; and calls on the Government to create statutory guidance with common principles for setting up and operating a redress scheme.
It is my honour to move the motion that stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I also thank the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for her recent correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor General, calling on public bodies to have redress schemes that are effective, timely, proportionate and fair.
Samuel Beckett famously wrote:
“Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
What if we learned nothing from our previous failure? What if we simply failed, failed again and approached the failure as in the past, only to fail a bit differently and with many of the same mistakes as before? That is the situation we face with compensation and redress following scandals.
I imagine that every Member of this House will have received correspondence from a constituent who has been failed and treated unfairly in the wake of a scandal. Rather than being able to access swift and fair redress, they have instead been subjected to further hardship, delays and unfair treatment. Sometimes that mistreatment can be as devastating as the pain caused initially by the scandal. There has rightly been significant attention nationally in recent months on the Post Office Horizon scandal, and in particular on the various schemes set up to provide redress to the victims of what was the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history.
A sub-postmaster of a post office in my constituency was one of the hundreds wrongful convicted. Janine Powell was wrongfully accused of stealing £74,000 from her post office branch in Tiverton. She was subsequently sacked and arrested, before being convicted at a trial in Exeter in 2008. She described feeling “confused; dismayed; numb”. That is because Ms Powell was sentenced to 18 months in prison, serving five months. She was sent to prison just two days after her daughter’s 10th birthday. She said that the hardest part of her wrongful imprisonment was leaving her children. She said:
“I’ve missed out on doing things with them—I can’t get that back.”
No amount of money could ever make up for what happened to Ms Powell, but compensation can at least try to make up for some of the loss they faced. Sadly, the various Post Office compensation schemes that have existed have failed to provide swift and fair redress, as I know from another constituent case that I am dealing with.
According to the law firm Howe and Co, which represents 150 sub-postmasters, the compensation scheme
“continues to be exceptionally slow…and refuses to entertain applications from persons who are plainly entitled to apply”.
This afternoon, I hope to outline that the Post Office case is but one example of a wider problem. No guidance exists on when and how compensation schemes should be established or what an overseeing body should look like. That means that each scheme has its own unique and dysfunctional set of rules. Reinventing the wheel each time a scandal emerges means that victims are failed by the very system that is meant to right the wrongs of the past.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
The hon. and gallant Member is making an important point about how we seem to have unique circumstances in trying to overcome some of these issues. For example, the sodium valproate issue was raised through Baroness Cumberlege’s “First Do No Harm” report. As with the infected blood scandal and the Horizon scandal, it has been outlined time after time that redress should be forthcoming. However, the Government again seem to be dragging their feet. Why does he think that would be?
Richard Foord
The hon. Member is exactly right to draw a thread between several of these scandals. That is partly because when a new scandal emerges, the organisation responsible is often the organisation charged with redress. Andrew Bailey, while chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, said in 2017 that
“it just does not seem to be sensible that, every time one of these things happens, we have to set up something new.”
Beyond the Post Office schemes, we have heard criticism both here and in the press on the infected blood inquiry, as the hon. Member mentioned, and Windrush. That criticism has pointed to intolerable delays or the problematic features that often let the offending firm or institution off the hook.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am interested to develop my hon. Friend’s thought about the Financial Conduct Authority. If I am able, I will speak at greater length about it later in the debate. It administers the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which is a fund set up by levies on financial services companies themselves. It is the maladministration of the FCA or a lack of proper regulation that often leads to these claims being brought. Essentially, the people paying for the scheme have to do so because of the incompetence of the FCA.
Richard Foord
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. The FCA is not directly accountable to Parliament, but is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury. I, too, have had constituents finding themselves in a David and Goliath scenario, trying to tackle issues of unfairness with the FCA.
Likewise, in finance, we have seen the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products and widespread financial misconduct against small and medium-sized enterprises by the Royal Bank of Scotland, for example. Last year, the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking conducted the first systematic review of compensation schemes in the UK and found flaws common to several of them. Schemes are frequently blighted by unnecessary complexity, delays and a huge emotional and legal burden on victims. Often schemes are shrouded in secrecy and lack proper independence.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech carefully, and he is making some excellent points. Will he join me in deploring the methods by which organisations avoid their responsibilities to many of our constituents? For example, the business of my constituent George Dosoo, LD Partnership, took on a loan from RBS, now NatWest. In 2012, he discovered that a sum of £150,000 was removed without authority from the partnership account. Despite George obtaining recent legal opinion indicating that his case has merit, NatWest maintains that the case is time-barred and will not reopen it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that time-barring is another device that is far too often used by businesses and institutions to deliberately undermine our constituents’ ability to obtain recourse?
Richard Foord
The hon. Member is right about time-barring. I have a similar case with a constituent of mine, which might chime with hers. Nigel Cairns is trapped in what he describes as a
“complete nightmare scenario, with no way of escape”
after egregious misconduct by a bank. In 2007, Nigel took out a loan of £350,000 from HSBC. He had his house demolished in readiness to rebuild. In preparation for the work, the bank declared the termination and return of the loan. That was in 2007, when the financial crisis was very much with us. The bank subsequently agreed to reinstate the loan, but altered some of the terms and conditions so that the interest rate became double what Nigel had originally agreed to. After 10 years of repayments, the bank declared that unless he could sell the property or repay the loan, it would have to foreclose on him. The Financial Ombudsman Service refused to look into the matter initially and subsequently Mr Cairns received only £1,500 for the stress and anxiety of the case.
The APPG’s review, looking across 12 compensation schemes, found that over the past 20 years, the number of people affected amounted to a little over 78,000 people. When we consider some of the harrowing cases we are describing today, that number is thankfully quite small, but it says to us that it is a small enough number that these people could have timely redress and compensation, if only we had a body that could sort it out. That brings me on to another example: infected blood. During business questions this morning, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), as she always does on a Thursday, drove home on behalf of her constituents the need to compensate promptly those people affected by the infected blood scandal. In the last 24 hours, we have heard of a proposed Government amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to try to bring about compensation. I completely agree with the right hon. Member that by not setting a deadline for that compensation, we allow this issue to run and run. In the other place, the Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Brinton sought to take that up with the Government, and proposed an amendment that was much more vigorous in setting a timeframe for compensation, but the Government chose not to adopt it.
I have a constituent whose friend who has been affected by the infected blood scandal. Some of the tales that she has passed on are really harrowing. Her friend said:
“In my 20s I was planning my funeral and feeling like I was contaminated and filthy. I met and married someone prepared to date a woman with poisoned blood.”
She speaks of how it caused a
“host of long-term devastating side effects”.
She continued:
“I lost my career as an IT consultant, it made me infertile so I have been unable to have a family, and we had we had to stop IVF and surrogacy attempts because I became too ill to be a parent. I’ve had brain, body, psychological and emotional impacts from this virus. And then decades of exhausted fighting for an evasive and oft-denied justice, which caused its own damage, including most recently the end of my marriage.”
Such people deserve to be compensated promptly. They do not need the stress and worry of a scheme that always seems to roll out into the future, and of having to fight at every turn.
Mass redress schemes are set up on an ad hoc basis. They are voluntary, and established to tackle a specific scandal, following failure of a given organisation’s internal complaints procedures. How do we ensure that the victims of our largest and most damaging scandals, and any unfortunate future victims, are protected from unfair treatment and appropriately compensated? We need the framework for redress to be improved to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes again. This debate is a call to action for Ministers. The Government must establish a clear framework based on best practice.
The HBOS Reading compensation scheme is another example. In 2017, after 15 years, six individuals were sentenced to a cumulative 47 years in prison for their role in a fraud that left its victims, in the words of the sentencing judge, “cheated, defeated and penniless”. Eight years on, we have had more than two years of the discredited Griggs review, and a further two years reviewing the review and coming up with new recommendations. We are now in the fourth year of the Foskett panel. We would think that by now that we would have got it right, but all the perpetrators of the crime are out of prison, the victims have yet to be compensated, and serious questions remain about the panel.
There is a set of underlying principles that would establish a common-sense bedrock for any compensation scheme and how it should be built.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
On the composition of the Foskett panel and the huge delays in the compensation due to those defrauded in the HBOS scandal, there have been allegations that Lloyds bank had a big part in deciding who was appointed to the panel. Would that not explain the delays, and why people are not being paid the compensation that they believe they deserve?
Richard Foord
The hon. Member is right that in redress schemes, the perpetrator of the injustice is often charged with trying to put it right. Of course, the perpetrator has a vested interest—indeed, it is not even vested; it is just an interest—in trying to pay out as little as possible, and in accepting as little culpability as it can.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that many victims are annoyed by the way that these schemes become a feeding frenzy for lawyers, who in many cases are the only people who ultimately benefit? What really sticks in the throat of many victims is that many lawyers may be getting more out of the schemes than the individuals affected.
Richard Foord
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his intervention. Probably nobody in this place knows more about the Horizon compensation schemes than he does. Lee Castleton, one of the sub-postmasters affected by the scandal, said that during the past 25 years,
“£135 million has been paid to some of the victims, but we’ve had £150 million plus paid to lawyers.”
We need a set of underlying principles. We need: a collaborative approach and process; timeliness; independence; recognition of adversity; transparency; broader eligibility; greater accessibility and legal costs; a clear appeals mechanism; and, finally, fairness and efficiency.
Christian Wakeford
The hon. and gallant Member is kind in giving way. Moving back to the sodium valproate scandal, we keep saying that justice delayed is justice denied, but in that case, it is not only children but grandchildren who are impacted, because it looks as though the effects of sodium valproate disorder are being passed on to grandchildren as well. Schemes need to be not only fair but pragmatic, so that once compensation is delivered, they can still be open to claims. I say that thinking of the further after-effects of one of the biggest scandals in the health service since thalidomide.
Richard Foord
The hon. Member is exactly right about how younger generations can be affected. We have recently seen attempts by some Horizon victims, and indeed children of victims, to seek compensation. The tragedy of his point about justice delayed being justice denied is that older victims of these scandals are dying before they see that justice, and before enjoying any of the compensation that they deserved.
I set out nine underlying principles that would establish a common-sense bedrock for a compensation scheme. To deliver those principles for fair redress and to guarantee independent oversight, we need an arm’s length body to design and adjudicate the schemes. The existing voluntary mechanisms for redress are far too fragmented. We need a standing, independent body that can provide consistency for victims of scandals—no matter the sector—which can be activated whenever a new scandal emerges. It should be constituted of experts, so that it guarantees independence of judgment, and should be accountable directly to Parliament for the expenditure of any public funds and for its overall conduct. Critically, victims must also have representation on the panels.
The structure would come at no extra cost to the taxpayer, as the current compensation framework often proves lengthy and costly for both victim and taxpayer. Taken together, the nine UK redress schemes—whether active or completed—studied by the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking have cost at least £3.7 billion. That figure covers not only the amount of compensation that has gone to victims, but, as we have discussed, the fees to solicitors, accountants and firms that have engaged to undertake reviews—and indeed firms that are reviewing reviews. More often than not, victims are left feeling cheated. They eventually cling on to some sort of late, inadequate consolation of redress and compensation. In the case of the Post Office, many of the 555 sub-postmasters who were exposed to the scandal have still received little compensation, because most of the money was swallowed up.
We need lessons to be learned from the array of scandals that I have set out. I am curious to hear what the Minister has to say about the proposal for an arm’s length body to deal with situations of the kind that I and right hon. and hon. Members have described.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), and I am grateful to him for introducing this important subject. I am sorry that it has not attracted more attention from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
How often have we said, “There is nothing new under sun”? I will start my remarks by referring to August 1975. Tanya Price had a whooping cough vaccine at the age of six months. Shortly after, she developed convulsions, and 18 months later, she was described as a “motionless and expressionless being” in a debate in this House by her MP, the late Robert Adley, who was my predecessor but one as MP for Christchurch, although at that time the constituency was Christchurch and Lymington. Robert Adley worked tirelessly for months to try to obtain redress from the health service for Tanya’s injuries, which were caused by the whooping cough vaccine.
That was 48 years ago, under a Labour Government, but little has changed in the Government’s institutional reluctance to admit to medical failures and institute redress schemes. Robert Adley described fighting Tanya’s battle as fighting the NHS, which he described as being like
“sparring with a giant octopus.”
That was all those years ago, but I do not see that the situation has changed. In his Adjournment debate in the House of Commons on 22 March 1977, Robert Adley said:
“This fight has been going on for a long time. Certainly in the last four years a group of parents have sought to get what they see as justice for their children but they have had precious little satisfaction. The battle is in many ways a repetition of the thalidomide debate…The result is decaying confidence in all the immunisation programmes. It represents a flirtation with tragedy, particularly when most of the other vaccines appear to be safe, harmless and have little or no disadvantageous side effects.”
He rightly severely criticised
“the position adopted by the Secretary of State in his refusal to consider compensation, and until…recently, his refusal…at least…to discuss the problem openly”.—[Official Report, 22 March 1977; Vol. 928, c. 1244.]
It would be wonderful to say that things have moved on. One of the consequences of the thalidomide scandal was the setting up of the royal commission headed by Lord Pearson, which took some five years to report, eventually doing so in 1978. It was set up following the Robens Committee on Safety and Health at Work, and in the light of concern about thalidomide. When the Pearson report was published, it was welcomed by the then Prime Minister as a comprehensive review. It was designed to remove unnecessary litigation, time delays and all the rest when getting redress for people who had suffered medical injuries induced by vaccines or other drugs. Paragraph 1,398—it was a long report—recommended the following:
“We concluded that there is a special case for paying compensation for vaccine damage where vaccination is recommended by a public authority and is undertaken to protect the community. We had reached this conclusion when we were asked by the Government for our views.”
The Pearson Committee also recommended strict liability for vaccine damage.
Sadly, those recommendations were not implemented, although we did get the vaccine damage payments legislation of 1979. I have been campaigning to get that legislation brought up to date, so that it is relevant to the circumstances of all those who have suffered loss and damage as a result of doing the right thing and taking their covid-19 vaccine. It has been an uphill struggle. The most recent information I have is that there are so many applications under the vaccine damage payment scheme that the Government cannot cope. In three years, only 163 out of more than 9,000 claims have been successful—those were the figures as at 31 January. Of those claims, 4,000 were still awaiting a resolution; 2,000 have been outstanding for more than six months, and some for more than 18 months. That is directly damaging to all those people who are thinking of engaging in civil claims, which the Government keep advising victims to do.
Making a civil claim against a large multinational pharmaceutical company—or the Government, for that matter—is an expensive business. I have a constituent whose father has the £120,000 compensation, but for whom that is wholly inadequate because of the severity and longevity of the injuries and disabilities that he sustained as a result of the vaccine. He is finding it nigh on impossible to get access to justice, because solicitors will not take up his calls. Even starting an action will cost tens of thousands of pounds. That is an intolerable situation, and one which, all those years ago, Lord Pearson was trying to avoid.
The Government’s feeble response is, “If you think you’ve been injured by a vaccine, go and seek compensation through the courts.” It does not work quite like that, as sadly has been seen by all those people whose cases it has already been established were caused by vaccines. One would think that if the vaccine damage payment scheme has established that an individual’s damage was caused by the vaccine, as night follows day, the Government would concede liability in a civil action. Far from it; they insist that individuals must fight the case before the courts.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is about power, is it not? As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the individual does not have the financial means or expertise to take forward those cases against either a corporation or a Government. In the Post Office scandal, the Post Office spent £100 million of our public money defending a case that they knew they would not win, because they were trying to stop the truth coming out and to bankrupt and stop the individuals from concluding the case.
Sir Christopher Chope
That is right. These are deep-seated institutional failures. This is not a party political issue, but one that affects everyone in this country. This House is unable to persuade Governments and the officials serving them to get real about what many people are suffering as a result of the delays. It seems as though the Government’s policy, perhaps led by the Treasury, is always to postpone the inevitable. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the contaminated blood scandal. I find it unacceptable that those people whose cases have been established as deserving proper compensation are still waiting. There are similar cases in the Post Office scandal, as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, and in the sodium valproate case, which has given rise to huge reports, which I hope briefly to come to later.
Going back to the issue with which I am primarily concerned, because I chair the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, there are now getting on for 10,000 claims under the scheme. Almost half are yet to be dealt with, so people are waiting for their claims to be resolved. Under the system that operates, if their claim is rejected by the independent panel, they have the right to have their case reviewed. That process itself generates further delays, sometimes in excess of a year. Meanwhile, there is a three-year limitation on being able to bring civil actions from the time the cause of the civil action arose.
I raised this issue with the Prime Minister in a private meeting and at Prime Minister’s questions a few weeks ago. I am pleased to say that, following that, I have a meeting set up with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care next week. But I will not hold my breath, because I just do not see any willingness on the part of officialdom, even if there was willingness on the part of Ministers, to address these outrageous injustices. It goes to the heart of trust in public service and in Government if people cannot trust the Government to do the right thing. If they take the vaccine and it turns out to have been very bad for their health, the deal should be—it always used to be—that the Government look after them and see them right, but that is not what is happening. Instead, those people are being put through the ringer, and enormous amounts of bureaucracy and time are being wasted, and to very little effect—except that the Treasury can probably say, “Well, we can’t actually guarantee that we will have to spend this amount of money now.”
Years ago, when I was a shadow Treasury Minister, I looked at the issues arising from the Equitable Life scandal. That was a failure by the Treasury’s own team of regulators to protect investors in pension schemes under Equitable Life. At one stage they were thought to be as good as investing in the Consolidated Fund. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that everybody was joining in having Equitable Life pensions. Well, the regulator was asleep on the job. The ombudsman found that that was the situation and ordered compensation. The Government refused compensation and said that they would make ex-gratia payments. As is the case today, we know that much of the money that was eventually set aside has not yet been delivered to the victims of the Equitable Life scandal, and that the Treasury is refusing to distribute the money, saying “Well, that is basically a win for the Treasury.” Is it surprising that confidence in our institutions and in government—with a small “g”—is rapidly diminishing?
Today’s debate is of fundamental importance. I hope that the Cabinet Minister, when he responds, will come up with some specific proposals on what will be done in relation to all the individual cases that will be referred to in this debate, as well as dealing with the deep-seated institutional problems to which I have referred. The Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), with whom I have previously raised this matter in Cabinet Office questions, and who at one stage I thought would respond to this debate, is charged with ensuring that we address the issue of the time bar on covid-19 vaccine damage claims. I would be very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister if, when he responds to the debate, he can give us some positive news on that point, even if not on many others.
The covid vaccine damage payment scheme is not a strict liability scheme, and it is not even a compensation scheme, but it is better than nothing. Why is it, however, that the £120,000 maximum payment under the scheme has not been updated since 2007? It would now be about £200,000 if updated. Why are we updating everything else in line with inflation, but not the vaccine damage payment scheme for people for whom taking a vaccine was disastrous? Again, we cannot get any answers out of the Treasury or the Government. Sometimes there are expressions of sympathy, but they are not much use. What we want is action. What justification can there be for eroding the value of vaccine damage payments to the extent that I have referred to?
The Cumberlege report, “Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review”, was set up in 2018 in response to concerns about the Primodos hormone pregnancy test, the use of sodium valproate in pregnancy and vaginal mesh. The review, which was led by Baroness Cumberlege, published its report in July 2020. It made a number of serious and compelling recommendations, including the establishment of an independent redress agency. If the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who introduced the debate, thinks that the Government are going to respond positively to the suggestions he put forward, I just ask him to look at the record. That was an ex-Conservative Health Minister making a clear recommendation, on page 11, to set up an independent redress agency:
“A new independent Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices should be created based on models operating effectively in other countries. The Redress Agency will administer decisions using a non-adversarial process with determinations based on avoidable harm looking at systemic failings, rather than blaming individuals.”
How long did it take for the Government to respond to that report? They published their response not in 2020 but in July 2021, exactly one year later, which fits the pattern we are discussing. It took them a year to respond to the report and they cursorily rejected its recommendation for a new redress agency, stating:
“We do not accept this recommendation. We do not believe that a redress agency would make products safer and support our commitment to patient safety. We also believe it is already possible for government and others to provide redress where this is considered necessary, the government therefore has no plans to establish an independent redress agency.”
It took the Government a year to prepare that wording and explanation. All one can do, really, is despair. There is an opportunity today for the Minister to say, “Well, that was all under a previous Government. Now we have a new Government and they will accept all the recommendations of the Cumberlege report.”
The Cumberlege report also recommended that discretionary schemes should be established for sodium valproate, hormone pregnancy tests and pelvic mesh. That would
“provide discretionary payments for the costs of additional needs”
caused by the harms associated with those products. The Government response also rejected that recommendation, noting:
“Patients have the right to take healthcare providers to court for clinical negligence, or manufacturers to court for product liability.”
It further explains on page 23:
“While the government is sympathetic to the experiences of those patients who gave evidence to the report, our primary focus is on improving future medicines and medical devices safety. It is therefore crucial that we focus government funds on initiatives that directly improve future safety (including specialist mesh centres and support for families affected by medicines in pregnancy). For this reason, redress schemes will not be established in response to recommendation 4.”
That was the situation in relation to the hapless individuals who were at the wrong end of that particular NHS procedure. More recently, and before we have got as far as any inquiries into it, we have been faced with the prospect of having to deal with the scandal of all those young people who are living with the consequences of being given puberty blockers at the behest, if not the recommendation, of the NHS. When Sir Chris Whitty was asked about that on the radio earlier this week, he seemed totally unapologetic, almost to the point of diffidence, although he was insistent that we should do something about people who were engaging in smoking tobacco or vapes. So another compensation issue will arise in relation to all those people who were persuaded by the NHS to do the wrong thing.
One recommendation that did come out of the Cumberlege review was for the establishment of—this sounded really great—a patient safety commissioner for England. When, in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, I approached Dr Hughes and asked whether she would take up the case of the victims of covid-19 vaccines, she was very sympathetic, but said—and this comes back to the issue of the culture—that she had only the equivalent of one man and a dog in her department. She was being starved of the resources that would enable her to fulfil the remit that she had been given by the Government, which, again, was absolutely intolerable. She explained that she did not have time to deal with the vaccine damage issue because, perfectly reasonably, she was concentrating on sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. On 7 February this year she published her report setting out further recommendations for redress in relation to those matters, including a recommendation for the creation of an independent redress scheme to provide both financial and non-financial redress. The Government have not yet responded to that report; perhaps the Minister will respond to it today. In February, in response to a parliamentary question, the Health Minister responsible said:
“The Government is now carefully considering the… recommendations, and will respond substantively in due course.”
That is just not good enough, especially as the Government seem to be relying on some very feeble initiatives to which they have drawn attention.
There is now—this is exciting news, Madam Deputy Speaker—a new risk acknowledgment form to be completed by those for whom valproate is prescribed. There is also a “claims gateway” on the NHS Resolution website for those wishing to embark on clinical negligence claims. The Hughes report criticises these arrangements, and criticises the “claims gateway” description because there is no new legal framework to enable people to engage in litigation and no guarantee of help with legal aid. We hear that a child who challenged the decision by a north London comprehensive in relation to the wearing of religious symbols received legal aid money amounting to £150,000. How was that possible, when people who want redress because they have been done down by the national health service do not get anything at all?
In the foreword to her report, Dr Hughes says
“the case for redress had already been made by the First Do No Harm review so my report would primarily focus on ‘how’ to provide redress rather than ‘why’.”
I hope that, in his response today, the Minister will accept that the Government should now focus on how to provide redress rather than why redress is needed. In her foreword, Dr Hughes also says:
“All those we spoke to have approached this process with openness and goodwill despite the considerable challenges they face. As time progresses, these challenges intensify and, understandably, there is now a growing sense of frustration and anger among patients. Confidence in the government to do the right thing is eroding.
Over the years, while these patients have been suffering, I have seen other healthcare scandals in this country rightly receive recognition and redress, from thalidomide to vCJD and, most recently, the infected blood scandal. Fairness demands that those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh receive the recognition and redress to meet their needs.”
If the Government agree with that, why do they not say so now? Why are they continuing to kick the can down the road and deny people access to the compensation that they rightfully deserve?
I have spoken for longer than I expected, Madam Deputy Speaker, but, as I have said, there is a long history to this. I hope it will not be another 48 years before another Member of Parliament for Christchurch stands up and says, “48 years ago, a former Member for Christchurch was arguing this very point in the House.” Let us learn from history. Let us not be complacent; let us get angry for action.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I learnt about many different redress schemes, many of which I had not even considered, so he has done the House a service this afternoon. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord): it is a real pleasure to be able to speak in such an important debate, and I thank him for introducing it.
When injustice has occurred, and particularly in cases of widespread injustice, it is imperative that those who are wronged are provided with meaningful avenues of recourse. Proper justice cannot be achieved until victims receive the redress to which they are entitled, but as we have heard this afternoon, time and again that simply does not happen. What we often see is an excessively bureaucratic process administered by the party at fault, moving at a snail’s pace while the victims’ redress is minimised and they continue to suffer. Indeed, someone said to me just today, “The folk in suits and boardrooms always seem to benefit from the misery and hardship of others, while the actual victims are last in the queue for redress.”
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred earlier to the number of lawyers who had benefited from the scandal involving Post Office Ltd while the victims themselves had not received proper compensation. We are all painfully aware of the well-documented issues that have plagued various compensatory schemes in the United Kingdom. Others have already mentioned the Windrush, infected blood, vaccinations and, of course, the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history, the Post Office Horizon scandal. Without proper redress, justice is denied for victims, who cannot find closure for what is often a deeply traumatic chapter of their lives.
Through my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, I am sadly all too familiar with the suffering of Horizon victims, who have shouldered the burden and have had to fight tooth and nail to get the financial redress they are entitled to. Despite everything, they are still being subjected to humiliating and derisory offers. Even Alan Bates, who valiantly led the campaign for justice for sub-postmasters, and took on the Post Office and won, recently spoke of the pitiful offer of redress he received. He highlighted to the Business and Trade Committee the perennial delay and the deadlines missed by the Post Office and the Government, who are administering the three compensation schemes. Similarly, campaigner Christopher Head, the youngest horizon victim, told me that the offer he received was just a tiny fraction of what he and Government-appointed forensic accountants had estimated he was entitled to.
I regularly meet sub-postmaster victims in Motherwell and Wishaw, and to see the effect on individuals at first hand is truly awful. Despite my repeatedly advising them to apply to the Horizon shortfall scheme because many of them were not prosecuted, they want nothing to do with any of the schemes, because they feel traumatised by what they have already gone through and the thought of dealing directly with Post Office Ltd again causes them great hurt.
The application forms for the redress schemes for Horizon are legally complex. Even Dan Neidle, a legal expert, has said that he would require legal advice when filling them out, and the amount of money given by Post Office Ltd to victims is derisory and token. As has already been said, however, lawyers are making millions of pounds from the misery of others. In addition, Post Office Ltd did not make it clear on the forms that applicants could claim for damage to their reputation, meaning that many folk have already settled for far less than they should have. Further, there is the absence of an option to claim punitive damages, which Mr Neidle says a lawyer would spot immediately but a layperson would not, and it is really difficult to come back on this.
Shockingly, Post Office Ltd has continued to attempt to suppress the truth by warning sub-postmasters who received an offer under the HSS that they could not legally mention compensation terms to anyone, including other applicants, the press, their family or their friends. That was totally inaccurate and highlights the need for an independent adjudicator to provide oversight. The Minister has said on the Floor of the House that no one will be pursued for speaking about Horizon compensation, but that does not help someone who is already traumatised. It took one of my constituents about 10 years to admit that he had been paying into his post office and had taken out another mortgage to try to cover the costs. It is ridiculous that, on top of everything else, people were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
An applicant to the HSS has described the process of trying to get fair redress as “soul-destroying”. We have already heard that Lee Castleton has shown that lawyers are making more money than the victims of Horizon. If any good has come out of the Horizon IT scandal, it is that the affair has demonstrated the need for statutory guidance and for an independent oversight body to administer compensation schemes, as has been called for already today. For that reason, I support the motion. The Government must create statutory guidance, with clear principles for operating a redress scheme. It will save victims of future scandals—there will be future scandals—from the additional pain and suffering that Horizon, infected blood, Windrush and vaccination victims have had to endure.
I am hopeful about yesterday’s announcement of Government amendments to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that would establish an arm’s length body to administer the infected blood compensation scheme, regulations around payment, application procedures and appeals. I sincerely hope that the Government are finally learning from the failure of redress schemes in the past.
Last month, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on Women Against State Pension Inequality found that thousands of women born in the 1950s are entitled to compensation. That could and should lead to the payment en masse of financial redress to the WASPI women, who have campaigned tirelessly for years. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) has secured an important debate on redress for the WASPI women. It is essential that any compensation scheme that is set up to remedy this injustice is administered fairly, independently, transparently and efficiently. If lessons are not learned from the failures of redress schemes such as the one for Horizon victims, proper justice will not be achieved and thousands of victims will have been failed by the UK Government again.
I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch that it is really difficult to understand why more MPs are not here to stand up for their constituents, regardless of whatever scandal they have been involved in and whatever compensation scheme to which they are looking for redress. I hope the Minister is listening carefully, and I hope to hear a good response later on.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who has done fantastic work in this area; on occasion, we have been joined at the hip in our approach to the Post Office. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) for opening the debate, which is very timely. I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that it is disappointing that there are not more Members here. Like him, I remember when Thursdays were full days, but now they seem to be optional extras for Members of Parliament—that is showing both my age and his. I declare an interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board.
I congratulate the APPG on producing the report, which identifies the unbalanced power relationship when the citizen comes up against the mighty state or corporate world. We have compensation schemes when things go wrong, but to get to the truth in the first place usually takes a number of years—the Post Office Horizon scandal is a good example—so the victims have already fought to try to reach that point. In many cases, the victims—certainly those of the Post Office scandal, and others too—want compensation, but most of those I speak to also want the truth and an acknowledgment that they have been damaged, through no fault of their own, in the case of the Horizon scandal by the Post Office, and in the case of some of the banking scandals by the disgraceful activities and greed of corporations.
As I say, it is regrettable that in most cases the victims spend years trying to get redress. When there is public acknowledgment that something has gone wrong, they are usually at the back of the queue and forgotten about when compensation schemes are produced, which is one of the issues that the APPG report highlights. When we are designing compensation or redress schemes, we should put the victims at the centre. They are mainly over-bureaucratic and complicated, not just for the victims but for those trying to administer them, who in many cases are trying to do a good job but get bogged down in the detail, even when we try to take the lawyers out of the process.
One of the hurtful things for many individuals is that legal costs usually take up more of the financial pot than what goes to the victims. I will talk a little later about the Horizon compensation scheme, but the postal services Minister, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), is trying to cut through that knot by having single pots with fixed sums. That would not only make it easier for victims to understand the scheme, but cut the duration and expense of legal proceedings, both for the victim and for the Government. The Minister has been criticised by some parties for doing that, but I think it is a good step forward.
However, even when we get schemes that we think should be easy to administer, we get the greed of certain lawyers. As the hon. Member for Christchurch did, I am going to give a historical example: the mineworkers’ compensation scheme. In the end, I think that scheme paid out over £3 billion for victims of vibration white finger and coal dust. It should have been quite simple to administer, because it had basically a chart with the number of years that someone had worked and the effect, in terms of the amount of damage that had been done, but we saw a feeding frenzy of lawyers, who, not content that they were getting their legal costs paid by the Government, preyed upon the victims to deduct money from their compensation. People might think that I am a bit of an anorak on this subject, but that was one of my earlier campaigns: Lord Mann, who was the hon. Member for Bassetlaw at the time, and I exposed the greed of not only the lawyers but, sadly, some trade unions—in my case, the Durham area of the National Union of Mineworkers.
These schemes should be quite simple to operate, but every time we have a scandal we go back to the drawing board and reinvent the wheel. That, I think, is the problem. I am not sure that we could design a scheme that could cover every single instance, but we could certainly have some foundations on which to build. I have seen this at first hand on the advisory board. I give credit to the civil servants in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who are trying to administer the scheme, but they have gone back to square one. In the early days of the advisory board, I was actually referring back to the mineworkers’ compensation scheme as a way of trying to simplify the system. I think that we need from the Government, in response to this report, some work to look at getting in place a bare framework for compensation schemes that could be adopted when we get these types of scandals.
I understand that in all this there are worries about the financial implications, and I sympathise with the Minister, because he has the Treasury hovering in the background. However, if we get to a situation where we are paying out more in legal fees than to victims, surely it would be simpler to cut out the middleman and pay the money directly to the victims. That framework, which I think the APPG refers to, needs to be put in place as a matter of urgency.
There is another thing that always strikes me, which I have seen in the Post Office scandal. Frankly, I do not blame the victims. Do they trust the Post Office one iota? No, they do not. Would I, if I had been through what they have been through? No, I would not. It seems that, every time, it is the people who were involved in the system who determine not only how the scheme is designed, but how it is administered. I find that appalling. That is not just the case with the Post Office scandal; it was true of some of the banking scandals too. That has to change. We cannot have the people who created the problem trying to administer the redress scheme, because then victims do not trust what is going on.
I will come to the historical shortfall scheme for the Post Office scandal in a minute, but my feeling, looking at how it has been administered by the Post Office, is that it was designed in the early days to try to reduce the amount of compensation so that the Post Office did not have to go to the Treasury to fill the gap. That is the complexity that we have generated. We have a fragmented and inconsistent system, which leads to a waste of money and frustration for the victims, and slows things down.
I want to touch on a couple of schemes. I will start with the Post Office Horizon compensation schemes, which I know more about than some of the others. We have three separate schemes. I and my fellow members of the advisory board asked, “Why would we start here?” We all agreed that we would not want to, but we all felt that we could not unpick it and have one scheme, because it had already been put in place.
We started off with the historical shortfall scheme, which was designed by the Post Office to try to get redress for some of the cases that came forward, but there were serious issues. The first was with disclosure of evidence by the Post Office. I do not mind putting it on record that on occasion I thought, “Has it been lost or are they just frustrating the system?” I think that it in some cases it was just frustrating the system. The second issue was that the Post Office was administering the scheme. Many individuals were asked to make applications without any legal advice at all and, lo and behold, the advisory board—to be fair to the Minister, he has taken on board our recommendations—now has to look at some of those cases again because of the way the scheme was administered. Right from the start, it was not fit for purpose.
We then have the group litigation order scheme—the famous 555 including Alan Bates, who took the Post Office to court and secured the landmark 2019 judgment. That is a completely separate scheme from the HSS. The GLO scheme was initially resisted. At first, the Government’s line was that the postmasters had settled the case in the High Court—basically because they were outgunned by the Government and the Post Office, who used a tsunami of public cash to spend £100 million on lawyers, but it is now coming out of the inquiry that they never had a case to defend. They were trying to defend the indefensible. Just think: £100 million spent on lawyers. We could have paid the victims out of that. We could have covered at least part of one of the schemes through that alone. We understand victims’ anger when they see that happening.
We then have the overturned convictions scheme, which came out of the 104 or 105 individuals who have already been through the Court of Appeal and had their convictions overturned. That will be the redress mechanism for all the other victims who will have their convictions quashed when the legislation passes Parliament. That, again, will be a different scheme from the others. Very early on, the postal affairs Minister introduced the £600,000 one-off payment to people, and he has now introduced a £75,000 payment in other schemes for people to accept as a final offer without going through the evidence or anything like that. People might say that that means that some people will get more money than they lost. That does not really bother me, given the trauma they have gone through, when the alternative is going through a long, laborious administration process. We would pay as much as that out for lawyers anyway; why should it not go to the victims? Credit to the postal services Minister, he has brought these payments forward. We must try to have such payments in other compensation schemes.
We are in danger of having a fourth scheme. I had a meeting with the postal services Minister last night and, as I have previously told the House, we are now looking at the pre-Horizon scheme, Capture. To be fair to him, he is determined to get to the bottom of what the Post Office did in prosecuting and bankrupting people. If the Government accept that victims were wrongly prosecuted and, in some cases, bankrupted, which scheme do they fit into? Do they fit into one of the three existing schemes, or will we have to generate yet another scheme? That shows the complexity of these arguments when compensation is needed. I would resist coming up with a fourth scheme—we have to try to adapt some of the other schemes, and we on the advisory board will obviously work with the Minister.
Lessons need to be learned from how the Post Office has handled this, and that could be the basis for the Cabinet Office’s work in looking at the pillars that are needed. All schemes, and certainly the Post Office scheme, have to disclose information. The Post Office has been notoriously slow in disclosing the information needed to progress a claim. Has some of that been deliberate? In the past, I think it possibly has, but what do we do where the records no longer exist? I am sure some of the records no longer exist in the example raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch. Do we just say that no one has a claim? No, I think we need to take quite a generous view. If it can be proved, for example, that people have lost out because of the damage from a scheme, and if it can be proved that they are not just making it up, we need a mechanism to deal with that. Otherwise, victims are going to feel that they will not get justice.
Interestingly, I have more information on the pre-Horizon system, Capture, than the Post Office does. I have a full set of documents, all the software and all the floppy disks from the early Capture cases. When I put this to the Post Office, I was asked where I got it from, and I said that one of the victims who contacted me had a very assiduous wife—sadly, Mrs Tooby is no longer with us—who kept everything. It says something that I have more evidence than the Post Office.
The hon. Member for Christchurch talked about litigation. Well, how would a person litigate that? It is a pretty one-sided argument. The Post Office had no evidence at all in those cases. It knew that the evidence existed, but it did not have the boxes of evidence that I have. Again, trying to avoid litigation should be part of the process because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is costly. People do not have access to that kind of cash. Even if they do, it is also costly to the Government. Who wins? The lawyers, and we do not get the swift redress that is needed.
Other schemes have been mentioned, and evidence on the Windrush scheme has been lost. Landing card records and other such things have all been destroyed by the Home Office, so how do we do it? We have to take a sensible approach and, to be fair to him—I know I keep praising him—the postal services Minister has. Where the information does not exist, we should err on the side of victims. We should not say, “We cannot move forward because we have no evidence.” That has been one of the problems with the Windrush scandal.
I have also worked with LGBTQ veterans who were dismissed from the armed forces because of their sexuality, which is a great example of the Government setting the parameters of an inquiry before it is set up. Lord Etherton did a very good job with his inquiry, but we had a ridiculous situation in which the Government said in advance that the compensation had to be capped at £50 million. I kept asking, “Why £50 million?” Apparently the only reason, apart from the Treasury wanting to keep control on expenditure, was that the Department saw what the Canadian scheme cost and said that it was roughly the same thing. The Government did that before setting up the inquiry. To be fair to Lord Etherton, he had no choice but to recommend £50 million.
I have looked at the cases and met some of the individuals concerned—Fighting With Pride is a great organisation—and there is no way that that compensation is going to be enough. I told the Minister for Defence People that, if he thinks he is going to get away with £50 million, it is completely for the birds. People have lost wages, pension entitlements and other things that need to be taken into consideration. If we are not careful, people will say, “Actually, it’s not worth going through this scheme. We’ll just litigate and go all the way.” That is another example of how the Treasury, or somebody else, setting limits beforehand is not a good idea.
The other example is the infected blood inquiry. The Government argue that we have to take time to make sure we do it properly. I agree with all that but, bluntly, we know it is about saving money, and it is possibly about kicking the inquiry until after the election in the hope that it will be somebody else’s problem. Is it going to be costly? Yes. No amount of compensation will address the damage done to the contaminated blood victims and their families—I have read their testimony—but it will help to right some of the wrongs.
The Government need to stop kicking this football around and work on a cross-party basis to agree the way forward. I got into this through my constituent Tom Brown, who was a fantastic individual who fought very hard and with determination because he had not stolen £84,000, but he passed away before Christmas. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, it is sad that people are dying before they at least get some redress for the harm that was done. That cannot be right. Many more infected blood victims will pass away before they get compensation.
Following the APPG’s excellent report, we need to build the pillars of a framework that can be put in place for such scandals. That should apply not only to the Government but to the corporate world, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) chairs the Public Accounts Committee, which is looking at this, and we need to change the Treasury’s mind on accepting that we will have more of these scandals in the future, whether we like it or not. We should be mindful of that in the accounts by putting consolidated funding aside for these types of compensation schemes. If we had that framework and that Treasury thinking of keeping that money aside, we could at least then not keep reinventing things, which is what we are doing.
The sadness is that we keep making the same mistakes over and over again, which is unjust for the victims, inefficient for Government and just feeds those in the legal profession—sorry to keep having a go at lawyers—to a point where they get more than the victims, which cannot be right. We have to approach this issue, as the all-party group did, on a cross-party basis, as it is going to affect not just this Government but future Governments. Most people across the House would want us to have a system that ensures that people get compensated when things go wrong, so some consensus across the House in designing such a system or framework would be worth getting. If we could do that, we would show the public something. That goes to the point the hon. Member for Christchurch made—people may say that the Government and Parliament cannot do things, but we can if we get our act together and work across the parties to get what we all need, which is redress for the these individuals.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I do so with a small measure of trepidation, as a recovering lawyer; it is 23 years since I left legal practice, so it gives me a certain perspective. He is right to say that we are talking about the imbalance of power between the big corporates, Government bodies and public bodies, and the individual private citizen. Beyond that, the real problem is about culture, because nothing in nature or law says that a big corporate, public regulator or public body has to treat people badly; that is the choice of the people who make up those bodies.
That problem is not new. As I have been listening to this debate, I have been reflecting on the fact that not long after I was first elected to this House in 2001, one of the first pieces of casework in which I became involved related to 36 residents in the south end of Shetland whose asbestos roofs had all failed following the grounding of the Braer, off the south end of Shetland, some 10 years earlier. The casual observer might think it common sense that those roofs had worked perfectly functionally for decades and then suddenly, after a tanker full of Gullfaks crude was dumped on top of them, things started to go wrong. The problem was that they did not go wrong immediately; it took time for their failure to become apparent. As a consequence, those people were at the tail end of those who were claiming from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds. Everybody believed before the Braer that the sum put into the IOPC fund could never be reached, but of course the Braer maxed out the fund.
By the time the asbestos roof claimants came along, there was no money left to pay the compensation. However, money was left to defend a court action, which is what happened when my constituents raised one. I have never understood the judgment in the case, but my constituents lost and, as a consequence, were left having to carry their own losses. I am certain that had there been more money in that fund at the start, their losses would have been met. So, yes, this is about the imbalance of power, but it is also about the culture of the organisation concerned. An understanding is required on the part of these bodies, be they corporate or public, of the purpose for which they are there. That is what I wish to draw the House’s attention to today.
Last night, I was fortunate to host a showing upstairs of a BBC documentary entitled “King of the Swindlers”, and the parallels with the Post Office Horizon scheme and its victims are there for all to see. There were only a couple of hundred victims of the “King of the Swindlers”, whereas, as we know, thousands of sub-postmasters were affected by Horizon. The “King of the Swindlers” concerned a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by a financial adviser in the north-east of Scotland, Alistair Greig. He was eventually convicted of fraud and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment, which was later reduced to 10 on appeal. The victims came from everywhere from Shetland in the north, down through Orkney, along the highland east coast and the Moray coast, through Aberdeen and down into Angus. They were all people who had lived and worked as builders, tradesmen or shopkeepers, saving a bit here and there. They put their money into this Ponzi scheme and lost out. The constituent who first brought this to my attention lost out to the tune of £130,000, and his mother lost £37,000.
Alistair Greig was responsible for his fraud, but he was able to carry it out as a consequence of the serial ineptitude and incompetence of the Financial Services Authority, later the Financial Conduct Authority. A journalist, Dale Haslam of Aberdeen’s Evening Express, who has done tremendous work exposing what went on, pointed out to me last night that if the FSA had got it right the first time Greig’s wrongdoing was brought to its attention, he would have been stopped after only one victim. However, it missed the opportunity not once, not twice, but three times to stop what he was doing. As a consequence, the number of victims ran to hundreds.
Those who lost out were all small business people who had worked hard, saving £100 here and £1,000 or £1,500 there. They put all that money together and trusted it to Alistair Greig, usually on the recommendation of friends, family and others, because that is how business is often done in such communities. These people did not make that money by flipping properties or coming up with a great wheeze in the City; it was all hard won. Eventually, in desperation, they raised a legal action against Sense Network Ltd, the company that stood above Greig in the financial food chain, but they lost twice: in the first instance, and at appeal.
The legal action pursued by the 95 victims who had the determination, courage and stubbornness to pursue it did serve a purpose: eventually all the victims were allowed compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. That of course comes with an £85,000 cap, so my constituent who had lost £130,000 was immediately £45,000 down. However, those 95 victims of Alistair Greig who supported the legal action and made the compensation for everybody possible are left with a legal fees bill of £1.9 million; they are having to pay some £30,000 each, although the exact number varies. So my constituent started with £130,000, came down to £85,000, and is left with something in the region of £50,000. Let us not lose sight of the fact that Alistair Greig was able to do what he did only because the Financial Services Authority and the Financial Compensation Authority were poor at doing the job that this House charged them to do.
I invited various people to the screening of “King of the Swindlers” last night. I invited the legal team, including the solicitor who acted for the victims. I will be happy to introduce her to the right hon. Member for North Durham, because she is a sterling example of what good people in the legal profession can do, as a member of what I would still regard as a caring profession.
Mr Kevan Jones
I hate to think that I have given the impression that I am down on all lawyers; some of my best friends are lawyers. If the system is implemented fairly, people can get proper legal advice without it costing a fortune.
Mr Carmichael
I do not disagree with that. I saw enough of that in my time in practice. The right hon. Gentleman knows of my experience with the historical shortfall scheme, and of going into hand-to-hand combat with the lawyers who were instructed by the Post Office. In that case, we were able to make progress for my constituent. A local solicitor, Anne Robertson, a sole practitioner operating in Orkney, took on one of the three biggest firms in London and left them running for cover.
The victims were left with a £1.9 million legal fee because the inadequacy of the regulators left them with no option but to do what they did. We invited the regulators to the showing last night. I invited them in the middle of March; they replied last week in a letter, saying, “No, sorry. We have nothing to add. We are not going to come.” Foolishly, the FCA gave me time to reply, and I had a telephone conversation on Friday night, as I left Shetland on a ferry to go to Orkney, with Chris Wilford, the head of public affairs, and Mark Francis, the director of enforcement and market oversight. Apparently, that is a proper job title; I thought it was some sort of ironic term, but that is what is in his contract. The response was, “Of course we are accountable, but we don’t like being accountable to you. This was an informal process.” All I was asking was for them to come along, sit in room and watch a documentary, along with the people who had lost their life savings to this man, and explain the decision that they had taken. That was all they had to do. They could walk out of the room at the end of the night, and I would be able to ask no more of them, but they were not even prepared to do that. I thought I would be up against some really slick types, but I have rarely come across two more nervous-sounding individuals.
Mr Carmichael
That could be right, but I doubt it. My reputation is as a friendly and approachable character. We went through the process and eventually I said, “If these people had not taken that court action, how much would any victim of Alistair Greig have got back?” The silence was absolutely deafening. I let it run for as long as I could, and eventually I said, “Well, I think I understand now why you are so reluctant to come to the House of Commons next Wednesday.” The call did not go on much after that, but I did say that I thought that the matter required escalation, and asked them to call back on Monday with arrangements for me to speak to the chief executive. I did not get a call, but I did get an email on Monday saying that they had nothing further to add.
The chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority is Nikhil Rathi. Interestingly, a couple of years ago that job commanded a salary of £455,000 per annum. I calculated that the Prime Minister’s salary is about 37% of what we pay the chief executive of the FCA. For jobs like that, it often feels that the more you pay, the less you get. I contrast the lack of moral courage of people like that, who will not sit in a room with the people whose lives have been affected by the decisions they have taken, to that of some of the people who were in the room last night, including the solicitors Philippa Hann and Robert Morfee. At first, the judge in the Sense Network case was not going to turn up, but he was there in the room. We expect judges to plead the independence of the judiciary, and rightly so, but out of respect for what these people had been though, he was prepared to turn up, watch the documentary and share the space with them. That spoke well to his strength of character.
Another person who was in the room was Judy Greig, the ex-wife of Alistair Greig, who was responsible for the scheme. She divorced him after his crimes came to light. He made himself bankrupt, but she refused to do that, so she has ended up carrying some of his debt. She is now 72 years old. She is working in a supermarket and still supporting the victims of her husband’s criminality. Her remarkable strength of character is in contrast to that of people like the chief executive of the FCA who, despite the very well-funded taxpayer salary that they get, simply lack the decency and moral courage to sit down in a room with their victims.
That is why I think that the question of culture is at the root of the issue. Since I became interested in the last few days in the detail of what was going on in the FCA, I have found very little to offer me comfort. Apparently, the FCA said that 60 of its staff were earning salaries below the £29,500 per year set by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as the minimum amount that people need to earn to reach an acceptable standard of living. It is a possibility that the FCA will establish its own hardship fund in 2024, if there is enough demand among staff. This is an organisation where the chief executive is paid £455,000 a year.
Some of the commentary on the culture in the FCA is pretty damning. In one anonymous online report, a former colleague described the CEO as
“a very high IQ, but not as much EQ”—
emotional quotient. As we know, culture comes from the top of an organisation downwards. Unite, the union that represents many FCA workers, talks about the “toxic” environment for staff representatives, who have been given “minimal information” by their bosses. Again, this comes down to culture. How the FCA treats its staff reads across to how it treats people like my constituents, who find themselves in need of its services.
We set up the FCA for a reason, and the FSCS for another reason. The FSCS was only supposed to be there in case the FCA failed in any way. It is paid for by companies in the financial services sector, which are regulated, so they pay for the regulation, and for the failure of that regulation. This is something that the Government seriously need to look at soon. In the meantime, if the FCA wants to do anything to persuade me or anybody else in this House that I am wrong about the culture within that organisation, it can put the final sum of £1.9 million in a cheque to the 95 claimants who were the victims of Alistair Greig and Midas Financial Solutions.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank all hon. Members for a very thoughtful debate this afternoon. I have enjoyed all the contributions, which have raised some very important injustices. I will confine my observations to four issues: Windrush; the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, or the 1950s-born women; Horizon; and the infected blood scandal. Each one has caused hardship. Each one has been scandalous, including in the way that people caught up in these scandals have been treated and been given warm words, but very little action. All involve miscarriages of justice and, because of the delays in redress, we find that many victims are unfortunately no longer with us because they have waited so long. We should take some time to reflect on that during this debate. There are people who have just not seen that justice, not seen that redress and not seen that compensation.
First, let me turn to the WASPI women. We welcome the publication of the long-overdue reports by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which has found failings by the Department for Work and Pensions and has ruled that the women affected are owed compensation. However, it is staggering that, as the chief executive of that organisation said, the Department for Work and Pensions has clearly indicated that it will refuse to comply. That is unacceptable. The Department must do the right thing and it must be held to account for any failure to do so. I believe that, if the will of this House is tested on that issue, it will join all of us who believe that the Department for Work and Pensions must acknowledge its failings and urgently deliver a fast and fair compensation scheme for the women affected. Members could of course support the private Member’s Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who is trying to force the Government to publish proposals for that compensation scheme for women born in the 1950s.
We also have the Windrush scandal. Just like so many other issues that have been raised by hon. Members today, it is shameful that people have been waiting so long for compensation from the Government and that people have sadly passed away in the meantime. This year marks the fifth anniversary since the launch of the Windrush compensation scheme, yet nearly 1,500 claims from the Windrush scandal are still to be settled by the Home Office. A great grandfather who has helped advise thousands of victims of the Windrush scandal on compensation has said that he fears that the Government are
“waiting for us to die off.”
I hear that phrase all too often when discussing issues such this. There is a real sense from people that they believe that the Government are waiting for the victims to die off. The Windrush compensation scheme has been painfully slow, with 53 people having died while their claims were being processed.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the delay also adds extra heartache, not just because the individual has sadly died, but because then there is usually a legacy case which is passed on in a will, and that then leads to further complications, further delay and further agony for the families involved?
Chris Stephens
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has made that perceptive point. When the other place discusses the amendment in relation to infected blood, that is the sort of debate that it is going to have. It is the Government’s intention that the estates will be paid, but what the right hon. Gentleman says will confuse matters. Both the other place and this place will have to think about what that will mean.
The other issue with the Windrush scandal is that the Home Office is in charge of the compensation scheme. An independent body should administer that scheme. The Government tried to do something similar with the infected blood scandal, when they were very resistant to an independent arm’s length body being set up, despite Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. It is clear that the Government were nervous about that. The only reason that they tabled their amendment in the other place in relation to an independent compensation scheme in that particular scenario was that the will of the House forced the Government to accept an amendment to set up that independent body. I do hope the Government will consider setting up an independent organisation to administer the Windrush compensation scheme, as that is a far better position to take.
As I have mentioned infected blood, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say that I welcome in part the amendment that has been tabled in the other place. What is missing from that amendment is a timetable. People are waiting for justice. They need that timetable to know what is going to happen. It is unfortunate that the Government have not built on the amendments that were passed in this place through the Victims and Prisoners Bill. There is, I am afraid, a concern that the Government amendment in the other place is watering that down.
I wish to pay tribute once again to constituents who have been affected by the infected blood scandal, affected by Windrush, and involved in the WASPI women case. The last case that I will mention is the Post Office scandal.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to his last point, does he agree with me that trust in politics has taken a real dive? The cover-ups and then the length of time that it takes to address the cases of wrongdoing only further harms the public’s trust in politics and politicians. In the case of the Equitable Life scandal, despite the ombudsman saying that people should receive full compensation, around 90% of victims have still only received 22% of what the Government have acknowledged that they are owed. That is despite the ombudsman making it clear that finite resources should not get in the way. Does he agree that an independent agency is vital to stop the public trust eroding even further?
Chris Stephens
I think that is true. I get the sense that there is an anti-politics feel out there. That is not just directed at some individuals; it is a systematic issue. I think that people get very frustrated at the systematic delays that can take place in order to find redress.
I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) who have done fantastic work in highlighting the Horizon scandal. I do hope that the Government act swiftly, because we have to remember that 250 sub-postmasters have died without seeing justice. I believe that justice for all is vital, because justice delayed is justice denied.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, I just want to emphasise to those who might be wanting to participate in the next debate how important it is to get back for all the wind-ups, including that of the SNP spokesperson. It is rather discourteous not to do so. Thank you.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Members who secured this debate and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) who opened it and raised some very important issues in respect of delivering appropriate redress schemes in a timely manner.
Today, we have heard from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about vaccine damage and from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) about the Post Office and the constraints of non-disclosure agreements. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has brought his expertise and track record of campaigning to the Chamber to speak on the Post Office and the miners’ compensation schemes. And we heard from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on a saving scheme and the missed opportunities by the watchdog to prevent people from becoming victims of that scheme.
By definition, those who are eligible for redress schemes will already have suffered detriment, and many, as we have seen with the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, will have spent years battling for recognition and justice, and suffering avoidable hardship. We therefore owe it to them to ensure that we get the redress schemes right, and that they are set up as promptly as possible and operate as efficiently as possible, while ensuring that we protect the public purse from fraudulent claims. Learning from previous schemes, so that we are not constantly reinventing the wheel or repeating mistakes, and building up corporate expertise are therefore of vital importance. Each scheme will, however, have its own complexities and sensitivities, and it is important that they are fully recognised.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham highlighted, victims should be at the centre of designing redress schemes. The National Audit Office produced a briefing in 2008, building on the experience of some previous compensation schemes, such as the miners’ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vibration white finger schemes, which are all too familiar to my right hon. Friend, to me and to other colleagues who represent former coalmining areas. The NAO briefing stressed the importance of the right governance and project management, committing sufficient effort and appropriate skills to setting up schemes, considering the capacity needed, designing out the likely bottlenecks or delays, and being prepared to deal with external pressures. There may well be further lessons to learn since then. In January, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, asked the National Audit Office to
“conduct a thematic review of government compensation and financial redress schemes”,
and the National Audit Office agreed to do so. I look forward to reading that report.
Sadly, as we have seen in instances such as Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, long before getting to any form of redress scheme, actually getting to the truth in the first place can be an uphill struggle, with victims vilified, shamed, shunned, imprisoned and financially ruined. On 6 December last year, when the Government published their response to the Hillsborough report, the Opposition, along with the victims’ families, were bitterly disappointed that the Government stopped short of proposing a Hillsborough law, which is why I raised it at Prime Minister’s questions that day. This week, we marked the 35th anniversary of Hillsborough tragedy. As hon. Members will have heard, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the proposed law again with the Prime Minister yesterday, but we still received no positive response.
The purpose of a Hillsborough law would be to prevent such a hideous cover-up by the authorities, which was an appalling affront to the survivors and the devastated families of those who died, and left them having to struggle for far longer to get justice. The purpose of the proposed Hillsborough law would be to put a legal responsibility on public officials to tell the truth in any form of formal inquiry or proceeding, and to ensure that individuals would face criminal sanctions if they breached that law. To be honest, it is extraordinary that that is not already the case. Importantly, the proposed Hillsborough law would also provide victims with parity of legal funding in inquests. That would avoid the sort of David and Goliath situation where victims simply cannot afford to challenge the authorities.
All public bodies need to be open-minded and even-handed when considering complaints or hearing from whistleblowers, and not rush to cover up and silence concerns, and hound whistleblowers out of organisations. Those in charge of public bodies need to contemplate the thought that mistakes may have been made, systems may be at fault, and there may be individuals who do not hold to the ideals of public service, or inappropriate cultures within an organisation. Often, early recognition and acknowledgment of a problem could help to bring justice sooner to victims, prevent further victims and ultimately save the public purse. Instead, it seems to take years of struggle, heartbreak, investigative journalism and even TV dramas before the victims’ voices are heard and believed, and justice is delivered. In terms of whistleblowers, I think of the senior paediatrician in the Letby case who raised concerns. Even though he was a senior paediatrician, his concerns were dismissed, and Letby went on to murder again—all the more tragic, because it could have been avoided.
To return to the redress schemes, it is all very well looking at best practice and trying to build on previous experience to streamline matters and avoid reinventing the wheel. Skilled civil servants can have the very best guidelines in the world, but without political will from the Government to prioritise, victims will continue to wait, and sadly some may never live to receive their compensation.
Mrs Hodgson
On whether people survive to get justice, I draw attention to Baroness Cumberlege’s “First Do No Harm” report on the harm caused by mesh, sodium valproate and Primodos. A lot of those victims are already dying. My mam is one of the victims of mesh. She will be 80 in January, and I hope that she lives to see some compensation and redress. Does my hon. Friend agree that these things really have to be sped up, because it is not fair? When people have been harmed, in this case by the state through medical interventions, redress should be forthcoming quickly.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point.
Recently, the Government have dithered and delayed on three high-profile redress schemes. I will turn first to the Windrush scandal, which revealed the huge injustices in our citizenship and nationality system. The scheme was set up in 2018, but a Home Affairs Committee report in 2021 pointed out that in early 2021, the average time from claim to payment was some 434 days. Even in February this year, the Home Office’s own data showed that some 14% of live claims were dragging on for more than six months.
As we have made clear in this House, Labour is determined to ensure that the Windrush generation and families get the compensation and justice that they are owed. If necessary, we would place the Windrush compensation scheme outside the Home Office if it continued to fail. Labour has plans to restart and improve community engagement and outreach work to encourage applications to the scheme and speed up compensation payments, to ensure that every victim gets every penny of the compensation that they deserve. As part of our commitment to the recommendations of the Wendy Williams review, Labour would establish a Windrush commissioner to monitor the compensation scheme and the re-establishment of the major change programme and the Windrush unit within the Home Office, and to be a voice for the families affected, to ensure that a scandal like Windrush can never happen again.
Mr Kevan Jones
My heart drops at the idea of another commissioner. The point, which my hon. Friend made earlier, is that we need Ministers who will drive things forward. A good example is the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who on a number of occasions I have called a poacher turned gamekeeper. He did excellent work on the banking scandal, and he has driven things forward because he is a Minister who actually cares about the victims and is prepared to make tough decisions within Government.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed. Without political will, things cannot be driven forward. As my right hon. Friend says, ministerial intervention is crucial.
I turn to the infected blood scandal. The Opposition were disturbed to hear the news yesterday evening that the Government are yet again delaying the compensation scheme by trying to remove from the Victims and Prisoners Bill a requirement to set one up within three months of the Bill’s becoming law—yet another missed opportunity, yet another delay. In 2022, Sir Robert Francis KC produced his report “Compensation and Redress for the Victims of Infected Blood—Recommendations for a Framework”. In April last year—a whole year ago—Sir Brian Langstaff produced his second interim report of the infected blood inquiry. As the Minister knows, there is absolutely no reason why the Government cannot go ahead with setting up a scheme before the publication of the final report on 20 May.
Time is of the essence. Every week that passes without further Government action matters. Those who were infected with contaminated blood are dying at a rate of one every four days. The Labour party wants to ensure that justice and compensation for victims and their families are delivered as a matter of the utmost urgency, but we have still not heard the Government’s final decision on compensation. They tell us that they will not make public any final details until after the publication of the final report in May. I urge them yet again to speed up the process of delivering justice to victims and their families, including by getting on with the work needed to set up the structure of the compensation scheme, so that victims are compensated as soon as possible.
The Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill affords us the chance to make a huge stride in righting the wrongs of the past, and we on the Labour Benches are pleased to give it our full support.
This has been an interesting and informative debate. The Government should always try to learn from past experience and do their utmost to get redress schemes right, making them transparent and easily accessible to victims while protecting the public purse.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to respond to a thoughtful debate in which we have heard some very good speeches. Hon. Members have had the opportunity to display the considerable expertise that they have built up, often while dealing with difficult constituency casework. It is a reminder to us all that we are here to serve the needs of our constituents and to help them find redress when hardship, difficulties and, sometimes, the system get in their way.
It was a pleasure to hear experienced Members of the House harking back to the glorious days when we had a full working Thursday. I share their desire for that—and not just because we would have had more people in attendance for this debate. It was particularly good to hear the considered speech of right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), in which he savagely attacked lawyers. I look forward to the leader of his party reading and considering his remarks.
We are here to debate the details that have been raised thanks to the diligent efforts of the all-party parliamentary group in writing to the Government with its thoughts about how we might make general improvements. The Government firmly believe that access to redress is fundamental in upholding justice and fairness in our society. It is imperative that individuals have avenues to seek recourse when they have been wronged or harmed. In recognition of that, the schemes through which the Government provide redress are numerous.
The Government have done more than most in the past few years to address historical wrongs. In 2017, the infected blood inquiry was set up, and in October 2022 interim payments of £100,000 were made to everyone in the UK infected blood support schemes. The Windrush programme was set up in 2019, the Horizon shortfall scheme in 2020, the overturned convictions scheme and the LGBT veterans scheme in 2021, and the group litigation order compensation scheme in 2023. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out our next steps in supporting the victims of the infected blood scandal.
The Government have been steadfast in our commitment to providing diverse compensation schemes that cater to varying needs and circumstances. We remain committed to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all citizens have access to effective mechanisms for resolving grievances and holding institutions accountable. There is, rightly, considerable interest across the House in how we can ensure best practice. I am grateful to be able to engage with some of those ideas today.
Although I acknowledge the interesting ideas mooted by the APPG, I think we should sound a note of caution. We must be wary of any approach that would set up a uniform system for redress and compensation. Each set of circumstances is often very different, and schemes need to be capable of reflecting those differences in order to ensure that the affected individuals get the best possible redress. Any reform process would need to ensure that we do not lose personal understanding of the claimants who are accessing the scheme, and that we provide adequate support and understanding of their personal experiences. I urge hon. Members to keep claimants at the centre of our thinking during consideration of any reforms—that has been at the heart of what hon. Members have said in the debate.
Mr Kevan Jones
I do not disagree with the Minister— I agree that victims should be at the centre, and that no two schemes will ever be perfectly the same—but there are broad frameworks. What tends to happen—it certainly did with the Horizon scheme—is that people try to reinvent the thing every time. Surely we could put in place some parameters that civil servants could use as a template when faced with a future compensation scheme.
Alex Burghart
I was going to come to that point. Although the right hon. Gentleman is right that there is currently no public guidance, that does not limit the sharing of knowledge between Departments and policy areas. There is a great deal of dialogue and shared learning between officials when schemes come into existence. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) suggested in his opening remarks that the wheel was always being reinvented. That is not the case; a learning process happens within Government.
Richard Foord
I do not suppose that lessons are not being learned and that one set of civil servants is not passing lessons on to another set; rather, this is about victims having the reassurance that when there is a perceived conflict of interest, they have somewhere else to go.
Alex Burghart
The point I was making was very much that we have internal schemes of learning, and we ensure that each new scheme learns from the experiences of those that have gone before it.
Alex Burghart
I will give way one more time to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am running out of time.
Mr Jones
That is not my experience. When we were setting up the advisory board for the Horizon compensation scheme, I asked officials to look at the mineworkers’ compensation scheme, which was a massive scheme. The problem is that, with the turnover of civil servants, corporate knowledge is lost. We need corporate knowledge to be held centrally in Departments—possibly in the Cabinet Office; otherwise, things left to Departments do not happen because people leave.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman is right: the Government require a means of retaining corporate knowledge. That is something that I have been working on since I came to the Cabinet Office 18 months ago. I will not go into it now, but we are putting in place a number of novel programmes to ensure that, as people move on, we retain their learning—not just with regard to redress schemes, but more broadly across Government. He is right about that. Although there is a richness in having civil servants who have worked in many different Departments and have a broad understanding of how Government works, there is sometimes a danger that, in having that rotation, we lose expert knowledge.
I will move on to some of the progress that has been made on the major schemes that the Government have under way. In respect of the Horizon IT scandal, let me reassure the House that the Government are determined for postmasters to receive the compensation that they deserve. As of 31 March this year, approximately £190 million had been paid to over 2,800 claimants across three schemes: £111 million on the Horizon shortfall scheme; £39 million for all payments, including interim payments, on the group litigation order scheme; and a total of £41 million for all payments, including further interim payments, on the overturned convictions scheme. With regard to the Windrush scandal, as of February this year the Home Office had paid over £83 million across 2,307 claims. On infected blood, as I mentioned earlier, the Government have paid over £400 million in interim compensation to those infected, and bereaved partners, registered with existing support schemes since 2022.
Let me turn to the specific points made by other contributors. Alas, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) ascribes to me a greater power than I possess: I am unable today to respond formally to the Cumberlege review, but he will be aware that the Government are in the midst of very serious consideration of its findings and recommendations, and I know that he will hold our feet to the fire to ensure that that formal response comes soon. To go back one more time to the right hon. Member for North Durham, I am grateful for his acknowledgment of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). His comments about lawyers aside, I very much agree that we need schemes that reduce the opportunities for legal opportunism—we owe that to our tax-paying constituents, and also to those who have been wronged.
The Government understand that there are broad lessons to be learned from schemes that have gone on in the past, but also from the four big schemes that are currently under way. It will also be necessary for us to consider the response of the National Audit Office to the letter written earlier this year by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), so that we can better understand how we can build on the good work that has already been done to help our constituents when similar wrongs befall them in future.
Richard Foord
I am very grateful to all Members who have participated in today’s debate, often prompted by conversations that they have had with individuals in their constituencies and therefore often paying great heed to just one person’s case. In recent years, there have been one or two positive developments on accessing compensation—for example, the interim compensation awards that we heard about have helped to speed up redress—but there are still some serious problems that are common to so many of the cases that we have used to highlight the problem this afternoon.
We can no longer have the same organisations that are responsible for the original harm also responsible for adjudicating what is fair compensation. Even in cases where there is not a conflict of interest, victims might perceive that there is, and as we have heard, they have nowhere else to go, so there needs to be the right of appeal. We cannot have the ludicrous situation in which an individual or small business who was subject to mis-selling, for example, has no recourse but to go back to the very bank that lent them the money in the first place. We need an independent, expert arm’s length body that could oversee redress schemes and would provide a cost-effective way to tackle mass scandals. It would ensure speedy resolutions that place the burden on those who commit the wrongdoing, not the victims who are caught up in these appalling situations. The recommendations of the APPG on fair business banking are an excellent way of introducing that framework.
I conclude by thanking all Members who took part in today’s debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the challenges faced by individuals and businesses in accessing effective dispute resolution and obtaining redress in cases of injustice; believes that the Government needs to address these specific challenges, namely a fragmented and inconsistent redress landscape; considers statutory guidance to be an essential measure to ensure compensation and redress schemes follow common principles and lead to fair and independent outcomes; and calls on the Government to create statutory guidance with common principles for setting up and operating a redress scheme.
Covid-19: Response and Excess Deaths
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the covid-19 pandemic response and trends in excess deaths; and calls on the covid-19 inquiry to move onto its module 4 investigation into vaccines and therapeutics as soon as possible.
We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in this country in living memory, and possibly ever: the excess deaths in 2022 and 2023. Its causes are complex, but the novel and untested medical treatment described as a covid vaccine is a large part of the problem. I have been called an anti-vaxxer, as if I have rejected those vaccines based on some ideology. I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I have not: in fact, I am double vaccinated and vaccine-harmed. Intelligent people must be able to tell when people are neither pro-vax nor anti-vax, but are against a product that does not work and causes enormous harm to a percentage of the people who take it.
I am proud to be one of the few Members of Parliament with a science degree. It is a great shame that there are not more Members with a science background in this place; maybe if there were, there would be less reliance on Whips Office briefings and more independent research, and perhaps less group-think. I say to the House in all seriousness that this debate and others like it are going to be pored over by future generations, who will be genuinely agog that the evidence has been ignored for so long, that genuine concerns were disregarded, and that those raising them were gaslit, smeared and vilified.
One does not need any science training at all to be horrified by officials deliberately hiding key data in this scandal, which is exactly what is going on. The Office for National Statistics used to release weekly data on deaths per 100,000 in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations—it no longer does so, and no one will explain why. The public have a right to that data. There have been calls from serious experts, whose requests I have amplified repeatedly in this House, for what is called record-level data to be anonymised and disclosed for analysis. That would allow meaningful analysis of deaths after vaccination, and settle once and for all the issue of whether those experimental treatments are responsible for the increase in excess deaths.
Far more extensive and detailed data has already been released to the pharma companies from publicly funded bodies. Jenny Harries, head of the UK Health Security Agency, said that this anonymised, aggregate death by vaccination status data is “commercially sensitive” and should not be published. The public are being denied that data, which is unacceptable; yet again, data is hidden with impunity, just like in the Post Office scandal. Professor Harries has also endorsed a recent massive change to the calculation of the baseline population level used by the ONS to calculate excess deaths. It is now incredibly complex and opaque, and by sheer coincidence, it appears to show a massive excess of deaths in 2020 and 2021 and minimal excess deaths in 2023. Under the old calculation method, tried and tested for decades, the excess death rate in 2023 was an astonishing 5%—long after the pandemic was over, at a time when we would expect a deficit in deaths because so many people had sadly died in previous years. Some 20,000 premature deaths in 2023 alone are now being airbrushed away through the new normal baseline.
Shocking things happened during the pandemic response. In March 2020, the Government conducted a consultation exercise on whether people over a certain age or with certain disabilities should have “do not resuscitate” orders, known as DNRs, imposed upon them. A document summarising the proposals was circulated to doctors and hospitals; it was mistakenly treated as formal policy by a number of care homes and GPs up and down the country, who enacted it. At the same time, multiple hospitals introduced a policy that they would not admit patients with DNRs, because they thought that they would be overwhelmed. The result was that people died who did not need to die while nurses performed TikTok dances.
The average time to death from experiencing covid symptoms and testing positive was 18 days. It is a little-known fact that the body clears all the viruses within around seven days; what actually kills people is that some, especially the vulnerable, have an excessive immune response. Doctors have been treating that response for decades with steroids, antibiotics for secondary pneumonia infections and other standard protocols, but they did not do so this time. Even though the virus was long gone, doctors abandoned the standard clinical protocols because covid was a “new virus”—which it was not. They sent people home, told them to take paracetamol until their lips turned blue, and then when those people returned to hospital, they sedated them, put them on ventilators and watched them die.
The protocol for covid-19 treatment was a binary choice between two treatment tracks. Once admitted, ill patients were either ventilated in intensive care or—if they were not fit for that level of care—given end of life medication, including midazolam and morphine. The body responsible for that protocol, NG163, which was published on 3 April 2020, is called the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE. Giving midazolam and morphine to people dying of cancer is reasonable, but there is a side effect, which is that those drugs have a respiratory depressant effect. It is hard to imagine a more stupid thing to do than giving a respiratory suppressant to someone who is already struggling to breathe with the symptoms of covid-19, but that is exactly what we did.
Can the Minister explain why midazolam was removed from the same updated guideline NG191—the antecedent of NG163—on 30 November 2023? As it was removed, is it now considered and admitted that it was a mistake to ignore the warnings of so many experts about including that specific drug, midazolam, in NG163 when it was introduced? It has been confirmed in letters from Ministers to families whose loss of loved ones was down to this protocol that Ministers are now saying that doctors and nurses should have treated the individual patient with their own knowledge, rather than strictly following NICE guideline NG163. If legal cases for unlawful killing are brought, can the Minister tell us who is going to be taking the blame? Will it be NICE, will it be NHS England or will the individual doctors and nurses be held to account?
Interestingly, NICE has now removed these alternative protocols, including NG163, from its website, although every other historical protocol is still there for reference. Could the Minister tell us why NICE has removed this protocol from its website? Is it ashamed of the harm it has caused? It certainly should be. What can we learn from this? We learn that very few doctors dare challenge what they are told. Protocols with no authors are distributed, and doctors fall into line.
There is a huge, stark contrast in how deaths and illnesses after vaccination have been recorded compared with those after covid. After a positive covid test, any illness and any death was attributed to the virus. After the experimental emergency vaccine was administered, no subsequent illness and no death was ever attributed to the vaccine. Those are both completely unscientific approaches, and that is why we have to look at other sources of data—excess deaths—to determine whether there is an issue.
First, however, I want to address the phrase “safe and effective”. The fear deliberately stoked up by the Government promoted the idea of being rescued by a saviour vaccine. The chanting of the “safe and effective” narrative began, and the phrase seemed to hypnotise the whole nation. “Safe and effective” was the sale slogan of thalidomide. After that scandal, rules were put in place to prevent such marketing in future by pharma companies, and they are prohibited from using “safe and effective” without significant caveats.
That did not matter this time because, with covid-19 vaccines, the media, the Government and other authorities turned into big pharma’s marketing department, and it is very hard now to hear the word “safe” without the echo of the words “and effective”, but they are not safe and effective. In March 2021, when the majority of UK citizens had already received these novel products, Pfizer signed a contract with Brazil and South Africa saying that
“the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and…adverse effects of the Vaccine...are not currently known.”
That is verbatim from the Pfizer contracts.
These so-called vaccines were the least effective vaccines ever. Is there anyone left under any illusion that they prevented any infections? When he was at the Dispatch Box for Prime Minister’s questions on 31 January, even the Prime Minister, in answer to my question, could not bring himself to add “and effective” to his “safe” mantra. In his own words, he was “unequivocal” that the vaccines are “safe”. The word “safe” means without risk of death or injury. Why is the Prime Minister gaslighting the 163 successful claims made to the vaccine damage payment scheme, totalling £19.5 million in compensation for harm caused by the covid vaccines? Have these people not suffered enough already? Those 163 victims are the tip of the iceberg, by the way. It also should be noted that the maximum payment is only £120,000, so each of those 163 victims got the maximum possible award, which should tell us something. The same compensation scheme paid out a total of only £3.5 million between 1997 and 2005, with an average of only eight claims per year, and that is for all claims for the entire country for all vaccines administered. So much for “safe”.
How about effective? On 25 October 2021, the then Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Boris Johnson—even admitted that the vaccine
“doesn’t protect you against catching the disease and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on.”
Looking at the levels of the virus found in sewage shows that the post-vaccine wave was of the same order of magnitude and duration as the previous waves. This proves that the vaccines changed nothing. They were not safe, and they were not effective.
Those who imposed these vaccines knew full well that they could never prevent infection from a disease of this kind. An injection in the arm cannot do that. Only immunity on the surface of the airways and the lungs can prevent viral infection; antibodies in the blood cannot. In Dr Anthony Fauci’s words,
“it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines.”
He continued:
“This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to do so?”
They knew that the so-called vaccines would never protect from infection, which explains why they never tested for protection from infection.
Only a few days ago, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry rapped Pfizer on the knuckles for the sixth time, and said that its marketing practices had brought the industry into disrepute. It was asked to pay a paltry £30,000 in administrative expenses, with no fine on top. The person heading the ABPI at the moment is also the head of Pfizer UK. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has a statutory duty to carry out this work, and it has handed its responsibility to the industry. This is an outrageous conflict of interest.
Let us turn back to excess deaths. The Australian Government have launched an inquiry into Australia’s excess deaths problem. Australia is almost unique as a case study for excess deaths; as it had the vaccine before it had covid, its excess deaths are not so easily blamed on the long-term side effects of a virus. Like us, it saw a rise in deaths, which began in May 2021 and has not let up since. The impact was evident on the ambulance service first. South Australia saw a 67% increase in cardiac presentations of 15 to 44-year-olds. That increase peaked in November 2021, before covid hit. We saw a similar, deeply worrying effect here. In the UK, calls for life-threatening emergencies rose from 2,000 per day to 2,500 per day in May 2021, and that number has never returned to normal.
By October 2021, despite it being springtime in Australia, headlines reported that ambulances were unable to drop off patients in hospitals, which were already at full capacity. Mark McGowan, Premier of Western Australia, said that he could not explain the overwhelmed hospitals:
“Our hospitals are under enormous pressure. This has been something no one has ever seen before. Why it is, is hard to know.”
In April 2022, Yvette D’Ath, Queensland’s Health Minister, said about the most urgent ambulance calls, called “code ones”:
“I don’t think anyone can explain why we saw a 40% jump in code ones... We just had a lot of heart attacks and chest pains and trouble breathing, respiratory issues. Sometimes you can’t explain why those things happen but unfortunately, they do.”
I think we could explain this if we were to look at the link to the vaccine roll-out. Omicron did cause some excess deaths in Australia from 2022 onwards. However, there was a huge chunk of excess deaths prior to that, which doctors have not been able to blame on the virus. Could those deaths be caused by the vaccine? Very few people dare even ask that question.
It is important to remember how the vaccines were made. Traditionally, the key to making a vaccine is to ensure that the pathological, harmful parts of the virus or bacteria are inactivated, so that the recipient can develop an immune response without danger of developing the disease. In stark contrast, the so-called covid vaccines used the most pathological or harmful part of the virus—the spike protein—in its entirety. The harm is systemic because, contrary to what everyone was told, the lipid nanoparticles, encapsulating the genetic material, spread through the whole body after injection, potentially affecting all organs. At the time, everyone was being reassured that the injection was broken down in the arm at the injection site. Regulators ought to have known that those were problems.
Furthermore, it is now plentifully evident that the drug results in continued spike protein production for many months—even years, in some people. The deaths thus far have been predominantly cardiac, but there may unfortunately be many more deaths to come from these novel treatments, which may induce extra cancer deaths. Dr Robert Tindle is the retired director of the Clinical Medical Virology Centre in Brisbane, and emeritus professor of immunology. This month he published a paper highlighting the multiple potential harms from the vaccines, including harm to the immune system. As anyone who knows anything about biology will know, anything that disrupts the immune system can potentially increase the risk of cancer.
There are other reasons to be concerned about cancer being induced by these vaccines. Cancer is a genetic disease disorder that arises from errors in DNA, allowing cells to grow uncontrollably. Moderna has multiple patents describing methods for reducing the risk of cancer induction from its mRNA products. That risk comes from the material interrupting the patient’s DNA. It turns out that an mRNA injection has very high quantities of DNA in it, and that massively increases the risk of disturbing a patient’s own DNA. Worse still, the DNA that was injected contained sequences that were hidden from the regulator. That is the SV40, or simian virus 40 promoter region, which has been linked to cancer and has been found in the Pfizer vaccines. That was no accident. Yet again, crucial information was hidden from the regulator and the public with absolute impunity. An independent study in Japan, published last week, has found links between increased cancer rates in Japan and those who took the first and subsequent booster vaccines. Perhaps that explains why Pfizer acquired a cancer treatment company for a reported $43 billion earlier this year.
In conclusion, the evidence is clear: these vaccines have caused deaths. Despite that, they have been described as safe and effective. However, for a proportion of people who took them, the vaccines have caused serious harm and death, and they will have raised the risk of cancer for many more. Nor are they effective. The vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission, and when the data is looked at objectively, it shows that the vaccine does not prevent serious illness or death. Those are hard truths to face, but we must face them if we want to learn the lessons of the last few years. At some point we will have to face up to all the evidence that is building. It was fairly convincing 18 months ago when I first spoke out, but it is unequivocal now.
It is time to take the politics out of our science, and to put actual science back into our politics. I ask the House to support the motion today, and for Baroness Hallett’s inquiry to open module 4 on the safety and efficacy of the experimental covid-19 vaccines. Given the evidence, I call on the Government once again to immediately suspend the use of all mRNA treatments in both humans and animals, pending the outcome of that inquiry. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
No, no, we will have to clear the Gallery if clapping continues; I will order it, if necessary.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
As we have just witnessed, feelings are very strong on this issue, and large numbers of people have suffered directly or indirectly as a result of having covid-19 vaccines. For most people—the vast majority—the covid-19 vaccines were very good news, and they made an enormous contribution to the public health of the country, but that does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to those for whom the vaccines were bad news. In the earlier debate today, I reiterated my request that the Government take effective action, through the vaccine damage payment scheme, to ensure that those people for whom the vaccines were bad news receive proper compensation.
As the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) reminded us, the maximum payment under that scheme is £120,000. That figure has not been updated in line with inflation since 2007; had it been updated, it would now be about £200,000. Why do the Government not update it? Relatively small numbers of people are involved, but it seems as though there is reluctance on the Government’s part to face up to the reality that, for a small proportion of people, the vaccines were bad news.
When we had this debate initially, soon after the roll- out of the vaccines, the Government were unequivocal in saying that the vaccines were safe and effective, and with no qualification at all. Subsequently, AstraZeneca issued essentially a warning notice to practitioners, which said that they should be cautious about the roll-out of some of the vaccines to some patients. People who wish to make claims against the vaccine manufacturers and/or the Government—civil claims to supplement the £120,000 that they have already been awarded—are finding it difficult to get access to lawyers to pursue their claims, particularly if those claims arise from vaccines administered after AstraZeneca issued its first warning against the safety of its vaccines in certain circumstances.
A large number of people across the country look to the Government to intervene, first, to ensure that the vaccine damage payment scheme is updated, and secondly, to ensure that the people who applied under that scheme have their claims dealt with in a reasonable timeframe. Many of those claims are not. There are more than 9,000 claims, and 4,000-plus have not even been resolved yet. The delays extend to 18 months or more. The consequence for many claimants is that they are unable to begin their civil action, but a civil action has to be brought within three years of the cause of action arising if it is not to be affected by the limitation period.
I have asked the Prime Minister—I had a meeting with him, and have raised this at Prime Minister’s questions —whether the Government will intervene to ensure that the three-year limitation period does not apply to people still waiting for a determination of their claim under the vaccine damage payment scheme, if they wish to go on and sue the Government or the manufacturers. It is a matter of simple equity and justice. I have yet to have a substantive answer from the Government. I am due to meet the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care next week, and I hope that by then she will be able to assure me—she is a lawyer, as well as a Secretary of State—that nobody will be denied justice as a result of the Government’s delays in administering the vaccine damage payment scheme.
I very much share the disappointment of the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, who introduced this debate, that module 4 of the public inquiry has been postponed. Last August, there was a preliminary hearing, and there was some potent advocacy by the lawyers representing the victim groups who wanted to give evidence in module 4. That evidence will be extremely compelling when it is heard by the inquiry. It was a big disappointment to those groups, to me and to others that module 4 was postponed. We have been told that it has been postponed until January next year. The reasons for that seem rather weak and feeble, but the inquiry is independent. Evidence that was to have been given in July will now not be heard until January next year. The implications are serious for those seeking compensation for their suffering, but it is also significant for that other group of people.
That is because module 4 deals not just with vaccines but with therapeutics. There is a big issue about therapeutics, because Evusheld, the therapeutic that was meant to be available in particular for those who were immuno- suppressed and not able to take the vaccines, was never approved by NICE. A second version of Evusheld was being brought forward, but that has also still not been approved.
My constituent Bernard Mathysse has written to me in recent months to draw my attention to a letter sent on 26 March to the Prime Minister by a group of charities concerned with the issue. It calls for the Government to intervene and ensure that an early decision is made on what can be done to help immunocompromised people who cannot access the vaccines in any event. My constituent says that
“France has given emergency authorisation to Evusheld 2, and has got it into patients within a month of authorisation”.
He believes that other European countries will do the same. The United States has given Pemgarda—another drug—emergency authorisation, and so on.
Why can we not get a commitment from the Government to ensure that Evusheld is available to clinically vulnerable people? My constituent also wrote to me in July 2023 expressing the need to fast-track an essential pre-exposure prophylaxis drug. The consequence for him is that he and his wife have been in effect shielding for about four years: they meet friends only outside, they do not travel on public transport or go by aeroplane, they ask the family to test before a visit, they mask indoors, and they have to assess every situation to gauge the risks involved. That obviously means that they have a much restricted and isolated life, to their detriment, but that could be resolved if the Evusheld issue was taken seriously by the Government. If module 4 had been heard this summer, perhaps Baroness Hallett, as an interim recommendation, could have said, “The Government must get on with that.”
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I am hugely enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. I, too, have a constituent who is immunosuppressed and, unbelievably, still shielding, which is putting huge pressure on the family. Does not the slowness of the decision over this therapeutic stand in sorry contrast with the rapid decision taken on vaccines in the first place?
Sir Christopher Chope
Exactly. One of the inhibitions there may have been on the Government’s part was that, to justify the use of emergency vaccines, it was necessary for them to believe that there was no alternative. Of course, if those alternative measures had been recognised as a suitable way of providing some protection to individuals against covid-19, that would have undermined the vaccine manufacturers’ case that they needed emergency authorisation for their vaccines without going through the normal testing procedures.
The continuing slowness of the Government in responding to requests for licensing of Evusheld reinforce the feeling out there among many people that something funny is going on here and that, if we had come forward with those therapeutic measures at the beginning, many lives would have been saved, such an extensive vaccination programme would not have been needed, and the Government would have saved a lot of money. There is an issue there, but that is why the part of the motion that regrets the postponement of that element of the covid-19 inquiry is important.
We can debate academically or in political circles the issue of the excess deaths, but it is interesting that the Government concede that there have been excess deaths. The House of Commons Library’s briefing produced on 15 April for this debate says:
“The government has acknowledged an increase in the number of excess deaths in England and Wales and has attributed these to a combination of factors, such as the prevalence of heart disease, flu and heart disease.”
The emphasis is on heart disease, but many people feel that the increase in heart conditions and disease has been exacerbated by the very vaccines that people were persuaded to take to protect them against covid-19. According to an article last year, Dr Thomas Levy said that, on his estimate,
“vaccines are causing heart injury in at least 2.8% of people who receive the covid injections.”
He estimated that
“a minimum of 7 million Americans now have hearts damaged by covid ‘vaccines.’ And although there’s no way of being certain at this time, he said, it’s within the realm of possibility that over 100 million people in America have some degree of heart damage from the injections—not myocarditis but heart damage that will be detectable with a troponin test.”
There may be a link between the propensity of vaccines to damage people’s hearts and what the House of Commons Library, interpreting the Government figures, concedes is an issue of excess deaths attributable to heart disease.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that there is not a single medical intervention that does not also have risks—the medical profession will always acknowledge that—but is it not about a balance of the benefits against the risks? Ultimately, the judgment was made by those who supported the covid vaccine that the benefits far outweighed the risks imposed by the vaccine.
Sir Christopher Chope
I agree that the benefits outweigh the risks, but I do not think we have ever had a system in this country where we license drugs on the basis that they will do more harm than good to those who take them. If the drugs are potentially significantly harmful to a large number of patients, those drugs do not get their licence—and why should they?
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
With respect, that is exactly what we do. Antibiotics cause anaphylactic reactions that kill people. We give antibiotics to people knowing that a very small portion of them will be killed by them but, overall, they save many more lives than they take. That is why they get a licence.
Sir Christopher Chope
The key question is: do the people who are being prescribed the antibiotics know that there is a risk that they will die as a result of them being prescribed? If so, they are told that, but nobody who was affected by the covid-19 vaccines was told that they were anything other than absolutely safe and effective. That is the basis upon which a lot of the litigation will be founded.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend. Hon. Members are suggesting that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks. They suggest in these debates that there is always a balance to be made, and I agree. But do they acknowledge that there is a risk attached to the vaccine, and that the excess deaths that we are describing can be attributed to the vaccine? They might suggest that the risk is outweighed by the enormous benefit of the vaccine by saving lives, but if they are suggesting that there is a risk that could help explain the excess deaths, that is not the Government’s position. Their position is that there is no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. If they are suggesting that there is a link but it is outweighed by the benefits, that is a different argument.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention. I call Sir Christopher Chope.
Sir Christopher Chope
Madam Deputy Speaker, the enthusiasm is unbounded. I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) if she wishes to make the point to me in an intervention that she would have liked to have made to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger).
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This is the point, is it not? There has to be absolute certain evidence that there is that link to the covid vaccine. That still has to be proven, in my belief.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is important that the hon. Gentleman answers the first intervention before taking a second.
Sir Christopher Chope
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very wise advice.
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but the Government were reluctant to concede, at the beginning, that there might be risks associated with all this. Now, we have seen that some people have been adversely affected and, in certain circumstances, have even lost loved ones. We would expect the Government to look after people who have been adversely affected, which was the whole ethos of the vaccine damage payment scheme when it was set up. The Government are falling down on their responsibilities on that and, as a result, that is adding to vaccine hesitancy. The proportion of people who are accepting invitations from the health service to have yet another booster is plummeting, because increasingly people realise that in their particular circumstances the risks may outweigh any possible benefit.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Chamber asks for a link. We know that the excess deaths are predominantly in cardiac arrests, heart problems and strokes. We know that the vaccine works supposedly by inducing human cells to produce spike protein, to be attacked by our own immune system and create the immune response. We know that the vaccine does not stay in the arm. It travels all over the body through the blood supply. Blood vessels are lined by endothelial cells. The mRNA goes into them and makes them creates a spike. They are attacked by the immune system. That explodes into the blood supply and that is a blood clot. If it goes to the heart, you have a heart attack; if it goes to the brain or the lungs, you have a stroke or a pulmonary embolism. That is the link. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is the final warning. It is simply not acceptable for there to be clapping in the Gallery when particular Members speak. If there is any repeat of it, I will ask for the Gallery to be cleared. I just want to be absolutely clear that that is the position I will take, because it is not what happens in the Chamber or the Gallery.
Sir Christopher Chope
The hon. Gentleman has put on record what he wanted to say in that intervention. All I am saying is that, as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, I receive a large number of letters, not just from my constituents but from across the country, from people who have been adversely affected. I do not think anybody is challenging the authenticity of their circumstances or the complaints they make.
I am going to close—I know a lot of other people want to participate in the debate—with one such letter that came not from one of my constituents, but somebody else. She gives her name, but I will not repeat it. She says:
“After receiving my covid-19 vaccination, I experienced severe adverse reactions that resulted in hospitalisation. These reactions encompassed stroke-like symptoms, including seizures, tremors, inability to work or talk, irregular heart palpitations, low oxygen levels, vertigo, brain fog, memory loss, balance issues, tingling, high blood pressure and more. Despite undergoing extensive examinations, a recent diagnosis of Functional Neurological Disorder has highlighted my ongoing struggles with headaches, declining eyesight, and daily seizures.
Before vaccination, I was a healthy 34-year-old; however, now I am severely disabled, unable to work, and filled with uncertainty about my future, especially with the imminent arrival of my baby. Unfortunately my situation is not unique; thousands of individuals are suffering similar consequences. Despite assurances of safety, many have been left with life-altering disabilities or worse. I am writing to urgently request an investigation into cases like mine to address the impact of vaccine-related injuries.”
She goes on to give the batch number, and to quote the rather lame response from the MHRA.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The hon. Gentleman has just illustrated very clearly the fundamental difference between some of the points that have been made about prophylaxis and anaphylaxis. When people are given a drug that could precipitate or trigger an anaphylactic reaction, they are given prophylactic cover to prevent that. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the consequences—as described by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)—of spike protein embedding itself throughout the body, prompting a systemic inflammatory response that is not acute, as with anaphylaxis, but chronic. That reaction to the vaccine is very different from a normal allergic reaction that is anaphylactic and will be treated appropriately.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing his scientific expertise to the debate, because I am no scientist; I am a mere lawyer.
Dr Mullan
May I try to add some further clarity? There are actually a range of side effects, many of which occur over time. Ibuprofen, for instance, is another medicine that we might consider safe and call safe, and a large number of people take it, but eventually, after many years, some will suffer a stomach bleed that causes them to pass away as a result of taking too much ibuprofen over time, although that was medically allowed and considered to be safe. I am afraid that the attempt to give a scientific explanation is based on a flawed understanding of medicines and side effects, which has been demonstrated by numerous people on the other side of the debate.
Sir Christopher Chope
I will not be able to adjudicate on whether my hon. Friend or the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) is right, but I look forward to my hon. Friend’s being able to make his own speech and to its being subjected to scrutiny by the hon. Gentleman. That is a spectacle to which I think we are all looking forward.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying, and I am sure we all feel very sorry for the young woman in the case that he has described, but is there not the potential that when a vaccine is given in such great quantities to such a large cohort of the population, there is more likely to be correlation than causation between the effects? There is no doubt that people were ill before covid and before the vaccination was delivered, but my problem is that I do not know the answer to that question. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) says he does, but I am not sure how he can. What I will say is this: should not all of us be calling for further research on this issue to find out what the fundamental truth of it is, rather than listening to those who make assertions that have not been approved by scientists?
Sir Christopher Chope
Part of the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is to be found in the adjudications of the independent medical advisers who have been looking at claims made under the vaccine damage payment scheme. They have concluded that in several hundred cases there is no doubt that the adverse consequences that are the subject of complaint were caused by the vaccines, and that has given rise to the compensation. In a large number of other cases, the medics have concluded that the conditions suffered and complained about were caused by the vaccines, but have not caused sufficient disability—beyond the 60% threshold—to trigger payments.
Given the evidence provided by the doctors who are acting independently on behalf of the vaccine damage compensation scheme, there is now no doubt that, for some people, the vaccines are fatal or cause severe damage or injury. That is not in dispute, and the more people understand that, the more they will realise that it was over the top for the Government and Ministers to pretend at the beginning of the vaccination programme that these vaccines were going to be different from almost all other known medical interventions and vaccines—in other words, they were not absolutely safe and effective. The failure to say that has severely undermined trust in the system, which is why we need a lot more debates like this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I want to be absolutely clear, for the benefit of everybody who is watching our proceedings or participating in them, that if there are any more interruptions from the Gallery and it has to be cleared, I will have to temporarily suspend the House, which may mean that those who want to participate will be denied the opportunity. To be clear, I am trying to create a situation whereby everybody can have their say.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who has done remarkably good work on vaccine-damaged people. I co-chair his all-party parliamentary group’s sister group, the APPG on pandemic response and recovery, which has allowed me to see that we have a whole body of expert opinion before us. Medics, lawyers, experts in childcare and a whole range of politicians have come to very different views on what the right response to covid was and, in some cases, on both the law and the science itself.
Before I go any further, let me say that my experience of the APPG, and of climate change or global warming debates, is that science and politics make very uneasy bedfellows. There is often an attempt in a political debate to resolve matters that are only resolvable by looking at the evidence, doing more experiments and finding out the truth of the matter, which is not always possible in a debate where people feel very strongly about things.
I want to talk about something we have not really talked about so far: the disease itself. People have different views about the damage done by covid. Some people think it is harmless and just another flu, whereas some treat it as though it were the plague. It is neither. It was a nasty disease for some people who got it, but its major characteristic was the profile of people who were killed or made ill by it. It affected older people much more severely. I think the median age of those who died was 82 for men and 84 for women, so it was a disease of the elderly. Those below 50 were relatively safe—some died, but not many. That was known at the beginning of the epidemic.
This comes back to the point about politics, and the protection of Government politicians, being more important than looking at the science. A rational response to a disease with the profile of covid-19 would have been to put a cordon sanitaire around those people who were vulnerable because of their age or because they had other diseases, such as lung diseases, and to let the rest of us go about our business and take the risk, as we do every year with seasonal flu, but the Government did the opposite. They locked everybody up and sent untested people back from hospital into care homes, where they infected other people, which led to a spike in deaths.
At the same time, the Government were telling us that they were following the science. I have a scientific background—it is not in biology, but I have a degree in chemistry—and I believe in following the science and finding out exactly what is going on. The science was not followed, and not only because the response did not follow the natural profile of the disease. In their early statements, people from the NHS, and both Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, said that masks were a complete waste of time and that lockdowns were ineffective because there would be a peak six months later that would probably be worse than if we had not locked down. That advice changed very quickly, I believe under political pressure. Again, I think that was a mistake.
One country that did follow the science, Sweden, made mistakes—it made the same mistake that we made by sending infected people back into care homes—but it did not lock down and it did not restrict people’s freedom, or it did so in only a moderate way. It came out as about the best of comparable countries in Europe in terms of deaths.
Another consequence, which we see in every debate in this House, is that there is no money left. We spent £400 billion on covid, a lot of it wasted. We can read National Audit Office reports on the test and trace system, which was money almost totally wasted. There is also the money given to people who could quite easily have gone about their jobs. The businesses needed the money, given the decisions that the Government had taken, but the Government should not have taken those decisions.
Stephen Metcalfe
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that some of his comments are more relevant in hindsight than they might have been at the time? In March 2020, it was difficult to predict the path of the disease. We had seen pictures from around the world of hospital A&E departments overwhelmed by those turning up with respiratory problems, and Governments, not only here but around the world, had to respond to that. In hindsight, of course, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is accurate, but at the time we had to react in the way that we felt would protect the highest number of people and protect A&E departments from being overwhelmed. That required us to act quickly. Perhaps mistakes were made, but they are mistakes in hindsight.
Graham Stringer
I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a point. In March, when the first decisions were made, nobody knew what was going to happen. There was a panic to go into lockdown, which was understandable while people were seeing what was going on, but very soon after that people did know. What I think was, and is, indefensible was to carry on with policies that we knew were damaging the economy and were not protecting people. I therefore voted against my own party, which supported the Government and more on this issue. I went through the Lobby with a small number of colleagues from my party and the hon. Gentleman’s party to say that what was happening was wrong, and that the damage being done by the policies was probably worse than covid. It might be hindsight for March and April 2020, but not for the rest of the time and the second lockdown.
Once we knew the profile of the disease, we knew that we were damaging children. I go into schools and meet eight and nine-year-olds who were locked down when it was known that children were not at risk. A very small number of children died and, as far as I know, they all had comorbidities—I stand to be corrected—so covid was essentially safe for children. We have damaged both their mental health and their ability to learn. I go into schools from time to time, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, and teachers tell me that it is very difficult to catch up. I am still annoyed about the response, and I do not think it is hindsight.
I went through the Lobby with a minority of colleagues. One of the two failures of our democracy’s normal checks and balances was that this place was not functioning, as the Easter holiday was extended. Surely the most important thing in a crisis is for our democratic institutions to function properly. We could not ask proper questions and there were no follow-ups. We kept our Select Committee going but, with the best will in the world, it was a pale imitation of what had gone before. There was a complete failure to insist on more accountability from the Government while the economy was shut down. Some of us, although we were not very many, came here to try to keep it going.
Our democracy’s second important check and balance is the fourth estate. These publications are not normally my politics but, with the exception of The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator, and the Daily Mail to a certain extent, the rest of the media, led by the BBC, were quite uncritical of what was happening. People say that BBC reporters were told not to criticise and not to ask difficult questions, and political journalists—not specialist health journalists who might have asked more pertinent questions—were sent to the press conferences. It was a political question, but it was also a science and health question. We were really let down by the BBC primarily, and by other parts of the media.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and other hon. Members have talked about the Hallett inquiry. I supported the inquiry but, having seen the way it has gone, I have given myself a good talking to. I do not think I will ever again support an inquiry. Do we really want to spend half a billion pounds on this inquiry? I attended the previous debate on recompense, and we heard how lawyers are getting fat on all these inquiries. I do not know when the Hallett inquiry will report, but it may well last for years and cost half a billion pounds. It certainly will not provide us with any advice on what to do if there is a pandemic next year—I suspect that advice is what we all want. By the time it reports, there may have been another Government or two and it will be a historical document. Sweden is not a perfect society, but its inquiry has reported. The motion before us calls for the fourth part of the inquiry, which will be on vaccines, but is the inquiry really the technical body to do that? I do not think so.
In the first stage, the inquiry has shown an extraordinary bias towards believing in lockdowns. I would want to know a number of things from an inquiry: did the lockdowns work? Did they save lives? Have they cost lives? Where did the virus come from? The inquiry is not even looking at that and it is not dealing with any of those things, but it is taking a long time. It has made it abundantly clear that it is going to look at the impact of the virus on social divisions and poverty. I am a member of the Labour party and I can tell the inquiry, because I know, that poor people come off worse from diseases. It can go back to look at the Black report from 1981, I believe it was, if it wants to see that, as it talks about both regional and class disparities. We do not need to look at this issue, as we know that poor people do badly when there are epidemics—that has been true for all time.
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent point. Given our experience of inquiries, be it the current covid inquiry or the ongoing Post Office Horizon inquiry, is it any surprise that even the sub-postmasters have come to the conclusion that there is no justice in these inquiries and they are now considering bringing private criminal prosecutions to get their own justice?
Graham Stringer
No, I am not surprised about that. Inquiries take a long time and their reports and recommendations often gather dust. I have never made this point before, and I hope I am not going off-piste too much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but every time there is an horrific murder of a child we get a report with 90-odd recommendations, and the question is: does that protect the next child? No, it does not. I do not believe that these inquiries do. We need serious cultural change in many of these organisations, rather than another report on something. That is an easy thing to say and a very difficult thing to achieve.
Let me come on to the other part of the debate, which is about excess deaths and the number of deaths. It appears that just over 200,000 people were killed in this country by, or died of, covid. I had my doubts about these figures from the beginning. On a number of occasions, right from the start of covid, the Science and Technology Committee heard from statisticians. We had Sir Ian Diamond and Professor Spiegelhalter in to talk to us about the statistics. We heard from people from what is now the UK Health Security Agency but was then a named part of the NHS. We asked them whether they had the statistics on the difference between people who died from covid and those who died with it. If someone was dying of cancer and went into hospital, there was a fair chance that they would have got covid, because there was not perfect protection within hospitals. Such a person would then be registered as having been a covid death, but clearly they were going to die of cancer. From the very beginning, that obscured the statistics.
Dr Mullan
A number of statistics were used to profile the causes of death during the pandemic, but ultimately the most reliable statistics come from the death certificates, where a clinician has to make a judgment about whether something was a cause or an association. Those figures are reliable, and they match and mirror the other figures. So we have to be careful about disparaging the statistics that were used to monitor the profile of the pandemic over time in the rapid way we needed and the more authoritative and credible figures that do demonstrate quite a close match and help in genuinely understanding who did and did not die from covid.
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I happen to know that in some local authorities, instructions went out to the people who were registering deaths essentially to say, “If there is a cough involved in this, we want it down as covid.” There was a different process because the health service was not working under normal—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to correct me, I am happy to allow him to do so.
Dr Mullan
To come to that conclusion, one has to say that individual clinicians joined in a conspiracy to lie about what was on a death certificate. We can cast these aspersions, but someone has to fill that certificate in and I do not accept that individual doctors deliberately misled with what was on someone’s death certificate—that is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
Graham Stringer
I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that at that time, when it was difficult to examine people because there was a distance between clinicians and the people who had suffered death, there was a temptation and a view that covid should go on the death certificates. I suggest no conspiracy, though. I do not believe in conspiracies.
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the AstraZeneca vaccine was withdrawn eventually in the UK and around the world. It was withdrawn because of the rarest of blood clots on the brain. It was not put down on any death certificates in the UK by doctors until after the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency admitted, due to international pressure, that there was that risk. After that, the death certificates started to appear with vaccine-related harms. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that that was because doctors were intimidated by the idea that their reputations would be smeared for putting anything down as a vaccine harm or by having the GMC on their back.
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I do not believe in conspiracies. I do believe that, from time to time, one gets a view, both in professions and outside professions, that pushes judgments in one particular direction. I believe there is one point on which we can reach a consensus in the debate: Government Ministers said that the vaccines were 100% safe—it was particularly egregious when that was said about children— but no vaccine or treatment, as right hon. and hon. Members have said, is 100% safe. I think it was a mistake to say those things.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has made a sensible, serious point. Ministers here and in other countries knew that when they set up the global vaccines study. For those who want to know about this afterwards—not during the debate—BMJ article reference 2024;384:q488 looks at some rare side effects and acknowledges some of the other side effects. But those who start saying we should not have had the vaccines are wrong, and those who think that anyone believes any treatment is completely safe are wrong as well.
Graham Stringer
I am not familiar with that particular paper, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that nothing is ever 100% safe and vaccines have an overall benefit. I am vaccinated against covid, as I have been vaccinated against many things over my lifetime. Vaccines have made the health of this country, and countries around the world that can afford vaccines, much better over many years.
Wera Hobhouse
Further to that, may I suggest that this should not be binary? We do not acknowledge that some people have clearly had severely negative side effects from the covid vaccine. That should be acknowledged and there should be compensation and support, without completely throwing out the whole vaccine programme.
Graham Stringer
Of course.
I want to move on to excess deaths over the last couple of years, since covid, and the figures during covid. One of the ways of measuring the impact of covid was looking at excess deaths during covid. They were measured against a five-year average—that was the gold standard; it is the way it has been done—and that gave quite large figures. That is interesting given what has happened when the excess 100,000 deaths per year over the past two years have been looked at. The Office for National Statistics has moved away from that basis and on to a different one, and the figures are coming down.
We need an anonymised account of those excess deaths—this was part of a recent Westminster Hall debate—because that will help us to understand what is going on. The pharmaceutical companies have been given that information, but Ministers just give reassuring statements that there is no evidence that excess deaths are caused by the covid vaccinations—by the mRNA vaccinations. How do they know? They do not tell us that. We need to know, first, how they have come to that conclusion and, secondly, if that is a fair, reasoned and balanced conclusion. We also need a detailed look at the anonymised statistics, so that we can ask further questions about the problems that are worrying us—that certainly worry me—and so that we can make better decisions in future.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
May I start by paying tribute to all the Members who have spoken in the debate? I have great respect for them all. It is a particular privilege to follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). He was a hero during the covid period. While so many of us were blindly following what the Government told us to do, he stood almost alone in making up his own mind.
I also acknowledge the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), and the work that he is doing to support the many, many families and people who have suffered adverse reactions, and I am proud to support him in that work. I have great affection and respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who is doing a valiant job sticking up for his perspective in this debate. He is sitting directly behind the Minister, so I am not sure whether he is able to speak. None the less, I respect the position that he has taken.
I also wish to acknowledge the work done and the speech made by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)—please do not start cheering, because Mr Deputy Speaker will close down the debate. He is not popular with Members on the Conservative Benches, but I think that we have an obligation to take what he says seriously, and to examine the evidence that he has brought to the House. He has an absolute right to make the case that he does in this place.
Finally, before I get on to the points in my speech, let me mention my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). He made the essential point that we need more evidence. Fundamentally, we need the Government to be more open, and to instruct the agencies of the Government—the regulator and the health service—to provide the data that we need to get to the bottom of this issue. I implore the Minister to respond to that point in her wind-up.
I disagree with the suggestion from the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire that some fishy business was going on in how the ONS has been calculating excess deaths in recent years. Who knows? Perhaps there is some fishy business going on, but the ONS took the right decision to change the methodology. As Carl Heneghan and others have pointed out, the previous method of accounting for excess deaths—of taking an average over five years—actually led to an exaggeration of excess death numbers during the pandemic and, in a sense, contributed to the great anxiety that many people felt, which encouraged the lockdown, so it is right to rethink how excess deaths are calculated.
We know, by all the different measures, that many more people are dying now than were before the pandemic. That might be accounted for simply by an ageing population, by long covid, or by the effects of an NHS under pressure, but as we have heard today, there is significant evidence that other factors are at play. In particular, the impact on people’s hearts, and increasingly younger people’s hearts, deserves attention. The British Heart Foundation reported last June that since the start of the pandemic, 100,000 more people have died than would have been expected. That is surely significant cause for us to take this question seriously.
The question raised by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire is whether the vaccines have contributed to this increase in excess deaths. I hesitate to wade into this debate because I am not a scientist. I recognise the point made by others, particularly the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, that science and politics are uncomfortable bedfellows. We know that there are adverse effects from the vaccination. Everybody acknowledges that; it is a question of the extent to which those effects have been manifested.
My particular concern—this goes back to my point about a request for evidence—is whether the system that oversees the licensing, regulation, monitoring and analysis of medical treatments in general, and vaccines in particular, is up to scratch. There is so much speculation in the debate about what is going on, and what is true and what is not, but we seem to have some facts that we can all agree on. The first, I am afraid, is that the MHRA is significantly deficient in the way it operates. The Cumberlege report—this was referenced in the earlier debate—raised concerns about the way treatments are regulated and licensed that have not yet been addressed. I am afraid that through the covid episode many of the same concerns were manifested in relation to the vaccines.
We now know that the MHRA knew about the effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine on blood clotting as early as February 2021, but issued a warning about that only some months later—in April, a month after other countries had suspended the AZ vaccine. The MHRA also knew about the prevalence of heart problems and myocarditis in February 2021 but did nothing about it until June that year. In the intervening time, millions of people were vaccinated without the knowledge that the MHRA had. As has been said, we found out recently that Pfizer misrepresented the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. There has been very little comeback against it for that, and no meaningful fine. As we heard, just a few thousands pounds were charged in expenses.
The regulatory system that oversees the pharmaceutical companies is surely deeply conflicted, not least due to being partly funded by the pharmaceutical companies that it was set up to represent. It is significant and of concern that they have made so much money out of the vaccines, and so far do not appear to be making due recompense for some of the acknowledged harms— I am not talking about the wilder claims—that their vaccines have been responsible for. Will the Minister enlighten us on whether the indemnities against civil and Government action that the Government awarded to the vaccine manufacturers at the beginning of the production process still apply if it transpires that the companies misled the Government and the public about the safety and efficacy of their product?
The inquiry has been mentioned. There are so many unanswered questions and apparent red flags that it surprises me that the media and Parliament are not more up in arms about excess deaths. I am surprised that more attention is not being paid to this question. The fact is that this scandal—if it is a scandal—suits no one in high places in our country. It is true that we have an inquiry, but as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, surely it is asking the wrong questions. It is very concerning that the module looking at the vaccination programme has been postponed. It strikes me that the inquiry is essentially asking the wrong questions; it is really just asking why we did not do more lockdowns quicker. That seems to be its prevailing question for the experts—not whether the whole response was the right one, and crucially, in the light of what we now know, whether the final response of a mass vaccination programme was as safe and effective as was claimed.
We are rightly proud in this country of the effectiveness, speed and operation of the vaccine production and roll-out. It was a triumph of effective collaboration between Government and the private sector. The operation of the roll-out was a victory that all people can acknowledge, but it is not enough to say that the roll-out was done well. Was it done safely? Did it need to be done on the scale on which it was done? Particularly, did young people need to be vaccinated at all? We all remember Kate Bingham and others saying early on that the vaccine was only for the older population. These questions are increasingly being asked by the public and raised in the media.
Let me conclude quickly with what I have been doing. I hope that we will get more answers from the Minister than I have had so far from the Government. On 17 April 2023—a year ago yesterday—I wrote privately to the Secretary of State, asking him for evidence that justified the Government’s assertion that there was no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. I did that because I had so much correspondence from people raising that concern. I said:
“I am writing privately in this way rather than raising the question in Parliament because I am determined not to give credence to unscientific, conspiratorial accusations, nor to undermine the vaccination programme in public if it is, indeed, entirely safe and effective.”
I did not want to do this in public; I wanted to give the Government the opportunity to give me the evidence, so that I could pass it back to constituents, but I am afraid that the reply I received from a Minister was the one that we have already heard: the bland assertion that a combination of factors—flu, old age and so on—probably accounts for the excess deaths. The rest of the letter was all about what the Government were doing to combat excess deaths, and the answer was mostly “more vaccines.” I did not think that was good enough.
A year rolled by, the evidence seemed to mount, and more and more people were raising this concern, so I joined the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir Philip Davies), who could not be here today—he wanted me to explain that he is on important constituency business but is very much here in spirit—and others in writing this time a public letter to the Government asking the same question in more detail. We asked specifically, “What is the evidence for the definitive statement about safety and efficacy?” The Government said:
“There is no evidence linking excess deaths to the vaccine.”
If so, that is great news, but may we have the evidence on which that assertion is based?
Secondly, we asked: “Will the Department for Health, the MHRA, and the UKSHA release the data that is needed to understand what is going on?” The data that we are asking for is already made available privately to pharmaceutical companies for them to use in their safety studies of the vaccine. Why do they get it, but not the public? Why cannot independent scientists look at that data? I am sorry to say that we had replies neither to that letter, which was written in February—here we are in April—nor, after months, to the freedom of information requests that went to the agencies.
Stephen Metcalfe
I do not know why the Government would not want to release the data. It may be that the data could be misused and misrepresented. One way around that might be to invite research applications from our very sophisticated research ecosystem. Researchers could be given access to the data if they came forward with particular research projects. They would then be able to report on it, with external verification that they had actually used the data supplied, and not drifted too far from it.
Danny Kruger
That sort of practical suggestion should be considered. I would be interested in hearing the Government’s response to that. We are asking for anonymised data that poses no risk to any individuals. If the data is open and public, and the whole purpose is scientific interrogation and analysis, it should not be possible to misuse it. We need as much sunlight on that data as possible.
Let me end by repeating the commitment that I hope we will get from the Minister. I have been asking for anonymised, record-level, official mortality data, including vaccination status. That information, which is already being shared with drug companies, should be shared with Parliament and the public. If that is not possible, could the Minister explain why? Secondly, what are the sources for the definitive statement that the Government have made, most recently in October 2023—and that, I dare say, they might make again today—about there being no evidence of a link between the excess death figures and the covid-19 vaccines? I hope that there is no link. I took the vaccine—at least the first two jabs—as did most of my family and my constituents. I am sure that most people in the Public Gallery took it. We all did. I hope that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire is wrong to assert that there is a dangerous connection.
I am reluctant to be branded a conspiracy theorist, and I still do not want to give credence to unscientific assertions, but we in this place are here to take risks—the risks of ridicule and contempt—in exchange for the privilege of being here, and I think it is right that we raise these concerns on behalf of the public, even when there is some political cost. Too many people are dying, and we must understand why.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I will begin by picking up on a few of the points that have been raised this afternoon. First, there is a parallel with a very important report that we received last week, and to which the Government responded on Monday: the Cass review. When concerns were first raised about what was happening in gender identity development services, those of us who spoke up at that time suffered both political and public pile-ons that were very uncomfortable. It gives me no pleasure to have been vindicated by the content of the Cass review. Certainly, when the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) first raised his concerns on this issue, he was also subjected to a political and public pile-on. The reason I raise that is that this cannot be how we tackle thorny issues. We must have a much more reasoned and mature approach to these things, where ideological positions are not sacrosanct and we have the flexibility to engage with, and look at, the points that are being raised.
My second point is about the discussion regarding correlation versus causation. It is fair enough to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it is sufficient evidence for us to start asking questions about what is actually there. That is a fundamental question that anybody who has been involved in any scientific endeavour must surely understand.
My next point is a slightly more difficult issue to raise, because it is quite emotive. Like many others in this Chamber, I have had two vaccines and a booster. My family had the same, but there is a question about the presumption that that is what saved lives. We cannot prove that, unfortunately—that is just not the way it works—but what we do have to grapple with is the fact that the treatment we were given, like any agent, can cause harm. We have a responsibility to interrogate those concerns, which is why I am very disappointed that module 4 of the inquiry has been delayed.
My last point is about the record-level data and the importance of how it is tabulated. The methodology for assessing excess deaths has changed; that might be a reasonable change in practice at a time of peace, if you like, but we have just come through a very difficult period with the pandemic. Changing the methodology immediately afterwards seems perverse at best and deeply concerning at worst, because it is important that from this moment on, we are able to understand how trends are changing in a directly comparable way. With a change in methodology, that becomes impossible, so it is not a good idea—just in terms of scientific rigour, it is problematic.
I will start off my contribution by expanding on some of the comments I made during the debate on 16 January, because we had very limited time to speak in that debate. I want to take us a step back, away from the emotive issue of whether there is correlation, causation, and a relationship between excess deaths and the covid vaccine, and remind ourselves of the principles that underpin how clinical trials should be conducted. The ethical principles that underpin those trials have their origin in the declaration of Helsinki and are consistent with internationally published good clinical practice guidelines and, obviously, all of the regulatory mechanisms that fall out from those guidelines.
Anybody who has been involved in clinical trials of any type will know that, as I have said, any agent has the potential to cause injury or harm. That is just the nature of the beast, and one of the things we try to establish during a clinical trial is to find out the harm, however minimal or maximal it may be, so as to mitigate it, manage it or rule the agent out because it is too risky. Performing such a test rigorously is the foundation of good clinical practice, and I make these comments as someone who has been involved in the management and delivery of clinical trials over many years. I think that, as politicians, as clinicians and as the industry, we all carry a duty of honesty and candour in these matters.
Andrew Bridgen
With the hon. Gentleman’s experience, and he has looked at the Pfizer trial documents, is it not clear that Pfizer only trialled the experimental vaccine for eight weeks with a 22,000 vaccination group and a 22,000 placebo group, and then it vaccinated the placebo group? So how can anyone tell anybody what the long-term effects of these vaccines are when people were only ever monitored for eight weeks after vaccination?
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who makes a really important point. The answer to that is that it is impossible, and that is the fundamental point. We cannot measure late effects if we do not have evidence of late effects.
Neale Hanvey
I am sorry, but I did not quite catch the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Neale Hanvey
That was not actually the point I was making. I was making the point that any clinical trial, whether something is ruled in or ruled out, is subject to GCP guidelines, and it is up to the medical research ethics committee to sign off the protocol.
Neale Hanvey
Well, the hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but that is my experience. I worked at University College London Hospitals and the Royal Marsden, and those are the principles that we applied in such a context. I can only speak to my experience. I am not a member of the ABPI, so I cannot give him those types of data. I am talking about GCP as a general principle. If he does not believe in GCP as a general principle, that is a different discussion.
Wera Hobhouse
I am no apologist for big pharma companies, but does the hon. Member not acknowledge that there was time pressure in producing a vaccine to mitigate all the things we have heard about—lockdowns, our economy being stalled and all the rest of it? Does he not acknowledge that there was time pressure?
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think we all understand the situation that we were in. I am not using a retrospectoscope to say that things should not have been done in the way they were done. However, they should have been conducted absolutely in accordance with GCP guidelines, and that is the fundamental crux of the matter. I am not suggesting for a moment that that was not the spirit in which the various companies entered into this, but we are talking about—
Neale Hanvey
Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish the point I am making?
I am sorry, but I have now forgotten the point I was going to make to the hon. Lady. I do not think anybody entered into this to do the wrong thing, but there are fundamental questions about how we move things forward now and whether harm was inflicted as part of the administration of these agents.
Dr Mullan
I am very grateful. I raise this because the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made a point about timelines, saying that the trial was done in eight weeks and asking how the vaccine could possibly be safe. The reason why I mentioned longitudinal studies is that a common deliberate attempt to mislead people about what went on with the vaccine is to suggest that, because the trial was done over a short period of time, it could not possibly have been done correctly. Typically, trials take a long time because it takes a long time to recruit the right number of patients and to do the work. In such a trial, the same number of patients go through it over a longer period, but that does not change the baseline data, which is based on how many patients there are. We do not typically use longitudinal studies, and that vaccine trial was done by using a lot of people in a short space of time to create the same amount of evidence.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarifying point. People I have spoken to who were involved in those clinical trials have raised serious and significant concerns about the way that their experience after the drug was administered to them, and the impact that it had on them in an acute way, was either minimised or written out of trial data. That is a serious allegation, and everyone should be interested in understanding the detail. It is certainly not what I would understand would fit within the principles of GCP, and there are serious questions about how trial studies were conducted. As the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire said, the longitudinal element of that was impossible—we are now seeing that—but that does not mean we can ignore it, absolutely not. The principles I have been outlining are there because they are the basis on which good science is established and based.
Let me move to some of the questions that we must raise and answer today, openly and transparently, and with full access to ONS record-level data. I am not saying that that should be disclosed to all and sundry, but surely the Government cannot defend the position that they are not willing to release that information to interested clinicians and clinical academics as a minimum. Those are the people who need to interrogate the data. It is of little relevance to me—I do not have the means or academic ability to interpret it—but it is something that interested clinical academics should have access to.
Let me move on to what we know about some of the issues surrounding mRNA technology. We know that it does not replicate locally, as we were assured it would do on launch. It metastasises to distant tissue, and replicates spike protein systemically distant from the site of administration. That is problematic for a number of reasons. According to the University of London Professor of Oncology, and principal of the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy, Professor Angus Dalgleish, this has precipitated various serious and sometimes fatal consequences due to antibody development mediated by the spike protein. I will not go into the detail of that, but at a meeting convened by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, Professor Dalgleish told us that the UK Government and their agencies are in serious denial about this issue, resulting in many deaths being poorly understood.
Let me give a couple of examples. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia is one of the principal causes of blood clot formation, which can cause stroke, pulmonary emboli, and other cardiac-related events including heart attacks, all of which can be life-limiting or fatal. Another antibody linked to the spike protein exerts an effect on myelin, and is associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome and transverse myelitis, which is a swelling around the spinal cord. Professor Dalgleish believes that that constitutes medical negligence, because the facts are there for all to see. He contends that many deaths are as a direct result of unnecessary vaccination. Furthermore, he advises that there are a greater number of yellow cards in MHRA for covid vaccines than for all other vaccines recorded, and nothing has really been done.
In a recent written answer to me, it was confirmed that the MHRA has received 489,004 spontaneous suspected adverse drug reaction reports relating to the covid-19 vaccine, up to and including 28 February this year. Across the United Kingdom, 2,734 of those reports were associated with a fatal outcome. Of course the true number is unknown—that is the nature of yellow card reporting, as only a fraction of adverse events are reported—and that is probably because of limited public awareness about some of the potential consequences and complications of vaccines, and the well-understood under-reporting of those adverse events. That is important, because the yellow card system is a key element of safe and effective clinical care. If things are not being evaluated properly, I can think of no greater betrayal of the MHRA’s clinical governance responsibility. I suggest that accountability for that must be swift and decisive. The rigorous assessment of these data is essential and must be actioned urgently. Will the Minister now engage with the MHRA and invite it to come to the House to explain the facts on these reports?
Another issue, which arises from a further written question that I tabled, relates to the role of the MHRA. It has a crucial role—in fact, it is a statutory function—to provide post-marketing surveillance and to operate the yellow card system, but the Minister responded to my question about the assessment of the potential implications of the BMJ article “Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is ‘likely’ responsible for deaths of some elderly patients, Norwegian review finds” by stating:
“The MHRA communicates safety advice based upon consideration of the totality of evidence from all relevant information sources, rather than the strengths and limitations of individual data sources.”
Surely, a fundamental step in any meta-analysis of published data is to interrogate the robustness of those data and for the public to have confidence that that is happening.
That point links right back to where I started, on the Cass report. One of the fundamental failings that the report identified was circular citation among various different organisations. They were validating one another’s position to create a false impression that there was an evidence base for the practice they were involved in. If the MHRA will say, “We do not interrogate the data when we do a meta-analysis,” who does? Who will validate the data? If I can hand over to the MHRA a whole load of numbers and it will just count them and accept that I have said my methodological rigour is robust, that is not good enough as far as I am concerned.
The Minister’s response to my written question was that the MHRA does not
“assign causality at the level of individual reports,”
as that is not its responsibility. If that is the case, whose responsibility is it? Who is interrogating the data and making that decision? If no one is, how can we get from correlation to a developed picture of causation? That is an essential step. It raises fundamental questions about that responsibility and the reliability of the data that the MHRA is relying on. If we are to learn anything from the general implications of the Cass report, we must have a clear steer from the MHRA on how these fundamental scientific principles will be observed and upheld.
I will canter through some important published evidence, which comes back to the correlation/causation discussion. In a 2021 study looking at cardiac inflammatory markers in patients receiving mRNA vaccines, Steven Gundry observed that mRNA vaccination numerically increased markers
“previously described by others for denoting inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle”
in a patient population receiving the vaccine. A 2022 study by Fraiman et al. noted that the
“excess risk of serious adverse events”
identified in their study pointed
“to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses”.
That suggestion is wholly consistent with the principles set out in the declaration of Helsinki and is an ethical imperative.
In 2023, a pre-print Lancet study by Nicolas Hulscher et al., including leading cardiologist Peter McCullough and Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch, reviewed 325 autopsies after covid vaccination and found that 74% of the deaths were attributable to the vaccine. That study, which was published online, was then swiftly removed, allegedly for issues with ideological rigour. I wonder whether it was the MHRA that did the assessment of its rigour. Surely those data and findings—however problematic some of the methodology might have been—demand further scrutiny, not removal.
A December 2023 Lancet Regional Health study by Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard et al. examined excess mortality in England post the covid-19 pandemic and the implications for secondary prevention. It stated:
“Many countries, including the UK, have continued to experience an apparent excess of deaths long after the peaks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. Numbers of excess deaths estimated in this period are considerable.”
It noted that
“overall trends tend to be consistent across the various methods.”
It continued:
“The causes of these excess deaths are likely to be multiple…Further analysis by cause and by age- and sex-group may help quantify the relative contributions of these causes.”
I ask again: should we not at least be curious about this?
The study continued:
“The greatest numbers of excess deaths in the acute phase of the pandemic were in older adults. The pattern now is one of persisting excess deaths which are most prominent in relative terms in middle-aged and younger adults, with deaths from CVD causes and deaths in private homes being most affected.”
That is a completely different clinical picture. It continued:
“Timely and granular analyses are needed to describe such trends and so to inform prevention and disease management efforts.”
Documents recently disclosed as part of a freedom of information lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration indicate that the agency was aware that the safety monitoring system for Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine was “not sufficient” for assessing associated heart conditions when it licensed the company’s vaccine. Those documents also reveal numerous manufacturing concerns with Pfizer batches that were released to the public and show that the FDA knew about a phenomenon known as vaccine-associated enhanced diseases in those who were vaccinated and experienced breakthrough covid-19.
Let us move on to what we do not know. We have had no real progress on the points raised in the debate, particularly on record-level data. We need either that data to be released to clinical academics and others or a cogent explanation for why that is not happening. Why were those concerns kept hidden by the FDA? Are similar concerns or issues being hidden by the UK Government? Some of the points made about the delay in the MHRA taking action on clinical impacts is relevant to that point.
According to a House of Commons Library briefing, the Government-operated vaccine damage payment scheme, which has been discussed in both this debate and the previous one, provides only a one-off tax-free payment, which is currently a modest £120,000, to applicants where a vaccine has caused severe disablement. Data on VDPS claims relating to covid-19 vaccination is not routinely published, so we do not have particular metrics that establish how many claims are being made against those vaccines.
The most recent data is from September 2023. According to the NHS Business Services Authority, at that time it had received 7,160 claims relating to covid-19. Following medical assessment, 142 claims—just under 2%—were awarded, and 3,030 were rejected. A further 192 claims were found to be “invalid”. We need to understand why that was. What are claims being measured against and who is interpreting the clinical assessment information? We must also ask whether the exclusion criteria are reliable, given the concerns raised in the debate.
Based on the data that I have here, there are currently 3,796 unresolved claims, 1,010 of which have been unresolved for more than six months. If the 142 successful claims receive the full payment, the total cost will be around £17 million. If there are a further 177 successful claims from the unresolved cases, the associated cost will be a further £21 million. I am advised that the Government set aside some funding for this issue, but this has the hallmarks of the contaminated blood scandal written all over it. We must get ahead of the game and make sure that people get the compensation that they desperately need at a time when it is important to them.
There is another question: why are the Government so willing to pick up the tab on vaccine injury, however inadequate the scheme is, given the fatalities and the significant life-limiting impact on the victims? These concerns have been amplified significantly following the publication in The Spectator Australia of an account by genomics scientist Kevin McKernan of his accidental discovery. It states:
“While running an experiment in his Boston lab, McKernan used some vials of mRNA Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines as controls. He was ‘shocked’ to find that they were allegedly contaminated with tiny fragments of plasmid DNA.”
His concern has been considered further by Professor Angus Dalgleish, who noted that the contaminant, simian virus 40, is
“a sequence that is ‘used to drive DNA into the nucleus, especially in gene therapies’ and that this is ‘something that regulatory agencies around the world have specifically said is not possible with the mRNA vaccines’. These SV40 promotors are also well recognised as being oncogenic”—
or cancer-inducing genetic material. Other scientists have confirmed those findings. Professor Dalgleish further notes:
“To put it bluntly, this means that they are not vaccines at all but a…Genetically Modified Organism that should have been subject to totally different regulatory conditions and certainly not be classed as vaccines.”
Worryingly, Professor Dalgleish also notes that oncologists have contacted him from across the world, and the consensus is that this is thought to be precipitating relapse in melanoma, lymphoma, leukaemia and kidney cancers. He concludes with the following warning:
“To advise booster vaccines, as is the current case, is no more and no less than medical incompetence; to continue to do so”—
with his cited evidence—
“is medical negligence which can carry a custodial sentence.”
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his quotes from Professor Angus Dalgleish, who I remind the House is the most cited oncologist in the UK. I invited him here to witness this debate since he had some input into it. He could not attend, because he is speaking at a conference in Berlin on this very issue.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of information and for acknowledging an important scientist in this debate. It is a great honour to have worked in the same institutions as Professor Dalgleish, as he provides great leadership on this technology. He makes a valuable and impeccable contribution to this problem. He concluded that piece by saying:
“No ifs or buts any longer. All mRNA vaccines must be halted and banned now.”
Will the Minister answer the following question? Is big pharma being exempted from liability, and if so, why? The loss of trust in big pharma is substantial and, worryingly, because of that the value of vaccination itself has been deeply damaged. Personally—I say this frankly—I will never accept another mRNA vaccine, and I am far from alone. Will the Minster agree to full disclosure of the data and an investigation of the facts? Will she also commit to instructing the Office for National Statistics to release the record level data, or will it take someone like New Zealander Barry Young, a whistleblower imprisoned for publishing its record level data, to surface concerns about the covid vaccine programme? As we have seen with the Horizon scandal, the Government must never bury the facts when lives are being lost and futures destroyed. There is no greater betrayal.
In closing, the foundations of good clinical practice are under threat. I will put that in context with the December 2023 Pathology Research and Practice paper on “Gene-based covid-19 vaccines” from Rhodes and Parry. They gave the following warning:
“Pandemic management requires societal coordination, global orchestration, respect for human rights and defence of ethical principles. Yet some approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by socioeconomic, corporate, and political interests, have undermined key pillars of ethical medical science.”
None of these clinical experts are quacks or conspiracy theorists. As the Government said so often during the pandemic, we must follow the science.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on securing the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on granting time for it. I thank Members who have contributed, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), and the hon. Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey). It would be remiss of me not to thank those who participated with extensive interventions, including the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is no longer in his place, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse).
We have had a good and I think fairly measured debate, given the strong feelings held on both sides of it. It is probably important to accurately define the subject we are discussing here today. The term “excess deaths” is not new, nor in any way derived directly from the covid-19 pandemic. It is a key statistic continuously tracked by Governments of all colours and political persuasions over a number of years. It is data that helps Ministers to keep informed, and to inform policy development and measures to improve health outcomes in our communities.
Vaccines in the covid-19 pandemic were and, importantly, remain an essential tool in our fight against covid-19.
Andrew Gwynne
I will not give way; I am just opening.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in this respect. I think it is evident from the covid death data during the pandemic throughout the lockdowns that covid-related deaths came down significantly almost immediately as the vaccine was rolled out. What we can say, as the hon. Member for Christchurch did in his contribution, is that for many millions of people in this country, the vaccine was a success and it allowed us to return to lives that were as near normal as possible. However, we must not underestimate the fact that covid-19 was a massive killer in this country. We only have to look at the wall across the river from the Palace of Westminster to see the impact covid-19 had on communities up and down the country. I and the Opposition remain firmly of the view that the covid-19 vaccines played a massive, fundamental role in returning life to normal.
As happens with any form of medical intervention, there have been instances of harmful side effects—no one disputes that—and when those are found, they should of course be properly investigated. The efficacy of drugs needs to be reviewed over periods of time, and the science needs to be fully understood and responded to. That, I think, is true of any drug that is available on the national health service. I should also say that the hon. Member for Christchurch raised some very fair points about the covid vaccine damage payment scheme. We have had debates about it in Westminster Hall, and I think he is right to raise those concerns as eloquently as he does.
I will always be open to the testing of scientific evidence, but, as a number of Members have pointed out today, for millions of us the vaccines have been a game changer in overcoming the worst fears of covid-19. They have allowed us to return to normality, and, most important of all, they have saved lives. We do need to understand more about why for some they have caused reactions, and in some cases may have tragically led to fatalities, which is why I think the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock was right to say that we need to get to the bottom of that data. But investigation and review should not be allowed to frighten people who, to this day, are still deeply vulnerable, away from taking the covid vaccine boosters, and it is important for us to send out the message that those who need the boosters should have them.
Stephen Metcalfe
I should put it on record that I am fully vaccinated, that I was a supporter of the vaccines when they first came out, and that I am a supporter of them now and will continue to be. I think that they play a huge role in managing serious disease. My concern at the moment is that the tone of some of this debate is undermining not only the reputation of our scientists, but the efficacy of vaccine programmes in the future. I do not want to shut down the debate about the topic. We need to find a way of filling the evidence gap, and I hope we can do that collectively by encouraging research so that potentially wild and untested theories do not fill that vacuum.
Andrew Gwynne
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. We know that there is a cohort of people for whom the covid-19 vaccines have led to reactions, and we know that there is, tragically, a cohort of people who have died. We need to learn more about the impact of this set of vaccines on that cohort, but for the vast majority of people the covid-19 vaccines have been a huge success, and we should not let people think that they are at risk from them. In fact, many people who are being asked right now to take the vaccines because they are immunosuppressed are at risk of not taking them, and we need to ensure that they are protected. I, too, am fully vaccinated, and because of my own ongoing health issues I have just been invited for my next booster, which I will be taking.
We know that the virus itself has been a key driver of excess mortality, and it continues to have an impact across our communities to this day. I understand that, and I understand that covid affects many people. I still struggle with long covid. In fact, my long covid has been much worse than the actual covid infection that I got in March 2020, way before any vaccines were even dreamt of. There are lots of people who are in a far worse situation, because they have not yet been able to return to work or to near full fitness. Even to this day, I still struggle with the impacts of a covid infection right at the start of the first wave of covid in March 2020, and it debilitated me for the best part of two years.
Millions of clinically vulnerable people—the hon. Member for Christchurch rightly raised this—continue to shield and live with the constant reminder of the impact that the virus can have on them, because they are not able to take the vaccine and they do not have the necessary level of protection for their own health needs to be able to return to anything like a near normal lifestyle. He mentioned Evusheld and Evusheld 2, and I very much support the right of clinically vulnerable communities to access those drugs so that they can regain the freedoms that we have all benefited from. I will continue to communicate with those communities and, where I can, seek to amplify their concerns.
Yes, covid is part of the picture, but across the board we have seen an increase in the incidence of major conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease, all of which have contributed to the figures on excess deaths. The way to fight back against those numbers is to inform people responsibly about their health and wellbeing, and about the measures that are in place to protect them. It is also about ensuring that our health service is fit for the future. We need an NHS that is rooted in the communities that it serves, ensuring that people can access care when and where they need it. The NHS must embrace new technologies as essential for diagnosing and treating people as quickly as possible, and it must move from being a national sickness service to putting prevention front and centre. Only by doing so can we have an NHS that learns the lessons from the pandemic and ensures that, where mistakes were made in the past, they are learned from and not repeated in future pandemics.
That is the kind of thing we need to do as a Parliament, and it is the kind of thing that I hope the next Labour Government will be able to do. Until then, we will fully support the current Government in making sure the message is sent out loudly and clearly that the covid-19 vaccine is the best way of protecting yourself and your loved ones from what is still a terrible virus.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Apologies for my croaky voice. I will try to respond to all the points that I can.
I thank the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) for securing this important debate. As the Opposition have rightly said, it is important that we have the debate in a measured way, because there are strong feelings on all sides. Those who have concerns about vaccines, lockdowns and the way pandemics are managed are right to raise them, but it is also right and proper that people express the view that vaccines protect people and that difficult decisions had to be made. As the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) highlighted, it is much easier to come to different conclusions with hindsight. It is really important that as we go forward, still living with covid, we continue our discussions in a measured debate on all sides. In recent weeks, we have seen the impact of people not being able to speak freely about their concerns regarding the Post Office or the Tavistock centre.
As I said, we have had a number of debates on this issue, including in January, when I acknowledged that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire was correct to say that we have seen excess deaths in recent years. However, excess deaths are not new; they were happening before covid and have happened since then as well. It is important to look at the figures, because the Office for National Statistics indicates that the number of excess deaths has been reducing, year on year, since the high in 2020, when there were 66,740 excess deaths in England. I can only talk about England because health is obviously devolved and the Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have their own data. In 2022, that number went down to 37,701, and in 2023, there were just 10,206 excess deaths in England. It is important to remember that every single one of those is a person, a family member, and a loved one, but it may reassure hon. Members greatly, as it does me, that the ONS has reported negative excess deaths for every week so far in 2024.
Andrew Bridgen
After a pandemic, which we have been out of for quite some years, we would expect a deficit in deaths, so why have we not had a deficit for the past two years, in which we have not had the covid pandemic?
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Gentleman may have missed my last sentence before his intervention. I said that the ONS data shows that in every week in 2024 so far, we have had negative excess deaths. That goes specifically to his point.
We are not complacent, though. As I set out in previous debates, when we have seen those rises in excess deaths—and we have seen significant excess deaths—we have looked at that data to see the cause behind it, whether it is the vaccine, covid, or other factors. We have been working so hard, and I am really pleased that we are now starting to see negative excess deaths.
Let me highlight some of the work that we have been doing in looking at those figures. We had an incident of high flu prevalence in 2022, with a peak of 31.8% of flu tests being positive. That is highly likely to be because we locked down the country for two years and people’s immune systems were not used to flu. That is why, last winter, we brought forward our flu vaccine, and extended it the year before to the over 65s; we recognised that people’s immunity to flu and respiratory illnesses was low because we had locked them down. I think that we need to be honest about that. This winter, as a result, we have seen fewer admissions and fewer deaths from flu and respiratory illnesses.
We have also seen challenges with other health conditions, such as diabetes and cardiac disease, for which people would routinely have come forward for checks. Routine treatments and access to appointments are difficult even now, given the backlog of examinations and tests that need to happen. When we looked at this, we saw that last year, the rate of deaths from cardiovascular disease was 2% higher than expected, with there having been more than 2,200 excess deaths.
That is why we are reinvesting in our NHS health check. It was on pause during covid, when people could not get their blood pressure or cholesterol checked and could not go on smoking prevention programmes. We restarted those, and as a result, excess deaths from cardiac disease are starting to fall. We want to use the opportunity to roll out our new digital health checks. We recognise that access to GPs is sometimes difficult, but this roll-out is expected to deliver an additional 1 million checks in the first four years. We also have a £10 million pilot to deliver cardiovascular checks in the workplace. Again, that is about making it as easy as possible for people to get checked. We have our Pharmacy First roll-out as well. That is all for general health purposes. We know that all these things contributed to excess death rates.
I want to touch on the crux of the matter, which is the covid vaccine; that has come through in all these debates. I was not a Health Minister at the time, so I did not have to make these difficult decisions, but the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton is absolutely right: as the pandemic preparedness Minister, I want the findings of the inquiry. I have to make difficult decisions now about potential future pandemics that may never happen, but could happen tomorrow—we just do not know. The results of the inquiry with regard to lockdowns, face masks and vaccines will all be really useful information, and at the moment, I am not much the wiser on those results.
On module 4, I want to see any evidence about vaccine safety, because that is how we learn. I think we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. We want to do the best, but during the pandemic, when we watched TV footage from around the world, and the media were often pushing us to lock down harder, faster and longer, we had to make difficult decisions without the benefit of hindsight.
I went back to the wards during covid, and I looked after covid patients who were being treated for cancer. We lost many of them, and we lost a number of staff, too. I have seen this from both sides of the fence.
Dr Mullan
Of all the concerning points that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made in his opening speech, particularly abhorrent was the suggestion that people who were not eligible for a ventilator were essentially condemned to death. That is a deeply disturbing thing to say, and it does not reflect my experience. I was privileged to volunteer on the frontline, as the Minister did, and I saw staff battling as best they could to save people, using all the medical treatments available, whatever the patient’s age. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to those staff who worked so hard to save as many lives as they could?
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for his work during those difficult times. We did not have a vaccine in those days, and we did not know how long covid was going to last. I reassure the relatives who are listening to this debate that we treated every single patient in the best way we could. If they needed a ventilator, we often had to ship them out of hospital to get them to a ventilator, but they got one. If they did not need a ventilator, we treated them. We did not leave people to die, and I reassure relatives who might think that we did that it certainly was not my experience of looking after patients.
It is important to look at the data on covid vaccinations. The Office for National Statistics published data last August showing that people who received a covid-19 vaccination had a lower mortality rate than those who had not been vaccinated. Given that 93.6% of the population has been vaccinated with either one or two doses, or multiple does, it is almost impossible to determine correlation versus causation. Vaccinated people will feature highly in excess death numbers because most people have been vaccinated, which is why we need to go through the data really carefully and not just take the first data at face value.
The covid virus continues to circulate, and we are now living with covid. Some people are still very vulnerable to covid, although the current variant is obviously less severe than the initial variant. We have just had our spring vaccine roll-out, and those who are invited should please go to get their vaccine. We know that it makes a difference to the most vulnerable. Over this winter, after both the flu and covid vaccine roll-outs, we have seen a significant reduction in hospital admissions.
Sir Christopher Chope
When will the immunosuppressed have access to Evusheld? Will it be this week, next week, sometime or never?
Maria Caulfield
That is a clinical decision, but now that we have the omicron variant, the evidence for Evusheld’s effectiveness is not as compelling.
Returning to the crux of the matter, there are risks and benefits to every single medicine when the regulator or NICE is weighing up whether to license or fund a product. If the advice coming to us is that, with omicron, the benefits of Evusheld do not outweigh the risks, we have to take that advice. People are not currently being advised to shield, but I recognise that people are very nervous, particularly when they cannot have the vaccine. We are in constant touch with NICE and the MHRA on this, but we have to respect their decision if it is felt that a product will not benefit patients.
Maria Caulfield
I will give way one more time, as I have only a few minutes left.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the Minister for giving way. She is very generous.
Using her medical experience, can the Minister explain to the House—I am befuddled by this—how a systemic vaccine injected into the arm, into the blood and creating an antibody response, can stop an infection of the airways and lungs by a respiratory virus? It has never happened, and it did not happen this time either, did it? How can it do that?
Maria Caulfield
That is actually what antibodies do.
I will answer some of the many questions that have been asked in this debate. I reiterate that no medicine or vaccine is completely risk free. Even simple paracetamol has the potential to kill people if it is not taken properly, and people with certain conditions might not be able to take it at all. We have monitoring systems in place. The MHRA, which I know has come under criticism, took a stand when in April 2021, following concerns raised through the yellow card system, it reduced access for the under-30s and then for the under-40s. When concerns are raised, it absolutely takes action. There are now recommendations about the type of vaccine, and about whom we vaccinate, bearing in mind the current evidence.
I have said that no vaccine is 100% safe, which is why we have the vaccine damage payment scheme. I hear concerns about that, and I have met my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) to discuss it. We took the scheme off the Department for Work and Pensions and moved it into the Department of Health and Social Care to speed it up and get claims turned around more quickly. We have had more than 4,000 claims, 170 of which have been awarded. Roughly speaking, the majority of claims are decided on within six months, and the vast majority are decided on within 12 months. Of course, we want to speed up on those. We recognise the time limit of three years, which is why we are working as hard as we can to get through as many claims as possible, so that if people have been affected by the covid vaccine, they get some help and support through that funding.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) raised the issue of research. We are absolutely researching the issue of covid-19 vaccines—not just future types of vaccines, but their safety. There is £110 million from the National Institute for Health and Care Research going specifically into covid-19 vaccine safety, and I encourage all Members to keep an eye on that as the evidence comes forward.
I have to give the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire a few minutes to reply, so I will just say that we take this issue extremely seriously. I know that as a Minister, I will be responsible—
Maria Caulfield
I will not, as I have to let the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire respond. We take this issue very seriously. I have been as open and transparent as I can be. If there are concerns, we will always look into them, but there is no doubt that covid vaccines save lives. There is no doubt that some people have experienced harm from them—we acknowledge that, and we want to help and support people who have been affected—but the vaccines did get us out of the pandemic and we need to be mindful of that as well.
Andrew Bridgen
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me thank all the hon. Members who have taken part in a debate that has been robust, as it should be, given the gravity of the issue. I wish this debate were not needed; I wish the experimental covid-19 vaccines were safe and effective, but they are not. The longer we go on not admitting the problem, the bigger the problem that will come, and the greater the harm that will continue to be caused. Those in this House can continue to deny that the vaccines are causing harm and deaths, and the legacy media can continue to censor all reports of vaccine harms and excess deaths, but the people know, in increasing numbers, because they are the ones who are losing their loved ones and relatives. I urge the Government: release the control-level data, and let us sort this out once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the covid-19 pandemic response and trends in excess deaths; and calls on the Covid-19 Inquiry to move onto its module four investigation into vaccines and therapeutics as soon as possible.
Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I wish to present a petition on behalf of those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal, particularly those in my constituency. I commend all campaigners across the country and in my constituency, including, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). Two victims of this scandal are dying every week. We voted in December to establish a body to pay compensation, as an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, and we still need to see action. Justice delayed is justice denied.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Luton South,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002949]
New Build Homes Standards: North Yorkshire
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
May I start by thanking you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, through you, Mr Speaker for granting me this debate? I value the opportunity to raise issues during this Adjournment debate. Perhaps no one values that more than the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is usually a fixture at these moments, but has sent his apologies for not being here today.
I have mentioned the new housing developments and estates being built across Harrogate and Knaresborough in the House before. Indeed, I have been running a “fair deal for new estates” campaign, the essence of which is to ensure new estates are finished in a timely way. Within “fair deal” I mean both the length of time involved and the quality of work by house builders. The campaign has been running for over a year. It started when residents in new build properties came to me to seek support for the problems they were having with their new homes. I was, of course, extremely happy to help with their cases and take them up on their behalf with house builders. I have made visits to see the issues at first hand, and corresponded and met with house builders.
There are too many individual cases to detail in this debate. We are talking about over 200 cases located across Harrogate, Knaresborough and some surrounding villages, so the issue is not limited to a specific geography. The developments include King’s Croft, Garten Close, Harlow Green, Swincliffe Mews and others. There are a great variety of issues, both in range and severity, but they can be divided into two groups: issues with individual properties and estate-wide issues.
Estate-wide issues cover matters such as drainage, road surfacing, street lighting, street signage and play areas, or simply being a good neighbour during the final build-out of an estate by keeping roads as clean as possible, and making consideration for delivery times and the types of vehicles used. I have had complaints about how long it has been taking to finish estates and how the focus can seem to move on when much of an estate has been sold. One issue that is regularly raised is about drainage for open spaces, play areas or individual homes. I have seen blocked drains, as well as standing water significant enough to reach front doors and threaten to flood individual properties, which is very worrying for residents. Equally, I have seen huge excavations and remedial work from house builders, indicating that they have been taking action and showing how much work is required to put things right.
On issues facing individual properties, we must remember that a new home is not just a financial transaction, but a major step in anyone’s life. It is emotional and exciting, but moving house can also be stressful. However, it should not be the start of a long chain of dealings with the house builder to correct problems. Issues raised with me range from totally inadequate guttering to very patchy fitting of insulation, from window panes separating from their frames to poorly fitted bannisters, and from walls having to be rebuilt to bathrooms having to be taken out and replacements fitted. That is just a snapshot because the list is long.
I have been dealing with a number of different house building companies, national and local, large and small, including Taylor Wimpey, Avant Homes and Harron Homes. This debate is about speaking up for individuals, but it is possible to draw some themes together because there are some common elements, which I will highlight. The first is to get it right first time. Residents know that there are likely to be some snags when they move into a new build—people are sensible and they are practical. But that is not what I am talking about: in some cases the sheer number and scale of them have simply been wrong. One resident forwarded his list to me, and it was more than 200 items long. Then there is the severity of the problems. I have met residents who have had whole bathrooms taken out and refitted, or who have had to totally move out of their property during remedial work, with all the disruption that that brings. I am thinking of one case where that is especially true because they have a young family.
Another common problem has been the way that customers have been dealt with during this process, which has been a source of deep frustration. Residents have reported challenges contacting customer services. The frequency of staff changes has been cited, which means that been no continuity of understanding of the issues raised. Also cited is the need for house builders to be more proactive in their communications. That basically means getting information out to everyone about what is happening and when—keeping people informed. I have raised this point with house builders and, in all cases, they have recognised that there have been communication problems—no one has attempted to deny it—and, indeed, they have sought to correct them. In some cases this has meant a new customer service helpline for a development, and in other cases it has meant more senior oversight of outstanding issues.
I mentioned at the start of my speech that the time taken to solve problems has been too long. Again, to be fair to all, some cases have been resolved quickly, but I can think of places where some residents have been living for three years that have yet to see a finished road surface or a finished open space. That is simply too long.
When I started this “fair deal for new estates” campaign it was specifically to support constituents in Harrogate, Knaresborough and the surrounding villages, but I have also been contacted by a number colleagues from right across the House who have been experiencing similar problems in their constituencies too. This problem is obviously much more widespread and is perhaps something for the ministerial team to consider.
I am absolutely sure that we need more new housing in this country, but winning the argument for it means that houses are delivered in a way that enhances communities and where the build quality is high. Harrogate, Knaresborough and the surrounding villages are hugely desirable places in which to live. We have a strong economy, quality services, a high quality of life and a powerful sense of community. It is not therefore surprising that the demand and need for housing is high, but this is all about getting it right for residents.
I have been happy to take up cases and urge anyone struggling with issues in their new build to get in touch with me as I will be happy to help them. That is about issue resolution and that is obviously important, but I also want to ask how we ensure that we do not have issues to resolve in the first place. How do we ensure that we get things right first time?
I have a few requests for my hon. Friend the Minister in his Department’s dealings and conversations with the sector. How is quality monitored? Can the new homes ombudsman play a bigger role? There is a new homes quality code, which details 10 fundamental principles that registered developers have to follow, but what happens if a developer is not registered and if the principles are not followed?
One challenge raised by house builders has been difficulties in getting the skills they need in the workforce. They have experienced a shortage of people with the necessary skills. That is quite a common feature in an economy that has been strong in job creation. Can more be done to develop a supply chain of skills via apprenticeships? I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has strong views about apprenticeships. This important point applies not just to house builders but to their suppliers. I have had several conversations in which supplier failure has been cited, and a change of supplier has led to a problem being resolved.
Looking further ahead, I know that the Government are working on future homes and building standards, particularly around energy efficiency, microgeneration and insulation, and that is positive work. I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister could update the House. Basically, I want to see more people own their own quality home and experience a happy future when they move in.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) for securing this important debate. The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety has asked me to offer him a meeting to discuss these matters in greater detail.
As a fellow Yorkshireman, born and bred, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough shares my enormous pride in representing a constituency in God’s own country. I have huge respect for his tireless work over the years to promote the interests of the hard-working people and families of north Yorkshire. His constituency, like mine, is made up of strong communities that are proud of their past and aspirational for their future, which he and I know must be built on a bedrock of good-quality housing—safe, warm, decent, affordable homes that provide the solid foundation that people need to get on in life and unlock their potential.
Good homes hold the key to our plans to level up opportunity across Yorkshire and around the country, while helping our local economies to grow. That is why I am proud to support the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety in delivering those homes through our long-term plan for housing, with 2.5 million new homes built in total since 2010, 180,000 of which are in Yorkshire and the Humber.
However, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the standard of some new builds, and the estates that they are part of, are simply not up to scratch. Like him, I have heard of cases where developers are moving on to new projects before the places that they are building are properly finished, leaving residents to deal with the extensive snagging or to live in limbo on unadopted roads, such as those in the estates that he mentioned. That is not fair, not right, and frankly not on.
While recognising that most new developments across the country are already of a decent standard, constructed by the many good building firms operating nationwide, we are clear that more needs to be done to address homebuyers’ concerns where standards have fallen short. We have been taking action to ensure that happens: reforming building control as part of the biggest changes to the construction sector in a generation; and strengthening warranties to give homebuyers greater protection.
My hon. Friend asked how my Department monitors quality in our work with the sector, and whether the new homes ombudsman will play a bigger role. I am pleased to tell him that quality is at the heart of our plans, from the future homes standards to our work to improve redress with the new homes ombudsman, which once launched will help to drive up quality across the industry. My hon. Friend also asked what happens if a developer is not registered with the new homes quality code. The new homes quality code is voluntary, but through the Building Safety Act 2022 we legislated so that we can bring forward a single code of conduct, which will be statutory. That was also recommended in the recent Competition and Markets Authority report, to which we will soon publish our response.
My hon. Friend asked about the shortage of relevant skills in the workforce and whether apprenticeships can help to address it. As a former apprentice, that subject is close to my heart, as I know it is to his. That is why I am delighted to tell him that we are already working to boost skills training across the industry by fully funding, for young people up to the age of 21, new apprenticeships working for small businesses, and that we have amended the apprenticeship levy so that small and medium-sized enterprises will have greater opportunities to develop the skills that the industry needs.
My hon. Friend requested an update on future homes and building standards, particularly in relation to energy efficiency. I can tell him that from next year, the future homes standard will ensure that all new homes produce, on average, upwards of 75% less carbon dioxide emissions than those built to the 2013 requirement. Through the work of our new Building Safety Regulator—introduced under the Building Safety Act 2022—we are improving construction standards across the industry.
Let me directly address some of the constituency matters that my hon. Friend raised. Local authorities can use section 106 planning obligations to secure a commitment from developers to provide appropriate facilities for new build projects such as those he mentioned, including play areas, roads and drainage. It is up to developers and local planning authorities to agree matters relating to the timing and funding of delivery, and it is right that local authorities retain such decisions.
In the meantime, we are working with the building industry to ensure that it takes this issue seriously. Ultimately, it is private developers, not the state, that hold the key to raising standards. Only by local and central Government working together with developers can we ensure that new homes being built in Yorkshire and across the country are safe, decent, warm and finished to a high standard, and that buyers in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere are treated fairly. We must all play our part to ensure that that happens.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(6 months, 2 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
(6 months, 2 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
Large-scale Solar Farms
(6 months, 2 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
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered large-scale solar farms.
I will start with what we all agree on: that we need to live sustainably, that food security is important, and that we need cheap and reliable energy for the economy to thrive. I think we can all agree—I know from my conversations with the Prime Minister that he does—that proposals to carpet vast swathes of our best farmland with industrial solar panels are wrong.
There is little doubt that renewable energy sources are crucial for combating climate change and ensuring a sustainable future. I am not opposed to solar panels in general. They are an important part of the mix of renewable energy sources, and they have some merit in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in achieving our net zero ambitions. However, in the process of achieving that laudable aim, we must be very wary of unintended consequences. There is a considerable risk that in the name of saving the environment, we end up destroying it, and that in the name of energy security, we make ourselves dependent on food imports.
First, I will address the most salient issue, which is food security. The drive to net zero carbon emissions can be sustained only so long as there is food on our shelves. We would ideally have policies prioritising energy security and food security, but as it stands, the balance has tipped too far towards energy security at the expense of food security. National self-sufficiency in food has fallen from 74% to 61% since the mid-1980s. Although the Government may be right that food security does not necessitate complete food security during peacetime, and it is reasonable to assume that some level of international trade in food will always be a contributing factor, the war in Ukraine and its associated impacts on food security and prices internationally has demonstrated that the maintenance of historical trade patterns cannot always be relied on.
In that context, large-scale solar projects have threatened to swallow up rural constituencies with applications over the past few years. Alarmingly, those projects disproportionately affect the most fertile parts of the United Kingdom. One of the most targeted counties for industrial solar applications is Lincolnshire, which is the breadbasket of England. Lincolnshire alone produces 30% of the UK’s vegetables and 18% of its poultry; it is responsible for 12% of the country’s total food production. Lincolnshire without a doubt has some of the UK’s best and most versatile farmland, because it is flat and, for the UK at least, relatively sunny.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend has done a great service to the House by bringing this debate to our attention. As she will know, my constituency contains a disproportionate amount of that very fine agricultural land, even by Lincolnshire standards. To compromise food security in the interest of energy security is a nonsense. We will make our country more dependent on imports, damaging the environment and robbing our people of the chance of buying and consuming domestically made food.
Dr Johnson
As is usually the case, I completely agree with my right hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour. He will be aware that 12 nationally significant infrastructure project applications are currently in progress in Lincolnshire for large solar projects. That includes Beacon Fen, Springwell, Heckington Fen and Fosse Green Energy, all of which are in my constituency. Those solar schemes alone would cover 9,109 hectares of farmland; such an area would otherwise produce 81,000 tonnes of wheat, which would make 57 million loaves of bread or 1.5 billion Weetabix.
Despite the Government’s guidance that solar prospectors should avoid using the best and most versatile land, many of the proposals would cover enormous swathes of it. Fosse Green will use 2,479 acres of prime farmland, thereby reducing the UK’s valuable food production capacity and exacerbating food insecurity. The best and most versatile land makes up 30% of the Springwell solar farm and 49% of the Heckington Fen application.
Lincolnshire undoubtedly has—I am sure that hon. Friends will agree—the best farmland in the country, but it is not the only place affected by the menace of these massive, farmland-consuming solar applications. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who is unable to attend today, has been campaigning assiduously against Mallard Pass solar plant in her constituency. That project is to be located on 2,105 acres of agricultural land, 70% of which is grade 1 —our very best farmland. That is the equivalent of 1,300 football pitches and will be 10 times larger than the current-largest solar farm built in the United Kingdom.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
To reinforce my hon. Friend’s point about where these issues arise, even in my constituency, there is an application for 1,200 acres, and a number of other applications on a smaller scale, which make an aggregate of 2,000 acres between the villages of Bishopton and Brafferton. That would be completely inappropriate in scale.
On the quality of land, there seems to be a marginal differentiation between grades 3a and 3b, and the question is about who makes that decision and how it is made. We need to ensure that we have robustness and integrity in relation to the land that is being used, to make sure that it is kept for agricultural use where possible.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is completely right and he demonstrates that this menace stretches the length and breadth of the country. I will come later to his well- made point about the grading of land.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Is she aware, in relation to the use of best and most versatile land, that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when appearing before the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last month, made a statement that he was reviewing the suitability of best and most versatile land for solar planning applications? As my hon. Friend will be aware, I am a supporter of solar energy, as she is, but it needs to be in the right place. We should not have, as she and our hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) have described, industrial-scale concentrations over vast areas beyond a reasonable level. It is a question of balance that we have to get right.
Dr Johnson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I was not aware of the statement at the EFRA Committee, but I am aware, from my discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, of his love for and attention to farmland and his desire to see that food security is protected.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
My hon. Friend knows that I am the last person to be a nimby, and Nottinghamshire’s heritage is among the richest for industry and energy production—it dates back centuries—but the point that our right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) made could equally be applied to the situation in Nottinghamshire. We are not opposed to solar farms. The issue is the scale of the applications and their aggregate impact on the landscape, which is profound. Were the three applications in my constituency to go ahead—I know that one borders the constituency of my hon. Friend—they will stretch from the South Yorkshire border all the way down to the Vale of Belvoir, peppering thousands of acres of land and impacting more than 60 villages. The landscape of that part of Nottinghamshire will be changed for a generation. That is simply unfair and exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has campaigned against—an over-zealous application of net zero, which turns the public off.
Dr Johnson
My right hon. Friend and, as he mentioned, constituency neighbour is absolutely right: it is very important that we look at the cumulative effect of the applications and the industrialisation of our landscapes. Again, this is—
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend has now heard from the proud counties of Lincolnshire, for which she also speaks on this issue, Durham, Shropshire and Nottinghamshire, and she will now hear from Bedfordshire. I gently point out that every single Back-Bench Member of Parliament present is a Conservative. There is not a single Labour Back-Bench MP here—or Liberal, for that matter—to talk about the impact of large-scale solar farms.
Small-scale solar farms in my constituency have been welcomed by local communities, because the developers have spoken to parish councils and worked with local residents to ensure that the siting is appropriate. It is these large-scale financial vehicles, which masquerade as solar farms trying to help us to achieve net zero, that have caused consternation. I am afraid to say that that includes the East Park Energy development proposed in my constituency.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I am also expecting to hear from Buckinghamshire, Wiltshire, Suffolk, Yorkshire, Redditch, the south-west and more from Lincolnshire—I do not want to miss anyone out.
The Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), are unable to speak today, while my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) is unwell. Alongside Rupert Harrison, the Conservative candidate for the new Bicester and Woodstock seat, they are actively campaigning against the Botley West solar farm in Oxfordshire. If it is approved, they tell me that it will be the size of Heathrow and the largest solar plant in Europe. It will encroach across four parliamentary constituencies in Oxfordshire. A project of that scale poses a disproportionate threat to agricultural land, much of which is of best and most versatile status, and will result in the loss of swathes of open countryside. In another part of the country, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) is concerned about the massive solar application on productive farmland between Rosliston and Drakelow, and the food security implications of the loss of such good farmland.
The ramifications of putting our best agricultural land out of use for 40 years could be incredibly destabilising. Arable land in the UK is declining. It is currently at 14.8 million acres, which is the lowest since world war two, with 100,000 acres being taken out of cultivation annually. Massive-scale solar plants—I call them plants specifically, because they are not really farms—withdraw hundreds of hectares of urgently needed farmland from UK food production. If such projects are allowed to go ahead, agricultural products will have to come from countries where the environmental and animal welfare standards may be less rigorous than ours, at a greater economic and—due to transportation and other things—environmental cost.
I will move on to land use strategy. Solar must take its appropriate place in the many conflicting demands on land: agriculture, housing, calls from some people for rewilding, health, and conservation. It does not trump all the others. We simply cannot have it all; we must make intelligent use of our finite resources of land and balance what some see as conflicting priorities.
Some people say that the land underneath solar panels can be grazed by livestock, but from practical experience, that is absolute nonsense. I challenge anyone to look under the ground-mounted solar panels already in place and see how often they find animals grazing there. The Government need to develop a comprehensive, carefully thought-out land strategy to ensure that our best farmland is not put at risk in this way.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I will not speak at length about the terrible development encroaching on Devizes—my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) will speak for Wiltshire shortly—but eight of the 10 largest solar sites in England are in Wiltshire, so we have a real problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) is talking about the necessity for national planning. Does she agree that local authorities should have more power to determine a solar strategy for their area, rather than having to conform to unwieldy national rules?
Dr Johnson
I certainly think that local people should have more say in what happens in their area in this regard, but I am cautious about having a solar strategy for each area. In areas such as Lincolnshire with high volumes of food-producing land, it may not be appropriate to have any massive-scale solar plants.
The loss of good-quality arable land at a time of unstable world trade situations is a first-rate folly, particularly when other infinitely more sensible sites are available, such as brownfield sites, domestic roofs and commercial rooftops. This should worry everybody wherever they live, which is why it is disappointing, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said, that the Benches are full of Conservative Members but no Liberal Democrats or Labour people with any interest in food security have turned up. Food security is important for those who live in cities, too.
Does the Minister agree that the Government urgently need to produce a joined-up land use strategy? Will he update the House on what the Government are doing to encourage the use of brownfield sites, poor-quality land, and the roofs of warehouses and industrial buildings? What discussions is he having with energy suppliers regarding the balance between standing charges and usage costs in order to incentivise the installation of solar panels on industrial units?
There is a long backlog of people waiting for grid connection. What plans does the Minister have for grid connection prioritisation for those using brownfield sites or industrial and domestic roofs? Such connections are prohibitively expensive, which is also driving the spread of massive-scale solar farms. What assessment has he made of the actual costs of the connections rather than the charged costs?
On the concept of efficiency, Hinkley Point C, which is currently under construction in Somerset, will take up 174 hectares and is expected to produce 26 TWh of electricity per year for 60 years. In comparison, Springwell Solar Farm, which is in my constituency, will be almost 25 times the size of Hinkley Point C, but will produce only 950,000 MWh of electricity per year, which is just shy of 1 TWh per year, for 40 years. That is 25 times the size for 25 times less energy, for less time.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I will return to Yorkshire later, but on the more strategic point, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) quite rightly talked about this issue being a matter of balance, and my hon. Friend is highlighting what we are paying per terawatt-hour for solar power. Other countries, most particularly Germany, that have depended on a balance of solar power and wind have found themselves being let down completely by the system. The Germans even have a word, “dunkelflaute”, for when there is cloud and no wind. They have had years in which they have had serious electricity deficits. So although we all agree that solar power is an important part of the Government’s repertoire, as it were, it is not the overall answer.
Dr Johnson
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend; in fact, he must have read my speech in advance, because my next point is that it is questionable to what extent solar is the most appropriate source of renewable energy. In the UK, solar generates maximum power for an average of only 2.6 hours per day, which falls to less than one hour per day during winter, the time of year when energy is most needed—in practice, we are most likely to need energy when it is dark and cold rather than when it is sunny and there is bright daylight.
In addition, battery storage is carbon-intensive and requires rare earth metals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) has pointed out previously. There is an issue of land-use efficiency here. Currently, 2,000 acres of solar panels are required to power around 50,000 homes, but one small modular reactor, requiring the space of just two football pitches, would power 1 million homes.
To go back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) about wind, a 140-acre solar project is capable of supplying electricity to 9,000 homes, but offshore wind turbines generate maximum power for an average of 9.4 hours each day, and just one turbine in the North sea has the capacity to power 16,000 homes, largely without bothering a single person or destroying any of our best and most versatile land.
The previous debate that I secured on this issue, in June last year, focused on planning regulations, and I do not plan to go into that subject in huge detail again today. To give the Government credit, since then they have clearly tried to get to grips with the issue, and they released a new national policy statement on renewable energy infrastructure in January. Nevertheless, I fear there is still a loophole in the regulations. The cumulative impact of solar applications is not properly defined, and the regulations are still characterised not by strict rules but by guidance, which can be flouted. Many planners still utterly ignore the guidance to avoid the use of the best and most versatile land. Half of the Heckington Fen project in my constituency would be on the best and most versatile land and—horrifyingly—it is proposed that 94% of the Drax project in east Yorkshire will swallow up BMV land.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Thankfully, in the northern part of Lincolnshire that I represent, we have been fairly free of solar farms, but applications have recently flooded in following some developments in the Immingham and Stallingborough area. When the planning guidance is read to local authorities, it could be interpreted much more robustly by those planning authorities than it is at present. Allowing for the fact that they interpret it rather loosely, I urge the Minister when he responds to confirm that the Government are prepared to tighten up the guidance to local authorities.
Dr Johnson
I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for supporting my calls for the Minister to ensure that the guidance is tightened up to protect our farmland. It is clear that developers are taking advantage of the absence of rigid and specific Government guidance to protect BMV land and proposing ever larger solar installations as NSIPs in unsuitable places. As one developer commented:
“That’s the neat thing about the NSIP process. You put all the powers you need into one consent and have relative certainty”
—certainly in their view—
“of the consent being granted.”
Although the upgrade of substations within the electrical network is intended to be a positive thing that enhances local infrastructure, in my area it has inadvertently attracted speculators looking to profit from the farmland. When substations undergo upgrades, a cluster of large solar applications tends to emerge nearby. The approach is cheaper for companies seeking to complete solar projects, but it does not mean they are being built in the right places. Unfortunately, the consequence is a shift from a few small, unobtrusive solar panels on brownfield sites, and smaller amounts on poor-quality farmland and fields here and there, to massive industrial installations in completely the wrong places based merely on grid connection. Such industrial projects significantly alter the landscape, sometimes entirely swallowing whole villages, transforming once green fields into sterile expanses of photovoltaic glass. The companies have no ties to the land and no stake in its preservation.
One issue that I have raised with the Minister previously —it was brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell)—is that developers are having the land grades analysed themselves. They appear to be finding that the land is of lower grade than DEFRA and others thought it was.
Dr Johnson
Surprise, surprise indeed. There is a clear incentive for a developer to report a lower grade of land in this context. The Minister has said to me that he would take steps to review that; will he update the House on what progress has been made?
Sir John Hayes
I am delighted to get a second bite of the cherry, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me that. There are three deceptions. The first, which she described, is of dodgy surveyors and agronomists reclassifying land so that it can be developed. The second is that these large developments include land of different grades. Even if part of the land is grade 1 or 2, because some is not, the developer prosecutes their case accordingly. The third, of course, is that by having these large developments, local authorities and local people are taken out of the frame altogether. Those are deliberate deceptions, and it is up to the Minister, who I know is a fine man with a strong sense of diligence in this regard, to take action to end them.
Dr Johnson
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He summarises large parts of my speech succinctly.
Another issue that I want to raise is that although large-scale solar may technically be classified as clean energy, many tell me that the companies that supply it are neither morally clean nor environmentally green. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton had an Adjournment debate earlier this week in which she made an interesting but rather disturbing speech relating to the use of forced labour in supply chains of solar panels. Her debate highlighted the fact that many solar panels also use vast quantities of coal in their supply chain.
Fosse Green—one of the organisations trying to muscle in on rural Lincolnshire—appears as a British company, but its structure is rather complex. It is actually a joint venture involving two established solar developers: Windel Energy and Recurrent Energy. The latter is, according to the firm itself, the
“wholly-owned subsidiary of Canadian Solar incorporated”.
As highlighted by my hon. Friend, Canadian Solar gets its panels almost exclusively from China, where about 60% of the grid is accounted for by coal-powered energy plants. The plants will have a significant carbon footprint of their own, and once the panels are produced they will have to be transported to and within the UK on ships and lorries powered by hydrocarbons.
The other allegations made against Canadian Solar, which I understand the Minister will be investigating, are particularly worrying. What are the Government doing to investigate the actual benefit of solar projects, taking into account the panels’ production, transportation, regular cleaning and ultimate disposal, and to ensure that we are not complicit in the use of forced labour?
It is self-evident that the companies have little time for the views of those who will be most affected by them. I recently conducted a survey in my constituency in the areas most affected by large-scale NSIP applications. Letters were sent directly to thousands of households in Sleaford and North Hykeham, and I received over 2,000 handwritten responses. These were not simple online forms that could be clicked and submitted multiple times; they were thought-out responses, many of which contained pages—and I mean pages—of heartfelt comments. Of the respondents, 90% were concerned about the enormous scale of the proposals, 68% were extremely concerned about the use of productive farmland, and 55% were extremely concerned about the visual impact.
The accusation often levelled against people who are against the proposals but have to live next to the projects is that this is merely nimbyism: “We like solar panels, but just not next to us.” Actually, although visual impact was a considerable factor in the responses, the far greater concern was about the loss of productive farmland. A significant proportion of my constituents are veterans, serving military personnel and those who work in agriculture, and they more than anyone else understand the extreme importance of food security. The most common response was that we must protect our prime agricultural land in the interests of food security.
That said, I also have sympathy with the aesthetic arguments. Lincolnshire is a particularly beautiful county, and the countryside has inspired much of our nation’s best art and literature. Lincolnshire’s pre-eminent literary figure, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, felt his deepest sympathies for an unaltered rural England, and found himself a stranger in the rapidly changing industrial and mercantile world of 19th-century England. His work remains remarkably relevant to our situation today. His much-loved poem “The Brook”, a memorable personification of a stream, ends with the following lines:
“For men may come and men may go,
But I go on for ever.”
What do we allow to go on forever? Do we allow the industrialisation of our countryside, or do we honour the landscape that has inspired so much of our great literature? Edmund Burke noticed that happiness is the promise of beauty, and it is clear that rural communities will be far unhappier after being deprived of the natural beauty of their surroundings.
Solar prospectors often hide behind claims that their panels will be hidden from public view, but that is often not the case. The panels are often more than 4 metres tall—twice the height of the tallest gentleman here—and especially visible from higher areas. Even in a relatively flat area like Lincolnshire, enormous solar seas such as the Fosse Green project could be seen from the limestone cliff running down the county. Their glint and glare could disturb any onlookers, and they are a particularly big threat to our national treasure, the Red Arrows.
Sir David Davis
I will stand to my full height. May I address the issue of the dismissive attitude behind the word “nimbyism”? Many people who live in these parts of the countryside—in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and the rest—moved there because of the environment. They go there for a peaceful retirement, because they would like to work there or because they want their children to grow up in a good environment. It is distinctly unconservative— to use a phrase frequently used at the moment—to dismiss peoples’ property rights as nimbyism. They bought their view. They placed themselves and invested their savings in the environment that we are talking about. When we take it away, we should not just dismiss it as nimbyism.
Dr Johnson
Unsurprisingly, I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. It is important that we represent the constituents we are sent here to represent. If they are unhappy with solar farms being put in front of their houses, whether that is because the farms are on productive farmland or because they ruin the environment in which they live, we are here to represent those concerns.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. I want to re-emphasise the point she just made about the height of the solar panels. I wonder whether the proponents of the schemes and those considering the applications in Government actually understand the scale of what is being proposed. For the application that my hon. Friend and I face, the panels are as high as a house, and some of them will be placed within just a few metres of a home. Imagine if that were your home, Mr Henderson. That is not a solar farm of the sort one might have thought of in the recent past. It will have a profoundly detrimental impact on that person’s quality of life, and we have to consider that when we look at these applications.
Dr Johnson
My right hon. Friend is right: the scale of the panels is difficult to comprehend. My staff have worked hard on some maps comparing some of the larger projects that have been built with the projects that are proposed in his constituency and mine, and the graphics are really very telling.
It is also notable that these projects offer very little commensurate financial benefit for the people most affected by them. Some of my constituents asked in their responses whether the solar panels would reduce the local community’s electricity bills as compensation for the industrial landscape, but no: the electricity produced will go straight into the national grid and will be transported to other areas of the country.
As we have said, this is not mere nimbyism. Communities should not be criticised for resisting solar projects if they are in the wrong place, as these are. Indeed, there should be a greater push for rational, proactive policy to facilitate renewable energy schemes that do not harm our landscape, rather than steamrolling over the views of locals. Large-scale solar projects are a democratic issue. We are sacrificing public trust through opaque planning laws, eschewing public consultation and silencing the voices of residents affected by these schemes. The rightful concerns of residents who do not wish to live in an energy factory must count. I hope that we as representatives can do much to redress the balance.
So what is to be done? We recognise that solar energy is a piece of the jigsaw in our transition to a greener future, but we must strike a balance. We should insist on alternative locations for solar panels, such as brownfield sites, industrial areas and roofs, rather than sacrifice any of our valuable agricultural land and pristine landscapes. Will the Minister confirm that the Government agree with that statement and reiterate their promise to protect our best and most versatile land?
I reiterate that I am not opposed to solar power in general, but we need to revise the strategy for where, and on what scale, it is implemented. Some 90% of respondents to my survey said they would favour solar on industrial roofs. It is estimated that there are 600,000 acres of south-facing industrial roof space not currently used for solar in the United Kingdom. A push to prioritise industrial, brownfield and poor-quality land over residential would be a step in the right direction.
This issue affects us all. There is a creeping danger that our countryside will become rapidly industrialised. If allowed to go through unchallenged, these projects will stretch across vast expanses of rural communities throughout the country, putting our best agricultural land out of use for more than a generation and transforming the character of our green and pleasant land. We, as representatives of largely rural communities, must find common cause. We must work to maintain the beautiful character of our countryside, support our farming industries, protect food security in times of great uncertainty and make the voices of local residents heard.
This is an urgent problem. If the polls are right, though I do not think they are, and we lose the upcoming election, we cannot rely on Labour Ministers. Look at the Chamber: the only Labour MP here is the Opposition spokesperson. There are no Back-Bench Labour or Liberal Democrat MPs. We cannot rely on Labour Ministers to protect our farmland, for the simple reason—as is obvious today—that they do not care about our countryside; that is why they represent so little of it. We must therefore ensure that any solution we pursue is carried out robustly and quickly. The Prime Minister said that on his watch, he will not allow great swathes of our best agricultural land to be swallowed by solar farms, and we will make sure he lives up to that promise.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a privilege to be called first to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and to be surrounded by so many hon. and right hon. Friends who have already made contributions and no doubt will make excellent ones after me.
Before I make my wider arguments, I want to make it clear, for the benefit of local residents in my constituency in rural Worcestershire who I have had the pleasure of meeting at the site itself, that I strongly oppose the solar farm development proposals for 287 acres of beautiful rural farmland in my constituency, in the area around Stock Green and Inkberrow, at the Roundhill Wood site. I have been vocal on the subject and I have lodged my objections with the planning authority, on the public record and in the press—and I do so again.
When I met the Roundhill Wood Solar Farm Opposition Group and its lead spokesman, the indefatigable Phil Coathup, I was completely persuaded by their reasoning. Phil is unable to be with us today, but I am 100% sure he is watching, so I say hello to Phil, and hello to Tigger, who is a horse. I thank them for all they have done, as I thank my hon. Friend for calling the debate and for giving us all this opportunity to air our concerns and those of our constituents.
I will slightly curtail some of the points I intended to make because my hon. Friend has made them so well, but I echo many of them. Residents in my seat have told me that, like me, they are wholly supportive of renewable energy from solar power and the ambition of tackling climate change, but they have a number of concerns. One such concern is the loss of prime agricultural land at a time of war. Residents argue, and I could not agree more, that farming subsidies should not be used to encourage more solar farms. What we really need are more wheat and dairy farms so that we can be sustainable as a population.
There is also the impact on green space—mine is a beautiful area—along with the risk of fire and hazard, as we have seen in many other similar developments. Residents fear fires, electrical storms and many other issues that could have a dangerous impact on the area. In our particular case, there is also the issue of the distance from the grid. The two planning applications submitted for the project will cause massive intrusion into communities. The primary site is located in Inkberrow, while the National Grid substation is located in Feckenham, meaning there will have to be extensive cabling between the two sites.
There is a further aspect to this particular proposal, which is the loss of the literary landscape. In our Worcestershire countryside we are proud of our connection to J. R. R. Tolkien, who is known to have lived and worked there when escaping from Birmingham. Indeed, he is thought to have taken significant inspiration for his work from our beautiful fields and areas, and Andrew Morton recently came to my constituency to discuss the importance of the area in inspiring the Shire. According to Andrew Morton, Tolkien’s visits to his aunt’s farm in Dormston, called Bag End, directly inspired the name of the house of the fictional character Bilbo Baggins. If the application were to pass, the landscape would become a construction site and the views that inspired great works of literature would be lost forever.
Residents also suggest, as did my hon. Friend, that we should put solar panels on rooftops, including warehouse roofs, which are ample elsewhere in my constituency because it is a logistics hub. However, it is clear that that cannot meet the whole of the UK’s solar power needs.
Richard Fuller
I am intrigued by the literary references from both my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). However, I want to draw my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch’s attention to the economics. She will be aware that the strike price for solar power was £47 per megawatt hour and at the last auction was going to go to £61 per megawatt hour. Underpinning farmers’ decision that they should perhaps give up their land is that the economics of farming are finding it difficult to compete with the economics of the pricing at those auctions. Does she agree that if it is the case, which I believe to be true, that the Government now have four times the amount of solar production capacity on offer compared with what they actually require, there needs to be an economic answer to both the pricing of solar power and support for our farmers?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend has made some excellent points. He is right that commercial pressures and the legislation we signed up for—I was happy to vote for that to reach net zero—are driving this between them. We have a lot of unintended outcomes from the policy; it was introduced for laudable aims, but it is time to pause things and look at the matter again.
People have talked about nimbys. It is a really interesting issue, because people will ask, “Where would you put the solar panels instead? Where would you put the additional ones required to fulfil our solar capacity targets?” Our British energy strategy includes ambitions to have 70 GW of solar capacity by 2035, and we are at something like 15.7 GW as of January this year. I believe that if we oppose something and do not like what is in front of us, we should suggest what should be done instead. We should be constructive. We should not just oppose things and not come up with a solution; that is what Labour does, and that is not my style.
On the subject of Labour, by the way, it is unclear to me and local residents what Labour’s position locally is on the solar power project. It should not really surprise anyone that locally Labour is sitting on the fence—or on the solar panel, if I may stretch the metaphor—on the issue. That is what Labour does on every issue: says one thing and does another, or changes its mind every five minutes. It is certainly doing that locally.
People will probably say to me, “Aren’t you just a nimby?” Maybe I should ask myself that as well. As some Members may know, I had the great privilege of serving as the Housing and Planning Minister, and I am familiar with these debates. However, I say to my hon. and right hon. Friends that that is the wrong question and the wrong way of looking at the problem. I will briefly explain why. Deciding where to put infrastructure, whether it is housing, roads or solar farms, will always be controversial. We need to build these things. Nobody wants them next to them and, certainly to my knowledge, nobody has ever campaigned for more development next to them, be it housing or infrastructure.
It is therefore often said that those people must be nimbys and their views should be pushed aside in the interests of progress. There is no easy way around this, even if we prioritise the views of local communities, because the idea that there is anywhere else in the country where somebody will not object to something being built is a fantasy. It is idiotic to divide people into two camps of nimby and not nimby—unless they are Liberal Democrats, of course, who are bananas. That stands for “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone”—that is their policy.
I have the greatest respect for the yimby movement— I really do; it is doing some good things. However, I suspect that were those people to move to a different area, out of the city and into the countryside, next to a development site or into the green belt that was about to be built over, they might change their view. I speak as someone who has a little understanding of the area; I think all of us MPs do. We understand human nature, and we know that people will deceive themselves and others. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but the evidence in front of me strongly suggests that I am right. It is pointless and wrong to attack nimbys when everyone essentially feels the same about our landscape and our area.
Sir John Hayes
That is indeed right. If a Member of Parliament does not defend their own area, surely they are not really doing their job, are they? My backyard is South Holland and the Deepings, and I will certainly defend it to the death from the kind of menace represented by this kind of large-scale solar.
Rachel Maclean
I really enjoy hearing my right hon. Friend speak about the matter, because more than anyone else he has brought the concept of beauty and its impact on our wellbeing into public policy. I thank him for that.
I will deliberately move away from the concept of blaming people for being nimbys, because unless we understand how human psychology works, we will not be able to solve the problem of where to put things that nobody wants. There is another way to think about this. It is much easier and cheaper to install infrastructure on a virgin field, rather than to engineer it somewhere else in the built environment or on brownfield. That is more favourable, but it will take cash.
If anyone tells us that we can simply complete a project on brownfield for the same cost as on greenfield, they have no idea what they are talking about. Yes, I am looking at Labour, because that is essentially Labour’s plan for reforming the planning system. Why? Brownfield is brown for a reason: something else was there before. That something else needs to be removed and the site put back to a clean condition, which involves removing toxic materials and engineering problems.
That costs money, and that is why we have Government agencies and grants funded to the tune of £10.5 billion, in the case of Homes England, to do exactly that. However, that money is our money; it is taxpayers’ money. If we want more of it, we must spend more money on it, which means less money to spend on all the other things that voters want and the Opposition have promised, such as the NHS and so on.
By the way, Labour has repeatedly said that it wants to build on the green belt, or the grey belt, whatever that is. I will be honest: there is some merit in that argument, but that is because we are already doing that. It is Government policy, when it is done sensibly and in consultation with local communities and backed by Government funding. It is happening all over the country. Where it is not happening is in—surprise, surprise—Labour-run planning authorities, most notably London. Sadiq Khan is woefully behind on all his housing targets, even though he has been generously subsidised to the tune of 4 billion quid by taxpayers from around the country who are not lucky enough to live in London but are subsidising his frankly useless delivery record.
What is sad and shameful about this is that the need for housing and the cost of it is acute in London. The so-called housing crisis, which is just as much an immigration crisis as a housing crisis, is worse in London. In fact, if the Labour Mayor of London built enough houses in the capital, we could meet the annual national quota with room to spare and prevent speculative green belt development in the home counties and around the country, such as in the areas we represent. If we want a planning system that works with local people, we need to take a step back, look at our policy landscape and ask ourselves about the incentives that are driving these unfavourable outcomes.
Taking all the politics out of this, we are talking about human nature and behaviour. It is an illustration of the tragedy of the commons. Projects such as solar farms are needed to meet communal goals such as net zero, and most people agree that renewable energy is a good idea.
James Gray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about a strategic review. Does she agree that we need a national policy on solar farms? Do the Government want them to be on a large scale and out in the middle of the countryside, or do they want them to be on smaller sites? At the moment there is no national policy for the matter. Should one not be brought in with no further delay?
Rachel Maclean
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend; he is completely right. I think most of us will make the same point, and I am sure the Minister will update us.
I want to briefly touch on environmental issues. We need to talk about the environmental agencies and the proliferating plethora of reasons for objecting to development on environmental grounds. We have a number of agencies, most notably Natural England and the Environment Agency, but we have not seen them do anything useful such as protecting farm land, our green space, our precious environment and nature or tackling projects that we are all concerned about in our local areas. What they are actually doing is inventing and coming up with ridiculous ideas like “nutrient neutrality”, which is holding up 100,000 much-needed houses across the country in areas where people are desperately screaming out for them. Guess who voted against the proposals we brought forward to tackle that? Of course, it was Labour. If they were serious about unblocking development and house building, they could have acted on that.
I accept that there is a need for regulation and enforcement, but we should direct our attention to the huge number of quangos and agencies indulging in mission creep, way outside what was originally envisaged. We have woken up and found that the European convention on human rights is now regulating on climate change for some people in Switzerland who have said that it is violating their human rights.
We believe in conserving; that is what the Conservatives do. But we should focus on conserving plants, trees, nature, wildlife, landscapes and the green belt. We should not ever be increasing highly paid bureaucratic jobs. These are people who just want to conserve their own organisation and its multitude of rules and regulations. We need to go back to our core Conservative values and ask why we have allowed the state to create so many of these laws. We cannot really blame people for using the protections we have given them. It is human nature. That is why we need to go back to the drawing board on how we are using our land.
I conclude by thanking the House for holding this debate. It is a complex and lengthy subject, but for the avoidance of doubt, I oppose the proposals in my constituency. I recognise that there are no easy, sound-bite answers, but my constituents deserve to be listened to, and I will be a voice for them. They cannot be denigrated for standing up for their local area and caring about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) made the point eloquently that that is why they moved to the area. These people worked very hard, saved up to buy a house and moved to a desirable area. We are their voice and we will fight for them.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing what is a very important debate for many counties around the country, not least Buckinghamshire.
Since I was elected in 2019, the threat of large-scale solar developments has caused significant concern for me and my constituents. Across my Buckingham constituency, field after field and farm after farm have already been blanketed by solar panels, to the detriment of the surrounding communities, food security, nature and our beautiful landscape. While we must strive towards a more sustainable and secure energy strategy, that does not and cannot include the huge sacrifice of agricultural land that we have already made and many plan to make in pursuit of that lofty goal.
Within the 335 square miles of rural Buckinghamshire that I am lucky enough to represent, a total of 3,600 acres of land has been either allocated to or planned for solar farms. That is 1.5 times larger than the entirety of Heathrow airport.
The largest proposed industrial solar installation, Rosefield, which sits among the villages known as the Claydons, dwarfs the size of the nearby town of Buckingham —a town of more than 10,000 residents. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Buckinghamshire countryside is slowly being consumed by solar panels. Does it benefit anybody locally? No, it does not—not when we consider the construction impact, the visual impact, the risk to wildlife and the risk to the local economy and our tourism economy.
Buckinghamshire is lucky enough to have stunning, beautiful countryside that people come to walk through; they then spend their money in our cafes, bars, hotels and campsites. I am not sure that they will still want to do that if the landscape is just covered in the glass, metal and plastic of these solar farms. Not that the promoters and developers of such schemes as Rosefield in the Claydons, Callie’s near Owlswick, Bourton in Buckingham, Redborough in Ledburn and many others that I could mention, care about any of those points, of course.
And does it benefit our country? No, not when our food security is at grave risk of being severely compromised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has outlined, through the enormous loss of agricultural land that each of these developments represents when taken cumulatively.
No matter how big or small, all agricultural land repurposed is not only food lost, but livelihoods lost. This is land that would have been farmed for generations beforehand, often by tenant farmers, who are given no choice but to leave, without any meaningful say in the process or, indeed, any compensation.
Sir David Davis
My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech and makes a very good point about tenant farmers. Is not one of the problems the way that we have set up the pricing of these mechanisms, in that it renders tenant farmers completely uneconomical? For some foreign investor with vast investments in the British countryside, it is in their interest to throw tenant farmers out in favour of this policy.
Greg Smith
As ever, my right hon. Friend hits the nail precisely on the head. The risk to tenant farmers through the pricing mechanisms that we are seeing—through the sheer plain economics—is severely stacked against their interests. We must look at the volume of farms in this country that are tenanted rather than owned; the more tenant farms we lose, the greater the slide in domestic food security we will see, and the current figure of around 60% of self-sufficiency will drop very rapidly indeed. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
To achieve the set target of 75 GW from solar installations by 2035, more than 300,000 acres across the country would be required. It is no secret that the rural economy, under pressure from, for example, rising input prices and many other things, has already faced significant challenges in recent years. Left with no viable options, some people have been forced to sell or leave their land, in the process guaranteeing that it will almost certainly never return to food-producing status. Yet across all of those estates—the farms and all of that land—the barn roofs are empty and blank.
Smaller stand-alone solar is less impactful, quicker and easier to install, does not risk damaging the local infrastructure and provides an additional, reliable source of income for struggling farms. I am in no way saying that farmers with 10, 20 or 30 acres of unproductive land should not, in consultation with their local planning authority and local communities, be able to utilise land that is not useful for producing food any more. They should be able to put solar on their rooftops. But the fundamental point is that no amount of solar will revive the fortunes of some of the farms that are struggling —quite the opposite.
Time and again I hear the baseless argument from developers—this point has already been developed in this debate—that anything less than grade 3a land should be given over because they believe it to be incapable of growing food. I disagree. Grade 3b land can be very productive; I know that, because the bulk of my constituency that sits in the vale of Aylesbury sits on blue clay. That means the vast majority of it gets a grade 3b land rating, but it remains perfectly capable in many cases, having been nurtured, loved and looked after for generations, of producing 10-tonne-a-hectare wheat harvests. Many farmers in other parts of the country on grade 2 land or even grade 1 land would bite their right hand off to get such a yield at harvest time.
James Gray
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. He makes an extremely important point about the definition of grades 3a and 3b. Most people in the countryside know that one field might be half 3a and half 3b. I am told that Natural England does not have a map. It does not even have a clear definition of what is 3a and 3b. Does he agree with me that the worst outrage of all is that when these speculative solar farm developers come along, it is their surveyor—they pay the surveyor—who decides on the quality of the land? It is hardly surprising that they find in favour of it all being 3b.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point. It is almost as if he had been looking over my shoulder and seeing what was on the next page of my speech. I was coming to precisely that. Overpaid surveyors, the so-called experts who come in with a clear mandate of what they have to do, have been hired to test soil quality. They do not even go out into the middle of the field. They do not go to the most versatile part of the farm where the crop actually grows. We have caught them red-handed in Buckinghamshire testing the headland, the very edge of the field, They will always get a lower score from that test if they have not gone to the bit of the field where the crop grows. They deliberately test the edge of fields and the headland to get the poorer quality result. This would not be a speech from me without mentioning this: it is the same tactic that HS2’s contractors use in other parts of my constituency to get similar results to prove similar points. It is not unique to solar developers.
Dr Johnson
Has my hon. Friend compared the land results proposed by the surveyors with the maps that DEFRA produces of what it expects the land to be and noticed the differences?
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Yes, time and again we see a differential between what the developer’s surveyor and consultant come up with and what we believe the land to be. Much of my constituency sits on a blue clay base, so we expect a lot of it to be 3b. However, I come back to the point that I made: 3b land can be very good productive land producing the sorts of yields that I talked about. It is how that land has been farmed, often for generations, that dictates how good it is for production, not other things.
I made this point earlier: 60% of farms in the UK are tenant farms. However, beyond that, it is not just the farmers, the tenants or those employed on the farms who are hurt when that land is taken away from food production, but the packing plants, the equipment suppliers and the distributors. A huge part of our rural and national economy is hit when food production is diminished.
For the surrounding communities, the loss of farmland by no means starts or ends with solar panels. In the Claydons, for example, my constituents have suffered hugely from large-scale construction already, including a number of big housing estates, East West Rail and the ultimate destroyer, HS2. It is a daily struggle for them to get to work, school, the hospital, the GP or the shops without coming up against the obstacles of endless road closures, broken stretches of road that have become dangerous after the movement of thousands of HGVs, drivers travelling to and from nearby compounds, and severe light pollution during the winter months. That will be the same all over again with the construction of the huge solar farms. A solar farm of 2,100 acres is not built overnight. They are all put on concrete bases. There will be piling in places. The construction impact on local communities is considerable.
After all the disruption that my constituents have already taken—and are still taking—from those big national infrastructure projects, this once quiet corner of Buckinghamshire is now expected to take, in the case of Rosefield, a 2,100 acre development, which would dwarf the amount of land that High Speed 2 has taken in Buckinghamshire. Given the extent of the proposed site, it is not unreasonable to expect to see yet more of the same disruption that has plagued the Claydons for years. All of that comes without any commitment by the promoters to fix any of the damaged roads, which already have to be patched by the council, even though other people have broken them. It is simply not fair for my constituents and areas such as the Claydons to foot all that pain all over again.
It is not just the panels that consume vast amounts of countryside. The infrastructure needed to carry the electricity generated through to the grid swallows up yet more. It is no coincidence that adjacent to the proposed Rosefield site, there is a proposed battery storage facility, with the equivalent of 90 shipping containers of battery storage right next door. That is more food-producing land being sacrificed, and the facility itself poses a major fire risk in an area where the emergency services are already struggling, in the face of such disruptive amounts of construction work, to get to any emergencies that occur.
Let that be a warning to any community where solar is coming. It does not end with just the solar panels. Of course, there is no community benefit whatsoever from solar development, whether large or small. As has been said, there is no cheap electricity for local residents or businesses, and no support systems in place for those impacted by construction. There is no recourse for anybody affected.
I have spoken a lot about Rosefield, but I will briefly talk about some other large-scale solar developments in my constituency. In the south, we have seen an equally blatant tactic—admittedly, on a slightly smaller scale—of significant ground-based solar installations being installed or proposed just metres from each other. Let us take the proposed solar installation near the village of Kimblewick on the eastern side of the village of Ford, and Callie’s Solar Farm on the western side of Ford, which combined, would be the second largest land take in my constituency after Rosefield for ground-mounted panels. We have seen that tactic time and again; it puts community and local authority resources under strain, in turn diminishing their influence over the whole planning process. We have to find a way to ensure that the cumulative impact of solar farms is taken into account.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate; I was speaking in the Chamber. I will therefore not make a full speech, but I am grateful to be able to comment. My hon. Friend describes the exact situation that my constituents in Rownall face, with multiple applications being made for adjoining pieces of land, all of which are small scale and therefore to be decided by the local district council rather than the Secretary of State. They feel that that is an abusive way of putting in solar farms that will cumulatively be a very large development. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to pause the granting of all applications of this variety and urge district councils to have the appropriate training to identify and measure fully the cumulative impact of these developments?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree. There should be a fundamental pause on any solar application that would take land used for food production. As the new national planning policy framework was being negotiated concurrent to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, I was pleased to be able to persuade the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to change the NPPF from the old language of “best and most versatile” to a straightforward definition of “land used for food production”. It was hidden in a footnote, but it was still there. If we can leverage that as the test that planning authorities now have through the NPPF, coupled with the sensible points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) made about going up in a helicopter to review all land being used and pausing any decisions, that would bring a lot of relief to communities—certainly mine in Buckinghamshire, hers in Staffordshire and many others as well.
Solar has its place, but that place is on rooftops and not in fields. Across my constituency are farms and industrial sites where the roofs of barns and warehouses are devoid of solar panels. My constituency adjoins both Bicester to the Oxfordshire side and Milton Keynes to the north-east. There are the rooftops of many thousands of distribution centres and warehouses, and these big sheds that are going up as logistics hubs everywhere, vibrantly adding to our economic development, but with no solar on the roof. If we just got the solar panels on those roofs instead, we would find more than enough space to ensure that we are delivering on the volume of solar-generated energy that we need.
CPRE research found that
“there is potential for…117 gigawatts”
of renewable energy
“to be generated from rooftops and other”
existing “developed spaces” in England alone, which is substantially more than the master target. Rooftop solar systems have to be the priority for Government, and I urge the Minister to find a way of ensuring that our solar strategy is a rooftop strategy, not an agricultural land strategy.
As she opened this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made a point about small modular reactors. She cited a statistic that I have used, which goes to the nub of this debate; it is the clearest argument I can make about a sensible land use strategy. The small modular reactors that we have seen companies such as Rolls-Royce develop need virtually no land to deliver significantly more power. She was kind to quote me, but I will repeat the statistic because I am quite fond of it: 2,000 acres of solar panels produce, on current usage, before everyone has two Teslas on the drive, 50,000 homes-worth of electricity. A small modular reactor is the size of two football pitches and can power 1 million homes. That surely has to be the more sensible use of land in this country to power people’s homes and businesses. Nuclear can deliver that in a clean and wonderful way while still protecting our national food security. Those numbers must speak volumes to anybody that cares about both the energy security and food security of our wonderful country.
My asks are clear. First, we simply must diversify our national energy security strategy to promote less land-intensive schemes, which come at the expense of our food security, and promote the development of more reliable, sustainable and less impactful schemes that we can actually deliver every day of the year. Secondly, we must put in practice the provision of the new language in the NPPF and encourage local authorities to use it. Thirdly, we must incentivise the use of existing rooftop space for stand-alone solar installations on sites that already have a grid connection and reform the grid to ensure that many more can as well. Let us get this right and stop the solar destruction, build our energy security on nuclear, protect our food security and save the great British countryside.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) has said it all in a most powerful and conclusive speech. It covered most of the ground superbly, and I congratulate him on it. Prior to that we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). I congratulate her on calling this very important debate at an extremely important moment. The way she laid the case out was masterful. They really were extremely good speeches, and I thank my hon. Friends for them. I will try not to repeat what they had to say.
It seems to me that we are at a tipping point in this whole debate. Within the last few days, I have noticed a few very interesting remarks by the Government on the question of large-scale solar. On Tuesday, they answered a question from me, and my hon. Friend the Minister, who will reply to the debate, commented that he thought the question of large-scale solar was
“a very interesting topic, and one that we are listening to.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 153.]
“One that we are listening to” is an important thing for a Government Minister to say. May I congratulate him on having the courage and the conviction to come out on to Parliament Square a moment ago to see many of my constituents, who are out there complaining about the Lime Down solar farm proposed in my constituency? That demonstrates that he is ready to listen. I am sure that he will have noted how many Conservative Members of Parliament are here today, and how few from other constituencies. This is a huge issue for all of us.
That same day, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who is now the Energy Minister—I congratulate him on his promotion—said during Question Time that
“solar projects should be directed to previously developed or non-greenfield land.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 149.]
That was a very straightforward remark from the Minister.
And then, at Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday, the Prime Minister said that we do not want to see more solar on greenfield sites. He said that it is the cheapest form of energy, but we want to see it
“on brownfield sites, rooftops and away from our…agricultural land.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 303.]
So in one week, we have seen three Ministers, including the Prime Minister, stipulating that they agree with the points we are trying to make in this room today. My instinct is that we are at a tipping point, and the Government have realised that what they have achieved is a huge concreting- over of our countryside in very largely Conservative-represented constituencies, such as mine. They are beginning to realise that that is an enormous political mistake.
Incidentally, I was very much encouraged by a recent report from the Planning Inspectorate on a planning application for a large solar farm in Bedfordshire. It said that the Secretary of State agrees that this solar farm would result in a large change
“to the character of the land which would impinge upon the openness of the Green Belt”.
He believes that there would be
“a significant adverse effect upon both the spatial and visual qualities”
of the greenfield, and that development on the site would be
“visible in the wider landscape…harmful to purpose”
and encroach on the countryside as defined under planning law.
It seems to me that the Planning Inspectorate as well as Ministers are beginning to realise that this is going wrong. I very much welcome the NPPF, broadly speaking, but did not quite follow the arguments with regard to large-scale solar. The Minister may have to consider redesigning the NPPF in some detail after this debate and the other debates we are about to engage on. There are about 40 colleagues with large-scale solar farms in their constituencies, and I am ready to work with them on a national basis. However, as other colleagues have said today, there is nothing wrong with being a nimby.
I would like to make some brief remarks about a new application in a place called Lime Down in my constituency. Incidentally, can we please tell the public relations spin doctors who work for these developers that using names like “Lime Down”, “Poplar’s Ash” or “Birds’ Lea” to disguise the fact that they are industrialising the countryside will not work? In my constituency, they have used the name “Lime Down”. That application—many of my colleagues have spoken of similar experiences today—includes some 2,000 acres of panels, a further 2,000 or 3,000 acres that will be blighted because they are between different patches, and a 30-mile connection down the road to the substation in Melksham, which is the nearest bit of the grid we can get to. It will be 3 million panels—just think of the HGVs required to get them into the middle of the countryside. We are talking about a bit of countryside in the Cotswolds that runs down the historic Roman Fosse way. Some of the finest buildings, farms and landscapes in the land will be blighted by this application. We are totally opposed to it.
I called a public meeting the other day in Malmesbury town hall. I was delighted that 750 people came; not many of my colleagues can remember a meeting with 750 people turning up. People are extremely angry about what is being proposed for the so-called Lime Down area. I was delighted that they took the trouble to come to the meeting that evening. This is a huge issue in my constituency, and we must see what we can do to stop it.
If I may differentiate myself slightly from some colleagues, we in Wiltshire are already taking our fair share of solar. Eight of the largest solar farms in England, and I suspect in Europe, are in Wiltshire; most of them are in my constituency in the north half. All told, we have 54 solar farms in production already. The target for the county is 570 MW; we are already doing 590 MW, so we have exceeded our county target. We have two or three very large-scale ones, such as Lyneham, with 250 acres, and RAF Wroughton, with something like 200 acres of solar farm. We are already making a huge contribution to the national effort towards solar. The 2,000 acres proposed for Lime Down would bust the target entirely and would be wholly unacceptable to people in my area.
As colleagues have mentioned, people are particularly upset because this is not an environmental matter or some effort to save the globe. It is funded by Macquarie, an Australian funding house—the so-called kangaroo vampires. Macquarie was most recently responsible for Thames Water—not a great success—and the fact that it is behind this proposal demonstrates that it is simply about money. The compensation proposed for farmers alone is £80 million, and we estimate the cost of getting the links through to the substation to be a further £25 million, so it will have spent £100 million before one panel is built.
We are talking about a multibillion-pound investment with very substantial returns for the Wall Street spivs who stand behind it. I do not think that the people of Wiltshire should allow that. The people behind it are not there for environmental reasons at all, although they may claim to be. They claim to be biodiversity-friendly and all that stuff, but it is absolute PR spin and total nonsense. They are there because there is an enormous amount of money in it. I do not see why we should compromise our environmental principles by allowing those people to come into our countryside and do what they propose.
Most of the salient points have already been made by colleagues. One reason why we do not want these proposals is the landscape: nothing could be finer than the south Cotswolds in my constituency. That landscape must be preserved. Several hon. Friends have spoken passionately about food security, and they are absolutely right. We are a very productive agricultural area—mainly beef and sheep, but also pigs and quite a bit of arable. Why should we give that up in favour of solar, when the contribution that solar makes to energy security is extremely small? I think 3% of national electricity is produced by solar.
Dame Karen Bradley
Another choice needs to be made when it comes to solar, which relates to the use of slave labour in the production of many solar panels and the materials that go into them. We should not have to make a choice between being environmentally friendly and respecting human rights by ensuring that forced labour is not active in supply chains.
James Gray
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. If I remember rightly, we heard on the Floor of the House earlier this week that it is believed that Uyghur slave labour is being used in China for the production of those panels. They are then being shipped here on huge ships, and then they go on to lorries. They are extremely environmentally unfriendly in their production.
I will tell the House another thing that is extremely environmentally unfriendly. Macquarie says that in 40 years’ time the solar farm will no longer be used, that it will be demolished and that the land will be returned to agriculture. There are two or three things I want to say about that.
First, the chances of Messrs Macquarie still being here and living up to that promise are extremely remote. The farms are sold week after week, from one financial house to the next. The chances are zero that some nice company will come along in 40 years’ time and say, “Thanks very much, North Wiltshire: you’ve done your stuff and now we’re going to take these things away and return it to how it was.” It cannot happen, particularly because it is likely that the technology will move forward in the meantime. These things will very probably be out of date in five or 10 years’ time. Who will then remove them? Who will remediate the land? Nobody. There will be no such person.
Dr Caroline Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a good point about the obsolescence of products over time. Does he have any electrical appliances in his home, or is he aware of any, that have lasted for 40 years and are still useful?
James Gray
There is some very interesting correspondence in The Daily Telegraph at the moment about household items that are surviving for 40 years, but there are precious few. And then what happens? How do we dispose of them? That is the other great problem: even if the land is restored after 20 or 40 years, there is no known means of disposing of the panels under national planning policy. Do they go to landfill? What happens to them? Nobody seems to know. There is no known solution.
Our descendants will curse us for covering the countryside in these vast vanity mirrors with no known means of remediation. When we are long dead and our children and grandchildren are inheriting them, what a mess that will be. What will happen, incidentally, is that some planner will say, “It’s a brownfield site now, so we’ll turn it into a new town or factory,” or something else that we do not want. The way these things are created is worrying. The point about Uyghur slave labour is extremely important, and the question of disposal has not yet been answered.
I have two or three asks of the Minister about matters on which we need laser-sharp attention to detail. The first relates to the quality of land that is allowed to be used for solar farms. About two years ago, the then Secretary of State for DEFRA, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee, and I pressed him on the point. He said that 3a and 3b would definitely not be used for solar. I asked him three or four times, and he reiterated that answer. As the Secretary of State, he made it absolutely plain that 3a and 3b may not be used for solar.
Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend had to write to me a couple of weeks later to say that he had made a small mistake, which his officials had picked him up on, and that he now realised that only 3a would not be used. None the less, the fact that the Secretary of State for DEFRA thought that it was all grade 3 land is itself important. We have talked about the fact that the land is being surveyed by people who are paid by the developers. It is hardly surprising that they find in favour, and the fact that they go around the headland rather than the productive centre of the field is extraordinary. Anyhow, 3a and 3b are both productive agricultural land, and we must find a way of examining precisely how that is defined and what exactly the mapping is. I am told that Natural England does not have a map of 3a and 3b land. It should. It does not even have a clear definition of what it is. We need a laser focus on the kind of land that we allow solar farms to be on.
Secondly, I want to hear from the Minister on the cumulative effect of solar farms. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) said, there are many small applications that, together, come to a very large one. I slightly disagree with her: I would rather my district or county council were deciding on the matter, because at least then it would be local. If it is a vast one decided by the Secretary of State, we have no way of countering it. However, my right hon. Friend was quite right to say that when we put all the applications together, they come to a much bigger thing than any of them is individually. The Government might therefore like to give some thought to the cumulative effects of solar farm applications, so that they strengthen the presumption against the totality coming to more than they would otherwise allow.
Thirdly, I would like a comment from the Government on grid capacity. I am told that in the south-west and Wiltshire particularly, the grid is already near its capacity; there is no more room for solar farms to go into it. None the less, speculative developers apply for planning permission and then sell their options to other speculators, despite the fact that the grid cannot take the electricity. This is financial shenanigans: it is fiddling around with money. People say, “We’ve got planning permission on these 2,000 acres in North Wiltshire and we now want to sell it to you, the next financial shenanigans individual.” They may say, “You never know—maybe down the road, it will work,” but they know perfectly well that there is no capacity in the grid. The Government ought to pay some attention to whether grid capacity could be a pertinent factor in considering these applications.
I know that the Minister is in a quasi-judicial position and cannot comment on any individual application or any particular site, particularly during the purdah in the lead-up to the local elections. I very much respect that, but I hope that he has understood the strength of feeling on the issue among all Conservative colleagues, including many who are not here today. Many of them are Ministers and may feel constrained. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) feels equally strongly about the Lime Down application; of course she cannot say so publicly, but I did clear it with her beforehand that I could mention that in passing. A great many colleagues feel very strongly indeed about the issue.
I hope that the efforts that have been made in the past couple of weeks will have brought home to the Minister what a very important issue this is and how very strongly the Conservative party and Conservative Members of Parliament feel about it. I hope very much that, in the next few months available to him, he will find ways of bringing about some of the changes that have been discussed today, whether they be on cumulative effect, on land supply or on the general principle of solar. I hope he will find ways of bringing in nudges to the inspectorate to say, “These are the things that Ministers believe should or should not happen,” so the inspectorate will be more inclined to turn a thing down, rather than being inclined to accept it, as happens at the moment.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on her comprehensive introduction to the debate. These proposals for huge solar “farms”—they are not farms at all, of course; that is a misnomer—are unwise and unwelcome and will undermine our countryside. The opposition to them in my constituency, and increasingly up and down the country, is as widespread as it is deeply felt. I know that many friends and colleagues will have had the same experience. As we have said again and again, we are not opposed to solar energy; offshore wind and rooftop solar are entirely welcome.
As I travel up and down between Westminster and West Lindsey, I see the motorways and the A1 lined with giant logistics and distribution centres with flat rooftops that are perfect for solar panels. As my hon. Friend said, there are perhaps 600,000 acres of south-facing roofs that we could put solar panels on. Of course, there are also manufacturing and brownfield sites.
Taking a vast amount of good land out of agricultural production is incredibly short-sighted. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) argued in a debate on this subject two years ago, we should not build a single solar panel on good farmland until we have solar panels on every large building.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has made clear, Lincolnshire is the breadbasket of England: we produce 12% of the food we eat. In Lincolnshire, we want to safeguard that living tradition. As we all know, the planning framework has a presumption against building panels on land graded 1, 2 or 3a. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and I met the Prime Minister yesterday and asked him to extend that protection to 3b. At Energy questions this week, I made the same point and got a reassurance on the Floor of the House that it was never the intention of the Government to build on good agricultural land.
I know that the Minister is very limited in what he can say, but as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said, in the remaining months available to him as a Minister in this Government, we just have to act to end this scandal of solar panels being put on 3b land. It is simply not acceptable.
Food distribution networks worldwide still face disruption thanks to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As Matt Ridley pointed out in The Daily Telegraph this month, the UK is currently vying with the intensive agriculture of New Zealand in terms of wheat yield. Britain’s combination of moist soil and long summer days is perfect for growing wheat, as we well know in Lincolnshire. How will that be affected if we shift from useful and nourishing food to unreliable energy production? People say that solar energy is green, but what is more green than converting sunlight into food? That is what our farms do. How will that be affected if we shift from useful and nourishing food to unreliable energy production? The quantity of land involved is staggering. The journalist Robert Bryce has discovered that solar panels typically need about 200 times the amount of land as gas to generate the equivalent energy output.
Britain is and always will be a maritime power, a trading nation and an agricultural producer. We cannot produce everything we consume, but the more we do, the better off we are and the greater our food security is. Do we really think that turfing out tenant farmers and their families—good, solid people who may have been there for 200 years—to build solar panels on thousands and thousands of acres of arable land at the behest of entrepreneurs from London is a good idea? Those farmers have no rights, by the way. What is so unfair about that is that the rewards to some very large landowners are absolutely staggering: £100,000 on 100 acres. Is it any surprise that all those people are being bought off?
People say that solar farms are not subsidised, but of course they are subsidised through green levies. Somebody on the living wage in a terraced house in Gainsborough pays through their energy bills, and it goes into the pockets of entrepreneurs and huge landowners earning £100,000 a year on just 100 acres. That is not green, not fair and not right.
Meanwhile, our typically wet British weather means that we have occasionally had to fire up the coal plants to meet the country’s energy needs, not just when it is rainy and cloudy, but sometimes even when the sun is shining. We all know that solar panels do not work when it is dark, but people assume they work fantastically well in the summer—not necessarily. Last summer, we had a sweltering week that led to an uptick in energy demand as people turned on their air conditioning and plugged in their fans. Solar panels tend to be optimised for 25°C. In a summer heatwave with temperatures of 30°C or more, the amount of energy that solar panels contribute decreases—how bizarre. Everybody assumes that these things are wonderful when the sun is shining, but that is not necessarily true on the hottest days when we need them most. Solar is useful, but it simply cannot be relied on. Keeping a massive gas-powered infrastructure on hand is a necessary component of this solar-powered system.
Solar on its own is hugely expensive. A point that has not been made yet is that ecologists have become more aware of the importance of embodied energy: the usage that goes into the building or manufacture of something. One of the green arguments against tearing down Richmond House while the Palace of Westminster is renovated is that we would be demolishing not just a listed building, but one that is perfectly useable. It is just decades old and has decades left of its natural cycle, so that is not a green thing to do. There is no clear evidence that the embodied energy involved in constructing these massive solar panel projects will ever be made back during their 15-year lifecycle, before they are replaced or removed. When embodied energy is taken into account, it is doubtful that these huge proposals are in fact sustainable or green.
Massive solar panel installations have the potential to send property values plunging. As my hon. Friends have argued, homeowners have put their life savings into their homes and should have the right to defend them. They are accused of being nimbys, but they are simply good people defending often quite modest lifestyles in our rural economy.
The beautiful landscapes of England—not to mention the holiday let industry, which has grown immensely across the country and is currently surviving—are under threat. The net effect on tourism in Lincolnshire and across England will be negative. We should foster and encourage that sector across the counties of England, not stifle it.
The inspiration behind solar panel installations is not environmental altruism but naked profit. There is nothing wrong with people wanting to be entrepreneurs or to make profit, but that should not be at the expense of the British countryside. We need greater prosperity spread around the United Kingdom, but these proposals are backed by faceless global investment firms relying on us to sign them a blank cheque. It is not the Government’s job to do that. We must be the custodians of this land, its people and its history, which includes our countryside, farming sector, environment and landscapes. Land-intensive low-output solar installations are not the solution. In fact, they only create more problems.
Solar undoubtedly has a part to play in energy production; we need a diverse energy set-up in this country. The Government also need to build more power plants and replace ones that are coming offline. We need more nuclear; we have been dragging our heels while France has been a marvel on that front. When the oil crisis hit Europe in 1973, the Prime Minister of France, Pierre Messmer, was determined that a great nation like France must be able to look after its energy needs. At the time, most of France’s electricity was generated thanks to foreign oil. Messmer rolled out a massive programme of building nuclear power stations to provide cheap, clean energy. France is now much more globally competitive for business because of nuclear power. The regulated unit price of electricity in France last year was 53% of that of the UK. Messmer said,
“In France, we do not have oil, but we do have ideas.”
Let us have some good ideas, Minister, and not just build over our countryside. Here in the UK, we have North sea oil and gas, so let us have ideas that use cheap, reliable energy from nuclear and gas. Solar and wind can top that up, but they cannot replace it.
It is astonishing how scant the large-scale proposals are in terms of local community gain; they offer virtually nothing—almost no benefit—to my constituents. The arrogance is extraordinary. I suspect that that is because the solar firms are skipping the normal planning process, as has been said many times already, by applying for them as nationally significant infrastructure projects, instead of them being determined locally by our district councils. They have also divided the applications into many smaller ones, even though each one is useless unless it is part of a major offering.
I have argued before the Planning Inspectorate that the collective impact of these proposals is colossal. Each individual application can be evaluated accurately only as a part of a whole. I have attended the public inquiries for West Burton and Cottam, and I have argued my case. In the vicinity of the small town of Gainsborough, within a radius of just six miles, the proposal is for solar farms to cover 10,000 acres of agricultural land. The local authority and local people have absolutely no say. That is entirely wrong and when I have gone in person to argue on behalf of my constituents, the highly paid barristers and solicitors hired by these entrepreneurs from London say, “Well, we’re sorry. We’re only doing what the Government want.” It is now for the Minister, in the time available, to step in and save our people.
This energy will go straight into the national grid. It will have no local benefit and will not reduce energy costs for local people. These proposals are taking up too much land for their energy output, and they are taking out thousands and thousands of acres of land that is good for agriculture, which undermines farming and food security. They will erect eyesores that will lessen the beauty of our natural landscapes and undermine local tourism. They are cheating the system by skipping the normal planning scrutiny provided by democratically accountable local decision-makers. The primary benefit will be to faceless international companies rather than to locals. These vulture firms are attempting to gobble up our countryside. The Government must say no.
I emphasise that, as has been said, we do not need legislation. It is very simple: the Minister must say, “You cannot build these things on grade 3b land.” Any farmer in Lincolnshire would say that there is absolutely no difference between 3a and 3b in terms of production, but we want that to be independently verified. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) said, we do not want dodgy agronomists going around pretending that this land is grade 3a. There is virtually no difference, so we should not build solar panels on 3b land and it should be independently verified. We want to have planning guidance available to the inspector to ensure that, although we can cope with some solar panel development, it cannot be on the scale of 10,000 acres within six miles. Those are the simple steps that the Minister urgently needs to take.
I end by mentioning that in the civil war, on the margins of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who is no longer in his place, there was the battle of Riby Gap, where the pesky parliamentarians tried to displace the noble royalists from that part of Lincolnshire. The royalists fought and they won, and in Lincolnshire, we will fight and we will win.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing the debate. It has been apparent from listening to it how important an issue this is. She made a brilliant and comprehensive speech, and other hon. Members have filled in all the details, so I will be fairly brief.
The current policy on large-scale solar farms fails to take into account the country’s landscape and environment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) rightly said in his intervention on my hon. Friend, this is a matter of balance. This policy is badly designed and does not deliver any sense of balance. I suspect that that is largely because of the dead hand of the Treasury, but I will come back to that in a moment.
We have heard a series of horror stories, the latest from my old friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I felt a sense of horror when he talked about 10,000 acres being under these nightmarish destroyers of the countryside. Of course, the Government’s national infrastructure tracker shows 26 of these huge projects. One such project by a company called Boom Power is close to me in East Yorkshire, and it alone covers 3,500 acres. That is hard for most people to imagine, but that is 2,000 football fields or, as somebody said, about 1.5 times the size of Heathrow airport—virtually from here to the horizon in most directions. While sitting here, I saw that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was speaking in the main Chamber; it is about the size of the city of Durham—a city with a population of 50,000 people. Imagine how long we would spend considering a planning application for houses for 50,000 people—that would never happen, of course, but that is what we are dealing with.
Despite the fact that solar panels change the character, use and appearance of the landscape they seek to carpet, whoever drafted the policy did not have any concept of the rights of local individuals. In effect, because of the national infrastructure rules, the bigger and more damaging the project, the less say local people have. It is an astonishing perversion of natural justice.
Whoever designed the policy also did not take into account the other thought process of the developers: that they would seek to put them near hubs in the national grid, which means that not only do we get enormous solar farms, but we get lots of them in a single area. The proximity of the Drax power station is the reason for the one being proposed in my constituency, and it means that there is a proliferation of solar panels next door in Selby and in the other East Yorkshire and North Yorkshire seats. Five villages are being penalised in my constituency and another five or 10 villages are being penalised in the next constituency and the one after—they are all in one place.
As I said earlier in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, we dismiss such people as nimbys. It is their lives and their life savings—maybe their children’s life savings—that we are damaging. In doing this, we should keep in mind what we might call the importance of individual property rights.
There are countless more innovative policies that could be implemented. The one that seems to be most popular today as an alternative is to legislate either to massively incentivise or even to mandate in some cases the use of the roofs of all new buildings—certainly all new industrial buildings, warehouses and barns and, frankly, houses too. Over the last 20 years of energy policy, the Government have changed the economics to make various things different. Solar farms are now more economic than they were 20 years ago and wind farms are more economic than they were 20 years ago.
The creation of a requirement to use roofs would engender a new industry. Elon Musk already has new designs for solar cells that look like tiles on buildings. We would therefore do away with the concerns over the aesthetic effect and, if the Government did that, they would become cheaper and cheaper. I say to the Minister that there is need for some imagination and for us to say to ourselves, “What do we want this to look like in 10 years’ time?” Then, we can design the policies to encourage the industry to deliver just that.
I will be brief on the effects on farming because they have been talked through quite a lot. As I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, farmland is already a solar farm, in that it turns sunlight into food. It is much better, more useful and more flexible and effective than using it for electricity. We now have less farmland in production than we have had at any time since 1945—since the second world war. That date is important in this context because, in these dangerous times, do we really think it is sensible that we have to import almost half—46%—of our food? In the event of a serious breakdown of international trade—not even necessarily in the context of a continental war—which has happened a couple of times already through covid and Ukraine, our ability to access food becomes a real problem. We had a rehearsal during covid of some of that. It is not wise.
There was a lot of coverage in the papers over the last few days of the King installing 2,000 panels at Sandringham to create cheaper electricity for himself. Do Members know what 2,000 panels amount to? Five acres, or one seven-hundredth of the plan that I have been talking about, and one two-hundredth of the 10,000 acres that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough talked about earlier. Small scale is fine—even 100 or 200 acres properly placed are fine—but what we are getting now is huge industrialisation of the countryside and that simply is not fine. In my part of the world, I have the villages of Spaldington, Willitoft, Brind, Gribthorpe and Foggathorpe, where there is a plan to basically surround all those people with solar cells, and their future environments are being thwarted by that.
I had not intended to talk about the effect of the Treasury, but since we have a very smart Minister here I will make one philosophical point to him. When the Treasury sets out to determine which policy works best—I speak from long, sore experience as a Minister in the past—its driving concern, in essence, is cheapness, low cost and minimising the taxes required to run it. That is understandable—it is what those in the Treasury are paid for—but because the Treasury is so powerful, that overwhelms what ought to affect the decision, which an economist would call a cost-benefit analysis. In other words, what is the cost to the state and to the citizens and individuals who must cope with it? My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough mentioned what happened to house prices, for example, and we know what it does to people’s environments. We have a policy in respect of which the second component has been completely ignored. That is what I mean by the dead hand of the Treasury.
When the Minister comes to have the arguments about that in his Department, which I hope he will have, he should talk about a proper cost-benefit analysis. When we look at the energy costs of a photovoltaic cell, we should look not just at the cost here, but at the cost to make it, the coal cost, the cost of oppressing Uyghurs and so on. In terms of the overall policy, we should look at the impact on everybody and on local land and housing values. If the Minister does that, he will come up with a completely different policy.
Coming back to the simpler arguments, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough on his call effectively for a ban on solar farms on green belt and proper, flexible land, which includes 3b land. I live in the countryside in my constituency, and I am surrounded by 3a and 3b land. I cannot tell the difference, and neither can the farmers who farm it. That is where we are. When it comes to the 3,500 acres that I talked about, they do not know the difference either. As we have heard, the only rule we have is that of the assessors, paid for by the investors in the farm.
I support an unequivocal ban on large solar farms on the green belt and the UK’s best and most agricultural land, including 3b land, and strong incentives for developments to use rooftops, brownfield land and poorer-quality, unproductive land. As we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, the Minister will get the argument back from the Treasury that it is more expensive to use brownfield land and rooftops. The counter-argument is simply this: it is more expensive only in the first element—the taxpayer element. It is not more expensive if we look at the dangerous impact on the lives, livelihoods, savings, investments and housing of the people we represent.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson, in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing the debate and being wise enough to persuade the Backbench Business Committee to devote an entire three hours to it, recognising the strength of feeling that right hon. and hon. Members have. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on his previous work, never mind on his speech today, because I know that he has been pivotal in trying to ensure that aspects of planning policy are adapted, recognising the impact on the land we have today.
Why are we in this situation? Quite a considerable discussion has already happened about different classifications of land and the return on land. Ultimately, as a Conservative Government and a Conservative party, we want to ensure that we achieve net zero and recognise the balance that we need in our energy mix, which will continue to need the use of fossil fuels for many decades to come. We must ensure that we are on that sustainable journey to electricity generation both locally and nationally in that regard. It is important that solar has a role to play in that but, as has been accurately pointed out, one of the aspects that understandably concerns people is that all too often the economics of some of the plans that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and its predecessor Departments set off on lead to quite a different outcome from that expected.
It goes back to the Labour Government: in trying to encourage people with feed-in tariffs to go on to roofs, they massively incorrectly calculated what would happen. That led to Chris Huhne, the then Lib Dem Energy Secretary, having to basically curtail the plan—I think it may have been the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) who actually killed it off entirely—because frankly the budget had already been blown. That is important in some of the considerations that we need to think about, and that is why it is really important that the Government have an agile approach to understanding how different offers are taken up. We must recognise the financial impact but also the disproportionate way in which the policy intentions and outcomes are delivered.
Why do people want this wonderful agricultural land to be used instead for solar farms? Access to sun is one of the good reasons—the sun is there to grow food, and it is great for power. However, probably the key element at the moment is the guaranteed return that farmers get which is, on average, still about 8%. That is considerable. Many of us would love to have such a guaranteed return.
The other element at the moment is tax relief, which is really important for agricultural land. That tax relief, to be passed on from generation to generation, was intended principally for farming, to make sure that agricultural land was passed on instead of being sold off. Here, because the leases are done in a particular way, we are seeing that such land does not get excluded from the passing on of tax relief. That is an important financial calculation that people make.
Sir David Davis
My right hon. Friend makes a brilliantly important point, which I had not thought of before, on this question of tax relief—basically, inheritance tax relief. That has meant that vast quantities of the countryside of Britain are owned by people for a single purpose—to avoid inheritance tax—which actually drives the financialisation of the countryside that has driven this policy.
Dr Coffey
I think the policy on tax relief is a sensible one. Just recently, I lobbied to get aspects of nature, such as the edges of fields, to be included in that. Farmers and landowners were suggesting that they could not participate in the environmental land management schemes because they would not get that relief, unlike the solar farms just down the road that covered entire agricultural elements and could still participate. There is a balance to be had. The impact on tenant farmers has also been pointed out. The return, and the pricing of land, is a key element. It is concerning for those of us who represent rural areas in particular, and for those trying to make sure that the sums add up.
There has been quite a lot of discussion about the classification of land. I think it is fair to say that the maps are quite old and do not differentiate between grades 3a and 3b. When I went back into DEFRA 18 months ago, as Secretary of State, I asked what we could do, bearing in mind the fact that we had been tasked with producing a land use framework. I was told it would take several years to redo those maps, which was somewhat disheartening. I will not pretend that I put any more energy into that, at that time, in the preparation for a land use framework.
There was quite a lot of discussion between me and the previous Secretary of State. The analysis indicated that the estimates were that about 1% of the land being used for agriculture would be consumed by potential conversion to solar farms. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister what that proportion is right now, including the land used for connections that have already been granted by National Grid.
National Grid talks about capacity; it says it has tons of solar, compared with what can actually be connected. That leads to the concentrations that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) mentioned. Even now, National Grid continues to keep offering connections in areas where a substation or a converter station is going to be built, rather than for many of the other applications that would cost too much money and would not be economical to connect to the grid. It is a concern for me that, all of a sudden, we get energy islands, not deserts, right in front of our eyes. The purpose of these areas, as part of the natural countryside, producing food and other elements of benefit to our country, is all of a sudden being turned into these energy islands.
I should say that there is plenty of grade 4 and grade 5 land in my constituency that gets used for food production. I know that DEFRA is keen to improve the productivity of land and that is why there have been a series of grants in that regard. However, I think it is critical that between DEFRA and DESNZ they start to match up, in the Ministers’ considerations of the NSIP plans, what is happening in that regard about the food security element. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister committed to having a food security index, to be produced annually, and I think the use and projected use of land is critical in that element.
In thinking through what is happening in my own constituency, where there have already been solar farms, I am not going to say they are all bad. They are not. The issue is the growing cumulative effect, the acceleration and the almost blank cheque that is being given to many of the developers and is enticing farmers and landowners. I want to single out Friston. My hon. Friend the Minister will know of my ongoing battle with National Grid about aspects of energy infrastructure in my constituency. By the way, none of it includes a single pylon; we are not talking about pylons here, but there has definitely been a pile-in on the people of that village, and National Grid has now offered two further connections to solar farms of just under 250 MW.
Where do we go from here? I am conscious that the national policy statement for renewable energy infra- structure, EN-3, covers a lot about solar. It does not even exclude grade 1 land from consideration, but it is up to the developers to show that they have considered brownfield sites and I think, Minister, we need some strength and confidence that that really is being done. I know that the Planning Inspectorate provides advice to Ministers to make the final decisions, but it has to be a far more transparent process than what people experience today. It feels like a tick-box exercise; it feels like a rubber stamp. That may not be the intention of the Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but it is critical that we address that.
The Secretary of State spoke last October about wanting to make it easier to cut, I think, up to £3 billion of costs a year by trying to get more solar on brownfield sites. It would be helpful to understand from the Minister what, since the Secretary of State’s speech and the direction of travel that she, he and the Prime Minister have set, has happened with the applications for not only planning, but connections. Have we seen that change happen, or have we continued to see more and more solar farms being proposed instead of agricultural production?
The Government have done other positive things. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, leading this debate, questioned some of the grants that were being given for barn solar, as I think we christened it at the time. That was deliberately intended to provide grants to help farmers to generate electricity for use on their farms; it is not designed in any way then to be connected anywhere. I think that is a sensible use of taxpayers’ money from the £2.4 billion, on average, that is distributed in England every year. It is absolutely key that we try to help farmers with their resilience, but we should not be doing that on the basis that taxpayers’ money will be used to fuel higher returns from not actually producing food or looking after livestock.
When it comes to thinking through what the next steps could be, I have already asked the Minister a few questions—I appreciate that he may not have all the information to hand today, but I, like others, am seeking a moratorium on connections until there is a steady state of understanding what is happening in this fair and beautiful land. I am not in DEFRA anymore, so I do not know which of the various stages the preparation of the land use framework is in, but a vital issue is the use of energy and that balance versus of course housing and other elements, because we can actually have multi- faceted land, productive in more ways than one.
It is important that we take this opportunity without trying to get away from the target that we have set of getting to 70 GW by 2035, but let us not go at breakneck speed and end up breaking our necks in this regard. It is important that we try to ensure that there are sensible routes forward from National Grid on connections. Right now, I get the impression that it is just approving or dishing out connections to anybody at all, without necessarily thinking through what the impact will be on food security or on our countryside.
Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)
I am expecting the Minister to take about 15 minutes, so out of fairness I will give the Opposition spokesman the same amount of time.
James Gray
On a point of order, Mr Henderson. Am I not right in thinking that it is normal in such debates for a spokesman from the other main parties in this Parliament to respond to the debate? The Liberal Democrats believe that they feel strongly on this issue, yet there is not one Liberal Democrat Back Bencher or shadow Minister here. Is that because they do not like the policy, because they cannot answer the debate, or because they were not invited? Why are there no Liberal Democrats here?
Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)
The hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a point of order. He has made his point, so I will call Dr Alan Whitehead.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Henderson, for your consideration of the time available in what has been a very useful and educational debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing this debate. I also congratulate hon. Members on the way they have put their cases. The contributions from the hon. Members for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for Buckingham (Greg Smith) and for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and the right hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) all added greatly to the tissue of the debate.
Let us get one or two canards out of the way first. This debate was not, to my mind, about a lot of people standing up and being nimbys, although I understand that hon. Members will quite rightly want to defend what they consider to be the best interests of their constituencies. We had an intervention from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who said that he would stand by South Holland and The Deepings to the last; the right hon. Member for Gainsborough, who I think perhaps is producing evidence for the wrong side in the civil war, nevertheless made the point very strongly about what he felt he was here to do for the interests of his constituency. That is not about nimbyism, but about defending what one thinks is best for one’s own area of the country.
The problem we have is how we ally together a policy that, by and large, everyone in this Chamber is agreed on and the way we carry it out in practice. The policy, on which I think there is no real difference between the Opposition and the Government, reflects the strong view that we should move rapidly forward on the deployment of solar across the country. The Government have a target of 70 GW of solar to be deployed by 2035. In our plans for decarbonisation of the energy system by 2030, we want to see 50 GW installed by 2030.
That is, in part, because solar is now one of the cheapest forms of energy that can be deployed in an energy emergency, where we have to produce an enormous amount of additional capacity over the next few years, in addition to replacing what is going away, to ensure that our system is resilient, stable and homegrown for our future. The fact that solar has to play a central role in our overall energy economy in the future, and the fact that the targets for installation of solar are very similar between the Opposition and the Government, underline how central it is felt to be that solar should play that key role.
When we decide that it will play that key role, the next question is: how do we do it? That is what a lot of the debate today has landed on. Where do we put solar? How do we put solar in various places? What is the most beneficial way to do it, assuming we are going to do it for the country as whole?
Much as we might want to, we will not be able to deliver all the solar on roofs and brownfield sites—certainly not on roofs. But, as I will come to in a moment, the issue of what proportion we can install in particular areas relates to how the Government set out planning and other energy management arrangements that prevent or downgrade the possibility of putting solar panels on to roofs, buildings, industrial workplaces and so on. The Opposition very much want to see, if possible, the predominance of that solar development concentrated on brownfield sites, roofs and industrial buildings, but we recognise that there is an enormous amount of work to do to facilitate the planning and commissioning arrangements that will allow that to happen.
Hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Redditch, mentioned cost and remediation on brownfield sites. Solar treads very lightly on the earth. We can do things with solar on brownfield sites that we might not be able to do with other forms of development on a brownfield site, particularly if it needs some remediation, so that is not the key issue. The key issue is the value of brownfield sites in an urban context and the hope value that those sites have, often in contradistinction to the sort of value that the developers think they might get from land that is not going to change its value, on hope or otherwise, in terms of their developments.
Sir David Davis
I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that if we increase the incentive, up to the point of mandating in some cases, for the use of brownfield sites and roofs and so on, that is likely to alter the economics, with people like Elon Musk and others investing in more cost-effective and more easily used photovoltaic cells for that purpose?
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed. As the right hon. Member will know, solar is now not looking for subsidy from the Government in the way that, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal mentioned, it was a number of years ago. It might be that we ought to look at how we can direct the best use of land and facilities for solar, by reintroducing incentives and disincentives that can go into solar development for the future. I would emphasise that that is all in the gift of Government to bring about, in terms of changes to how planning, underwriting and frameworks are organised. We mentioned the land use framework, which has still not come forward from DEFRA. All those things can play a much more substantial role in getting the balance right about where we put what is an imperative to develop for the future.
Some of the questions that have been raised are about not so much solar itself, but, among other things, the cumulation of particular sites in particular places. Of course, there is not anything in planning arrangements that can easily deal with the question of cumulation. Again, that needs to be put into the context of a wider land use planning arrangement for the future. I am from a constituency that has one farmer, although we are not allowed to recognise who that farmer is in the census because we are not allowed to record one farmer in the census return; it has to be two farmers or no farmers. However, I do understand that it is a real issue when there is a cumulation of a number of these things in rural constituencies, and they can see no benefit of that cumulation for their local populations.
Again, it may be within the gift of Government to mitigate that problem by enabling local communities to benefit from the output of the particular farms in their area. Notwithstanding that, it is certainly the case that cumulation has come about not just because of developers’ lust for very large schemes, but because at the moment those are some of the only places where they can get decent connections in the near future. For example, Lincolnshire was the site of two power stations—Cottam and West Burton—which have now closed, but it still has good, high-level grid connections.
Therefore, there are schemes that might come forward in other parts of the country that do not have such good connections, which are being put on the backburner just because developers can get particular connections right now. That is also in the gift of the Government to sort out. They should get the connections in the country on a regularised basis so that the people bringing forward their solar developments actually have a choice of where to put their connection based on the best site for their development, rather than just looking at the economics of getting a connection right this minute.
James Gray
There is a perversity here, of course, which is that the further away a site is from the input into the grid, the bigger it has to be. Because Lime Down, the one in my constituency, is 30 miles away from a link into the grid, it has to be at least 2,000 acres, probably more, in order to pay for the connection.
Dr Whitehead
That is certainly true, but a much wider issue is the fact that connections in this country are pretty much available on a lottery basis. At the distribution network operator level, most of the capacity in most DNOs is taken up, and at the national grid level, the connections are entirely dependent on where the lines go. They do not necessarily go to where people want to connect up, and they are also very much at the limit of their capacity at the moment. A national plan to enable those connections onshore to be distributed equally across the country would go a long way to facilitating much better distribution of the wind and solar projects that we want to see for the future.
Although I do not represent a rural constituency myself, I have great sympathy with the problems of accumulation with solar development. The solution, however, is not to throw solar out; it is to do a number of the things that I have mentioned this afternoon—to reach our target and secure the equitable deployment of solar across the country to manage our electricity future positively.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is talking about equitable distribution. I understand to some extent the point he is making, but surely there is some sense in saying that areas such as Lincolnshire, which have such high-quality farmland, should not have massive solar farms at all, because we will simply reduce our food security.
Dr Whitehead
I was intending to go into the 3a and 3b debate, but I do not think it will add anything greatly to what I have to say. Again, it is in the gift of Government, for schemes above the 50 MW level, to look at what the overall planning guidance suggests we should do. I am personally a little sceptical of the overall case about food production and land use because after all it was recently estimated that if we did produce the 70 GW target, that would take about 0.3% of UK land area, up from 0.1% today, compared with 69% of the land that is farmed. That does not add anything to the debate on Lincolnshire itself, but the point is that the actual land take of solar overall will be pretty minimal compared with what is in agriculture currently. As a matter of interest, the land taken by solar already is one fifth that taken up in the country for golf courses.
Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)
I remind the hon. Lady that she will have the opportunity to wind up at the end of the debate.
Dr Johnson
Thank you, Mr Henderson. It is great that the hon. Gentleman seems to be laying out some of the problems, but he does not seem to be talking about solutions. Labour wants to form the next Government and my constituents want to understand what its policies will be. He says he does not want to get into the grades of land, and that the amount of land taken is negligible. My constituents do not consider the amount of their land that may be taken in their constituency to be negligible. Could the hon. Gentleman clarify what the Labour policy might be?
Dr Whitehead
I think the hon. Lady will forgive me for not being the Government right at this minute. It is not my responsibility to set out what the Government would do for the future; it is my responsibility to respond to this debate as the Opposition.
I have already said what we want to do in terms of planning land use and arrangements for the deployment of solar in a much more methodical way, and bringing forward arrangements that can, for example, make rooftop and brownfield solar much more achievable, to alter the balance of advantage and disadvantage for deployment across the country. That is probably all the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham can expect me to say about what we will do in government, but I would add that the Government could do that today, so I hope the Minister will tell us what he will do in terms of that balancing to get solar deployed in the future.
James Gray
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. I have been listening very carefully to his extremely interesting speech, but I must admit to being a little confused about what Labour party’s policy is on these matters. Let me ask him straightforwardly: will the incoming Labour Government —if there is one—be in favour of large-scale solar farms in the countryside or against them?
Dr Whitehead
That is a really interesting question. It is not necessarily the case that there will be an incoming Labour Government, but it is nice to hear the hon. Gentleman declare that there will be; that is really helpful. Should there be an incoming Labour Government, we will want to ensure we reach our targets of solar deployment equitably for the country as a whole. If that means bringing in new legislation, guidance and rules to allow that distribution to take place equitably, that is what we will do. As I am sure he will understand, the detail would take about three quarters of an hour to unpack, so we will have to leave it for now. I am very happy to have a cup of tea with him in the not-too-distant future and set all that out in some detail if he would find that interesting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing this incredibly important and timely debate on large-scale solar and the impact of the plans on rural England.
It has been fantastic to hear the passionate and well-informed speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for Buckingham (Greg Smith)—he talked about the benefits of small modular reactors, which was music to my ears—and for North Wiltshire (James Gray).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) talked about the positive benefits of further investment in nuclear power, which is why we unveiled the civil nuclear road map earlier this year—the biggest investment in nuclear in 70 years. He would struggle to find a bigger advocate of the benefits of our domestic oil and gas industry than me. I assure him that, despite my Scottish Presbyterian upbringing, I associate myself much more with the cavaliers than the roundheads. We also heard from my right hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). I think I have engaged with just about every one of them individually on various energy infrastructure projects, not least recently on solar.
It was also good to hear the concerns of communities raised in the interventions of many other Conservative Members, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger), for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers).
I represent a vast rural constituency that encompasses some of the best farmland north of the border, which is itself looking at significant energy infrastructure build over the next few years, so I completely understand those concerns and have heard them myself from local communities worried about what that build will mean for the countryside in which they live and of which they are so fond.
Three years ago, the Government adopted our sixth carbon budget with the world’s most ambitious climate change goal—to reduce emissions by 77% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels. We also committed to fully decarbonising the electricity system by 2035, subject to security of supply. Renewables such as solar and wind, alongside other low-carbon technologies such as nuclear, will underpin the UK’s transition from a reliance on fossil fuels to a new, secure, clean energy system. Solar is an important part of the energy mix, and its deployment is a key part of the Government’s strategy for energy independence and clean growth.
As set out in the British energy security strategy and the energy security plan, we are aiming for up to 70 GW of solar capacity by 2035. To achieve that, we need to deploy both rooftop and ground-mounted technology. Ground-mounted technology is one of the cheapest forms of electricity generation and is readily deployable at scale. As such, the Government consider that there is a strong need for increased ground-mounted solar deployment, as reflected in the recently published energy national policy statements.
However, the Department and I recognise that, as with any new development, solar projects may impact on communities and, indeed, the environment. The planning system must allow all views to be taken into account when decision makers balance local impacts with the national need.
Because of the quasi-judicial role of Ministers in determining planning applications, I hope that Members will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any specific matters in relation to specific projects in the planning system. Nor can I comment on the merits or harms of any particular proposals, as that could be perceived as prejudging the subsequent outcome. However, the Government recognise that solar projects can impact on land use, and I can speak to that. It is important that the Government strike the right balance between those considerations and securing a clean energy system for the future. Again, the planning system must take those issues into account.
As the recently published national policy statement for renewable energy infrastructure sets out, solar developers
“should, where possible, utilise suitable previously developed land, brownfield land, contaminated land and industrial land. Where the proposed use of any agricultural land has been shown to be necessary, poorer quality land should be preferred to higher quality land avoiding the use of ‘Best and Most Versatile’ agricultural land where possible.”
If it is proposed to use any land falling under Natural England’s best and most versatile agricultural land classification—grades 1, 2 and 3a—developers are required to justify using such land and to design their projects to avoid, mitigate and where necessary compensate for any impacts.
It is clear to me and to the Government that concerns remain about the scale and volume of projects that are being applied for on BMV land in specific areas of the country, particularly in areas with historic and established grid connections. We have concerns that not all developers are properly considering those requirements. That is something that needs to be rectified. We want to see that, following the new EN-3 publication. Although I can say little of detail in this Chamber, I want to assure hon. Members that we are listening and that work is ongoing to see what can be done to ensure that balance is met.
Reference has been made to the fact that there are no Liberal Democrat Members in the Chamber this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch described their policy as “bananas”, which means, “Build absolutely nothing anywhere ever.”
Andrew Bowie
Near anybody—sorry. However, that is not actually the case. The Lib Dems’ proposal, which was voted on at their conference last year, is to remove restrictions on new solar and wind to accelerate deployment of renewable power. It is quite clear why there are no Liberal Democrats in the Chamber today; they would ride roughshod over the views of rural communities around the country to increase the deployment at pace and scale of solar and other technologies.
The reason why there are not many Labour Members in the Chamber is, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) suggested, that not many of them represent rural communities, and they are not seeing the impact of the applications. I am now of the opinion, however, that they are just as confused about the Labour party policy on this issue as we all are, following what was a very interesting speech from the Opposition spokesperson.
Solar and farming can be complementary, supporting each other financially, environmentally and through shared use of land. Analysis shows that even in the unlikely scenario that all additional solar needed to meet the British energy security strategy ambition of 70 GW were to come forward as ground-mounted solar, which is not going to be the case, it would be less than 1% of all types of UK utilised agricultural land that was needed to accommodate it. However, as I have referred to, the concentration of so many of those projects in specific areas is concerning, and UK-wide analysis cannot take that into account. Again, although I am unable to say anything specific at this time, I can assure colleagues that we are listening.
The Government consider that improving our energy security is urgent and of critical importance to the country. I do not think that there is any disagreement on that, but it must be achieved together with maintaining food security for our United Kingdom. Solar projects and agricultural practice can co-exist. For example, the science of agrivoltaics is developing, in which solar is integrated with arable farming in innovative ways. That is coming on in leaps and bounds. Solar energy can also be an important way for farmers to increase their revenue from land less suited to higher-value crop production. Again, on that there is very little disagreement.
What we ultimately want to achieve is protecting our environment, backing British farmers and delivering long-term energy security with more low-carbon energy. I guarantee that this Government and this Department will not countenance the industrialisation of our green and pleasant land. It is possible to maintain and increase our food production in a more sustainable way in some areas and to see land use changes in others.
I turn briefly to the issue of cumulative impacts, which has been brought up multiple times. The planning system sets out how applicants and decision makers should consider cumulative impacts. When preparing an application for a development consent order, applicants for solar deployments and developments under the NSIP regime
“should consider the cumulative impacts of situating a solar farm in proximity to other energy generating stations and infrastructure.”
It is then a matter for the examining authority to consider cumulative in-combination effects with the other solar farm proposals and other developments in a locality when conducting an examination of a particular NSIP solar project. During the examination, the views of interested parties, which will include advisory bodies and local planning authorities, will be taken into account in the examining authority’s recommendations. Again, I assure colleagues that we are looking at that issue.
The Department and I appreciate the concerns raised about the clustering of projects around grid connections in some areas. As we bring more new energy infrastructure online to meet the demand for clean, secure electricity, so too must we increase grid capacity. As set out in the spring Budget, the Government are working with Ofgem and network companies to release more network capacity and prevent speculative projects from obtaining and retaining network capacity. That should result in more capacity across the country and help to reduce the clustering of projects.
Community engagement has also been raised. It is vital—this is where Conservative and Labour party policies differ dramatically—that communities have a voice in decisions about their local areas. There are established routes in the planning system to consider the impact of solar projects and to enable communities to raise concerns about developments. I know that there are concerns about how effective those routes are, but I will set out the policy as it stands.
The national planning policy framework, which underlies the planning system for projects below 50 MW, encourages developers, including those proposing solar projects, to engage with local communities before submitting an application. Local authorities will consider a range of factors when assessing applications, including visual and environmental impacts. Members of the public can submit their views to the planning authorities, and significant concerns will be taken into account as part of the local decision-making process. Developers taking larger projects through the NSIP regime must complete considerable community engagement before any approval is granted, giving communities ample opportunity to feed in their views. The level and quality of community engagement, among other factors, will be taken into account by decision makers.
James Gray
We had an extensive consultation in Wiltshire, and I went along to all the meetings with the PR people who have to do such things. I said to each of them, “Will you take account of the fact that most people here do not want this thing to happen at all? We want to stop it. We want to keep the green fields.” They said, “No, we can’t consider that. All we can consider is the design of the solar farm.” The consultation process is bogus.
Andrew Bowie
My hon. Friend makes a specific point about his constituency, on which I cannot comment, but I am sure that his concerns have been heard. They are certainly not new concerns; they have been raised with me in the past. As I said, we are genuinely and clearly listening to those concerns in the entire process.
Dr Coffey
The Minister is right to talk about how NPS EN-3 refers to the planning application process. One of the points that I made was about the connection process. Connections are being offered left, right and centre. Communities then see that as happening automatically in future, and indeed National Grid is building its infrastructure around the connections it is giving out, regardless of future planning applications. I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to reply today, but he and the Department need to look at the connection process. That is why I called for a moratorium on anything further.
Andrew Bowie
My right hon. Friend knows that I am no longer the Minister responsible for the network or the national grid, but I will ensure that her concerns are passed on to the relevant Minister. Ofgem and the electricity system operator are engaged in a considerable review of how connections are offered across the country, because there is a problem with that system. That is recognised and is being addressed.
Let me briefly touch on community benefits, which have also been raised. It is important that communities can participate in and benefit from the deployment of new low-carbon energy technologies in their local area. However, the Government do not have a formal role with regard to community benefits for solar and other large-scale renewable energy projects. We believe that those are best agreed at a local level, between the renewable operator and the local communities, so that they can be tailored to each community’s individual needs. They cannot be taken into account and, I am afraid, are not relevant to the planning decisions. A number of solar developers already provide community benefits on a voluntary basis. We are working with Solar Energy UK, the industry body, to provide further guidance and advice on community benefits for solar developers and communities and to develop a more consistent approach across the country that is fair to all parties.
Dr Whitehead
Does the Minister accept that under the present trading arrangements for energy, a developer cannot provide a trading benefit for a local area only and has to treat it as though it were a national benefit? Is the Minister interested in changing that so that benefits can come to local areas, rather than simply being spread across the national grid, as hon. Members have said?
Andrew Bowie
As I said, we are working with the solar industry now to develop proposals and give guidance and advice on how best to support local communities and deliver community benefits, so that communities that host these projects on behalf of the wider nation see a benefit. We are not closing our minds to any suggestions that might benefit such communities moving forward. This is a wholesale change in how we deliver energy across the UK, so we should be open to thinking about how we do that in the most appropriate fashion.
I assure right hon. and hon. Members that we are deploying rooftop solar. It remains a key priority for the Government, and continues to be one of the most popular and easily deployed renewable energy sources. We want to see more rooftop solar on industrial and commercial properties, such as warehouses, factories and buildings, to make maximum usage of the available surfaces for business as well as for the environmental and climate benefits. There will be more on that in the solar road map, which will be published in the next few months.
The issue of forced labour was raised. I addressed that in the Chamber just the other evening in response to a debate that was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). However, as it has been brought up again, I reassure Members that the Government are committed to tackling the issue of Uyghur forced labour in supply chains, including in the mining used for the manufacture of solar panels, and are taking robust action. Over the past two years, we have introduced new guidance on the risks of doing business in Xinjiang, introduced enhanced export controls and announced the introduction of financial penalties for those who fail to report as required under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That followed our announcement in September 2020 of the package of changes to section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. These changes will require large businesses and public bodies to report on specific areas within their modern slavery statements, including their due diligence processes in relation to modern slavery. There will be yet more on that within the solar road map on what the industry is doing to ensure that it is not reliant on forced labour anywhere in the world, but particularly in China.
We need an increase in ground-mounted solar alongside rooftop solar over the next decade to meet our energy security and net zero goals and to reduce the cost to consumers. But it is clear to me, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and His Majesty’s Government in general that this growth must be sustainable and enabled by a robust planning system that balances the wider benefits with the local impacts, that local communities are listened to and that food security concerns are addressed. That is what we are committing to do. I look forward to the publication of the solar road map, which is the result of the solar taskforce’s work. The document will set out deployment scenarios as well as key actions needed to address challenges in several priority areas, including the grid, rooftop supply chains and skills.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing forward this debate—
Rachel Maclean
Will the Minister enlighten us on when this solar road map will be published?
Andrew Bowie
I assure my hon. Friend that it is imminent. We will see the publication within the next few weeks.
Andrew Bowie
Spring. I close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing forward this important debate. The contributions have been enlightening and well informed, and show the passion with which Members, who I am proud to serve with, have for the local communities that they are honoured to represent in this place.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank all my right hon. and hon. Friends for coming along to contribute either interventions or magnificent speeches. I started the debate with an agreement and I will finish it with one. We agree on so many things on the Government side of the House. Currently, my constituents feel under siege as they wait for the results of a planning process that could ruin many aspects of their life. Let us imagine: you own a house in a rural village, such as Scopwick, and when you walk your dog in the morning, you enjoy the beautiful countryside and the sunshine. However, under this plan you will be walking through field after field, for miles around, of 4-metre-high solar panels. That will spoil much of your enjoyment of the countryside and your house. We also know that it will have an effect on my constituents’ mental health and wellbeing.
We have heard about how inefficient solar farms and solar panels are as a form of energy compared with other forms of green energy, and how, as the technology becomes better over time, these large solar farms put in in the countryside will become obsolete long before their 40 years are up. We have also heard that they are not as green as they are said to be and they are certainly not as morally clean as we would wish them to be.
We have also heard about the importance of protecting the countryside, particularly productive farmland, and about food security. We have heard that it is important that everybody has the right to defend their area, not because they are a nimby, but because they care about where they live.
We have also heard about farmers. I should mention that my husband is a farmer so I understand, perhaps as well as most, the challenges of farming at the moment and the financial difficulties posed by some of the weather issues that we have had this year. I also heard today that there is no real objection among Conservative Members to small-scale development of solar for farmers, which will help to de-risk some of the farming challenges without having a huge impact on the community. We heard about the particular difficulties for tenant farmers, who may be chucked off land that they have farmed for generations simply so that solar farms can be put on it instead.
We heard about Government measures to incentivise the use of brownfield land and rooftops. I am very pleased that a solar plan is imminent and I am really looking forward to it. One thing the Minister said was that, where possible, we should use brownfield or poor-quality land and that a developer would have to justify themselves if they are not using that. In practice, however, in a county such as Lincolnshire, which has very little such land, developers can therefore claim that there is no rubbish land locally, because it is all good. That is therefore not tight enough for me; that loophole needs closing.
The Minister also talked about the cumulative effect. I want to draw his attention to something that he might not be aware of because it sits outside his brief: the reservoir that developers also propose to build in my constituency. That is yet another NSIP project that will take up many thousands of acres—5 sq km, indeed—of currently productive and in some cases organic farmland. So on the cumulative effect of development, when, as he puts it, we are hosting infrastructure for the whole country, it is important not just to consider the energy infrastructure that an area is being asked to host, but the wider infrastructure that an area or a community is being asked to bear for the greater good.
There have been lots of mentions today of a land use plan. Will the Minister tell me when he expects that to be published, or could he go back to DEFRA to find out when?
Dr Caroline Johnson
I see that the Minister is nodding. I also want to draw his attention to the widespread nature of this debate by listing some of the counties that we have heard from today: Suffolk; Yorkshire; Nottinghamshire; Wiltshire; Bedfordshire; Rutland; Shropshire; Worcestershire; Derbyshire; North Lincolnshire; Oxfordshire; Durham; Staffordshire; and Lincolnshire, which has the greatest concentration of them all. [Interruption.] And Buckinghamshire; I knew that I had missed one out. That should demonstrate to him the scale and the widespread nature of the problems that we face.
I was quite disappointed to hear what the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), had to say. He talked about solar being an important part of the solution to net zero and said that it is important to consider planning—well, yes, of course. He also talked about supporting onshore wind, which I know my constituents, by and large, do not support—they do not support the idea of covering their beautiful farmland with windmills instead of solar panels. He talked about spreading this out evenly, but what does that mean? Does it mean that every district council must have so many? How would that work in the centre of London? He did not really have a policy, and for a party who think that they might be in Government in less than six months’ time, that is really quite remarkable.
I was also pretty disgusted to see that there were no Back Benchers here from the Opposition at all—nobody from the SNP, the Liberal Democrats or Labour. Do they have no interest in the countryside? I have always thought that to be the case and this shows it to be true.
Finally, I met the Prime Minister just before Easter on a one-to-one basis, and I am certain both of his understanding of the importance of dealing with this issue and of his commitment to doing so. I am also very clear that we have a Minister here who is most capable and committed to achieving what his boss has asked him to do and of delivering for my constituents, but I ask him to do so as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered large-scale solar farms.
Written Corrections
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cabinet Office
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart
Obviously the Government are considering the very good and serious report into this situation from the Procedure Committee. It is not an anomalous situation—it has arisen before—but it is right that we should consider it in a modern light. In the meantime, while we are waiting for the Government’s full consideration, there are a number of ways in which the Foreign Secretary is being held to account by Parliament as a whole. In the House of Lords, he answered questions on 21 November, 5 December, 15 January, 16 January, 13 February, 12 March and 15 March.
[Official Report, 20 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 1025.]
Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart):
Alex Burghart
Obviously the Government are considering the very good and serious report into this situation from the Procedure Committee. It is not an anomalous situation—it has arisen before—but it is right that we should consider it in a modern light. In the meantime, while we are waiting for the Government’s full consideration, there are a number of ways in which the Foreign Secretary is being held to account by Parliament as a whole. In the House of Lords, he answered questions on 21 November, 5 December, 15 January, 16 January, 13 February, 5 March and 12 March.
Other Correction
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Layla Moran
Humanitarian Situation in Gaza
The following extract is from the Urgent Question on the Humanitarian Situation in Gaza on 17 April 2024.
Layla Moran
Yesterday, Oxford doctors Nick Maynard and Deborah Harrington briefed parliamentarians very movingly on their experiences of treating people in Gaza… They also pointed out that the malnutrition that we see is making patients more vulnerable to infectious diseases. A report released by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine projected that if the situation continues as it is, there will be 74,000 excess deaths—that is, that number will die, over and beyond the number who have died by bombs, if something is not done.
[Official Report, 17 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 312.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran):
Layla Moran
Yesterday, Oxford doctors Nick Maynard and Deborah Harrington briefed parliamentarians very movingly on their experiences of treating people in Gaza… They also pointed out that the malnutrition that we see is making patients more vulnerable to infectious diseases. A report released by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine projected that if the situation continues as it is, there will be 58,260 excess deaths—that is, that number will die, over and beyond the number who have died by bombs, if something is not done.
Written Statements
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Smart Data Road Map
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Government have today published a road map which sets out what action they will take over the coming year to progress a smart data economy as a result of the new powers in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill.
The data economy is a large and growing part of the economy. Smart data unlocks data for individuals and businesses that is currently held and underutilised in a small number of existing companies. It allows businesses to easily access this data, with consumers’ consent, to provide new services that drive investment, productivity, competitive outcomes and, ultimately, economic growth.
The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill was introduced to the House of Commons in March 2023 and passed Second Reading in the House of Lords on 19 December 2023. The Bill will provide the Government with the powers we need to deliver the benefits and safeguards required for a smart data economy, including the ability to mandate industry involvement in smart data schemes.
The road map sets out how the Government will use these powers over the coming year by identifying the opportunities and challenges in implementing smart data schemes in seven sectors: energy, banking, finance, retail, homebuying, transport and telecoms. This will help business and interested groups plan for and benefit from action in this area.
This delivers on the commitment made at autumn statement 2023 to kickstart the smart data big bang.
A copy of the road map will be deposited in the Library of the House.
[HCWS416]
Economic Security
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
Today, I am setting out a series of new steps to boost the UK’s economic defences and enhance the capabilities of the Government to respond to economic security threats.
The openness of the UK economy is a reflection of our values, the driver of our prosperity and that which distinguishes us as democracies. As the integrated review refresh set out last year, we are experiencing rising geopolitical competition alongside a more integrated global economy in which our strategic competitors play a far greater role. Our economic and security interests are intertwined as never before, and as we continue to promote the many benefits of an open economy, we must also protect ourselves from the vulnerabilities which arise from this openness.
In order to respond to the rapid evolutions in emerging technologies and to keep our export control toolkit up to date, the Department for Business and Trade will shortly be consulting on steps to strengthen our work with UK academics and businesses to ensure we can respond quickly to cutting-edge developments. We have also been reviewing our recently enhanced military end use control. The Department for Business and Trade will be providing more details on the outcome of this review. We are confident we have a robust regime, supporting human rights and national security objectives while helping our business to grow. We do however recognise that enhanced controls have an impact on UK exporters, and we are keen to make sure decision making for business is as timely and transparent as possible.
The ability of UK companies to seek growth and opportunity by investing overseas is a fundamental source of our economic strength. However, the Government recognise the potential for a small number of outward direct investments to be of national security concern through fuelling technological advances that enhance military and intelligence capabilities of countries of concern. The available data is extremely limited, meaning that evidence of this risk is scarce in the UK. Over the next 12 months, we will engage allies and businesses to better understand and assess this risk and how HMG’s existing tools can mitigate it. In parallel, we will evaluate whether further action is warranted. We will also provide public guidance on how the existing powers in the National Security and Investment Act 2021 allow the Government to intervene in certain outward direct investment transactions. We will update the National Protective Security Authority’s “Secure Business” campaign to ensure businesses can make informed investment decisions and are aware of these risks.
I am also publishing the Cabinet Office’s response to the call for evidence on the NSI Act, which ran between November 2023 and January 2024. The Act continues to function well, but the Cabinet Office will bring forward updates to fine-tune the system to ensure it stays ahead of the threats facing the UK, and remains as pro-business as possible, without compromising the Government’s ability to conduct proper scrutiny and protect our national security. This includes considering a small number of targeted exemptions from the Act’s mandatory notification requirements, the publication of further guidance, and a new consultation on updates to the mandatory area definitions, which set out the areas of the economy subject to the NSI Act’s mandatory notification requirements.
[HCWS415]
Tax Administration and Maintenance: Spring 2024
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
At spring Budget, the Government cut taxes for working people and announced a range of reforms to support the ambition for a tax system that is simple, fair, and supports growth.
The Government also committed at spring Budget to launch a consultation on the impacts of recent High Court rulings on the private-hire vehicle sector and provide an update on the recent consultation on tackling non-compliance in the umbrella company market.
Today, the Government deliver on these commitments, supporting businesses and consumers, protecting workers and ensuring fair competition.
The Government are also announcing two further technical tax policy proposals that make the tax system fairer and tackle non-compliance.
The announcements today are:
Consultation on the VAT treatment of private-hire vehicles: The Government are publishing a consultation on the potential tax impacts of the recent High Court rulings on the private-hire vehicle sector. This consultation also invites views on potential Government interventions that could help to mitigate any undue adverse effects on the PHV sector and its passengers.
Tackling non-compliance in the umbrella companies market: The Government will publish a response to their consultation on reducing tax non-compliance in the umbrella company market in due course. To support workers and businesses that use umbrella companies, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will publish new guidance later this year which includes an online pay-checking tool. The Government are minded to introduce a statutory due diligence regime for businesses that use umbrella companies and will continue to engage with the recruitment industry and other key stakeholders on the detail of this.
VAT treatment of charitable donations: In order to encourage charitable giving, the Government will consult on introducing a targeted VAT relief for low-value goods that businesses donate to charities for them to give away free of charge to people in need. The consultation will be launched later this year.
Mandating postcode provision for freeports and investment zones NICs reliefs: The Government are announcing their intention to bring forward a legislative change to mandate employers operating in a freeport or investment zone special tax site to provide their employee’s workplace postcode to HMRC if they are claiming the relevant secondary class 1 NICs relief through their payroll, in due course. To support this, it will also publish a four-week technical consultation on draft regulations.
The publications and announcements can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summary-of-tax-administration-and-maintenance-spring-2024.
[HCWS414]
Grand Committee
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) Order 2024
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) Order 2024.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the order before us adds zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes to the list of prohibited offensive weapons, by amending the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 to include them. The purpose of this draft order is to maintain public safety by restricting the supply of weapons which can be used in violent crime or to create fear in our communities. The Government keep legislation in relation to prohibited offensive weapons under review and we will act when the police raise concerns about specific weapons. For example, zombie knives were banned in England and Wales in 2016, followed by cyclone knives in 2019.
We are now concerned about the availability of certain types of machetes and large outdoors knives, which do not seem to have a practical use and instead appear designed to look menacing. The police tell us that these bladed articles, which can be purchased for as little as £10, are favoured by those who want to use them as weapons to perpetrate violent crime. While sales of these weapons are relatively low, they have a disproportionate effect because their appearance creates a fear of and glamorises violence.
We are aware that machetes and other large, bladed tools such as scythes, billhooks and large outdoor knives have traditionally been used as tools in farming, gardening, clearing land and waterways, as well as in outdoor activities such as bushcraft, hunting and camping. However, unlike more conventional knives and machetes, zombie-style knives and machetes have no legitimate purpose. In our conversations with manufacturers and retailers, they have been clear that, in their view, these articles are not designed as tools but as weapons. If these dangerous weapons remain available, there is a risk that they could be used to intimidate or cause fear. Worse, they could be used to perpetrate serious acts of violence. The Government will not tolerate such a risk.
This brings me to the details of the order before us. Under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose or possess for the purposes of sale or hire, a weapon specified in an order made under that section. An offence under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 currently carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, but we have introduced provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill to increase the maximum penalty to two years.
A number of descriptions of weapons have been specified under Section 141 and therefore prohibited, including butterfly knives, knuckledusters, telescopic truncheons and certain types of swords with curved blades, commonly known as samurai swords. Using the order-making powers in Section 141(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Government wish to add zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes to the list of offensive weapons to which Section 141 applies. These weapons are defined as a bladed article with a plain cutting edge, a sharp pointed edge, and a blade over eight inches in length. This length was chosen to exclude knives designed for legitimate purposes, such as many kitchen and outdoors knives. To be within the scope of the ban, the article should also have one or more of the features specified in Article 1(1)(a), namely, a serrated cutting edge, more than one hole in the blade, spikes, or more than two sharp points in the blade.
It is right that we take the firmest possible action to prevent violence and to stop dangerous weapons getting into the wrong hands, and we are not seeking to criminalise law-abiding citizens. There will therefore be defences to cover a range of circumstances, including where the article in question is one of historical importance, is made by hand, is possessed, sold or imported for religious purposes, or was given as a gift by a Sikh to another person at a religious ceremony or ceremonial event. Antiques are already exempted from Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Furthermore, we are providing a defence for blunt items to protect the fantasy knives market. We have also taken the opportunity to extend this defence to curved swords.
There are a couple of further points to mention before I finish. First, Parts 3 and 4 of this instrument are concerned with the surrender and compensation scheme, through which owners with weapons in scope of the ban will be able to surrender them and claim compensation if they so wish. Secondly, in terms of territorial scope, the statutory instrument will only apply to England and Wales. We very much hope that the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland will take similar action to ensure that these dangerous knives are prohibited across the United Kingdom. To this effect, officials have engaged with the Governments in both Northern Ireland and Scotland.
In summary, nothing matters more than public safety. That is why we are bringing forward this order, to prevent dangerous weapons being used in violent crime or to create fear in our communities. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I say thank you to the Minister and his Home Office team, which drafted this order, for including a clear and comprehensive exemption for objects of historical importance. Carving out a space for history is not the easiest thing to do when you are dealing with people being killed and seriously hurt but it is really important, and to have done it in a way that the ordinary citizen—rather than just museums—can take advantage of is particularly appreciated.
History is real. Iconoclasm is not a virtue. We have a long history of our ancestors carrying blades into armed conflicts, not just as weapons but as tools of utility and survival. Preserving these items is important. Museums have a limited capacity, so the role of preservation falls mostly on the amateur collector and the descendants of our brave veterans. I am delighted that the Government recognise that.
Historical knives do not play a significant role in crime—they are far too expensive for that—so excluding them from the order does not in any way decrease the protection that it offers. By way of illustration, it was not so long ago that a curved sword was sold for £400,000, possibly because it belonged to Lord Nelson. Generally, these articles fetch a decent price—far more than it costs to purchase a replica on the net or elsewhere.
Ministers have not always been so perspicacious. The historical importance exemption is not available for items prohibited by Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, so there are items from World War II—obviously, they are not 100 hundred years old yet—issued to, for instance, the commandos and their SOE, as well as to their equivalents in other nations, that are not protected. I very much hope that the Minister and his team will make a note on the file that this is something they might set right when next an opportunity occurs. We ought to preserve these objects for just the reasons that have motivated the exemption in this order.
I also believe that there is scope for clarifying the law on truncheons. As it is at the moment, I am not at all clear that the police practice of presenting long-serving officers with engraved, old-style truncheons is legal; it would be nice to know that it is. There is also some scope for looking through the guidance that the police use when applying these rather convoluted regulations on prohibited items, so that they really understand how the various descriptions and exemptions work and so that things are made clear and easy for them.
I look forward to further conversations on these matters, both directly and as a result of the Home Office’s most helpful interactions with both Bill Harriman of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and John Pidgeon of the Coleshill Auxiliary Research Team.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, in 2021-22, 282 people lost their lives to knife crime—the highest number of people killed with a knife in over 70 years. The biggest increase was among boys aged between 16 and 17, going from 10 in the previous year to 24. Approximately four in 10 of all homicides were committed using a knife or a sharp instrument—the highest annual total since the homicide index began in 1946. There were 69 homicides where the victim was a teenager; in around three-quarters of those, the method of killing was a knife or sharp instrument, compared with 41% of all homicides.
Campaigners have been calling for a ban on zombie knives for several years, but progress on achieving one has been slow and several high-profile incidents have occurred since it was promised. These include the tragic killing of 15 year-old Elianne Andam, who was stabbed on her way to school in Croydon in September with what was believed to be a large zombie knife.
Meanwhile, this is the Government’s third attempt at banning zombie weapons since 2016. Bizarrely, the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 banned zombie knives only if they had threatening words on the blade. This proved a major loophole. Can the Minister explain why this loophole was not addressed sooner? Where was the sense of urgency then and where is it now? This ban will not come into effect until September, by which time, tragically, more lives may have been lost.
The Policing Minister, Chris Philp, told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme that although some swords will come under the new rules, some will not qualify owing to the difficulty of differentiating between those that could be used for violence and those kept for historical or religious reasons. He said that
“a regular sword, like the sort a historic soldier might carry, would probably not qualify. It would depend on the design”.
Is this still the case? If so, why could these swords not be included, given the availability of the historical importance defence? In any case, is not a sword, historical or not, capable of being used in violence?
Reducing the circulation of these weapons is not just about bans and sentences, important though both are. It is about cracking down hard on the sale of knives and swords of all kinds. Campaigners rightly want tech companies to introduce safety measures to stop knives being advertised online, so can the Minister update us on the progress of the relevant measures included in the Online Safety Act? How many prosecutions have there been in this area so far and how has this been policed?
I also want to speak about youth services, which have been cut by 77% over the last decade, despite the fact there is overwhelming evidence to show that youth centre closures are closely linked to youth crime. In 2020, the APPG on knife crime focused on the impact of youth centre closures across the country and found that each reduction in the number of youth centres corresponded to an increase in knife crime. This trend is confirmed by recent work from the University of Warwick, which reviewed London youth centre provision and found that crime participation among 10 to 15 year-olds increased by 10% in those London boroughs affected most by youth centre closures between 2010 and 2019.
Increasing jail time and banning zombie knives are welcome to increase deterrence and give police more tools, but they do not address the reasons why children and young people are carrying knives in the first place. As the representative of a Bristol school that had lost two of its teenage pupils due to knife crime said:
“Halving knife crime will not be achieved by banning machetes or … zombie knives. You can kill someone with a knitting needle or a screwdriver. You’ve got to deal with the anger, the fire, the rage, the angst, the trauma inside the person”.
That goes to the heart of this, and I hope that the Minister, as well as answering my specific questions, will also address himself to that challenge, because this is about tackling not just knife crime but the causes of knife crime. The British public and so many grieving families are looking to the Government to do both.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I have only a few things to mention. I support the legislation. It is necessary for all the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, went through in the statistics about violent crime, and because these weapons are terrifying. I am not sure that they are always the most effective weapon at times because they are the hardest to hide. There probably are more effective weapons, but for anybody who sees them, particularly in a public place or if it is repeated in social media, they are just terrifying. Any attempt to restrict their availability and possession is a good thing.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised a few questions about the process, but I did not think it was fair to make the point that only nine prosecutions may be expected next year. That does not mean that this type of knife would be used nine times if it remained on the non-prohibited list; it is clear that they are being used far more often and not only when the police are involved. There is a far bigger case than the nine prosecutions anticipated in the response of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. My question is, in part, about the compensation scheme and, in part, about the effectiveness of this part of the Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we too welcome this SI. I will start with some questions for the Minister, then comment on other noble Lords’ contributions to the short debate.
First, what are the Government doing to increase prosecution rates for knife crime? Currently, fewer than half of those who come to police attention are actually prosecuted. Do the Government have any plans to introduce a new serious violence strategy, given that the existing strategy is five years old? What assessment have the Government made of the threat of so-called “ninja swords” and why are they not covered by this legislation? The Government, as we heard, have tried to ban zombie knives before but the retailers have adapted their designs to get past the laws. Are the Government confident that they have done enough to stop the same thing happening again this time?
Further, online knife sales represent a serious issue in terms of lack of supervision by the websites and the lack of regulation over online marketplaces hosting illegal knife sales, particularly when these websites are hosted overseas. Can the Minister say something about buying these types of knives from overseas websites, how they may be intercepted and the obligations put on the people running those websites?
I also want to acknowledge that I understand this is a difficult problem and do not want to score political points on this issue, but there is a wider strategy to be developed and adopted to try to cut down this scourge in our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, made an extremely good point when she drew the comparison between the cuts in youth services and the corresponding increase in knife crime. That really points to one of the sources of the problem that we have seen in recent years.
As an aside, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I am glad he made the points that he did. I agreed with those points and many families, including mine, have historical pieces which would certainly be illegal if they were sold nowadays in shops—so I thank him for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, raised some detailed questions, which I thought were very interesting, about the practical steps that police forces can take to track down sales and do some proactive policing to see what has happened to the knives that have been sold legitimately over the last few years. Of course, a huge number have been sold illegitimately, but we understand that point.
In conclusion, I want to talk slightly more generally. As noble Lords may know, I sit as a youth magistrate and regularly see knife crime-related charges in both youth and adult courts. One of the things I always do in the youth court is make sure that the parent, responsible adult or elder sibling sees the knife, because very often the person who accompanies the young person in court does not really know the extent of the danger which may have been posed through carrying that knife. Whether it is the physical knife itself, which we sometimes see in court, or a picture of it, I always make sure that the responsible adult sitting next to the young person sees that object, so that they know what we are talking about.
The other thing I always do with the young person, however serious the knife-related offence is, is say to them that their own lives are in danger. What we regularly see in court is young people being attacked with their own knives when fights break out. Twice in the last five years, I have had young people not turning up to court for a knife offence because they themselves have been killed. This is why I say that to the young people in front of me; one can only hope that it drives the message home.
We need to say that it is gang-related or drug-related, of course, but a lot of these people will say that they carry these knives for their own defence. They are more frightened of the harm posed to them by other people carrying knives than they are by what the court can do to them by way of sanction. This is not to argue for higher sanctions, but it is to argue for education and better youth services, and for a wider intervention through schools and other youth programmes to try to bear down on this scourge.
The final point I want to make is that people often ask questions about racial disproportionality, with young black men attacking each other. In this House and elsewhere, you hear of people saying that the police are disproportionate in their response to this and in stopping and search young black people. I have certainly been in more than one meeting with black mothers who have said to me and to the people with me, “You’re not doing enough to protect our sons”. So we need to do more to protect their sons and we need a holistic approach to do that, but, as far as this SI goes, I support it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this relatively short debate. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his personal insights from his courtroom; they made a great deal of sense and, in some cases, were very disturbing. I have had similar conversations with some of those mothers; they are particularly relevant in the context of some of the debates on stop and search that we have had in this House. Perhaps we need to do more to publicise the results of some of these conversations.
I will do my utmost to address the questions asked of me. I will start by talking about the serious violence duty, which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me about, because that obviously informs the entire debate. In 2023-24, the Government allocated £13.1 million to continue the implementation and delivery of the serious violence duty; that followed a commitment made in January 2023. The noble Lord will remember that, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the serious violence duty requires a range of specified authorities—such as the police, local government, youth offending teams and health and probation services —to work collaboratively and put in place plans to prevent and reduce serious violence in their local communities, enabled by new powers to share both data and information. Of course, that Act also contains measures such as serious violence reduction orders as well as other things; it is probably a little too soon to tell precisely how effective those are but, obviously, they are in train.
Local areas have the flexibility to determine the geographical extent of their partnerships. We are encouraging local areas to use multiagency partnerships where possible. The point was made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that educational institutions, prisons and youth custodial institutions—known as “the relevant authorities”—are under separate duties. We expect them to co-operate with the core duty holders when asked as well. We also require partnerships to consult such institutions in their areas.
The fact is that this is a societal issue. We are not going to solve it this afternoon, but I have heard the points made and, of course, I will make sure that they are shared round the relevant parts of government—that is, most of government and most of society.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me about ninja swords and other types of bladed articles that are used in crime. Concerns have been raised during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill through Parliament in relation to swords, in particular so-called ninja swords. Those that have the features set out in this legislation will be banned; however, those that do not have those features will not be, because we have focused our efforts on the types of weapons that the National Police Chiefs’ Council has raised as being of particular concern.
As my noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned, many members of the public legitimately own antique swords and swords of historical interest. People also own modern swords as collectible items, and there are those who own swords for activities such as martial arts, fencing and re-enactment. Many British military swords have straight blades and are treasured by service personnel when they serve, as well as by their family members when they are passed on. These articles are generally owned and used responsibly, obviously.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is quite right about blunt blades. Something that is blunt can be sharpened. However, we have provided the defence of blunt items, which would enable collectors of fantasy knives to purchase for display items that would otherwise be prohibited. We are taking the opportunity to extend this defence to curved swords, as I have mentioned, but it is important to note that, if an item were sharpened, it would become illegal. If this comes to the attention of the police, they will be able to make a charge for unlawful possession of a bladed article if the blade is sharpened.
I also point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that the unfortunate and awful crime in Croydon that she mentioned was actually committed with a kitchen knife.
The statistics are not quite as bleak as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested. I am always a bit nervous talking about statistics in relation to what are individually horrific circumstances, so please bear that in mind when I mention them. The latest provisional admissions data for NHS hospitals in England and Wales showed a decrease in the number of admissions for assault with a sharp object in the year ending September 2023. The figure was 4% lower than in the year ending September 2022. We should also bear in mind that many of the comparisons that we make are with the years of Covid, when many people were locked up—metaphorically speaking—so they are not direct comparisons. If we compare like for like, the numbers are improving. That is not to say that they are not still awful, as I said, and obviously we have to do much more about that.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
Would it be possible before the Minister sits down to ask two questions? My question about the value of a weapon was about whether manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers will be paid the wholesale trade value or the retail value of the weapon, if that is known. More importantly, they will have lists of people who had weapons sold to them, so will they be asked, encouraged or told that they must share their customer list with the police, who in my view should be expected to follow up on that?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
On the first part of the question, I do not know the answer. I will have to come back to the noble Lord. I think I tried to answer that when I was talking about the guidance. Obviously, the guidance has yet to be published. The noble Lord is 100% right, of course, that they should have those lists and they should consult them, but, as he knows, operational policing remains independent. The guidance will be published in June, and I think the noble Lord makes a very good point.
Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller
That the Grand Committee do consider the Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
My Lords, I hope that it will be helpful to your Lordships if I speak to both the Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 and the Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 given that they deliver legislation addressing fees for import controls on UK sanitary and phytosanitary goods under the border target operating model.
Turning first to the Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, these regulations facilitate flexibility in the application of fees and charging requirements for official controls on sanitary and phytosanitary imports arriving in Great Britain. We have designed a global risk-based import model, BTOM, for sanitary and phytosanitary goods, which will deliver a streamlined approach which protects the public and plant and animal health, boosts our economic growth and minimises friction at the border. This instrument enables the necessary fees and charges for official controls, reflecting the new sanitary and phytosanitary border official controls regimes, as published in the border target operating model.
This instrument introduces flexibility on the composition of fees and charges for official controls while maintaining the requirement of cost recovery. This allows for more comprehensive cost recovery and enables the application of risk factors set out in the BTOM to the fees. This instrument changes the duty to charge to a power to charge by extending the circumstances in which charges may be reduced or waived. The implementation of the BTOM model is reliant on the flexible application of risk, the ongoing financial viability of competent authorities and the proportionate financial liability across stakeholders and operators. Changing the duty facilitates this desired flexibility.
This instrument enables a consistent charging model across any government-run border control post in Great Britain. This will be vital once border control post checks on EU imports are introduced to Wales and Scotland to support trade continuity in all our Administrations. Finally, this instrument enables fees and charges to be levied digitally and away from border control posts. Without this legislation, all sanitary and phytosanitary consignments entering Great Britain would be required to visit a border control post to make payments physically. This would be administratively and operationally unworkable, as it would require all consignments to attend a border control post, not just those selected for an inspection, adding time and burdens for hauliers.
Every effort has been made to ensure these fees and charges distribute costs fairly and proportionately for businesses of all sizes and across all sectors while enabling the Government to fulfil their cost recovery obligations. I am pleased to state that the devolved Administrations have given their consent for these regulations to extend across Great Britain. To summarise, this instrument facilitates the implementation of the border target operating model and is necessary to enable fees and charges to fund the new sanitary and phytosanitary border official controls regime.
Moving on to the second instrument, the Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, these regulations apply a requirement for risk-based import checks on medium-risk goods from the EU, Switzerland and Lichtenstein from 30 April 2024 as published in the border target operating model. This instrument ensures that certain imported goods are not within scope of this charge, including fruit and vegetables that are currently being treated as low-risk goods while risk assessments are being conducted. It also excludes goods entering Great Britain via a listed west coast port.
Changes are also being made to the fees legislation to reflect the risk-based level of identity, as well as physical and documentary checks on medium-risk goods, to ensure that the cost of plant health services are recovered. Fees are also updated for certain goods from non-EU countries to account for changes in the frequency of checks. Finally, two minor typographical errors regarding import checks are being corrected in the fees legislation.
Checks are currently carried out on high-risk consignments of plants, plant products and other objects imported into Great Britain from the EU, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Checks are also being conducted on regulated goods imported from all other third countries, on a risk basis. GB plant health services carry out these checks and charge for these services accordingly to prevent the introduction and spread of organisms harmful to plants and plant products. This instrument therefore removes the temporary easement that applied after EU exit from import checks of medium-risk plants and plant products imported from the EU, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. These goods will become subject to risk-based checks and the associated fees.
I am pleased to state that the devolved Administrations have given their consent for these regulations to extend across Great Britain—except for Regulations 2 and 3, which relate to fees and apply to England only. Welsh and Scottish Government Ministers laid their equivalent fees legislation earlier this year.
In closing, these regulations ensure that checks are in place from 30 April 2024 to mitigate against any biosecurity risks from certain goods from the EU, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. I emphasise that protecting our biosecurity is of paramount importance. By facilitating the implementation of the border target operating model and enabling fees and charges for the relevant import controls, these instruments enhance the operation of the biosecurity regime of Great Britain.
I hope that noble Lords will support these measures and their objectives. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I feel I should begin by declaring my fellowship, through the Industry and Parliament Trust, of the Horticultural Trades Association, which is the trade association for environmental horticulture. I am sure the Minister knows this but that is what used to be called ornamental horticulture. The Government have not always shown that they know what this refers to, so I make that clarification.
We are talking about a Brexit cost here. That is what is being inflicted. We have spent several years with people looking around and trying to find Brexit benefits but they have been extremely hard to find on the ground. This is a cost and is particularly likely to impact on small and medium-sized enterprises across Britain.
I would like to make a comment about the timing of this debate, on 18 April. These fees are coming in on 30 April and were announced two weeks ago. That is not a great deal of time for businesses to prepare for and understand what is happening, so I must express my concern.
This is even more crucial in the context of environmental horticulture. Now is the worst possible time for this massive change in the industry to happen. There are a few peak weeks for horticulture when people are planting their gardens in spring and looking forward to summer. This measure will hit the sector extremely hard at this moment. The seasonal peak may last for only a few weeks and this is happening in the middle of it. It would seem that it is too late to make any change to that but I hope the Government acknowledge—this is a question for the Minister—that the industry will be taking on a significant cost at this moment. They should be thinking about what kind of compensation and extra support it needs.
It greatly concerns garden centres, nurseries and other suppliers that there could be delays on 30 April and in the week or so afterwards. We have heard many reports of people importing woody plants, shrubs and perennials en masse beforehand. However, it is not possible to do that with bedding plants and many other smaller plants. What arrangements do the Government have in place to provide compensation should there be significant delays at border posts?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these two statutory instruments. On the face of it, they seem fairly straightforward and relate to the border target operating model. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has flagged that this is a matter of interest to the House.
The first instrument relates to sanitary and phytosanitary border controls—SPS. The second relates to SPS controls applying to imports of live animals, animal products, high-risk food and feed of non-animal origin, plants and plant products at the border. This second SI contains a large and potentially complex list of products; however, the instrument appears to deal only with plants and plant products. Also, the risk-based import checks on medium-risk goods applies to goods from some countries that are EU member states, as well as Liechtenstein and Switzerland. These countries’ goods that are not within scope include fruit and vegetables, which are currently treated as low risk.
I have some questions about these two instruments and wish to ask for some clarification. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum for the first instrument, on fees and charges, states:
“This instrument changes the duty to charge to a power to charge by extending the circumstances in which the CA”—
competent authority—
“may reduce charges or waive them altogether”.
The Minister has mentioned this already. I am concerned that, if the charge is waived, it could mean that the imported product would be cheaper than a homegrown or home-produced one, which would disadvantage our farmers and horticulturalists. Can the Minister provide reassurance on this issue?
The ability to waive charges also seems at odds with the second instrument, on official charges and frequency of checks. Paragraph 7.2 of its EM states:
“Changes are being made to the fees legislation to reflect the level of identity and physical checks determined in accordance with the 2022 Regulations … ensuring the full cost of services to conduct import checks are recovered from businesses using these services”.
Further on, the last sentence of paragraph 7.4 says:
“The existing fees legislation ensures that the cost of plant health services, including import inspections, is recovered via fees”.
Either the fees are to be charged on a cost-recovery basis or they can be reduced—or waived altogether. Perhaps one SI legislates for full cost recovery while the other allows for the waiving of fees and charges. Can the Minister give clarity on this issue?
Paragraph 7.4 of the first instrument’s EM states that
“not all consignments will … attend a BCP”—
a border control post. It also says that fees and charges can be levied digitally and away from the BCP. Some have raised concerns that this may not be safe and that consignments should be capable of being inspected at the BCP. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also raised concerns about the security of plants. Can the Minister comment?
Consultation through targeted stakeholders ran for 10 weeks. The second instrument’s EM indicates:
“The respondents were generally supportive”.
I have read the letter from Defra, dated 24 February, on the consultation responses; I have also looked at the responses online. There were three. Two were from Scottish businesses that raised no concerns. The third was from the NFU; it highlighted its concern about the flat rate fee for plants for planting, which should be extended to include bulbs for planting, and the definition of the final user. Defra’s response to the NFU was that its concerns are outside the scope of the consultation as the instrument is for medium-risk goods while bulbs are high-risk goods. On this basis, we are told that the consultation response was “generally supportive”, which just goes to show that, with a bit of ingenuity, you can make a consultation give whatever response you want it to.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about the common user charge, which is to be introduced later this year and does not require legislation. This means that there will be no parliamentary oversight of the charge, its impact and whether it will be draconian or not likely to actually cover the costs of implementation. Would the Minister care to comment on the introduction of this common user charge?
I am not opposed to these two SIs, but I am somewhat dismayed by the way in which they are being introduced and the lack of clarity over the implementation of the charges and fees. I look forward to the Minister’s clarification.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, looking first at the Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations in front of us, previous speakers have clearly raised concerns about BTOM. I have also done so in the past; the Minister and I have discussed this in the Chamber previously. However, with this SI, we are particularly concerned about the potential impact on small businesses and the fact that the charges also need to be considered in the broader context of the increased charges, particularly for small businesses, since we left the EU. I am aware that the Government believe that there is not going to be any serious impact on small businesses but our concerns come from within that broader context, because we know that British importers have been paying further costs over the last few years since we moved to the new system of trade with the EU.
Around 30% of the food that we consume in the UK comes from the EU, so it is incredibly important that, when we bring in new systems, we avoid any confusion, chaos or delays. It would be useful to hear reassurances from the Minister on these issues because small businesses are particularly worried about this, as well as the increased costs. Once you start getting delays, as I am sure the Minister knows, they have a huge impact on perishable fresh produce. How confident is the Minister that this can go through smoothly?
The British Chambers of Commerce has complained to the Government about the lack of communication and information provided. How has the Minister’s department been working with businesses, particularly small businesses, on improving the communications and information that chambers of commerce have raised concerns about? What clarifications have been provided following the concerns raised?
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about the fact that this provides competent authorities with greater flexibility to determine fees and charges, and that this is now on a recovery basis. She asked some questions around that, but I just wondered if there are any precedents for recovery like this, with fees and charges being done on a cost-recovery basis. What are the precedents around that?
The other thing I was going to raise also applies, to a certain extent, to the plant health SI and is around the lack of consultation. I am aware that there is no statutory duty to consult on this issue but, considering the number of concerns that have been raised around BTOM and its rollout, including the very late announcement of the common user charge, I wonder whether the department might have followed a different process, with the benefit of hindsight. It could have done a bit more consultation with industry to avoid those concerns and late rollouts. In future, when looking at the different trade mechanisms that will need to come in, will it perhaps look more broadly at working with business at an earlier stage to avoid some of the, shall we say, glitches that have happened?
I agree with very much with what both noble Baronesses have said already on the draft plant health fees statutory instrument, so I will not go into great detail. The concerns of the Horticultural Trades Association have been clearly laid out: the impact of the volume of checks that will be required and whether that will lead to further delays. The importance of the horticultural sector to our economy needs greater recognition. It would be good if the Minister could give some indication to the Horticultural Trades Association on ornamental horticulture, plus vine horticulture, tomatoes, and others. We have seen gaps on our supermarkets shelves in recent years. It would be very good if our horticultural sector was better supported and encouraged.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, again, I thank all noble Lords and—almost exclusively—Baronesses for their valuable contributions to this debate. I laid out the need for this SI in my opening remarks. I will try to address some of the questions and concerns that have been raised.
I will turn first to the issue of Dover, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised. It is a really important point that has been conflated in multiple different ways, and is being used rather unhelpfully to demonstrate what is not happening. Before the introduction of the BTOM, the Government provided a level of financial and other support to Dover Port Health Authority to assist with checks at the Port of Dover for the narrow straits. That was a significant sum of money: £3.5 million a year, and quite a lot of additional bits and pieces.
At the time of developing the BTOM model, we looked very carefully at how it might work at the Port of Dover. We explored the Bastion Point option, which is also quite close to the Port of Dover but not actually there. We also looked very closely at Sevington, which, as we all know, is some 21 or 22 miles further up the road. The analysis and outcome of that very detailed process showed extremely clearly that it is impossible to have a border control post at Dover.
We could have gone with a combined Bastion Point and Sevington option, but if anybody has been to Bastion Point, they will know that it is in an industrial park just outside Dover and that the access is terrible. The confusion would be appalling and the cost to have a split facility would be much greater, so the decision was taken to take the whole border control post to Sevington.
I get questioned a lot that this does not make any sense, because Sevington is 22 miles away. How on earth can that be safe? This is where the conflation of different thoughts and ideas comes together, and it needs to be disentangled. Anybody importing several pigs in the back of a white van that have been slaughtered in Poland is not going to comply with our import controls. They are not going to sign up with an IPAFFS, get a veterinary certificate, register on the system and come into the Port of Dover, saying, “Here I am; do I go to Sevington or do I carry on?” as part of our risk-based model for all other products. These are illegal imports, which are dealt with by Border Force, not border control posts. We have been funding Border Force in the Dover Port Health Authority to deal with that issue, which is largely around African swine fever and pigs—the pork industry.
Border Force also deals with drugs, guns and a range of other things, so the Dover Port Health Authority has been supported financially to assist Border Force. We are now taking the new function of the risk-based border target operating model and moving it away from the Port of Dover, because it cannot be done there, given the logistics of large lorries having to be checked at the port. The whole thing would be clogged from end to end: it would simply not be possible. I accept that, if we were starting this entire process with a clean piece of paper and no infrastructure on the south coast of England, we would probably not do it this way. But, in the absence of being able to flatten Dover and build a border control post there, we really do not have many options.
I am very sympathetic to Natalie Elphicke’s issues at Dover. In all honesty, it has been a real challenge dealing with the port health authority and the council down there—they have been extraordinarily unco-operative and, in my opinion, have deliberately provided misinformation about the fact that we are reducing the £3.5 million to £1.5 million because we are taking that whole function away from them and asking them, with the residual £1.5 million, to provide a different level of support to the Border Force arrangements at Dover. These are very separate issues. I know it takes a while to get your head round them, and it does not sound very intuitive, but it is important to try to get those two bits and pieces disentangled.
I am very happy to take any other questions on Dover, Sevington and what we are doing down there as a separate issue; I will not clog up today’s debate any further on that.
I will start by addressing the general concerns expressed about consultation, particularly with the Horticultural Trades Association and others. There has been, as I think everybody will recognise, extensive consultation on this. It predates my time in office very considerably and, since I took up office at the end of last year, I forget how many conversations and meetings I have had with the HTA. The chairman of the HTA, James Barnes, is a friend of mine who rings me up pretty much daily on this issue. I am acutely aware that this issue is of concern to the association, but we have signalled that we would do this for a very long time. In fact, we have had several false starts, so this should not be any surprise to anybody.
Furthermore, I have been explicit in all of those consultations with the HTA and others that this is not nought to 60 in one go: we are not going from nothing to everything in one go. We are looking to phase in a way of improving biosecurity on goods coming into this country. We will take a pragmatic approach to that process and we are in control of the number of people we pull in for inspections. We will not pull in everybody for inspection on day 1, because this will obviously take a little time to bed in.
I have been down to Sevington, looked at the facilities there and spoken to the staff. I have looked at the training being given to them, which is a concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who asked, “Who does this? Is it just a random person?” No, we have done a lot of training and a lot of work has gone into this. So we are ready for business at Sevington, which is the main short straits point. It really has been an extensive exercise in communications training. We have done a lot of recruitment and built a purpose-built facility at Sevington for this. I have been down there, and noble Lords are welcome to come down and have a look at it. It really is incredibly impressive. If they visited, I hope it would allay many of the concerns raised about possible cross-contamination or delays or issues that will go on in that space, because it will take a bit of bedding in. I am not saying it will be entirely smooth on day 1, but we have put an awful lot of effort into this.
Just to go back to conversations with the HTA, one of the things we put in place is a hotline with the team in Defra directly to the HTA and the NFU, for the week preceding 30 April and any amount of time thereafter until those concerns are allayed, to say, “Look, we know we’re going to get some teething problems here, so let’s get them fed in directly”, so that we have the process in place to unravel those difficulties and smooth them through. Absolutely the last thing the Government want to do is to create a delay to trade, which would cause all the sorts of issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised, which would then cause issues around compensation and all the rest of it. We do not want to go there. We want to manage the process and build it up slowly. We will definitely go through a bedding-in process here. We will not go from one end of the spectrum to the other in one go.
I hope that that general background allays some of those concerns. Again, I would be delighted to take any further questions. If anybody would like to, I suggest a visit to any of those facilities so that noble Lords can look for themselves.
I put my hands up on the common user charge: I totally accept that it is late in the day for letting these guys know. I have been in business—I ran a retail business for 15 years—and I cannot comprehend how the Government thought it would be a good idea to let these guys know just six weeks beforehand. It has happened; we cannot go backwards; it is there. In mitigation, it is within the consultation parameters that were set, and what was coming was pretty well signalled to everybody. We have put a cap on those charges to allay some of the fears that were rightly expressed by a lot of those organisations.
There were a number of comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on the charges, full cost recovery and the waiving of charges. What I have in my notes on the question of whether the SI removes the commitment of competent authorities to do cost recovery is that the answer is no. There is still a commitment to cost recovery. The existing provisions in the official control regulations also still specify that charges should not exceed costs. This remains untouched, so it is not a profit-making exercise.
To reference that back to the other questions on what happens at non-governmental border control posts, commercial operators elsewhere are free to set their charges where they want. They have obviously all been waiting to see what our common user charge is; they will want to align with that because, if they do not, people will simply choose not to go there. If they simply price themselves out of the market, that will not work. Our analysis of our own cost recovery process should be comparable to their own. I think that the charges are in the right place. They will also remain under review on a very regular basis, following the first tranche of information that we get.
I hope that that also answers the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on the impact on smaller businesses. This is a flat charge across all businesses; it does not differentiate between large or small, but we hope that it is within the right range.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked a number of questions around readiness for 30 April. I hope I addressed them in my earlier comments. Again, if there are any questions that she would like to ask on that or the staffing arrangements, I would be very happy to take them.
That covers all the questions that I have written down here, I think. If I have missed anybody’s questions, I will of course be delighted to write to them in future. I hope everybody shares my view that these instruments are absolutely necessary. As I have outlined, they facilitate the implementation of the border target operating model, which I think we have all agreed is a necessary biosecurity process, and are necessary to enable the relevant import controls and associated fees on imported sanitary and phytosanitary goods.
With that, I commend these instruments to the Committee.
Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller
That the Grand Committee do consider the Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Veterinary Medicines (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller
That the Grand Committee do consider the Veterinary Medicines (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 4 March. They seek to amend the legislative regime for veterinary medicines set out in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 in respect of Great Britain. The amendments will ensure that the law is fit for purpose to protect animal health, public health and the environment.
We are a nation of animal lovers. Veterinary medicines play a vital role in helping vets and those looking after our animals to maintain their health and welfare. As well as benefiting our much-loved companion animals, medicines also play an important role in supporting the farming industry to maintain the health and welfare of their livestock. This is pivotal to the UK’s food supply. Veterinary medicines are, by necessity, highly regulated goods. Their quality, safety and effectiveness are assured by controls on their manufacture, marketing, supply and use, which are set out in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013.
However, these regulations require updating to reflect changes and technical advances in industry, to future-proof the regulatory regime and to reduce regulatory burden where possible. I believe that the length of this instrument, at 89 pages, gives an indication of the necessity of such an update. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go into the full details of all the changes, many of which are very technical; instead, I will summarise the rationale behind some of the most significant amendments.
To market a medicine in the UK, a pharmaceutical company needs authorisation for that medicine from the regulator. A large number of the amendments relate to changes in the requirements for companies that hold such authorisations. These regulations apply in Great Britain but will also facilitate the UK-wide marketing of products. The changes will bring Great Britain’s regulatory regime closer to the EU’s, but it is not simply the case that we are just accepting EU rules. My department actively proposed and participated in the discussions on changes to the EU law when we were a member state and it was always the expectation that these changes would apply in the UK too. Leaving the EU, however, has allowed a more flexible approach to updating our legislation.
The changes to marketing authorisation requirements have been requested and are supported by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. They will allow those companies to submit a similar dossier supporting their application for marketing authorisation to my department, to the European Medicines Agency and to EU member states in order to obtain authorisations in both the UK and the EU. This provides for a consistency in technical and data requirements and is vital in ensuring that the UK remains a competitive and attractive global market for veterinary medicines.
The amendments will also make it possible for companies to use common packaging across the UK. This will reduce unnecessary administrative and regulatory burden on industry and will help ensure that these companies continue to market medicines across the UK.
The instrument also amends the requirements related to where such companies must be based to reflect the current practice of global companies having a European base to market medicines across the European region. This provides a regulatory pathway in the regulations that will allow companies based in the EU to continue to market medicines in the UK to ensure the continued availability of medicines here.
For manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors of veterinary medicines, amendments include, for example, the introduction of a registration scheme for manufacturers, distributors and importers of active pharmaceutical ingredients. This will ensure that we have greater oversight in the use of these important, but potentially hazardous, chemicals, which in turn will maximise our ability to take appropriate action in the case of a safety concern or supply shortage.
We encourage appropriate and responsible prescription and supply of veterinary medicines with the amendments, for example, by enhancing the information that must be recorded by prescribers when prescribing medicines. A number of these changes form part of the Government’s plan to tackle antimicrobial resistance to protect human and animal health. Our changes are intended to secure the UK’s significant reductions in antibiotic use in food-producing animals. The legislation will make it very clear that antibiotics are not to be used routinely or to compensate for poor farming practices. The changes will prevent the general use of antibiotics in healthy animals, with exceptions made for where the risk of disease is very high and the consequences likely to be severe. The Third UK One Health Report showed that in 2019 about two-thirds of antibiotics in the UK were for use in humans, compared to one-third in animals. Our antibiotic usage in animals is already lower than in all other European countries with comparably large agriculture sectors. We are keen to maintain a collaborative approach with vets and farmers to ensure a continued and sustainable reduction in antibiotic use. This approach has already led to a 59% reduction in use since 2014.
Other changes include updates to the fees that the regulator charges to industry to undertake its functions. The regulator, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, is a cost-recovery agency, and it is right and proper that the fees are amended to reflect the true cost of providing its regulatory services. These fees have not been updated in more than 10 years.
In conclusion, veterinary medicines are essential to the health and welfare of our animals and to supporting the farming sector in rearing food-producing animals. I hope noble Lords will agree that this instrument is vital to ensuring the continued supply of safe and beneficial medicines while ensuring that my department continues to have effective oversight of how these medicines are manufactured, supplied and used. This includes changes to support our efforts to reduce the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance by further reducing unnecessary use of antibiotics in animals. I hope noble Lords will support these changes. I beg to move.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, first, I say a warm welcome to these new regulations, which are in general welcomed by the veterinary pharmaceutical industry and, I should also say, by the veterinary profession in general, because they are the first major revision of veterinary medicine regulations since 2013. Given the pace of change, technological innovation, pharmacological developments, environmental awareness and, particularly, our increasing awareness of the importance of antimicrobial resistance, these regulations are very timely and welcome.
According to the National Office of Animal Health, the umbrella organisation covering 97% of the UK veterinary pharmaceutical market, the annual sales of veterinary drugs in the UK amount to about £745 million. That is a substantial market and of critical importance, of course, to the health and welfare of animals, food safety and public health. But it is important to recognise as well that, in global terms, this is a relatively small market; thus our alignment, as far as possible, with international standards and requirements is very important to ensure that a full range of products—not only drugs but, critically, vaccines as well—is able to be marketed economically in the UK for the benefit of animals.
In this respect, a general feature of these new regulations is that they rationalise and improve alignment with many aspects of international practice. They attempt to reduce the burdens and obstacles to the global pharmaceutical industry in making veterinary products more readily available on the UK market, which is a very good thing. More specifically, they improve alignment with EU regulations. I hope that this will have a positive effect on the imminent negotiations with the EU to ensure the continuing supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland, for which there is no agreement yet under the Windsor Framework, and which are subject to a temporary grace period. That expires at the end of 2025, which potentially will have quite serious repercussions and lead to quite serious reductions in the availability of veterinary pharmaceutical products for both livestock and companion animals, unless a new agreement is reached.
The regulations involve a number of changes with regard to market authorisation application. Those changes should increase the alignment to facilitate the submission of one dossier to more than one territory, while simplifying labelling and packaging requirements. This should help to optimise the availability of products across the devolved nations of the UK and, indeed, across Europe. A major feature of the regulations is to update controls with regard to antimicrobial marketing, prescribing and classification to help reduce the risk of the development of antimicrobial resistance. There will be further restrictions on the prescription of antibiotic veterinary medicines, so that they are not used routinely as compensation for poor hygiene and low standards in animal husbandry and management practices. That is all an extremely positive development.
It is worth repeating, though, that antibiotics have been banned for use as growth promoters in the UK since 2006. Critically, and of specific importance, is the prohibition of antibiotic usage for any prophylactic purpose except in exceptional circumstances. There is a requirement in these regulations to justify the prescribing of antibiotics in such exceptional circumstances by recording them and making it necessary to conduct a veterinary review of management practices to ensure that there is no recurring need for antibiotic use, where possible.
With regard to antibiotic usage in medicated feed, there is a limit prescribed in the regulations on the time between antibiotics being prescribed and treatment being started, which has been set at no more than five working days. It has been pointed out to me by the aquaculture industry in Scotland, for example, that, given the distances between medicated feed manufacturers and, say, the needs of a salmon farm in the northern Shetland Isles, that five-day period is rather restrictive and may be challenging. I ask the Minister: could such practical issues be taken into account when interpreting that requirement?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for presenting the regulations before us this afternoon, which are very welcome. I have one issue to raise with him. I declare my interest as an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association.
The British Veterinary Association’s response to the original consultation touches a little on the demands being made on veterinary practices in the context of the regulations, which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred to. It responded on the requirement to provide information that, essentially, the Government should be mindful of the pressures on smaller practices that have limited administrative resources and that while vets are willing and happy to provide information, the cost and administrative burdens need to be taken into account. I hope that is something that my noble friend will give me some reassurance on in the Committee this afternoon. We learn from paragraphs 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum that the annual net direct cost to business of the regulations is expected to be £2.5 million. Paragraph 12.3 states that as the level of impact is less than £5 million, it was agreed to carry out a de minimis assessment not a full impact assessment. What assessment has the department made of the pressure on small practices, in particular, in applying the new provisions in the regulations? Who will end up paying the ultimate price for this?
I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its analysis of the regulations. It also refers to the fact that the direct cost to business will be £2.5 million per year and asks whether this will lead to higher prices for veterinary medicines. What impact do my noble friend and the department think this will have on the end user, in particular, either the small pet owner or, more specifically, the farmer, bearing in mind that farmers, particularly since 2001, have faced an increase in other on-costs? They are under great pressure, and many of them, particularly smaller and mixed farmers and those who specialise in livestock production, are going to find it very difficult to fund this.
We are speaking at a very happy time of year when we see lots of lambs and calves being born, but there are veterinary costs associated with that. I am mindful of this, having recently sat next to a local farmer who called out the vet for a stillborn calf and obviously had to pay all the veterinary costs. The mother survived, but they lost the calf. I would be grateful if my noble friend could respond on those two specific points: whether small practices have been considered when it comes to bearing the costs and whether farmers are expected to carry the additional cost of £2.5 million per year going forward.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in rising fairly briefly, I should declare the support I receive from the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, as set out in the register. I join the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in welcoming further restrictions on antibiotic use in that context. I do a great deal of work with BSAC on antimicrobial resistance. I remain concerned about any exception for prophylactic use. We are talking in a context where factory farming organisations have said that they need to keep using antibiotics because their operations cannot operate without them. I have a direct question for the Minister. We are coming up to the refresh of the national action plan on antimicrobial resistance after its five years in operation since 2019. Are the Government prepared and thinking about how, working with that plan, there may need to be further restrictions, particularly on the use of antibiotics in veterinary medicine in the light of the threat that antimicrobial resistance presents? This is reflected in the fact that the General Assembly is having a high-level meeting in September on antimicrobial resistance. It is a huge global issue. I acknowledge that the UK has been leading on this. None the less, it is still very clear that we are not anywhere near where we need to be to save the antibiotics that we desperately need for human health. We have to approach all this from a One Health perspective thinking of human, animal and environmental health all going together.
In the light of that, there are a couple of things that I particularly want to raise. One is anthelmintics and their impact on environmental health, particularly insect life in streams and rivers and indeed in the soil, dung beetles being the obvious example here. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to comment on any steps that the Government are planning to take to address that One Health issue.
The other issue that is fast rising up the agenda is spot on flea and tick treatments, which are a significant source of pesticide pollution in rivers. I can cite a recent study from the University of Sussex and Imperial College published in Science of The Total Environment, looking in particular at fipronil and imidacloprid—forgive my pronunciation—both of which have been banned from outdoor agriculture but are still used in spot on flea and tick treatments. This study and others found significant wastewater that had passed through sewage treatment works and was extremely harmful to wildlife; these are potent neurotoxic insecticides. One study found fipronil in 98% and the other chemical in 66% of fresh water. I am aware that the British Medical Association has brought out some new guidelines and is seeking at least to reduce somewhat the usage of these treatments but, given that we have about 2.2 million dogs and cats in the UK, are the Government really looking into this?
Finally, I also reflect the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. We all know now that we are in a global market for everything through the internet. Are the Government looking at and monitoring the extent to which veterinary medicines that should not come into the UK, or should not be used without proper supervision in the UK, are coming in through that potential internet back door?
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register, as I work for a large independent vet group with both companion animal and production animal vets. The vets I work with generally welcome this timely update of the Veterinary Medicines Regulations. They acknowledge that they have been listened too during the consultation process and that changes have been made to update the regulations. Some are disappointed that the regulations have moved further away from the EU regulations. Others have commented that, although the EU regulations appear to be more restrictive, they will be interpreted in very different ways over the 27 countries, and we would have interpreted them in some ways, too.
Some have also commented that we have possibly missed an opportunity to update the regulations with regard to the impact of drugs on the environment, to echo the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. That refers not only to the relationships between the individual vets prescribing the drugs but to the end-user of the drug and how this impacts on the environment. I reiterate the comments regarding spot on treatments and the result in watercourses. I will not try to pronounce the names of the drugs.
Concern remains regarding the amendment to paragraph 19 on the prescribing of medical products contained within feeds, which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned. The regulation states that
“the time between a prescription being issued and the course of treatment starting must be no more than five working days”.
This has been changed from the original regulation, which is appreciated, but there is still concern that manufacturers have no control over when the treatment starts, and the logistical challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned of manufacturing feedstuffs, transporting them to the farms and feeding them to the animals. It is in farmers’ interests to feed this medicated feed to their animals as quickly as possible to treat the respective infection, but it seems unreasonable to create a situation where a manufacturer of feeds could be in breach of the regulations simply because a feed has not been fed to the animal within five working days. A feed manufacturer should certainly be held to account if a feed has not been distributed to the farmer within five working days. Therefore, could the Minister relook at amending the wording to say, for example, “distributed to final location” or “left the manufacturing premises within five working days”?
The second area of concern is new paragraph 7A, which relates to
“Duties in relation to prescribing of antibiotic veterinary medicinal products”
for prophylactic purpose. For some, the wording of this new paragraph does not go far enough; they would have liked a total ban of the prescribing of antibiotics. I know from discussions that other veterinary surgeons in the production animal sector accept that the wording is reasonable in this new paragraph to protect animal health and welfare, but concerns have been raised about how it will be interpreted and set out in the guidelines that will follow the implementation of this statutory instrument, with special reference to the words “exceptional circumstances” and what will be allowed. There are many interpretations of what “exceptional” means, both by individuals and by organisations. This could lead to veterinary surgeons breaking regulations when all they are trying to do is protect animal health and welfare and comply with their professional code of conduct.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this important statutory instrument. I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing it to the attention of the Committee.
This important statutory instrument ensures the quality, safety and efficacy of veterinary medicines as regulated by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the VMD. The Veterinary Medicines Regulations have not been updated since 2013, when the fee base was also set, so there is quite a lot of inflation to consider in terms of fees and costs, alongside scientific innovation. The main thrust of the SI is an attempt to reduce the risk of the development and spread of antibiotic resistance, which I welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has raised this issue many times in the Chamber, as well as this afternoon.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I do not have extensive knowledge of the issues we are debating. Not being a vet or having anything to do with animals, whether domestic or destined for the food chain, my only contact with the veterinary profession is taking my dog to be stitched up after an overenthusiastic race through the woods or going to renew his regular preventive medication. I was, however, privileged to visit a veterinary hospital run by Anderson Moores last October. It was an extraordinary experience. The hospital is extremely modern and does very complex surgery on a range of animals. This particular hospital lent ventilators to the overstretched local NHS hospital during the Covid outbreak.
Although I fully support this SI, I have a number of questions for clarification. Most of them relate to paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 7.1 refers to making more than 200 amendments to the VMR, including fee changes. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked whether these changes would lead to higher prices for veterinary practices. The answer from Defra referred to the private nature of veterinary practices. I interpreted that as a “don’t know” in terms of whether Defra actually knew whether the changes would increase prices. I will return to this issue later.
Paragraph 7.2 makes it clear that vets are required
“to provide owners of food-producing animals with records as soon as reasonably practical after administering a medicine”
with a record of that medicine, when it should be taken and the lapse of time after taking the medicine before the animals can enter the food chain. This is clear and reassuring. However, I ask the Minister whether this is what currently happens or less stringent measures are currently in place. Will this change be an additional burden?
Many of the requirements under section 7 place added burdens on marketing, manufacturers, wholesalers and keepers of food-producing animals. These relate mostly to limiting the spread of antibiotic resistance. Paragraph 7.4 of the EM refers to an inspector seizing items that may breach regulations. Can the Minister give an example of where and at what point in the chain this might happen?
Paragraph 7.6 gives a lot of detail. Sub-paragraph (e) removes the need
“to renew a marketing authorisation after five years”.
That is excellent but sub-paragraph (h) requires marketing authorisation holders to submit an annual report. Is this a contradiction or have I misunderstood it?
Paragraph 7.7 deals with Schedule 2 to the VMR. Sub-paragraph (f) extends
“the authorisation and inspection requirements for equine stem cell centres to bring all stem cell centres for non-food-producing animal species under regulatory oversight”.
What happens in those stem cell centres now?
Paragraph 7.8 has a whole list of requirements and changes to reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance. I fully support these but there is obviously going to be a cost element to this. Sub-paragraph (f) refers to a suitably qualified person being present when medicines are handed over. This appears to indicate that the veterinary profession is suffering from a lack of pharmacy specialists, similar to the experience of high street chemists.
Sub-paragraph (g) refers to
“restricting the prescription of antibiotic veterinary medicines”.
This has been referred to. Does it apply only to animals entering the food chain or to domestic pets as well? Is this restriction likely to lead to unnecessary suffering by some animals?
I fully support sub-paragraph (h), which prohibits
“the prescription of antibiotics for prophylactic purposes … except in exceptional circumstances”.
We have heard two cases of where there may not need to be exceptional circumstances.
Lastly, paragraph 7.12 refers to the VDM as a “cost-recovery agency”. Since it has been 11 years since the fees were set, there is quite a lot of inflation to consider when setting new fees and charges.
That brings me on to section 12, which has already been referred to. It indicates that, as the annual net cost to business is likely to be £2.5 million per year, no impact assessment has been produced. The limit for the production of an IA is £5 million per annum. With such a wholesale overhaul of the treatment of veterinary medicines and the new administrative burdens to be introduced, coupled with the increased cost of the medicines themselves, I would have thought that the cost could be much higher than £2.5 million. The effect on small businesses and large chains of veterinary practices is likely to be considerable. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised this issue. I admit that I have not read the sections of the de minimis assessment that cover small and micro businesses and the impact on medium businesses—nor do I have somebody working for me who would do this—but I seek the Minister’s assurance that the true effect on businesses involved in veterinary medicines has been carefully and accurately calculated.
I turn now to section 10 on the public consultation, which ran for eight weeks up to 31 March last year and received 188 responses from a wide representation of stakeholders. Although I feel that 74 questions was a considerable number for consultees to complete, it indicates that the consultation was thorough. However, I fear that the areas where the VDM was proposing to be influenced by the consultation or otherwise were confusing. There is this phrase at 10.3:
“The main areas where we have decided to amend or not implement the proposed changes relate to”.
It is followed by a list, including in the first bullet point the phrase,
“we have decided to not implement”.
That is not quite the way I would have put it, but I get the general drift.
Lastly, I note that the guidance will be amended on the changes to the VMR and will be available to stakeholders shortly. I am sure that, given the considerable changes being made, this will be welcomed by those having regard to the implementation of this instrument.
I apologise to the Minister for the number of questions I have asked and points I have made but it would be helpful to have answers to these questions. I believe that this is a very important instrument; I support it, as it will make a real difference to the way in which animal medicines and feeds are administered for the benefit of food-producing and other animals.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by welcoming this statutory instrument. It makes more than 200 changes to the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013; there is a very long list of changes under quite a number of headings. I start by congratulating the Minister on his introduction, which was both clear and succinct. We all appreciated that, I think.
This week, I received an email from NOAH asking for our support in passing these new regulations because it considers them absolutely crucial. We have also heard that from noble Lords today. The reasons why it thinks they are crucial are, first, because the current regulatory framework is not fit for purpose; the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned that it had not been changed since 2013 so this is well overdue. Secondly, animal health businesses and the UK regulatory authority, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate—we heard about it from other Members—really need this legislation to progress in order to support confidence and investment in the sector. The third reason why it is very supportive is because, as it rightly says, the animal health industry is high-value, high-growth and a highly skilled sector that contributes significantly to the UK as a whole. However, until we get these new regulations, its full potential cannot be achieved. We will support this SI.
A number of issues were raised during our debate. The first that I would like to reference is the fight against antimicrobial resistance. This is clearly welcome; anything we can do to support that is really important. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about the issues here; indeed, the noble Lord made an important point about practicalities, which the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also mentioned. There is no point in having legislation and regulations if, practically speaking, they are not going to work effectively and efficiently. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say in his response on those matters.
I was pleased to see that there was extensive consultation on this; it is clearly outlined in section 10 of the EM. When we have not had any updates for more than 10 years, it is important that there is serious consultation with the industry. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, said, paragraph 10.3 of the EM details the areas where things have been amended and implemented.
I sometimes complain about the Government and consultation but it is important to give credit where it is due. Doing an extensive consultation then clearly laying out where changes have been made is best practice. I was very pleased to see in paragraph 10.3 that this has been done. That does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees with the decisions but it is important that consultation is done properly and that industry, when it is asked for its opinions, is listened to. That is very important.
Having said that, I am sure the Minister will have picked up that a few noble Lords who took part in the debate had a few suggestions about how things could still be improved. One that I am interested in was initially mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It concerns small practices and making sure that these extra burdens can be managed by them—as well as making sure that the Government are aware of the burdens and the extra costs—because it is important that they are supported. Vets have had a lot of pressures on them in recent years, so this is really important. I know that, during the cost of living crisis, it has often been difficult for vets to balance fees, for example, with providing care to animals; that is clearly more difficult for small practices.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their contributions to this debate. I appreciate that it is large and complicated, and that it is challenging to wade your way through it. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who has been incredibly supportive of a lot of these changes—indeed, he has been driving a lot of them for quite some time. He is also involved with the veterinary medicine issues in Northern Ireland and the working group there, which met just yesterday; that is another complicated aspect of this issue, so I am hugely grateful for his involvement and all his support.
I will try to take the questions by topic rather than individually because some distinct topics ran through all of them. If I miss anybody, either noble Lords can shout at me at the end or I will write in the normal way.
Antibiotics were mentioned by everybody; everybody wants to know about them. The backdrop to this issue is that the use and prescription of antibiotics must not, and should not, be an excuse for poor animal husbandry. I think we all accept that. They are not for that purpose. However, there are certain circumstances where they might be necessary for the greater good. The provision in this instrument remains to permit that but it is about a judgment call from a professional who has been trained, who knows a lot about the subject and who is connected into local knowledge so that, if they have to apply antibiotics in this way, they then have to follow that up with a report to explain why they have done so. So a lot of thought will gone into that.
This ties in directly with the wider One Health approach, which has been raised by a number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about the need for joined-up thinking. I have watched a number of presentations on the One Health approach; I have been extremely impressed by the level of detail, the knowledge and the way that is being driven.
I am also incredibly encouraged by the drop in the use of antibiotics over the past 10 years. It is a really good news story. The detail that sits behind that in certain areas shows that, in the vast majority of areas, there is a real, long-lasting improvement. It is not perfect, I get the need to drive it forward, and, as was rightly pointed out, another review is coming up; we will look at that very carefully. However, it is important to acknowledge that it is something on which we have led. It has been really successful. It is driving change not just in the UK but elsewhere, and its long-term benefits will be very profound for all the reasons that have been articulated here this afternoon.
There were some specific questions about the five days from prescription to use. There was quite a range of views in the consultation. Some were that it is far too long and others that it is potentially challenging in certain circumstances, such as those the noble Lord, Lord Trees, illustrated, where there might be a fish farm in a remote area, but they tend to hold stores of antibiotics quite close to these areas. I will take that back to the department and look at it again. It is difficult, because one person says this and another says that. We have tried to hit the sweet spot in the middle. I do not know how it will play out in practice, but I cannot imagine for a moment that, if there was a specific issue about getting antibiotics to a remote location and it took six days, somebody will take issue with that.
Moving on from antibiotics, we talked a bit about flea and tick treatments getting into the wider countryside and our waterways. Restricting the way products are prescribed without supporting evidence may end up compromising animal health and welfare because of a change in usage patterns and the additional costs of visiting a vet. In authorising these veterinary medicines, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate takes into account parasite control users’ safety and the environmental risks. In this instance, the medicines play a vital role in treating fleas and ticks, which can lead to harmful diseases in not just family pets but farm animals, and present a risk to humans. I am particularly talking about ticks, which are a growing problem across the UK. The Government are very aware of this issue and, in seeking to try to balance the pros and cons, we are looking at it very carefully.
There were quite a lot of comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bakewell, and others on the cost to farmers and smaller veterinary practices, and how that will play out. Where modernisation of farm management practices or infrastructure is needed to reduce the risk of disease and prevent the routine or prophylactic use of antibiotics there may be costs to farmers in implementing these changes or upgrading the farming infrastructure to support them. As part of the Government’s commitment to sustainable farming futures, sheep, pigs, poultry and cattle farmers in England can now apply for capital grants to improve health and welfare on their farms. In the longer term, improved biosecurity management and preventive disease control reduces clinical and subclinical disease rates and has economic benefits for the farmer, including lower treatment costs, improved growth rates and reduced mortality. In England, the animal health and welfare pathway is providing funding for an annual vet visit alongside grants for equipment, technology and infrastructure to support the modernisation of farm management practices and infrastructure.
I appreciate that that does not address the actual issue of the cost increases, but, as was alluded to by a number of noble Lords, it has been a long time since we increased these charges. That is not entirely because we have not been looking at it or paying attention to it, but everybody is very conscious that when these costs and charges are increased it has a knock-on impact on the end-user, usually.
I am also aware from the comments made of the stretched nature, which we have discussed before, of the veterinary workforce across the UK at the moment. I have been in discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the Chief Veterinary Officer, as well as quite a few others in other organisations, about that and how we can address this particular shortfall.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was inquiring on quite a few issues, some of which I will not attempt to answer this afternoon, otherwise I would be here for a very long time. Perhaps I could refer them to the department and get a letter out with some written answers to her.
With that, I hope that I have answered all the general questions. If anybody has anything specific that they would like to refer to me now, I would be happy to take it, otherwise I will wind up and commend this instrument to the Committee.
Goods Vehicles (International Road Transport Permits and Haulage Within the EU) Regulations 2024
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower
That the Grand Committee do consider the Goods Vehicles (International Road Transport Permits and Haulage Within the EU) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations be considered. They have two main purposes. First, they implement fully some specialised provisions contained in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which I will refer to, if I may, as the TCA, in relation to UK-based operators and drivers. These provisions are connected to declarations for most lorry drivers working for UK-based operators when they make journeys between two points in the European Union.
The TCA provisions had a go-live date in 2022. They have been implemented administratively in the UK already, through the glossing provision in the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. These regulations add enforcement powers and increase legal certainty. The full implementation of these provisions is needed to ensure continued, reciprocal access for the movement of goods vehicles between the UK and EU.
Secondly, this instrument amends legislation governing the allocation of permits for the purposes of the transport of goods outside the United Kingdom. The UK has made several new or amended bilateral road transport agreements with countries outside the EU since the previous legislation in 2018. The 2018 regulations —specifically, the International Road Transport Permits (EU Exit) Regulations—also catered for a no-deal Brexit. This instrument revokes and replaces the 2018 regulations.
The background to this is that, at the beginning of February 2022, new requirements provided in the TCA between the UK and the EU came into force. These changes apply to the operators of goods vehicles and their drivers involved in the commercial transport of goods within the territory of the EU and within the UK. Direct journeys between the UK and EU, and vice versa, are outside these requirements. For example, a journey by a UK operator from London to Paris is exempt from these requirements, but a journey made by a UK operator between Paris and Nice is not exempt. Similarly, an EU operator travelling from Berlin to Newcastle is exempt, but an EU operator travelling between Newcastle and Manchester is not and a posting declaration would have to be made.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I am sure he will forgive me a bit of a weary sigh, because I remember all this from the first time round. As it gradually dawned on us that the assurances that a post-Brexit trade deal would be the easiest trade deal in history were completely wrong, we realised that we were facing a much more complex set of rules and restrictions for the logistics industry, especially those smaller businesses that wanted to continue to trade with the EU.
Other sectors that have particularly suffered in recent years have been not just those trading from the UK to an EU country but, as the Minister explained, those wanting to operate cabotage services. A badly affected sector is performers—musicians and artists of various sorts—who have found it impossible to take their goods, vehicles, scenery, costumes and so on from one country to another. All this has contributed to a decline in the numbers trading and a deterioration in the balance of trade, which specifically has hit small businesses very hard.
Optimistically, I had hoped that we were over the worst and that we would gradually rebuild our trade, as people got used to the new restrictions. Apparently, that is not so, because this instrument appears to be tightening up the rules. The Minister’s introduction, which was very complex and detailed—and extremely helpful—underlined that this is going to carry on being complicated.
Paragraph 6.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to
“the required outcome of the effective enforcement of posting requirements”,
so my first question to the Minister is: can he explain precisely how and to what extent the system was failing before? In a way, I am interested in the mood music behind this change. Have EU countries complained that UK operators are not doing it properly? Have we had international complaints, or are we complaining about EU operators coming here without the required permissions? What is the scenario that has led to these changes?
I realise that there are references in this SI to agreements that go well beyond the EU, but so much of our trade depends to this day on the EU, and even more did in the past. That was the easy way to do business. It was no more complex to go to the EU than it was to go from Yorkshire to Surrey, for example. Therefore, any step that makes things more complicated is a matter of concern.
To reiterate, my first question is: are the Government tightening up as a result of an international request that we do so? My second question concerns Schedule 3, which lists a series of fees. Are they being increased, compared with the previous situation? If so, by how much? All of this is very complicated, especially if you happen to be a small business, so my third question is: what are the Government doing to ensure the new arrangements are adequately publicised and that that publicity is available well in advance of the implementation?
Finally—I hope that the Minister will indulge me—trade is, of course, a two-way thing. As he will know, from 30 April we will be imposing new import checks on meat and plants, leading to the payment of a common user charge of up to £145 per consignment. Can the Minister explain why the Government have given only 27 days’ notice of the size and scale of these charges? How far is that being advertised? In what way are those new charges linked to this trading set-up that we are discussing, or are they not linked in any way at all? I realise that it is not part of the same piece of legislation, but is it part of a reciprocal deal and agreement? The final words the Minister uttered related to the TCA being part of the agreement. This is, of course, part of a whole package—a whole deal—so I am asking about the relationship between those payments and what we are discussing here.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his presentation of this SI. He added a certain overview, which is useful. I found myself in a difficult situation with this SI, both because it is complicated and because the normal excellent support I get from the staff in our office was overwhelmed by the fact that the member of staff was doing Rwanda, so I had to try to do it myself.
I set about by trying to understand the thing. I do not know whether it is my age, and that I am just slowing down, but I found it very complex. It was not helped by the fact that the format of the Explanatory Memorandum has been changed—much to my surprise, because I learned the old one and knew where to go. That took me a little while to recover from, but eventually I found that Morag Rethans was my contact. We made contact and she helped me, over quite a long phone conversation, to work through the various bits of the agreement. Yesterday morning, I understood all parts of the SI. I do not think I understood them all at the same time, and my understanding of them has certainly faded a bit in the past 24 hours. I always like the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, because she is so much more diligent than me and finds little corners in what has been happening.
In a sense, I was content to clarify my mind—the Minister may have to correct me on this—that this was a piece of domestic legislation which took the agreements that we have, particularly the TCA and agreements with other peripheral states, as a given. As far as I can see, there is nothing in this instrument that changes our formal relationship with the EU and those peripheral states. What it does is mend holes in our own regulations that make the interface with other states incomplete and messy. The solution is designed to ensure that UK domestic law fits with our international obligations. In particular, it gives an enforcement mechanism to ensure that its impact is uniform, both in the UK and reciprocally with visitors to the UK.
By the time I had made my limited progress in understanding, I could not actually see any particular flaws in the SI, per se. Thinking in macro terms, it would have been great if we had done it sooner, because the closer it had been to the completion of the TCA and so on, the more likely that it would have fitted together. However, that has passed—let us not worry about it.
The problem with this agreement is that we left the club, and the club did not like us leaving. The negotiations that took place with respect to this area—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and I go back at least five or six years on this issue—left the problems relating to road transport at a disadvantage compared with where we would like to be. Unfortunately, the only way of getting to where we would like to be would have been to maintain membership of the European Union. Since we on these Benches accept that we are no longer a member, it is our responsibility to conclude agreements that smooth the relationship as far as possible. As far as I can see, that is what this instrument does.
I object in many ways to the £5 million in relation to the assessment—saying that you do not need a proper impact assessment. The beauty of a full impact assessment is that the person doing it has to look at other solutions and, by looking at them, we are at least in part reassured that what is proposed is the best solution, having been exposed to other possibilities. I do not see anywhere where there could have been a better solution but it would have been better to have had a full impact assessment, with the team working on it considering all the solutions before coming to this one. With those few comments, I am content.
Moving outside the brief, in a sense, and joining the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, it seems to me that, compared with some of the fears we had way back before this was firmed up, a pretty practical situation has been developed—as I say, this is the UK end of it—and that the biggest damage is in what one might call the musicians and artists area. I would like an assurance from the Minister—this parallels the noble Baroness’s concern—on what, if anything, the Government are doing about that. Is this still a live issue? Can we have some assurance that it is being pursued because it seems to me that, for most tasks, the regulations that exist now are practical?
It seems that, in this area, however, it is a heavy burden. As I understand it, for larger operations, the problem is overcome by dual registration of specialist transporters and so on, but that area, which is so important to the UK economy, starts off with two or three blokes and their instruments in a Transit van. Previously, they could wander around the continent and so on. I know that that is what the Common Market is about and that we are not in it anymore; nevertheless, it is a considerable blow to emerging musicians and artists, so I hope that the Government might make some progress in that area.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations and their contributions. I will now attempt to respond to some—or all—of the specific points that were made.
These regulations are required to ensure that the UK continues to meet certain obligations of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which enables ongoing market access to the EU for the UK haulage industry. Failure to legislate to fully implement posting requirements would risk challenge from the EU around a potential breach of the TCA, the key treaty for our ongoing trading relationships with the EU. The regulations assist the UK’s competent authorities to deal with operators who have refused to co-operate with foreign authorities. The UK’s competent authorities are the traffic commissioners, for Great Britain, and the Transport Regulation Unit, for Northern Ireland. The regulations increase the tools available to them and their ability to prevent attempts to evade the rule of law.
In 2023, the UK laid regulations that provided competent authorities with powers to enforce posting requirements related to EU operators working in the UK. It is important that the UK is seen as fair and implements the reciprocal provisions for UK operators, who are subject to the same requirements in the EU. Additionally, domestic legislation must be updated to reflect the progress of partnerships with countries outside the EU—including several new and amended bilateral road transport agreements, to which I alluded earlier, that have been signed since 2018. Although UK operators working abroad outside the agreements take a chance of facing enforcement abroad, by matching UK law to these agreements, the regulations demonstrate the UK’s commitment to honouring them fully.
I turn to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about UK haulage access rights abroad. During the TCA negotiations, the UK proposed specific market access rights for specialist hauliers servicing tours for cultural events, arguing that the nature of their work was specialist and different from general haulage activities. UK negotiators attempted to differentiate cabotage arrangements from touring. They sought to permit the carriage of goods entering the EU from the UK being unloaded and reloaded at various points in the EU and returning to the UK unaltered. The EU did not accept this proposal, seeing these different arrangements as a way of getting additional cabotage rights which are unprecedented for non-EEA/EFTA countries. To support the cultural touring sector, the Department for Transport implemented the dual registration measure in the summer of 2022. This measure relates to HGV operators.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised engagement with stakeholders. Throughout the development and implementation of these measures associated with the posting of transport workers, we have been engaging with industry stakeholders to promote the changes and helping businesses to know what they need to do. An 8-week public call for evidence was held from 29 June 2021 to 24 August 2021 which received 113 responses which were published on GOV.UK; 64 of these responses were from representatives of organisations. Following this, we also held a closed consultation on the proposed legislative measures with six key stakeholders, including industry associations. Consultees were broadly supportive of the proposals, and the majority thought that the additional burden imposed on businesses would be low. The devolved Administrations have been consulted on the details and proposed effects of the regulations throughout the process, including a specific consultation from August to October 2023 about the postings and international permits provisions of these regulations.
On the impact assessment, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, the Department for Transport undertook a post-implementation review of the 2018 regulations. Permit numbers have not been oversubscribed. There have been no reports of impact by the industry.
On communications to the industry, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the changes made by these regulations will be communicated with the industry via trade associations, updates to GOV.UK and other relevant channels. Information is already available where there have been changes to permit requirements in international road transport agreements. Communications with trade associations were done when international road transport agreements were implemented.
Posting requirements already apply to road transport operators and drivers for journeys between two places in the EU. Guidance has already been published. The provisions of this instrument do not affect what road transport operators or drivers need to do to comply with the posting requirements. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on fees, they are not being increased.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, as a result of the trade and co-operation agreement, the UK is required to implement some changes related to road transport from 2022 onwards. This is because the related EU acquis was, when the TCA was negotiated, known to be being changed from 2022. Therefore, provisions were included in the TCA for changes to come into effect later. These later changes include changes to the road transport operator licensing regime, which the UK made in 2022. They also include changes in relation to the posting of transport workers affecting in-scope drivers of goods vehicles, which is the subject of these regulations. These changes were written into the 2020 TCA, albeit with later commencement dates.
To conclude, these regulations are an important step in the UK’s future relationship with the European Union and an important part of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement that we agreed when leaving the EU. Implementing these regulations will ensure that UK operators found to be breaking the rules included in the TCA—an important treaty for our ongoing trading relationship with the EU— can be dealt with appropriately. The regulations also update requirements related to road haulage permits, including in the light of new and better bilateral road transport agreements between the UK and certain non-EU states.
House of Lords
Social Housing: Right-to-buy Sales
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the provision of social housing of removing the right of local authorities to retain 100 per cent of receipts from right-to-buy sales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
As a temporary measure, councils were able to keep 100% of the right-to-buy receipts from sales in 2022-23 and 2023-24. As councils have five years to spend these receipts, we are continuing to track the impact of allowing authorities to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts. As previously announced, the cap on acquisitions funded through right-to-buy receipts is at 50% until 2025-26, to enable councils to do more acquisitions. The Government are working with councils to support their supply and delivery plans, and we are keeping the right-to-buy receipt flexibilities under revie w.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, with 3.8 million people on council housing waiting lists, some having waited nearly two decades, and with the economic case for social housing comprehensively demonstrated in the recent study by the National Housing Federation and Shelter, showing that building 90,000 social homes would add £51 billion to the economy, the need for delivery of more social homes gets more urgent by the day. Since the right-to-buy programme started in 1980, there has been a reduction in the number of social homes by 1.5 million. Some 40% of those homes are now let privately, and councils have no choice but to use them as expensive temporary accommodation for homeless families. That has pushed up the housing benefit since 1991 from £9 billion to £29.6 billion. Councils should be able to use the proceeds from right to buy to deliver like-for-like replacements, but with councils able to receive £100,000 of discount, that is difficult enough. Taking away the ability to retain 100% is another blow. Does the Minister not consider that this is an economically illiterate move, depriving people of the homes they need and driving the benefit bill ever upwards?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the right-to-buy receipt is only one very small portion of the entire receipts that are available to deliver affordable housing. Indeed, the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme is delivering thousands of affordable homes, including, since 2010, 696,000 new affordable homes, with over 172,600 homes available for social rent.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for my enthusiasm but I could not believe the bare-faced cheek of asking this Question. There would have been no receipts from the sale of council houses if the party opposite had had its way. It was a Conservative Government who brought in the right to buy, and it was a Conservative Government who enabled people such as the deputy leader of the Labour Party to buy their council homes.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I agree with my noble friend’s comments. We are genuinely committed to supporting home ownership, especially for first-time buyers, no matter how they get on the housing ladder.
Lord Bird (CB)
Surely the point is that a Labour Government created the right to buy, and all the work was done under a Labour Government, and then it was implemented by the Tories, but they cut it in half and did not allow the replacement of social housing, meaning that we have the present crisis that we have.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I am afraid that is not my understanding of what has happened historically, and I understand that some Members of this House may have been involved in setting up the original scheme.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I remind the House of my register of interests. Can we go back to the issue of the right to buy? In the last year, 10,896 homes were sold through right to buy in England and only 3,447 houses replaced them—a net loss of 7,449 in 2022-23. How would the Minister explain that to a family stuck in temporary accommodation which is gradually becoming permanent?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I do not recognise those figures. The figures I have in front of me are that, in 2022-23, local authorities reported 10,896 eligible sales, which was very similar to sales in 2021-22, and delivered 8,900 homes that same year. Overall, there was a net increase of 4,600 affordable homes in that year.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will be participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
Has not the now overreaching transfer of housing from public to private sector landlords led to an explosion in rents, costing billions in increased housing benefit? Why should housing authorities be forced to pay for problems created by this strategy, when there is talk of losing a proportion of the capital receipts they desperately need to help fund housing for the homeless—a problem created by the Government? It seems to me that the only beneficiaries are to be private landlords and the Government’s PSBR, while the losers are the poorest in society.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I return to the statistic that we have increased the number of affordable homes by 482,000 during the period since 2010. That means there are more houses for people to rent at an affordable rent. We also acknowledge that the rent agreements with regards to the increases, particularly for social housing over the last year, while inflation was running high, have had an impact on the housing associations, but we are working closely with them to make sure that they have the right to increase their rents at an acceptable level while the tenants themselves are not having to struggle with the high cost of living.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, as one of the Housing Ministers in the 1979 Parliament, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that I do not recall the right-to-buy legislation being in my briefing pack when I took office. Returning to the original Question, I agree that we need more affordable homes. Has my noble friend seen a report by the Home Builders Federation that 13,000 sites for affordable homes have been earmarked as a condition for market sales on the rest of the site but no housing associations or local authorities have come forward to claim them? Can my noble friend find a solution?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. We have been monitoring this for some time. All measures to increase the rate of housebuilding for the provision of affordable homes are being considered, including the preferential borrowing rate for councils, and housebuilding from the Public Works Loan Board, which has been extended to June 2025. Indeed, that 100% temporary measure for the right-to-buy receipts for the last couple of years was to increase the capital buffer to allow the speeding up of housebuilding and acquisition in the sector. The abolition of the housing revenue asset borrowing cap also helps, alongside the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme. We believe that local authorities and housing associations are being supported to maximise delivery at pace, and we strongly urge them to utilise the flexibility to build these new homes.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, whatever the data we are bandying around here, there is no doubt that right to buy and demolitions mean that we are losing social housing every year. As has already been said, large numbers of households are now forced to live in expensive and insecure homes in the private rented sector due to the lack of social homes. What plans do the Government have, recognising the point the noble Baroness is making, to further increase the supply of social housing to prevent right to buy eating into this crucial asset?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I return to the fact that the main programme we have is the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, of which a large amount has been allocated for social and affordable housing. When we look at the numbers, the right to buy, and local authorities’ delivery through that mechanism, represents 14% of the overall affordable housing delivery—the highest recorded number of local authority completions in a decade. It is making progress, and the reality is that the rest of that budget is being spent in other ways and being delivered as we speak.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that she is referring to affordable housing, whereas my noble friend is talking about social housing? They are absolutely not the same thing—and in many areas affordable housing is anything but affordable.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I remind the House of the statistic I gave in answer to an earlier question: of those homes, since 2010, 172,600 are for social rent.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, perhaps my noble friend the Minister has not quite grasped the root of the problem. We are dealing here with small and medium-sized housebuilders. When they generate social housing to accompany their private sector developments, that social housing frequently comes in penny packets, isolated to one house on the site and so on. There are 13,000 of these now waiting to be built, but the housing associations are not interested in them—they are simply not interesting to housing associations, as they are too difficult to manage. It is unblocking that logjam that I think my noble friend was asking my other noble friend on the Front Bench to address herself to.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
Indeed, this is where a local authority could step in to deliver more replacement homes. In the current economic climate, councils are able to continue to deliver 50% of their right-to-buy replacement homes as acquisitions each year until 2025, with a focus on the purchasing of new homes. That should help small, medium-sized and large housebuilders.
UK-African Investment Summit
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
To ask His Majesty’s Government why the UK-African Investment Summit scheduled for April has been postponed, and when they plan to hold it.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to maximising the success of the next UK-African Investment Summit. The successful 2020 summit laid foundations for new partnerships between the UK and African nations, based on trade, investment, shared values and mutual interest. The Government are committed to building on that, ensuring attendance from Governments and British and African businesses eager to harness the benefits of our trading relationships. New dates will be announced in due course.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I have heard the reasons why the summit was postponed. When this date was chosen, it was known that there were multiple elections this year, which was an excuse for why it was changed, and that there were other conferences around this time, particularly between Europe and Africa. Until recently, those plans were going ahead, and the Minister seems to imply that they still are. However, if the UK is indeed to engage fully with a continent of the future, which he indicates that he wishes to—obviously, the middle classes there are growing rapidly, and the EU, the US, Russia and China are fully engaged—then postponement, or, in effect, cancellation, does not really show the United Kingdom in the right light, does it?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are committed to this event, but it should not be seen as the only action we are taking. It is part of a continuous engagement with African businesses and with British businesses that want to trade more in Africa, and to build on the success of the recent past. She is right: by 2050, 2 billion people will live on that continent, half of them under 25. They will all want the kind of lifestyle that they see happening elsewhere, and we want to assist that through trade. The UK is the largest investor in African countries by investment stock. Direct investment flows from the UK to the continent were more than £2.4 billion in 2022, and we want to see the increases in bilateral trading continue in future years.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that an increasing number of African countries are showing an interest in association or involvement with the Commonwealth, including recently, I understand, the Kingdom of Morocco? Will he also bear in mind that, if we do not stay closely engaged, the Russians and the Chinese certainly will and are moving in all the time?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Using our contacts through the Commonwealth, we are seeing huge advantages for British companies and for greater prosperity in Africa. The UK has nine trade agreements with 18 countries in Africa, a combination of association agreements with north African markets and economic partnership agreements with sub-Saharan African countries. These include many Commonwealth countries, and we want to see that continue. The work of the Commonwealth investment organisation, which is supported by many noble Lords in this House, will continue to be a focus of trade in the future.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The last summit was a great success and the initiative is a very positive one; it is certainly something that we should focus on. However, the Minister ignored the question about the damage that this cancellation is doing. We raised hopes, we engaged, we appointed a former ambassador 12 months ago, and we invested in sites for the conference. Media reports in Africa suggest that the Government are turning much more to domestic issues rather than delivering on these important international strategic objectives. What is the cost of this cancellation, and what impact does he believe it will have on our relationships with Africa?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I have to say that has not been my experience when I have been travelling in Africa. Last week I was in Angola, where I saw a £440 million UKEF investment unlocking an extraordinary corridor of prosperity from the port of Lobito into the DRC and Zambia. It is that kind of investment that we want, and we can continue to do that with or without an African investment summit. Still, we want to have that summit and we will announce a date shortly.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, Africa currently represents 2.8% of global GDP but a material 19% of the world’s population. Only 2.1% of imports to Africa originate from the UK. In addition to the summit, what will the Government do to focus on promoting UK exports to the region in line with its expected GDP growth?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend. There is the world’s largest free-trade area initiative, the African Continental Free Trade Area, with 54 signatures. There is abundant potential for renewable energy and resources critical to the economies and energies of the future. For example, the DRC has almost 70% of global cobalt resources, and will benefit from the investment that we have made in the Lobito corridor. My noble friend is right that it has to be a focus for government support to get businesses to trade. I am delighted to see a 6% increase in trade from the UK to Africa of £46 billion. That has been reflected in recent years and will continue in future years. This is an absolute priority for the UK Government. There are huge advantages, not least through our Commonwealth connections, and we want to build on those.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I was in Ghana at the time as the trade envoy when this was announced, and I have to say to the Minister and His Majesty’s Government that there was huge disappointment and indeed a bit of anger that this happened and at such short notice, with no real reason being given. I still have not found a real reason why it was done. Other countries have elections coming this year, including Ghana. Will the Minister try to answer exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, was asking: why was it cancelled and who made the decision? Presumably it was Downing Street.
Lord Benyon (Con)
There has not been any suggestion that it is because elections are being held in any country. That was certainly not part of the communique at the time. This will be a major event involving up to 25 Heads of State and around 1,500 people, but it will not be the only show in town. There is continuous activity to increase the amount of trade from Britain and Africa and in reverse. We believe there is huge potential. We want to look to the future and make sure this event is a success and that the continuing activities we carry out will increase trade further between us.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
The Government are making a strong case, but the reality is that damage that has been done by the dramatic cuts in aid and the disengagement at short notice of this conference. All this indicates to Africa that Britain is not focused. We have seen in francophone Africa the influence of Wagner, now reinvented as Africa Corps, where Russia is offering support to autocratic regimes to defend them against democracy in exchange for mineral rights. What assurance are we getting that it is not doing that in the countries where we are trying to build partnerships?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is right to point to the malign actions of some state actors and their proxies. We, a country that bases itself on the rules-based order, believe that trade can be a massive bilateral advantage, and that it can lift people out of prosperity.
Lord Benyon (Con)
Sorry, into prosperity—I got that wrong. In co-ordination with our ODA programme, we are seeing the UK as a major influence in that continent, and we want to see that continue.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
The Minister mentioned earlier the high proportion of the population of African countries under the age of 25, and that is particularly true of poorer countries. In many of those countries there are high levels of unemployment among young people, which is extremely destabilising. The cancellation of this conference will hardly help in promoting economic growth through partnerships between the UK and sub-Saharan Africa. Could he at least tell us what the Government will do to try to support countries to reduce this very high level of population growth, which is potentially so damaging?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We have a range of tools in that respect, but it is mostly done through our ODA money. There is a lot of support particularly for women and girls. I refer the noble Baroness to the White Paper that was published towards the end of last year, which addresses precisely the point of trying to increase female empowerment and supporting women and girls; if you are doing the right thing for them, you are usually doing the right thing for everyone. The most important aspect of raising Africa out of poverty is to see more stability in the region. There are some horrendous conflicts going on, and we are active in trying to resolve them.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, some of your Lordships will remember the great tomato shortage of last year when our supermarket shelves were bereft of those crimson globes. What noble Lords may not know is that we were still imposing tariffs and quotas from our largest source of tomatoes, which is the Kingdom of Morocco—quotas and tariffs that we inherited from the EU that were designed to protect Spanish growers but that serve no function even from a protectionist point of view because Moroccan tomatoes are counterseasonal to our own. Will my noble friend the Minister give us some hope that we are going to end these ridiculous restrictions, not as a favour to our allies in Morocco, although they are old allies, but as a favour to ourselves that may incidentally benefit our good friends in the Kingdom of Morocco?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I was in Morocco last year and had my ear effectively bent on this issue. I thought we had resolved it, but then last night I heard from my colleague the Trade Minister that there are still some issues to be ironed out, which I confess has frustrated me. My noble friend is absolutely right that we need to resolve this. Morocco is a key partner with us, and it can provide good-quality food on our shelves that does not conflict with UK farmers.
Property Agents: Regulation
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce an independent property-agent regulator, to deliver a legally enforceable code of practice for property agents.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I draw the House’s attention to my relevant registered interests and to the fact that I am a leaseholder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
The Government are committed to raising professionalism among property agents. Property agents must already belong to a redress scheme. The Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill and Renters (Reform) Bill will help drive up overall standards. Legislating to set up a new regulator would, however, require significant additional legislative time that we do not have in this Parliament. We will meanwhile continue to work with industry on improving best practice, including on codes of practice.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Government received the report from the noble Lord, Lord Best, in the last Parliament, in July 2019. Can the Minister explain to the House what the Government have been doing for the past five years on this issue? There is widespread agreement on what needs to be done. From the outside, it looks like the Government are reluctant, unenthusiastic, disinclined and generally unwilling to address the issue.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I appreciate the time delay and am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the report from him and his working group, which included more than 50 recommendations cutting across different housing tenures. We are developing key primary legislation to address the fundamental power imbalance that exists in parts of the housing market. Through the Renters (Reform) Bill and the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, we are taking forward specific recommendations from the noble Lord’s report, and we will keep the question of further regulation for the sector under review.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, did the Minister see the excellent report from your Lordships’ Industry and Regulators Select Committee, which thoroughly endorsed the need for a regulator? It took evidence both from those representing the consumers—that is, tenants, leaseholders and people buying and selling properties—and from those who would be regulated, the agents themselves, who felt at least as passionately about the need for a regulator. If we cannot have a fully-fledged regulator because time does not allow, could we at least go half way and introduce some mandatory training and qualifications so that the people handling property agency work know what they are talking about and we weed out some of the rogues?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments and for his work, which I have acknowledged. I am grateful also to noble Lords on the committee for their recent work on this important topic. Ministers are considering its recommendations and will respond in due course. Training programmes are currently available, and. I suspect that this question will come up time and again. In respect of the legislation that we are currently talking about, I have no doubt that I will be having those conversations with the Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott, in the coming days and weeks.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, given the clear, widespread support for the introduction of an independent property agents regulator, first proposed by the indefatigable noble Lord, Lord Best, some five years ago, can the Minister explain why, having had five years to think this through, it is not now possible, as she seems to suggest, for the Government to include it by way of an amendment to the Renters (Reform) Bill? That way, they would provide what more or less everybody in this House and outside it are keen to see.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I understand the frustration. I believe that all of us in this House and in our wider communities would like to see more professional-quality work being done in this sector and that we all want to drive up service standards for buyers, sellers and renters—whoever they may be—interacting with the system. It is important that we get it right; measures are coming up in the leasehold and freehold Bill and certainly in the private renters Bill, both of which will be before this House over the next few weeks. Therefore, there are opportunities for us to put forward specific measures that we felt were a priority in the leaseholder space and the private rental space.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Property Ombudsman. The ombudsman has been producing codes of practice for several decades, and that skill was utilised by the RoPA steering group, particularly the steering group chaired by my noble friend Lady Hayter. A new code was produced which has been received very positively. It stands ready to be implemented, and I urge His Majesty’s Government to give serious consideration to how it could be achieved in the absence of a regulator.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
The Government welcome the work undertaken by the independent steering group chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, on the codes of practice for property agents. That is an important development towards making sure all consumers are treated fairly and all agents work to the same high standards. The Government have approved two codes for managing agents, which set out good practice and are to be taken into account in cases before courts or the tribunal. We will consider other codes as they are brought forward.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I declare a former interest in that I used to chair National Trading Standards. The Minister will be aware that the department already funds an estate agents and letting agents regulator through National Trading Standards. Would it not make sense to extend the remit of that regulatory function carried out by Trading Standards into this field? That could presumably be done fairly simply, fairly easily and possibly fairly cheaply.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
Estate agents are regulated under the Estate Agents Act 1979, which is currently enforced by the National Trading Standards estate and letting agency team—the abbreviation or acronym is too complicated for me to work out, so I have given the full title. It has powers to issue warnings and banning orders, and estate agents are required to belong to an approved redress scheme. These things can all be improved on. When we bring forward the home buyers and sellers reform strategy over the coming months, I hope to come back to the House and give details on further actions.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, the bad apples are giving legitimate, professional agents a very bad name, recently highlighted in my own city of Sheffield, where instances of adding charges that never existed to ground rents and refusing to answer correspondence and communication were taken up by the honourable Member for Sheffield South East, Clive Betts. We have just ascertained, including from the Minister, that we have unanimity across the House. Could we not just agree in the legislation coming forward very shortly to pass the necessary measures to put this right?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I can confirm that in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill we are introducing measures to empower leaseholders to take action in the event of unreasonable behaviour. The Bill will make it easier for leaseholders to scrutinise costs and challenge the services provided by both landlords and property managing agents and ultimately for them to take on the management of their building themselves or directly appoint or replace agents. Alongside existing protections and work undertaken by the industry, these measures will seek to make property managing agents more accountable to leaseholders who pay for their services. It is coming.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we have before the House a suggestion that we introduce a property regulator. It has waited five years. There is agreement across the House. Surely we should take the opportunity to amend the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill or the Renters (Reform) Bill to introduce this. Five years is long enough to wait, especially when we have complete agreement across the House that this is what we need to do.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I know that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott, has engaged with noble Lords on the leaseholder and freeholder Bill and will continue to do so as it progresses through this House next week. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has reached out to her to consider how to improve the Bill further. I have no doubt that further conversations will happen as we consider the Bill in detail in Committee.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend the Minister will be aware that there have been some industry initiatives—though they are not perfect—over the years such as Safeagent and the kitemark scheme. In considering the possibility of more regulation in this space, could my noble friend and her department ensure that they do not squeeze out those private initiatives and work in conjunction with them?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I can confirm to my noble friend that we are working hand in glove with industry and trade bodies that want good-quality services provided by their members. It is in their interests, in our interests and in consumers’ interests that we do so.
Sudan
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking, as penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council, to support an immediate ceasefire in Sudan to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional destabilisation.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the UK uses its position as penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council to increase the international spotlight on continued atrocities and to pressure the warring parties to end the fighting. On 8 March, we secured Resolution 2724 which calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities and unhindered humanitarian access. We work with Security Council members and at the UN to keep Sudan firmly on the council’s agenda, including at the UK-requested meeting tomorrow.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer and for his presence yesterday at a meeting with members of the Sudanese diaspora, where we heard some harrowing stories about what is going on there. Sudan has largely fallen off the media radar. Up to 11 million people are displaced, with famine looming—think of the consequences of that. Yesterday was the anniversary of this conflict. One clear message came out of that meeting: stop the war and stop the fighting, and all else will follow. I am not naive—I know that you cannot just click your fingers—but can the UK apply increasing pressure on our international partners, particularly in order to stop the arms feed to the UAE, Iran and the different partners? Secondly, can we restore the UK envoy to Sudan in order to maximise our diplomatic heft at this time of enormous crisis?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. You would have to have a heart of stone not to have been affected by the witness statements we heard yesterday at the APPG, and they built on many others I have heard. He is absolutely right: the conflict ending is the only way we can get help to the nearly 18 million people in desperate need of it.
The UK has a special envoy to the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa, which includes Sudan: Sarah Montgomery, who is very engaged and knowledgeable on this issue. We are obviously working with her, and we also have a representative for South Sudan, which is deeply affected. I shall be visiting South Sudan in the very near future to see the impact this is having on the surrounding countries. We want to do anything we can, and we will work with anyone to try to get the warring parties to cease their conflict.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to be moved by the statement he heard yesterday at the meeting organised by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and South Sudan. Does he agree with the assessment of the representative of the World Food Programme, who spoke at that meeting, that the situation is “catastrophic”? Eleven million people are displaced; 16 million are facing catastrophic levels of hunger; tens of thousands have been killed; and atrocity crimes are being committed in Darfur. As he says, this has become a forgotten, brutal war which is just marking its first anniversary, as the right reverend Prelate said. With aid workers killed and access to only 10% of the population, how can we accelerate relief work without an end to the fighting by these warring parties? What more can we do to end the flow of Iranian drones and armaments into this appalling conflict, in which the daily suffering, misery and deaths mount, and such terrible atrocities are occurring? How will we bring to justice those responsible for some of these crimes?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There are a lot of questions there, and all very pertinent. On the last one, we gave £600,000 last year to the Sudan Witness organisation. and I am sure we will give more in the future. We hope it is compiling a record of the atrocities and that we will be able to bring those people to justice.
The noble Lord may have seen the interview my colleague, Andrew Mitchell, gave in Chad, where he saw many of the displaced people. He was incredibly moved by what he saw, and nobody who sees this can have a different emotion. The most frustrating thing is our inability to act. We have doubled our bilateral aid to Sudan and we are supporting neighbouring countries. I was in Paris on Monday at the international meeting on Sudan, where €2 billion was promised to Sudan. But if we cannot get the aid in and we cannot stop the conflict—the Sudan Government have closed the border with Chad—it is incredibly frustrating. But I will work with the noble Lord, the all-party group and others, listening to any suggestions they have for alleviating this problem.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, quite possibly the two rival leaders will slug it out at the expense of the people until one is killed or goes into exile. Do the Government see any hint of compromise at all between the two rivals?
Lord Benyon (Con)
To be frank, no. The warring parties have clearly come to the view that there is no benefit to their aspirations in ceasing the conflict. Until one or both realise that this is the case, we will continue to put pressure on them and on those who continue to support them. We have just announced another raft of sanctions. At some point, those supplying them with the weapons, those carrying out the atrocities and those perpetrating this conflict have to realise that it has to stop.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, this truly horrendous civil war was superimposed on a number of existing local conflicts, doing untold damage. They were largely unseen and not taken on board. Further to the point made by the right reverend Prelate, the Minister will be aware that there is overwhelming evidence that the Rapid Support group is being funded first of all by the Libyan militia, under Field Marshal Haftar, by the UAE and by the Wagner Group. Among other things, thermobaric shells, which are absolutely lethal and do a great deal of collateral damage, are being supplied. What more can be done to put pressure on these third parties and state actors?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Some information on this was forthcoming in a Panel of Experts report in early March. We are deeply concerned by the report’s assertion that credible evidence exists of external provision and support, particularly arms, both to the south and to the RSF. Such actions clearly only prolong the conflict. We are engaging with international partners and others to make sure that we are holding those responsible to account, and that, where we can, we exert influence on them to cease stoking the fires of this conflict.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I worked intensively with civilians, many in exile in Addis and Nairobi, on the Taqaddam programme. A year and two weeks ago, I met with General Burhan and then, separately, with General Hemedti in Khartoum on behalf of civilians, in a futile attempt to avert the conflict and the absolute tragedy of the last year.
I welcome the Minister’s response, his sincerity, the UK’s continued support for civilians, and the most recent sanctions, including on the gold industry, which I called for in this Chamber on 28 June last year. I appeal to the Minister to send back to Downing Street the message that this is the world’s worst hunger crisis and the worst child displacement crisis. Slavery markets are now back in Omdurman. This is a horrific situation, and I appeal to our Prime Minister to get personally involved. When was the last time our Prime Minister spoke to another head of government or state about Sudan? This is an absolute emergency. The UK has a very deep relationship with Sudan, and our Prime Minister needs to be involved.
Lord Benyon (Con)
In fairness, I think he is. In answering the noble Lord’s question I can also answer another that was asked earlier. This is a catastrophe—there is no other word to describe it—and it is an absolute priority at the very top of the UK Government. We must move it from being what is too often referred to as the forgotten war to one that is deeply relevant. The wider implication in humanitarian terms for the most innocent people in the world is a catastrophe beyond all measure. I can assure the noble Lord that this is a priority for senior Ministers, whether in the Foreign Office or No. 10. I know they will try to exercise any leverage they can through many upcoming events, not least the G7. We will see what happens as a result. It is a priority.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, if Sudan collapses, it will be a disaster not only for the people of Sudan but for the region as a whole. The focus has to be on those supplying and supporting this conflict, which is a conflict against the people of Sudan. This is the reality. Emphasising the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about pushing this forward on the global agenda, I hope the Minister can reassure the House that we are having direct talks with neighbouring states in the region to ensure that the focus is back on the people of Sudan and not on supporting those who are fighting the people.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Lord. On Monday at the Paris conference, a great many people who have some skin in this game were there. We want to make sure we are talking to the people outlined in that report as possibly providing arms. They need to be held to account and to be part of the solution, because we want to see an end to the fighting as a precursor to a proper, well-organised international humanitarian aid programme that the United Kingdom will be at the heart of.
NHS: Long-term Sustainability
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
That this House takes note of the long-term sustainability of the NHS to be able to deliver comprehensive, timely and affordable health and social care for all, including options for systems of care and funding.
Lord Patel (CB)
I see noble Lords leaving. The debate will not be that bad. It has certainly emptied the House.
I am grateful to the noble Lords who are taking part in the debate. I look forward to their speeches, particularly the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath; I wish her well. Several noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Stevens of Birmingham and Lord Darzi, the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Watkins, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—would have joined us, but other commitments do not allow them to do so.
I declare my interests. I am a fellow of several medical royal colleges and faculties. Importantly, I worked for 39 years in the NHS in its glory days. My comments will be based on comparing the current state of our healthcare system with 26 other systems that I have looked at. They all have some problems but, compared with more developed systems of universal care in Europe and the Far East, ours is severely strained.
On 26 April 2018, 6 years ago, we debated this exact Motion. There were 50 speakers and the debate lasted nearly seven hours, interrupted by a Statement on artificial intelligence, which mentioned how AI will transform healthcare. Today’s debate may well mirror that debate in 2018. What has happened since then? We have daily media reports of the demise of the NHS as we know it, and lots of suggestions for how to improve things. Public satisfaction with the NHS is at its lowest point; waiting lists are at their highest level; waits at A&E are long and harming patents; and there are huge inequalities in health and poor outcomes—I could go on.
After several reorganisations and reforms, including a seismic one in 2012, the NHS has not found the equilibrium that it needs. But the NHS is still capable of delivering superb primary, community and hospital care. Thousands of hard-working, resourceful and committed front-line professionals are prepared to go the extra mile, despite feeling undervalued. They need to be better supported and valued before they too give up. It is access to care that has become a major problem.
The current state of NHS is not because of some inevitable built-in decay; it is a system failure. It is the result of decades of political short-termism, a lack of long-term planning and an underinvestment in capital infrastructure and technology. The system lacks capacity, with fewer beds and equipment such as CT, MRI and PET scanners, and with a huge workforce shortage compared with other countries. We now have a workforce plan stretching to 2035, with no longer-term funding. We need it to work. I congratulate the Minister for getting 50,000 nurses in place, as the Government hoped to.
A lack of planning means that disease is diagnosed at a later stage, leading to poor outcomes. Modelling suggests that, by 2040, one in five people will be living with a major illness, which is upwards of 9 million people. Nearly 3 million people of working age will not be in work due to ill health. Not investing in health means greater pressure on the budgets of other departments. Anxiety, depression and chronic pain will be the main causes of ill health, which has implications for primary and community care.
Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet to reduce the growth in people living with major illness in the short to medium term. Diseases that affect millions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke, some cancers and chronic lung disease, are all amenable to either prevention or early detection. The focus needs to change to prevention and health, not just healthcare. We need to move from: “I am ill; I need to get better” to “I don’t want to be unwell”. Countries that have recognised this are seeing the benefits of higher life expectancy, people living more years in good health and being more economically productive. The system needs to change to make primary and community care a central part of our care system.
The current funding of primary care is at 8.4% of the total NHS budget of £192 billion, which is the lowest in eight years, and it employs only 154,000 of the total 1.3 million workforce. This proportion will need a significant increase to at least 20% or more if we are to see improved access to primary care. The traditional system of a single portal of access to healthcare also needs to change. To enable patients to have greater choice of access, community care will need to be staffed by a multidisciplinary team of professionals, including general practitioners.
An explosion in data, generated by patients and the health system, will drive healthcare through screening services’ early detection of markers of disease, such as blood pressure monitoring and hypercholesterolemia, to mention but two. Population and risk-based genomic screening, liquid biopsies, individual health data monitoring and so on will lead to early risk identification and detection of disease. Healthcare will be digitally driven, technologically enabled, personalised and patient-centred. Patients will be involved in planning and managing their own health. The best health systems in the world have strong community care, with a focus on helping people stay well.
From birth to death, health, healthcare and long-term care in old age is a continuum. If any part of it is not functioning, it affects the rest. The lack of a properly funded and organised social care system is having a huge effect on the NHS. We have had 28 years of kicking the can down the road. After seven policy papers, six consultations and four independent reviews, we have a social care system that is means-tested, needs-assessed and underfunded.
There is a lack of a workforce plan for a service that needs 1.5 million staff, with 2 million people still needing care—one-third of whom get no support. With a rise of 20% in working-age adults needing social care, this needs urgent attention. Capacity is getting worse, and public satisfaction with social care is as low as 13%.
Various options have been considered, including free personal care, the Dilnot cap and universal care. The best performing comprehensive system of social care is provided in countries with a long-term care insurance, or which is tax funded, based on the principle of social solidarity. People above a certain salary range pay throughout their lives. Without a solution to the funding of social care, the NHS cannot survive.
I now turn to the key issue of funding the NHS. Funding of the NHS has always been a rollercoaster, despite its link to the performance of the NHS. The planned budget for 2024-25 is £192 billion, an increase in real terms of 0.6% from the 2023-24 settlement but a reduction from 2022-23. According to NHS England, it will provide a spending increase of 0.25%. Over the parliamentary term 2019-20 to 2024-25 the increase has been 3% per year, but from 2010 to 2019 it was 1.4% on average.
Following the famous “expensive breakfast” in 2000—when Prime Minister Tony Blair announced on breakfast television an uncosted commitment that he would bring NHS spending up to the EU average—and the Wanless report, there was a multiyear increase in funding leading to better NHS performance. Waiting lists came down dramatically and health inequalities began to improve.
If the EU average had been maintained in the years that followed, the budget would now be £40 billion higher per year. Lack of capital funding—an average of £2.5 billion per year from 2010 to 2019—has led to poor infrastructure and a lack of equipment; it has not increased. Rising costs have led to calls for funding reform. Social insurance, some element of self-pay and hypothecation have all been suggested. Each has its own problem. Analysis suggests that a single-payer system is most effective in costs and complexity. The public seem to prefer a tax-funded system. What is important is that there is properly costed long-term funding that tracks GDP growth. Also important to note is that while measures of prevention and healthy living may make people live longer in good health, they will not cut costs. If cutting costs is a priority, a different model of care will be needed—but people may not live longer.
In conclusion, a sustainable future for both NHS and social care is possible, and with it a healthier population that leads to increased life expectancy and decreased health inequalities. It needs a long-term funding commitment, including in capital funding, and strong primary and community care with a focus on prevention and health. It needs to be digitally driven, connected and tech enabled, and to have a clear plan with timelines for its introduction. An overcentralised, bureaucratic system will not address the fundamentals of effective healthcare. This may well be the last opportunity for the NHS as we know it and as we want. If not, the public may well seek an alternative that could lead only to a two-tier system of care.
My question, in this election year, is to the Minister and the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench: what plans does each party have to make the NHS sustainable in the long term? What support will the Liberal Democrat Front Bench give to make amends for the part it played in the reforms of the coalition years? I beg to move.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Genomics England and Oxford University Innovation and a board member of BioNTech. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who is an eternal champion of the NHS and a great expert in these matters. I am grateful to him for convening today’s important debate.
As time is short, I will focus on the role of genomic technologies in future-proofing the NHS. From Crick, Watson and Franklin discovering the double helix structure to the Human Genome Project, the UK has long been at the forefront of genomic discovery. With the 100,000 Genomes Project we did something quite different—we drove that discovery into the heart of the clinic for patient benefit. Today Genomics England hosts the largest clinical whole-genome dataset in the world. Recruitment of this cohort was complete in 2018 but analysis is still ongoing, increasing the diagnostic yield all the time. In rare diseases this is over 30% and rising, while in some individual conditions, such as cystic renal disease, it is over 60%.
Each of these diagnoses is a life changed. One 10 year-old girl was admitted to intensive care with a life-threatening condition. It turned out that she had been undiagnosed with a rare condition for over 7 years with more than 300 secondary care episodes, costing the NHS over £350,000 to date. It took whole-genome sequencing to uncover a genetic deficiency and provide her and her family with a diagnosis at last, ending her diagnostic odyssey. Moreover, a bone marrow transplant proved curative. From sequencing to treatment in her case cost £70,000, just 20% of her pre-diagnosis healthcare costs. This sounds like an edge case, but rare disease patients have an average of 67 appointments over 75 months before diagnosis. For many patients this diagnostic odyssey is much longer.
That is why Genomics England was founded—to use the power of genomics to do better. Our aim is to change the fundamentals of healthcare delivery. We want to create a virtuous cycle by making genomics routine in the NHS and supporting frontier genomic research and discovery, and to continually replenish one of the richest genomic datasets in the world. In doing this we will create a return for participants through better diagnostics and therapeutics; a return for the NHS by boosting productivity and efficiency through stratification, screening and early intervention; and a return for the UK by increasing R&D investment and clinical innovation.
Genomics England now enables the NHS to deliver the world’s first nationwide whole-genome sequencing service for more than 190 clinical conditions across rare diseases and cancers. The service has supported more than 90,000 patients since its launch at the end of 2020 and is scaling fast. We ask patients for a specific consent to use their data for research purposes. Over 95% agree, and their data is stored in the National Genomic Research Library to enable cutting-edge research. The findings of that are then driven back into the clinic to improve NHS care. This means that the Genomics England structure is inherently translational by design; the heart of our mission is to drive long-term, sustainable improvements in the care of our participants and in the NHS as a whole.
We see research and clinical results flowing all the time: research at Great Ormond Street for children with blood cancers found that whole-genome sequencing was proven to provide additional information for diagnosis in 81% of cases, it changed the management of condition in 24% in cases, and it reclassified diagnosis in 14% of cases. Meanwhile, baby Oliver in Cambridge was born with a 6-centimetre tumour on his leg. Under the microscope it looked like an infantile fibrosarcoma and the standard testing was inconclusive, but with whole-genome sequencing it was confirmed as a benign myofibroma. This meant that baby Oliver was spared chemotherapy and surgery and is now happy and healthy.
We know that over the next decade data, analytics and genomics will transform healthcare by enabling personalised medicine. This means more effective and tailored treatments, better diagnostics and predicting disease susceptibility so that we can intervene earlier— possibly even preventing disease altogether. Earlier intervention and more targeted treatment not only improve patient outcomes but reduce the huge healthcare costs of ineffective treatments and side-effects. Multimodal genomic data that we are building now have the potential to cut the costs of drug development and improve population health management.
That is why at Genomics England we have launched three programmes designed to push the envelope of genomic medicine further into the clinic. We are diversifying the ancestry of genomes to improve equitable outcomes for patients; validating long-read and multimodal cancer technologies to drive earlier and more accurate diagnostics for cancer patients; and our Generation Study, a newborn screening pilot, is designed to end the diagnostic odyssey where it starts and explore options for supporting genomic-enabled prevention. The potential of genomics is immense, but to fully harness its power we must continue to invest in research, infrastructure and education to realise its full potential and truly make the NHS sustainable.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for opening the debate, and very much welcome my noble friend Lady Ramsey on the occasion of her maiden speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, talked about the NHS being severely constrained, but we know that the NHS can work well. Fourteen years ago, the NHS was in rude health, with new hospitals, new services, and waiting times that had come down dramatically. In 2010, the British Social Attitudes survey reached the highest level of satisfaction ever at over 70%.
What have 14 years of coalition and Conservative Governments brought us? The latest survey, published three weeks ago, recorded the lowest levels of satisfaction since those surveys started in 1983, of 24%. Long waits have become the norm; access to GPs, dentistry and CAMHS services have become very difficult for many people; ambulance waits are outside safety targets, and social care is unreformed. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, we have very poor health outcomes as well. If the NHS is to be sustained, it has to respond to health and care needs very different from those that existed in 1948. There are complex long-term conditions among a growing older population—yet the NHS at the moment seems woefully unprepared or, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, it has not reached an equilibrium.
To turn this around, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that we first have to start upstream, with a bolder preventive focus to reduce health inequalities and improve life expectancy. As my noble friend Lord Filkin, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and others say in their recent report, Health is Wealth, our nation’s poor health damages lives, communities and our economy. Then major surgery is required of the NHS. Wes Streeting has outlined a decade-long programme of modernisation, with plans to digitise massive amounts of NHS paperwork and to make proper use of the NHS app to give patients real control. What the noble Baroness said about genomics really fits into that model.
However, three major changes need to accompany this. First, we need a step change from the current overcentralised and bureaucratic NHS. As Nigel Edwards of the Nuffield Trust has said, we have a culture of checking, assurance, performance management and other manifestations of a controlling and low-trust approach, alongside a system with a very large number of priorities. I do not know whether the Minister is aware how much NHS England’s approach is despised and hated within the health service at the moment. I would suggest that that comes from the approach that Ministers are now taking to NHS England. It comes right from the top.
This has to go with the workforce. We need a fundamental change in how we treat our people working in the NHS. Bullying, problems of recruitment, retention and morale—these are everywhere in our health service. I have been fascinated to read the outcome of a King’s Fund and RCN project entitled Follow Your Compassion, which looked at the experience of 22 newly qualified nurses and midwives. The work that they do is high stakes, with significant and often disproportionate responsibility placed on them almost immediately after qualifying. Life, death and human suffering are everyday encounters, and the work of caregiving is emotionally demanding. But the overwhelming experience of participants was reported as their feeling unprepared, anxious, silenced and exhausted. You can have as many workforce plans as you like but, unless we get to grips with how our people are treated in the health service, you will never really sort the workforce problems out.
Finally, we must invest in leadership and management of the NHS. I remind the House that I am president of the Institute of Health and Social Care Management. Unlike the military and many private organisations and companies, the NHS does almost nothing to select, nurture and develop the next generation of executive leaders. Training and development are often sporadic, which, combined with the lack of a systematic appraisal, makes development and deployment of key talent almost impossible. The Government’s insistence on carving yet more managers out of the system at the moment is having a very damaging impact on their ability to take forward the kind of change that needs to happen.
If we do not sort this out, if we do not change the culture, if we do not put more trust in the NHS locally and if we do not sort out social care, all the other changes that we need to make will come to very little. This Government have now had 14 years; they have had their opportunity—it is time for change.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who like myself is a former NHS manager and who clearly understands the difficulties and nuances of the future challenge of the NHS. I am also thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for this very timely debate.
The current performance of the NHS worries many and therefore needs to be improved urgently before it can be a stable platform for us to rise to the challenge of the significant technological and demographic changes that will take place if it is to become sustainable. The NHS’s current performance is distressing to say the least, despite the gallant efforts of many staff within the system. People in need of care and treatment are unable to see an appropriate medic or professional, with some waiting up to three years just to get on the NHS dentist list. People are waiting in the back of ambulances outside A&E for hours, while people waiting for a cancer diagnosis are not getting access to timely treatment, which can be life threatening, and people in great pain and agony are waiting far too long for planned operations. The Government have allowed this to happen and now try to placate the public with a list of office-generated statistics and playing catch-up. It is not good enough. People deserve far better than this.
Despite this picture of appalling failure by the Government, this debate makes us think very carefully about the future of our NHS. I am sure that the debate will be framed around two themes: one is how to make the NHS more productive, efficient, and innovative, while the other theme will be the wider context of the demographic, economic and social issues in which the NHS will have to work. The reality is both these themes will have to be addressed for a sustainable NHS.
Time today is limited, so I cannot go into depth about what is required across both themes, but I shall throw these issues in as a starter for 10. The 1948 orthodoxy on which the NHS stands has to be addressed, if we are going to see an NHS that can meet future need. For instance, why do we have a fixed view which is over 70 years old of what a hospital should be? Why are emergency and elective services always in the same building? Is it time to think more laterally about emergency hospitals and elective hubs? The model of primary care needs to be questioned. Why have we had the same model and front door system for over 70 years? This needs significant change, for those who need significant primary care needs due to comorbidities and those who occasionally dip in and out of primary care. Maybe a different type of service delivery is required, as the integrated electronic health record takes hold, with no longer just one model of GP and primary care access.
As technology, robotics, AI and data-driven services become central in predicting, planning and delivering healthcare, appropriate leadership skills at all levels of the NHS will need to be addressed to maximise the potential of these issues, as well as to minimise the risks. Is it time to end the leadership model based predominantly on managing efficient siloed organisations by moving to leaders who are experts in maximising health gain and facilitating community action to bring about complex change?
Societal issues, such as housing, education and the environment will have to be addressed, as the NHS does not work within a vacuum. A population that is ageing with comorbidities, and the balance between the working-age population and the non-working-age population—and, of course, climate change—needs to be addressed. Some key issues that we need to think about across government to support the NHS maximising health gain are supporting people to age with dignity and independence, tackling deep-rooted worklessness, and an absolute laser-sharp determination to narrow the health inequalities, as well as having a long-term and fully understood funding formula for both the NHS and social care.
All this will take long-term, focused action by government and society. I am not sure that the siloed structure of central government can deal with these challenges effectively at present. The approach must be a community health-based model, to maximise healthiness and improve health outcomes.
One simple way of supporting this would be for the Treasury to set up designated funds that can be used in communities and the NHS to invest for health. That would break down the problem of pretending we can move existing NHS budgets, which are mainly sunk, fixed costs, into prevention and reducing health inequalities.
Talking of funds, it is vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, that we sort out, once and for all, the social care crisis. The NHS can never be sustainable if, as a nation, we have not dealt with social care funding. After the general election, I think it is the duty of all politicians, from all parties, to sit down and work out a cross-party solution to this difficult problem that has been left for far too long. We need to take a different approach and think about some fundamental questions if we are to have a sustainable NHS.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his excellent speech introducing this debate. I am very much looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, bringing her great expertise to bear on this issue. I declare an interest, I suppose, as former chief executive of the NHS in England and Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health between 2000 and 2006, when I had the privilege to work with three noble Lords who are taking part in this debate: the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, as Secretary of State, and then successively the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Warner, in your Lordships’ House.
I want to make three points about the major reforms that are required, and a fourth point on implementation. I shall state them briefly at the beginning, in case I run out of time. The three reforms follow very much from what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, just said: that we are using a 20th-century model of service delivery for 21st-century issues, and that must change. The second point is that the Government need to create a cross-sector health and care strategy and plans, of which the NHS is part. Thirdly, this needs to be underpinned by changes to professional education—that is fundamental, but it has not yet been mentioned and I want to say something about it. Finally, implementation needs to be based around a shared vision that motivates and involves people, and efforts to build consensus and momentum.
I say in passing that I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood. It was fantastically important. I also know that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and others will be talking about the links between health and prosperity. A healthy workforce and a prosperous country are fundamental.
The first major reform is the need to change the model, with much more focus on primary and community care, support for carers and social care, and action by many people. It cannot be just the same model or a question of more GPs and nurses. Around the country now, we see community health workers doing outreach, the great programme of Growing Health Together in Surrey, and people creating the future. We need to build on those examples of what a new model of primary and community-based care will be.
I turn to the second major reform. I have spoken many times in the House about the African saying, “Health is made at home; hospitals are for repairs”. I have also been pressing the case for quality standards to include healthy homes. The NHS is dealing with many problems that it has not caused, and those need to be addressed at source. There needs to be a government cross-sector health strategy and plan, of which NHS and social care is a part. I suggest that that plan needs to focus on the aim of creating a healthy and health-creating society—and indeed a prosperous society while we are at it. The focus should be not just on dealing with the problems—by tackling such things as air pollution—but on creating the conditions for people to be healthy. Think of Sure Start, for example, which I know many noble Lords will be aware of. Such a plan would create the conditions for people to be healthy. That is why we should be looking at health as being about healthcare and the prevention of disease but also the promotion of the causes of health and creating the conditions.
The third major reform underpinning all this is a need to transform professional education. I am happy to be associated with a radical group of young professionals who are starting to drive this agenda, recognising that they will need different skills for the sort of model I am talking about, as well as retaining the basic science.
The final point is implementation. My experience as chief executive is that I was lucky to arrive at a point when two things had happened. First, the Government of the day brought people together to create a plan; they built energy and hope, and there is not much energy and hope around today. That hope and energy created good will that carried us forward two or three years. That good will lasted a really long time and allowed us to make radical changes, including bringing in the private sector and other things. It is very much harder today, obviously. As was already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, by the end of 2005 waiting lists were below 1 million, with a six-month maximum wait, and there was more improvement to come from then on. It is very much harder today. The NHS is in worse condition, although there is still good care being provided, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, emphasised. But the Government must do something—whether it is a new Government coming in or this Government continuing—to bring people together around this problem and create a solution that people will buy into.
We must also deal with the presenting problem. We cannot just deal with the long-term. A new Government coming in will have to look at the waiting lists and how to handle that, but they must then pivot to health. Twenty years ago, I believed that we must talk about the issues people were presenting with, such as waiting lists and A&E, and then pivot to a focus on health. We never quite pivoted to health. It is time now to change from talking about healthcare to talking about health, which embraces healthcare but also prevention and the creation of health.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for providing the opportunity to consider this challenging but vital issue. I look forward to the maiden speech of my colleague, my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath.
I shall focus my remarks on care needs, highlighting the crucial interdependence of care and the NHS. I will draw on my experience as a member of this House’s Select Committee on Adult Social Care, so ably and empathetically chaired by my noble friend Lady Andrews, whose report, A “Gloriously Ordinary Life”, was published at the end of 2022.
It is clear to me that, if we are to ensure the long-term ability of the NHS to deliver comprehensive healthcare for all, adult social care is crucial. Fundamental changes to social care funding and provision, in the form of a national long-term plan for adult social care, are a national imperative. We engage with the NHS at all points in our lives, but adult social care is often invisible and off the public agenda until we have a sudden need for it. Yet as our report noted, 10 million of us are affected by it at any one time, either because we receive care and support or because we provide paid or unpaid care. Because we are living longer and with more complex conditions, we are all increasingly likely to be one day included in that number.
Noble Lords will be aware that there is no national government budget for adult social care in England. Services are financed primarily through local authorities, bolstered by large numbers of people who fully or partly fund their own care. As the APPG on Adult Social Care highlights in its recent report Future of Care 5, this piecemeal approach means that social care is particularly vulnerable and will often be the first to lose out when—I say that advisedly—the NHS or local authorities have their budgets cut. The 29% cut in local government funding since 2010 has led to an estimated 12% drop in spending per person on adult social care services.
If we are looking at new models and systems of care and funding within the NHS, we have to change short-term emergency funding. Social care needs a long-term funding plan. As our Select Committee highlighted, improving adult social care should be seen not only as an investment in the NHS but in ourselves, as a resilient and caring society. As the quality and consistency of services has suffered, so has the pressure and demand on unpaid carers risen. Estimates suggest that there are more than 6 million unpaid carers in the UK, and the actual figure is likely to be much higher. Estimates of the value of unpaid care provided by family and friends vary between £100 billion and £132 billion a year. That is an extraordinary contribution to the health of this country and it really needs to be seen to be valued. However, as one carer who gave evidence to our report told us:
“Unpaid carers are often not even considered to be a part of the health sector and yet without them the sector would collapse”.
Despite their numbers, carers feel invisible and many are at financial, emotional and physical breaking point. Hearing the lived experiences of those who gave evidence to the Select Committee was sobering, at times even harrowing. Time and again, they told us of being unaware of what help was available, not knowing who to ask or how to access help, or of not being listened to and being put through tick-box exercises that bore no relation to their actual circumstances or needs. Time and again, these carers were falling between the gaps of a broken system, often over many years.
One parent carer told us that, while her daughter was under the age of 18, she had a central point of contact within the NHS, a paediatrician, who could project manage the different strands of specialism her daughter needed. Once she turned 18, all this fell off a cliff. The distinction made between a health need and a social care need means that unpaid carers, often family members, are on their own, battling to get information and help.
In the Select Committee report, we urged the Government to establish a commissioner for care and support who would be able to raise the profile of social care, act as a champion for older adults, disabled people and unpaid carers and accelerate a more accessible adult social care system. Sadly, this recommendation gained no traction with the Government, but, in light of the overwhelming body of evidence on the need to improve adult social care and advocate for those at the heart of adult social care of all ages, can the Minister give us any assurance that this will be revisited?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for finishing just before five minutes were up, but she has been the only one. The excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, finished two minutes before his allotted time. I gently remind all noble Lords to keep to their allotted time of five minutes. I know that the next speaker will keep to it because he is a perfect timekeeper.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I thank my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for bringing about this important debate. I declare my interests as a research fellow on public health at the Milken Institute School of Public Health and a research fellow on biodefence at King’s College London, and as chairman of Business for Health, a community interest company which advocates for greater involvement in health by businesses.
There have been so many powerful words about the importance of investing in our healthcare system. I saw at first hand the incredible power of our national health system during the pandemic. I love the system and what it does for our society. However, we cannot duck two particularly important problems when debating this key issue.
One is the unbelievably heavy cost to society of our healthcare system. The deputy chair of the NHS, Wol Kolade, whom many will know, put this very bluntly; when he joined the board it was £100 billion a year, and it is now edging towards £200 billion a year. He asks:
“Where the hell is it going to stop?”
That is a pertinent question for this debate. We cannot treat our way into good health. We have to look at the underlying health of the country and at how we prevent disease.
We also have to think about the return on investment of our healthcare system. If we want to sustain it and to have it in a secure financial position, we have to ask whether it is giving a return on investment. We have 2.8 million people who are long-term ill at the moment and half a million extra who have left active employment. The OBR predicts that there is no hope that they will return, and there may well be another half a million on the way out in the next year or so. If the economic and spiritual prosperity of the country is not being underpinned by our healthcare system, we have to wonder whether, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, we need a bit of a rethink.
That is why, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and other colleagues, I launched Health is Wealth: A Fast Start for a Covenant for Health. We prioritised five areas of prevention which I believe are achievable and affordable and will yield a massive economic benefit. First, we have to scale up and deliver on our ability to detect and address the risk factors of disease. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blackwood for her words on genomics. Secondly, we have to strive for a smoke-free Britain. We should all celebrate this week’s achievement on the smoke-free generation legislation, but there is so much more we can do in the next 10 years to reduce the 5 million people who already smoke. Thirdly, we need to build a much stronger focus on healthy eating, making it affordable for all and helping us reverse the upward trend in obesity. Fourthly, we must focus on the health of our children, ensuring that healthy habits are ingrained from an early age. I emphasise mental health here, in particular the role of the digital world in provoking a mental health challenge for our young people. Finally, we need to ensure that no area is left behind and look at helping those who live in areas with the worst health to live longer. That includes the underlying environment in which they live—the dirty air, the mouldy homes and online and toxic workplaces.
The moral argument for this prevention and upstream focus is very strong, but the economic argument is overwhelming. We cannot keep pouring increasing amounts of money into more hospitals, doctors, nurses and medicines in the hope that we can treat our way out of this problem. We have to address the determinants of health. Can the Minister say what more can be done in this space from a position of ambition for the NHS? We cannot keep scapegoating the NHS for the poor health of our country. We have to look upstream and focus on the determinants of health.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel on the thoughtful way in which he introduced this important debate. I declare my interests in the register, in particular as chairman of the King’s Fund and as chairman of King’s Health Partners.
My noble friend alluded to the report of your Lordships’ ad hoc Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS, published in April 2017, to which the Government responded in February 2018. The debate to which he referred extensively covered the questions raised in that report and the Government’s response, but, regrettably, very little has changed since. It must be recognised that we have had the global pandemic, an acute health emergency, and many other challenges, but the reality is that we have not been able to address in any meaningful measure either acute or mid-term challenges in the sustained delivery of health and care in our country, and nor have we even initiated a meaningful approach to its long-term sustainability.
We have heard in this important debate that performance, regrettably, is not where it should be in clinical outcomes. It is well recognised and sought after by all parties in all constituencies that we improve clinical outcomes. They are not as good as modern medicine would predict and could deliver. Operational delivery is poor and its trajectory in the NHS does not appear to be improving. On workforce, we have found it impossible to inspire and motivate healthcare professionals, be they clinicians, nurses or other healthcare professionals, to remain committed to the NHS and be inspired not only to serve but to innovate, undertake research and ensure that the application of that research and innovation is quickly brought to bear for the benefit of patients. More broadly, the research and innovation agenda, which our country has led for so many decades, appears to be falling behind. If that agenda is not at the centre, sustainable healthcare in our country will not be achieved.
That is not to say that there have not been many important and very well-meaning initiatives over decades to address acute problems and longer-term sustainability issues, but they have not delivered. As a result, we must ask how we are going to reach a position where we can develop a national consensus that brings together diverse political, public and professional constituencies with a common understanding and vision for the future—a consensus that is appropriately motivated and understands that what is proposed is deliverable and remains a deep-seated national commitment across the political divide?
Part of the problem may be that questions, with regard to the medium-term or long-term sustainability of health and care in our country, are projected and considered through the lens of a clinical, a delivery or an innovation problem, rather than looking more holistically at all those issues. Some of them were addressed in the previous NHS long-term plan, but they need to be considered more broadly in the context of our country’s economy and other policies, such as immigration, which need to be co-ordinated with a wider understanding of healthcare delivery needs, if we are to have a sustainable long-term plan.
I follow the fine example of my noble friend Lord Patel and ask the Minister, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the Liberal Benches, what approach are they going to take, for the national interest, to achieve consensus on the needs for delivering our country’s health and care? How will this consensus be delivered? In the debate on the noble Lords’ report in 2018, the idea of a royal commission was dismissed as something that was not politically acceptable and would not deliver in a short enough timeframe. Six years have passed since that debate; maybe something like a commission would have delivered the answer in that period. It is now essential that we develop a clear consensus and have the courage to adopt a long-term plan that addresses the holistic needs beyond the question of clinical care alone.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, thank you for the opportunity to give my maiden speech. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for the opportunity to speak in this important debate as well as noble Lords on all sides of the House, who have made me feel so warmly welcome. I thank Black Rod—who actually knows where Wall Heath is, without any explanation—her staff, the doorkeepers and many others who have been so supportive and informative, helping me on a daily basis to find my way around this beautiful building.
I am also grateful to my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for introducing me, and to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, who insisted that my ninth day in this House was the right time for me to give my maiden speech.
When I got the news that I was to be nominated for a peerage, my first words were unrepeatable for Hansard. My second were to regret that my father and mother are no longer alive to witness this amazing honour and privilege. They were Lancastrians, children of men who worked down the pit, from a long line of proud trade unionists and co-op members. My mother wished all her life that she had had the opportunity to gain educational qualifications, but she had to leave school at 14, and then worked to pay the doctors’ bills, because her own mother was dying of stomach cancer, just before the introduction of the NHS.
My life-long personal interest in the NHS was originally driven by the life experiences of my older sister Patricia, who died six years ago. Patricia was born in the 1950s, with what we now call learning or intellectual disabilities, but at the time she was labelled first as “mentally defective”, then “mentally handicapped”, and she was also physically disabled. She lived from childhood until the 1980s in a huge, forbidding mental hospital in the West Midlands, which I was scared to visit as a little girl and teenager. As the years went on and the NHS evolved, she moved into the community, into a house with others, and we could visit her without having to ask for permission, and become involved in her medical and personal care. I became her co-guardian after our father’s death.
I have inherited my mother’s life-long gratitude to all those who work for the NHS, not least those in the hospital opposite this place—St Thomas’—where two of my children were born and three have been patients, one with a life-threatening peanut allergy, another with severe childhood asthma. Over time, my personal commitment to the NHS broadened into the professional. I was appointed chair of Lambeth Primary Care Trust, just over the river, and relished the opportunity to work in partnership with GPs and others to try and make a real difference to local people’s lives by, for example, helping to reduce teenage pregnancy and smoking rates. I then joined the board and became vice-chair of UCLH, where my youngest child was born.
In 2016, I was honoured to be appointed the chair of Cambridge University Hospitals, otherwise known as Addenbrooke’s. There, I was privileged to work with some of the world’s most distinguished doctors and biomedical scientists, whose commitment to ground-breaking research was matched only by their determination to see the results implemented to the benefit of the public at large—truly, medical research “from bench to bedside”.
Whatever comes next for the NHS, it is clear that, when it is properly funded—as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, fought hard for in challenging economic circumstances—its people do wonderful work. This is particularly true when doctors, nurses and other health professionals, both in and out of hospitals, as well as those in public health, work truly collaboratively to help our growing and older population stay in good health for as long as possible.
In my experience, structural reorganisations designed—however well-meaningly—to try to achieve improvements are trumped every time by positive relationships between clinicians, managers, patients and the public, supported by the right level of funding in the right place, at the right time. This is just as true for the NHS’s engagement with other public services. We are all kept as healthy as possible, and taxpayers’ money is spent well, when the NHS, local government, housing associations and schools work in partnership to support adults and young people with chronic and challenging conditions.
The NHS’s continuous commitment to finding new methods of care, in partnership with others, improved my sister’s life immeasurably over the years. Free healthcare, available to all who need it, at the point of delivery, seemed to my mother like the best thing that a Government could offer its citizens, as she paid those bills long after her mother died. She was right, and said so repeatedly when, 40 years later, my father was being treated for lung cancer. The NHS care that he was able to get at home, from GPs and district nurses, was literally unaffordable for my poor grandmother.
I am grateful to have been able to contribute to this important debate, as well as to hear and learn from so many distinguished noble Lords. I look forward to many more excellent, informed and expert debates in this House—listening carefully to everybody—which this House is famous for.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour and pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Ramsey, and to be the first to congratulate her on her truly memorable maiden speech. I should not be surprised that she has made a remarkable speech, because she is a remarkable person who brings a wealth of experience and achievement in public service to your Lordships’ House. As a barrister working in local authorities, as chair and non-exec on many health agencies and as an upholder of standards in public life, she has already achieved a great deal. Indeed, the range and breadth of her experience is so great that she could have made her first contribution in a variety of debates. I am sure your Lordships will be glad that she chose this one. As we have heard, she brings willingness, commitment and enthusiasm to continuing her work in this latest phase of her public service. Her colleagues on these Benches, and throughout your Lordships’ House, will be grateful for her presence, and look forward to many more memorable contributions.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for this debate and for his indefatigable pursuit of improvements in health and social care. Like many noble colleagues, I could give examples of where great care is happening, and my own recent experience could not be improved. The use of technology to make appointments and to deliver care was fantastic, as was the skill and understanding of all the professionals with whom I came into contact. However, too often patients report very differently. As we know, 24% satisfaction with the NHS is nothing to be proud of.
I have lost count of the number of health debates in which I have taken part in my 27 years in your Lordships’ House, and in every one there has been agreement about what is needed to provide the comprehensive and timely care that we seek. We always agree on two things—first, that we need more preventive services, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others have reminded us. We treat people too late and allow their conditions to become chronic, so that major interventions are needed when small ones would have sufficed. We do not treat the broader picture: we do not look at the lifestyle issues and diets that cause the conditions or the poverty that is the reason why people eat the wrong food, which in turn causes diabetes, the need for new joints and the disabilities that mean people cannot work or have a tolerable, pain-free life. Still less do we think of surveying living conditions, such as putting in a handrail and getting rid of the rugs that cause falls, which in turn create huge amounts of work for the NHS and distress for an older individual.
The second area on which we have always agreed is that we need more integration. I shall have more to say to your Lordships’ House next month, when the report of my Integration of Primary and Community Care Committee is debated, but, for now, I agree with other noble Lords that the NHS allocates an excessive amount of funding to reactive hospital care at the expense of preventive primary and community care. This was not just the conclusion of my committee but the strong opinion expressed by all former Health Ministers and Secretaries of State who gave evidence to it. They were from different parties and Ministers in different circumstances, but they were all adamant on this point, as many noble Lords will be in today’s debate.
The mismatch in the levels of funding and importance that is so clear in the NHS is even more significant when it comes to social care. We are all victims of the historical accident that means that local authorities fund social care. Nobody knew that we would live so long and have so much need for support in 1948, but we have made only pathetic or failed attempts to rectify that situation. I know that the Minister would not call the better care fund either “pathetic” or “failed”, but it is, at best, a sticking plaster to cover the basic flaw in our funding system.
Unless we get better integration between health and social care, we will never deliver comprehensive care, and the divide will continue. To overcome that divide, we have to address the join between the NHS and local authorities and areas where professional silos and the arrogance that goes with such divides have not been eradicated. We never seem to have found the ability to translate local success into national guidelines. The “not invented here” syndrome stymies all attempts at change.
Do not get me started on the main providers of both health and social care. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for mentioning unpaid carers. It is not the NHS or local authorities but family carers who provide, willingly and with love, billions of pounds of care—estimates vary, but it is well over £150 billion, or the cost of a second NHS. Does it not make sound economics, as well as moral good sense, to support them better than we have ever succeeded in doing? They are the best-value service any nation could want. Yet what do we hear? We hear of carers being persecuted, even prosecuted, for invertedly going £1 over the earnings limit on the derisory amount of the carer’s allowance. We hear of carers being forced to abandon paid employment, building up future poverty for themselves and future liabilities for the state. We hear of carers being ignored, having their skills knowledge and experience dismissed and not being consulted, with their own health needs going unrecognised. Carers are, and will continue to be, the bedrock of health and care services, and I hope that the Minister will confirm the importance of recognising that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as an NHS consultant and chair of the Bevan Commission. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, on her very moving speech and on reminding us of the hardship of the pre-NHS days and why the NHS is so important to us. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in opening this important debate was characteristic of his great speeches.
I had the pleasure of being a member of the Times Health Commission, where we were given the task of suggesting reforms to improve the NHS. It was a very interesting experience, taking evidence from a wide range of people, including previous Ministers. At the end of our deliberations, we came up with a 10-point plan for health, which I will briefly outline now. For patients, it is clear that digital health accounts, such as patient passports accessed through the NHS app, are crucial for the future. Patients need to be able to co-ordinate their appointments, manage any medication and view their own records in full. We cannot expect people to take control of their own health if they do not have their test results, referral letters and vaccination and intervention records, or the ability to review, in their own time, the outcome from different consultations. Patients retain a small percentage of what they are told in a consultation, so it is very important that people can review things in their own time and with their families.
In Wales, we established Talk CPR to address the very important conversations around end of life and resuscitation procedures, which establish whether somebody wants ongoing treatment and intervention. We found that, by giving patients video books to take home, they were much more comfortable discussing issues than trying to have all that discussion in the context of a short consultation. In the Times Health Commission, we focused on the workforce—including the need to reform the GP contract and to write off student loans for people who continue to work in the NHS rather than leaving it—and the importance of no-blame compensation approach to errors, rather than the current blame culture that demoralises.
We addressed the need for mental health support and tackling obesity in particular. It is a precursor to so much disease, and the antecedents of illness can be decades before a patient presents. The importance of research and investing in it became more and more evident. Data collection is crucial for us to monitor and understand better the course of health in our own country, but also as a basis for inward investment from pharmaceutical and technological innovators. The NHS could be a major test bed, with integrated information and fast-track processes, to attract and retain researchers from around the world with inward investment, but unless we speed up the processes for investment we will never reach our goals.
One of our recommendations was to have a healthy lives committee to look at the impact of improved public health and a healthy life expectancy, addressing the antecedents of poor health. But whatever we do, bad things happen: people have accidents, severe illness hits out the blue and new infections emerge. Although palliative care is now in legislation as a core service, contracting is not the same as ensuring that patients have access, yet it is cost effective to involve palliative care services early. We need a national funding formula to support integrated care boards in establishing contracts with palliative care providers. Services must be rapidly responsive seven days a week; without that, the sad toll of inappropriate transfers to emergency departments out of hours will not decrease.
In recovery from a serious accident or devastating illness, early rehabilitation becomes crucial to improve outcomes and decrease costs. Next Monday, I am hosting a drop-in on rehabilitation with the full range of professionals involved. Rehabilitation is cost effective for the NHS, yet, like palliative care and hospice services, it is very patchy in provision. As such, we allow distress and ongoing, avoidable morbidity to accumulate and jeopardise long-term outcomes, in both the patient and the bereaved. Fair access to help in response to need is essential; we must never forget the patient.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, on a very moving and brilliant speech. I also thank my noble friend Lord Patel for bringing this timely debate to us today. As he mentioned, community will play a vital role in the future sustainability of the NHS. I will speak briefly on community nurses, who deliver, along with the help of care assistants and families, bespoke care to individuals in their homes and the community. It is not unusual for these professionals to live in the area where they carry out their work, leading to—I feel this is a key point—them having the added advantage of often being aware of the families’ circumstances, bringing the continuation of information, relationships and management. They foster an organic connection for patients and their families—care that is delivered to the community from birth to death.
We all know that primary prevention avoids the manifestation of disease, improving health through information and lifestyle behaviour, which includes dietary and nutrition interventions along with vaccinations, strategies to promote sexual reproductive health, family planning and mental health well-being. If this healthcare can be provided in the community in family hubs, schools, the workplace, medical centres and homes, it obviously frees up hospital beds and unnecessary GP appointments.
However, from what I have read, 4,000 district nurses are providing care for a population of around 55.8 million. That is one nurse per 14,000 people, whereas there is one GP per 1,600 people. The fall since 2010 equates to almost half of NHS community matrons and district nurses, and 29% of health visitors. Health equality is achieved when everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible. Community-based nurses are well positioned to play an important role in addressing the underlying causes of poor health.
We are all well aware that it is vital that we move from concentrating solely on treatment and management of disease to prevention and social needs. Embedded within the community, community professionals are well positioned to build trust. They see first-hand the limitations associated with those they are involved with, be it in housing, family, mobility, transportation or dietary issues, to mention just a few. They connect and engage with partners from across social, health and other services. That is the ideal, but without the professional numbers required to carry out this vital work and giving them time with their clients, along with time to report back to the multidisciplinary team, none of the above can be achieved.
It is an attractive career that provides flexible working and a diversity of roles as an autonomous and independent practitioner. With the use of modern technology, there should be more productive time with clients and less paperwork. But a survey done by The Queen’s Nursing Institute in 2022 found that, in practice, the application of digital technology is poor. The survey pointed out that poor user experience appeared to be around design and function rather than a lack of computer literacy or enthusiasm. It went on to highlight problems with unsuitable hardware and software, lack of integration and repetition of data entry, as well as a lack of compatibility between different computer systems. That is disappointing. Can the Minister tell us what has been done in this regard and what is being done to raise the level of community nurses and encourage nurses to go into this genre of nursing?
In conclusion, over the past few weeks we have had a record fallout of the workforce due to long-term illness. Community nursing enables patients to remain independent in their homes with bespoke care, which is obviously beneficial to their health, economically beneficial to the NHS and beneficial to the productivity of the country. I have rather rattled through this, but as with sustainability of the NHS, time is of the essence, and it is the same in this Chamber.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, on her excellent initial contribution to our debates. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Patel, my experience is that too many interests are still worshipping at a 75 year-old NHS shrine that only 25% of the population is satisfied with. The NHS is trapped in an over-centralised management and service delivery model that cannot improve efficiency fast enough to cope with the tighter funding it faces.
As others have said, too many services are delivered to what I would describe as overcrowded, expensive and overprotected acute hospitals. We have neglected investment in primary care, community health services, social care and public health. We should ignore pleas to pour more money into this dysfunctional 75 year-old and focus on fundamental reform, led by people capable of delivering change at pace. My sketch of a five to 10-year operational plan to do this has five main strands.
First, we need fundamental change of a failing top management at the Department of Health and Social Care and its replacement with a new health and care management board, chaired by the Health Secretary, a CEO with high-level management experience outside the NHS, supported by a chief people officer for all workforce issues, and a chief finance and efficiency officer. I will not go into more detail, but I think this would lead to the abolition of NHS England—which would get quite a few cheers in the NHS, I suspect— and some other health quangos, which would get a further lot of cheers.
Secondly, we should consider emulating Singapore, which has similar health outcomes to the UK while spending less than 5% of its GDP on health. This low figure is accomplished because it delivers so many services outside acute hospitals, using up-to-date technology. It is very difficult to get into an acute hospital in Singapore. To achieve this change, we need to restrict the proportion of NHS funding going to acute hospitals over a five to 10-year period and invest much more in community-based services. We would need a clinically led national team, perhaps using the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, to concentrate more specialist services in fewer sites, but with an enhanced capital investment programme for selected hospitals. Those hospitals with fewer services should become local community hospitals, and this should be the end of the district general hospital, a 1960s model. To make these changes stick, they should be underpinned by secondary legislation.
Thirdly, in consultation with the Royal College of Surgeons, all elective surgery should be undertaken in its own units, either provided by the NHS or contracted for with the private sector at NHS prices, which we managed to achieve in the noughties. Again, that would be a capped five-year budget which would not be used for other purposes.
Fourthly, we should be devolving responsibility for the management of all GP contracts, primary care, community health, social care and public health to new regional bodies, with elected mayors heading up as many bodies as possible, using devolution deals such as that done in Manchester. There should be a protected budget for this sector, growing faster than acute hospital budgets, with any real-terms cuts reported to the Public Accounts Committee.
Fifthly, a statutory proportion of the NHS budget should be devoted to public health, administered under the guidance of a new independent office of public health, set up on the lines of the Office for Budget Responsibility. It would be able to take the kind of difficult decisions on public health that the experience of recent years suggests elected politicians find very difficult. I would call this the “tough love approach”, and it is the direction of travel the NHS needs to consider taking. If the Front Benches want to find out more, they can go to the Social Market Foundation website and read my pamphlet on the NHS at 75.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Ramsey and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, not only for securing the debate but for his sweeping overview of the coming years. I have a much more modest aim. I would like to tackle just one issue: the 7.5 million people who are on the waiting list, suffering sometimes pain and very often distress. I will look at the reforms to the NHS in the years 2000-05 and how they were tackled. There are a number of former Ministers in the House, and they will be well aware that think tanks rarely look back with kindness and positivity at our efforts. I was therefore somewhat surprised and pleased that the King’s Fund report of 2022, Strategies to Reduce Waiting Times, was unusually positive. Indeed, it argues that some of the NHS reforms I was involved in, along with the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Warner, actually worked. That was a first, I think, for a think tank’s review of ministerial activity.
The report starts with the overall judgment that:
“The years following the NHS Plan in 2000 provide important lessons for tackling long waits … successfully”.
I suggest, therefore, that we might look at some of the levers that we used, because we have so many people waiting in pain and distress at the moment, as I said. The simple judgment of that report is important, because it means that we do not need to be fatalistic about the large number of people waiting in care. We faced the issue before, and as a nation we succeeded in solving it, so let us briefly mention the reform levers that the Government might want to consider or to enhance.
From 2002 we developed the policy of paying NHS trusts more money if they carried out more work. Put like that, it sounds very simple, but at the time it was portrayed as an extremely controversial, right-wing point of view. Ironically, that came from some of the people who naturally assumed that if they produced more at work, they would get paid more, but they felt somehow that it was wrong for NHS entities to work on that basis. They argued at the time that it would undermine the NHS. It did not. It acted as a clear incentive to do more work, and because more work got carried out, waiting lists, among other things, began to fall.
Secondly, we realised that there was no point in providing an incentive to a trust to obtain more resource by carrying out more work if at the year end the trust had to give back any surplus to the centre. That is why in 2004 we created foundation trusts, which could roll forward the resources they made and reinvest them. Again, arguing for this caused many to attack the Government at the time for being too right-wing.
Thirdly, from 2002 we started to offer patient choice to those who had been waiting for more than six months. I was told at the time, as was my predecessor Alan Milburn, that this was no use because patients did not have the knowledge, the ability or the capacity to exercise that choice. Funnily enough, of course, that too was proved wrong because, rather than wait longer, most patients chose to go somewhere other than their local hospital, despite the disadvantages of travel, because they valued the shorter time before treatment.
Fourthly, the money followed that patient choice, putting patients, not providers of healthcare, in the driving seat and rewarding those carers who best met patients’ needs and satisfactions.
Fifthly, we not only used the private sector to provide services for NHS patients but created, through the independent sector treatment centres, a new form of private sector that increased productivity by each concentrating on one form of treatment.
Taken together, those were the reforms that effectively reduced massively the waiting lists. Of course, there were extra resources. The only criticism I would make of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is that he referred to Tony Blair’s promise of a 6% increase per annum as uncosted. It was not uncosted. We costed it—we just had not told the Chancellor. That was the controversy. As I said, with each reform there was great political controversy.
My final point is that thereafter there is a mystery, because you would assume that after the Labour Government left office, the Conservative Governments that came in consecutively would not only adopt those practices but turbocharge them. In fact they dropped them and the practices disappeared, apparently disintegrating, until last year. I pay credit to the Minister who is replying today, because he was one of those who pushed for their readoption. The lessons of those five things are very important for any future Government, and I hope they will be taken on board by a future Labour Government.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, this morning I was reminiscing about the number of NHS debates I have taken part in since I came here 20 years ago. It is at least one a year—I gave up counting when I got to 20—and the tenor of those debates has got more and more depressing. We have had words of wisdom that I have heard several times before—I mention in particular the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who always gives a characteristic, brilliant overview of what needs to be done. I disagree with him and the noble Lord, Lord Reid, about the Blair years’ injection of money and reforms. They certainly improved things for a short while but they were never continued, neither during the Blair years themselves nor afterwards. One of the problems with central government control, which we have had, is that you have no history. Nobody remembers. The next Department of Health enthusiasms come along, and no history is remembered by one set of Ministers after another.
I find it utterly heartbreaking to witness what has happened over the last 20 to 30 years, having been first employed in the NHS when I was 17 as a healthcare assistant, having been through the whole gamut of levels of interest and having worked alongside the NHS. No amount of money thrown at the NHS will do anything to improve productivity, generate a workforce proud to belong to the NHS, or produce a quality of care to rival the best in the world that we aspire to, nor change the chronic defensive culture, which is disastrous. We have the skills and the talented people, and we waste them by profoundly inefficient human and capital infrastructure.
The NHS is dying. Dentistry has died in the NHS, more or less, and the NHS is also dying, bit by bit. I was shocked when I was admitted as an emergency last year to a district general hospital in East Anglia. The quality of care and the ongoing support provided were appalling, and that is not a badly rated hospital. I understand that now up to a quarter of young people in London aged 19 to 24 cannot bear to be treated as they are by trying to get a GP appointment, so they go online and pay £39 for an online GP appointment. They are seen on video instantly and they get a prescription the same day. That will happen more and more unless we do something.
Of course, the last 13 years of organisational muddle, with no one able to make any serious decisions and endless time-wasting, has made things a lot worse. We still have this centralised system, which has not changed since 1948 and which gets worse from time to time.
In March there was a Question—I think the noble Lord, Lord Markham, answered it—about the decision to concentrate children’s cancer services at the Evelina rather than the Royal Marsden. I have no axe to grind—I do not know either of those institutions—but my overwhelming sense was that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, should not have called that in for another decision or looked at it again. He should have said, “Let the NHS managers who have made this decision get on with it”. The sooner we get our hospital providers out from under central control, the better. The model where we have everybody in the provider system and everybody in the funding system controlled by central government works only in very small countries. Luxembourg and Iceland both have our system, and it works quite well. After many years of having a more sensible system, the Canadians adopted our system and their health service has gone steadily downhill, with increased waiting lists and people not getting the central funding from federal government that they need. It does not work. When will we accept that we need to develop a model where the providers and purchasers are separate?
I have run out of time so I will just end with my hope that the next Government, whatever colour they are, will get to grips with the need for profound reform, and of course include social care as well in the necessary reform.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for the debate and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, on her outstanding and moving maiden speech. As we have already heard today, public satisfaction with the NHS has fallen to an all-time low but, despite this, there is still strong support for its three founding principles: free at the point of delivery, primarily funded through taxation and available to everyone.
Last year, the King’s Fund published a report on the performance of the NHS compared with the health systems of 17 other OECD countries. Essentially, it was a scorecard which showed that, on the plus side, the NHS performs well in protecting people from some of the “catastrophic costs” of falling ill, and a relatively low share of the UK’s health budget is spent on administration—some might be surprised at that. On the minus side, the report concluded that the NHS has fewer key resources than its peers, below-average health spending per person, fewer doctors and nurses, less equipment such as CT and MRI scanners, and fewer hospital beds. In addition, the report said the NHS performs noticeably less well on outcomes such as survivable cancers, treatable mortality and life expectancy.
Various independent commentators have concluded that changing the funding model is not the primary answer. Nor, of course, is it either desirable or feasible to always just pour more money in. The important thing, as the Health Foundation has argued, and I concur, is to get the current NHS model to work better—that is, to reform the way it works. The key, surely, is to increase capacity in the right places. That is so simple to say but so hard to do. It is indisputable that funding growth is skewed towards the acute sector. Despite the majority of daily NHS activity happening in general practice and the community, a large proportion of expenditure on health and social care goes towards acute hospital trusts.
In my view, the answer to overcrowded hospitals is not simply more hospitals. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others have said, the health and care system must be radically refocused to put primary and community care at its core if it is to be effective and sustainable and so that people can get access to their GP, a pharmacist and a district or mental health nurse.
That was one of the key findings of the Select Committee on Integration of Primary and Community Care, on which I had the privilege to sit, which was so expertly chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. The committee found a lack of co-ordination between the everyday primary and community services relied on by people using the NHS, which was leading to substandard care, missed opportunities for home or community-based treatments and overstretched hospitals being put under even further strain.
I turn now to productivity. Respected health commentators have been looking at what is called the productivity conundrum. A recent Institute for Government report found that, despite increased spending, much of which has gone on increasing staff numbers, there has been no resultant rise in productivity, if measured against metrics such as the number of patients treated. We really need to understand why this is. The report drew particular attention to the fact that most hospitals are running at above full capacity. They do not have enough beds and it is estimated that each day around 13,000 beds are occupied by people who do not need to be there but cannot be discharged because of lack of community and social care. We all know that, after years of neglect and underfunding, our social care system is in crisis.
Secondly, despite notable increases in the headline number of staff, the NHS is losing too many experienced employees and they are being replaced with junior staff who are naturally less experienced and need more support. Staff burnout, low morale and pay concerns are cited as the principal reasons for this. A recent IFS report also concluded that, while
“It is difficult to measure productivity … the NHS is less productive now than pre-pandemic”,
particularly in hospitals. The report was at pains to say that was not about staff not working hard but pointed the finger at Victorian estates, too few diagnostic machines and outdated IT systems causing communications problems within and between hospitals.
I believe that there should be far greater focus on retention and making the NHS an attractive place to work. That should be central to the NHS workforce plan, and we need a plan for social care, too. If not, we shall never clear the backlog or reduce waiting lists. We also know that valuable NHS equipment and operating theatres too often stand idle in the evenings and at weekends. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have to address this and whether they might include bringing in independent clinical teams from outside the NHS—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Reid.
Finally, are we going to see a productivity plan to set out how the productivity increases announced in the spring Budget, alongside the £3.4 billion additional capital investment will be achieved? In my view, Parliament needs to be scrutinising these plans.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this debate. It is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, on her excellent maiden speech. I welcome this debate’s focus on health and social care and in this regard I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for her speech. Too often, social care is considered in public debates primarily in the context of ensuring that the NHS is not overwhelmed.
This debate’s title is rightly ambitious about social care reform. But given the current state, social care simply needs to be there when people need it, in a comprehensive, timely and affordable way. This was highlighted by the case in Newcastle of Dr Jo Wilson, who had been diagnosed with dementia in 2020. Following her death in January 2023, her husband Bill, who had provided round-the-clock care as a result of inadequate and inconsistent care support, described the care system as “broken”. Many cases, such as those raised by campaigns such as John’s Campaign, founded 10 years ago, are also linked to poor dementia care, particularly access for loved ones to those under care.
The Archbishops’ Commission on Reimagining Care developed a vision for social care, drawing on Christian theology and values. The commission heard the need for a fundamental shift in how social care is thought about, organised and delivered. It proposed a national care covenant, a process initiated by government in dialogue with stakeholders to clarify the responsibilities of everyone: individuals, families and communities, alongside local and national government. What assessment does the Minister make of a covenant as a means of rebalancing social care roles and responsibilities?
Areas prioritised by the Government in recent years are worthy of attention. We need more digitisation of systems and databases. We certainly need more care workers, and an attitude shift around that work’s importance, reflected in pay and conditions, as other noble Lords have mentioned. Indeed, the greatest challenge the sector faces in delivering high-quality care and support nationally is workforce recruitment and retention. The north-east is no exception: in 2022-23, the vacancy rate was 8.7%, with 6,400 vacant posts.
I commend the newly published report by the think-tank Theos, which considers the intersection between love, work and care and offers a different and profoundly helpful lens for valuing care more highly. It says:
“Love is a skill, and … is what makes care possible”.
The lack of a shared sense of why social care matters may contribute to attempts at reform being abandoned. With the health and social care levy scrapped and the cap on costs delayed, there lacks a long-term strategy around funding social care. I worry that neither this debate nor the fundamental debate about the value and purpose of social care are taking place. It can feel as though there is a collective burying of heads and a desire to avoid the next NHS crisis rather than recognising that the success of our health and care systems are fundamentally bound up with one another. Where is the vision? Social care demands our focus, not as an end in itself but as the very means by which we begin to experience life in all its fullness.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his very wise words when introducing this debate; I would expect nothing less. What a pleasure it was to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey; I am sure we will hear more from her.
The excellent Library report for this debate suggests that there may be little benefit in seeking new ways of funding and new systems of delivering the NHS. I was reminded of the economist Maynard Keynes, who said that any proposed change should not only produce improvement but be sufficiently better to make up for the evils of transition. We have seen plenty of evils of transition over the years. I will focus on one set of problems among the many which need attention.
The difficulties faced by patients coming to hospitals have been well rehearsed: crowded emergency departments, queues of ambulances waiting outside, long waiting lists for patients needing to be admitted, cancelled operations—the list is endless. I am acutely aware of them as someone who has spent most of his working life in hospitals. However, if there are to be any solutions, they must be found outside hospitals and in the community, where social, community and primary care are hardly coping under their loads.
This is where the problems for hospitals, and for everywhere else, arise. Age UK noted that 700,000 elderly patients were attending emergency departments because they could not get an appointment to see their GP. Over 15% of acute hospital beds are occupied by patients waiting, sometimes weeks, to get out of hospital. Some patients wait so long for care in the community that they are much more ill by the time they reach hospital. It is therefore little wonder that hospitals are overwhelmed. So, I make no excuse for focusing on the problems in the community, as other noble Lords have. They have been accumulating for many years. Local authorities’ funding has been squeezed to the point where they clearly are not coping. Because almost two-thirds of their budget is spent on social and community care, these are being cut to the bone.
We now have far too many vacancies for health visitors and district nursing posts. Meals on wheels has disappeared and support services are squeezed out completely. Yet demand for social care is increasing. There were almost 2 million requests to social care departments in 2023, and waiting lists are growing. Some wait many months for assessments and when they get to the front of the queue, they have to go through a tortuous and bureaucratic process that few can understand. As others have said, it is a two-stage system: an assessment of whether they really need support, and of whether they can afford to pay. Few can understand it, and few can pass.
Then, there is the problem faced by the very large number of people cared for at home by relatives and friends. Many such carers give up paid employment to look after their relatives. If they apply for help and if they can get through the mountain of bureaucracy, they may be able to receive £76.75 per week—ludicrously low recompense when it is recognised that this huge number of independent carers, several million of them, are saving the Exchequer vast amounts of money. Surely, we can do better than that.
Finally, I will shine a light on what is a disgrace in social care: the way we treat our social care staff. We treat all NHS staff badly, but care staff are at the bottom of the pile. Not only are they the poorest paid employees, who can earn much more in jobs outside caring; they are also treated badly for the vital role they play. They do not have a nationally recognised training programme or an approved and registered qualification. The lack of a professional qualification or the prospect of career progression causes many to leave caring within the first 12 months. Some 10% of jobs are vacant—approximately165,000 vacancies are currently advertised—and high sickness and absentee rates are far too common. The picture I have described has been creeping up for years.
Will the Minister look again at how to make the careers of care home workers sufficiently attractive, so that we can retain as well as recruit them? Will he press for them to have professional qualifications after recognised training programmes, along with the prospect of career progression? Will he reduce the distressful level of bureaucracy faced by applicants for social care? If there is any more money—and quite large amounts were being bandied about last year that have not become visible on the ground—it should be focused where it would have most impact: on community and social care.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and, like everyone else, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for introducing it so brilliantly. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, on a really good maiden speech.
This is an interesting week, in that we have decided to ban kids smoking. What we have not banned, and are in fact encouraging, is kids eating an appalling diet. We are flooded with unhealthy food, which is incredibly heavily advertised in all media. You only have to look at sport, and this year’s Olympics. The healthiest thing, everywhere, will be McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, yet we are worrying about our NHS. We must start having conversations with the food industry because if we do not, the NHS, which we all treasure and love, will creak under the strain.
I have lots of alarming statistics. I am not sure which ones to choose in the next four minutes, but here is one. Before the year 2000, there were no known cases of children in the UK with type 2 diabetes. There are now almost 10,000. All those children will be on the NHS books for the rest of their lives. They are also going to be ill. Let us look at it purely economically, rather than compassionately at what kind of life they will lead. They will not be working, not paying tax, not being good parents, not contributing to society. We can change this. I have been doing food politics for nearly two decades, and it amazes me that we have very little involvement with the NHS. We have very little involvement with doctors when talking about what people can do.
Do you know the main reason why most children under 10 go into hospital and have a general anaesthetic? It is to have all their teeth out because of the food they eat. We are also the lowest ranked country in the world for breastfeeding. My daughter, who has twins, managed to feed them for over a year. She had no help or support. I was astonished by the advertising she received from companies calling themselves “hungry baby” and stuff like that, absolutely trying to get under a mother’s skin and say, “Get off breastfeeding and get them on to formula foods”—foods which have higher sugar levels and set your sweet spot higher for the rest of your life. It is outrageous. There is almost no regulation. As for support with breastfeeding, for this young woman with twins, there was nothing. We paid for consultations to help her get through it and achieve that.
Is it any surprise that our kids are therefore growing up to be the most obese in Europe? As a country we are now the third most obese. No medical professional doubts what obesity does to our society, but they fail to connect it back to the food companies. Sticking with the baby food companies, all these little pouches they sell not only cost a lot of money but are extremely addictive to the kids because they are nice, they are handy and they convince mothers that they are doing the best for them, when in fact they are the root cause of them eating too much sugar.
The staggering profits made by the food companies every day are being paid for by the NHS. We are paying for it with our money and in the lack of care that nurses and doctors can give people. I am not saying that these people are not genuinely ill; they are, but from a preventable cause. The Government have had the balls to stand up to the tobacco companies this week. I know that this issue is more complicated than that—I can see the Minister looking at me—and of course we have to eat. However, there is a big difference between what we eat and how we eat it. We are just machines, like everything else. We need to put good stuff into the machine.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, I had an extraordinary experience with the NHS. I managed to scald my foot and had a blister the size of a tennis ball. I ended up getting sepsis and was in the burns unit in Bristol. It was impeccable. However, in the lobby there was Costa Coffee and the Friends Shop. In the Friends Shop there was not one piece of fruit. It was cakes and biscuits all the way.
I got transferred to the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital for outpatient care. Again, the treatment was impeccable. Down in the lobby was bloody Costa Coffee—doughnuts and a long queue—and, in the Friends Shop, there was not even a grape. We have to start looking at this. As I say, no one would buy a Rolls-Royce, put Coca-Cola in the engine, and expect to go 100 miles down the motorway. We are not dissimilar, but we are even better than a Rolls-Royce. We deserve to put better stuff in. It is time the whole NHS and the country got this one straight.
Lord Carter of Coles (Lab)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. She certainly has a different view on things. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Wall Heath; she gave a tremendous maiden speech and brings great experience to this House, for which I am sure we will be very grateful. I was particularly struck by her comment on reorganisation, which I will return to later. We have had too much of that and a little less performance. I draw attention to my interests in the register. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made a tremendous, and very knowing, opening speech. It was very clever how he went across the whole spectrum of things. I am perhaps a little less Olympian and will focus on one or two more narrow things.
Modern, high-performing healthcare systems are characterised by high quality, high productivity, and critical, consistent and predictable funding. That then leads to high patient satisfaction. This is being achieved in other parts of the world. For patients, it means access, rapid diagnostics, timely care and rapid discharge, preferably to home. How is that delivered? It is by providing the patient with a seamless journey along the continuum of care. Nowadays, that can be AI-enabled, but that needs an IT system that sits behind it to provide the single view of the patient. It is siloed, and it is very hard to deliver integrated care—I am sure that my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley knows this—unless you have a data system that gives you that access.
In other countries where such a system has been deployed, we have seen diversion away from hospitals—something many noble Lords have commented on. Between 20% and 40% of people simply do not need to go in; they need to be treated in other places. One encouraging thing—the National Health Service gets things right sometimes—is that the integrated care boards stand a chance of delivering this, but we have to focus and get on with it. It will take five years, but it needs to be done.
In the meantime, we must operate what we have a lot better. There are a number of things that are key to that: getting the primary care contract fixed; getting healthcare professionals facing up to patients much more on a substitution basis; and streamlining the primary care back offices. These are simple things—they are managerial, but critical.
Acute hospital productivity must rise, which the noble Lord talked about. Why did it take us so long—perhaps the Minister can say—to go back to payment by results? In a system that is desperate for activity, we went to block contracts, which is as close to lunacy as you can get. Can we go back to payment by results, and can we broaden it to encourage more providers, so that we get diversity of provision and also location? We need to move closer to the patient, and the only way to do so is to create certainty of payment through the tariff system. Those are the straightforward things that we can do.
I suggest doing two things. I have already talked about payment by results but, secondly, we must simply face up to the issue of delayed discharge. As happens in many other countries, we need the National Health Service to pay for the first 60 days post discharge. That would cut it all out and get people out of the hospitals. It is a very straightforward solution. It must be paid for at some point—but better that it is paid for and the arguments are moved out to somewhere else while people consider how to fund it. Long-term care funding and social care funding are, I think, matters for another day.
No healthcare organisation can truly be efficient and deliver at high quality if it has appalling staff morale. According to the last staff survey, only 44% of those employed in the NHS felt valued, which means that 56% did not. Some 25% felt bullied by their colleagues or managers. In most health systems, if that figure got to 5%, they would have the drains up. This is absolutely hopeless.
What all this comes down to is a management problem. We have had a lot of strategies; we have great strategies. Again, Ministers sort of knew what to do, so they commissioned the Messenger report. That report was absolutely tremendous, and had nine things we can do to fix things. Perhaps the Minister can tell us if those nine things will be implemented, because it is two years since the report was published. If we do not get the management right, nobody will put any more money in.
I am short on time, but I just share a little anecdote. If you have a group of NHS managers, and you ask them to name the 20 best-run hospitals in England, you get the usual: Northumbria, Chelsea and Westminster—despite the diet—Leeds and South Warwickshire. People can name eight easily; if they are lucky, they name 10. At best they name 15. There are 135 hospitals in this country. What does that tell us about the depth of management? The critical thing, therefore, if this is to work—I will shut up in a moment—is to get NHSE working properly. I am not sure that I will be as dramatic as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, but we must face up to the fact that we do not have a working management system. It is Soviet, and we are way past Soviet times. Let us hope that we can save the NHS and keep it free at the point of delivery.
Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, his tireless work for the NHS and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, called it, his Olympian view across the system that he shared earlier. I too will focus on only one or two things. I am very glad that the Messenger report has been mentioned, and I echo the noble Lord’s question to the Minister, because it is two years since it was written. Gordon Messenger, as someone who served in the Army, really does know how to run a system.
I will talk briefly about two things beyond hospitals that other people have already talked about: prevention and social care. On prevention, to echo some of what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, my simple question to the Government is this: when will they fully implement the 2015 obesity strategy, written under the Cameron Government, which included, for example, broadcasting bans on unhealthy food? I would have thought that that would be a very simple question to answer. It has now been quite a long time since that report was written.
On social care, I was intrigued by something that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, which I had not expected him to say: he spoke warmly about long-term care insurance. I thought I would take my cue from that and talk a little about it. In the past few years, we have seen many interesting proposals for better funding of personal care. We have seen the cap, led by Andrew Dilnot, which is due to come into force in 2025 but on which I note that there is spectacularly little activity. I think that there is an opportunity now, post-Covid, with a public who are much more aware of the value of social care than they were before Covid. This has become a politically salient issue in a way that it was not before, because so many people have seen what care workers really do and how many of them stepped up to the plate. We saw people moving into the homes of older and disabled people, leaving their own families and putting themselves at risk. That made a big impact in a way that it had not before. The truth is that you do not understand what social care is unless you or a relative are in receipt of it. The vast majority of people in this country still do not really know what it is, but the polls show that people are increasingly aware that it is complex, patchy and deeply unfair. People are increasingly prepared to say that, yes, we need more money but we also need a new look at the system.
As others have said, the single-payer system for the NHS is the right and only answer. I do not think that that should be reopened, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said. However, there is an opportunity to look for a different model for social care. On the long-term care insurance point that the noble Lord made, Germany and Japan, two countries that I have studied in depth, spent several years having a deep conversation with their voters about a long-term care insurance system—it is slightly different in each place—in which everybody pays something in and everybody is able, if they need it, to take something out. That is a simple, transparent and sustainable approach that we do not have at the moment. What we see at the moment are battles over continuing healthcare, where the primary health need is not defined, and 40% of care home residents paying all their own fees and cross-subsidising other people with less money. I could go on, but we are all aware of the depth of unfairness in the current system. I simply ask whether the Government have any plans to look at other possibilities beyond the simple cap on care.
One of the problems—and I think one of the reasons why Andrew Dilnot, a great man, is so frustrated, and why successive Governments have not implemented the policy—is that it is very hard politically to describe to people a cap that is not a cap; it does not cap the bed and board costs. Imagine being a politician on the doorsteps trying to sell people what is ostensibly a cap on what they need to spend but it is not. It is very hard to deliver that. The other issue is that while it would obviously help people facing truly catastrophic costs, it would help only quite a relatively small number of people. Therefore, there is an opportunity to have a much bigger and wider conversation. However, I am afraid that that would mean going to the heart of an issue that is dear to many voters in this country, which is the question of their primary asset: would they be prepared, and should they be made, to sell their home to pay for care?
I note that Boris Johnson changed his language on this over time. He discovered—as everybody who looks at the issue does—that you cannot get a sustainable funding system while making no claim whatever on the homes of people who, yes, have saved to buy that home but, yes, may have also been lucky that their home value has increased. Will the Government consider, or do they have any plans to consider, looking at that alternative to the Dilnot cap?
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, the NHS is neither a leader nor a laggard, as shown in a comparative study of several countries. I think that broadly captures what many of us feel about the NHS. It embodies some fine values, such as equality of treatment, being free at the point of delivery of service, a strong incentive to regulate expenditure, and maintaining the self-respect and confidence of individuals that when they are in trouble they will be looked after and not have to worry about payment. All these are great virtues that the NHS embodies.
Sadly, it is also the product of its time. If you cast your mind back to 1948 and what followed afterwards, one begins to see an authoritarian culture where the experts know what is best. This is the ethos that is embodied in the culture of the NHS. For example, you can have a long waiting time and people do not see anything wrong with it, or no choice of the consultants or doctors you will see—it is decided for you—or your path to the consultant is already heavily guarded and not something that you can choose. There is poor investment in staff and diagnostic technology, so that you have machines for MRIs, CT scans and other things lying idle because they are supposed to be used only during working days. For all these reasons, we have reached a situation where the NHS does a lot of good and embodies a lot of good values but does a lot of work that many of us regret.
The NHS needs to be improved—radically, in some respects—and the question is not simply how we can maintain its sustainability; the question is whether we want to sustain it in its current form, what other changes we want to see made and whether those changes can be sustained over a period of time. I shall share my thoughts on this briefly.
The British people by and large cherish the NHS but not uncritically, which is why when they begin to discover its defects they increasingly become critical of it. Some 24% of people are heavily alienated from the NHS, and that number is increasing. That should be a source of concern to those of us who value the institution.
So how do we maintain the NHS? How should it be funded? We have relied on taxation as the source of revenue, and it is right that we should do that. I do not have time now, but I argue that compared to, for example, social health insurance or personal health insurance, taxation is a much better way. It gives the individual a sense of ownership of the organisation—he feels that this is his organisation because he has paid for it, and so on. Naturally, though, taxation is subject to party conflicts and divisions, and is never going to produce enough.
The revenue that taxation brings therefore has to be supplemented by other sources of revenue, but what other sources are available to us? There are two: reducing costs and increasing income in the NHS. When it comes to reducing the cost, one can think of a variety of ways in which expenditure could be cut. Lots of work is being done, for example, on why medicines for patients are lying unused—they are used for a day or two while the ailment lasts and then they are completely forgotten, and eventually wasted and thrown away. There are ways in which you can use electronic technology to alert the patient that it is time for him to take his medicine, and various ways in which you can control that.
On raising revenue, I was told by several people who have worked in this area in the United States and elsewhere, “Why don’t you have research, so that you have people who work with the NHS providing abundant data, with the state having access to these people and these diseases? Why don’t you have research done on this, resulting in innovations of medicines and instruments that can then be marketed?” It is not impossible for the NHS to think in terms of research scholarship.
I should have thought there were ways in which the NHS’s revenue could be increased and its expenditure decreased. That is the goal towards which the British public themselves seem to be moving. The NHS should be based on the principle of social solidarity but also have introduced into it the principle of personal responsibility.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I qualified as a doctor 55 years ago next month, across the river at St Thomas’. Much has changed since then—some good, some bad. I applaud my noble friend Lord Patel, and I agreed with his powerful opening speech.
As well as personal suffering, there is huge economic cost when the nation becomes less healthy. As we have heard, there are more than 2.6 million working-age people out of the labour market due to long-term sickness, at huge cost to the Treasury, with additional welfare and healthcare support and lost tax revenue. Yes, the NHS needs more investment, but it is not just about that; it is about changing the health and social care offer, improving access and equality of access, and changing the balance between hospital care and care in the community.
Italy closed its public psychiatric hospitals successfully, investing in 24/7 community provision. The Royal College of Psychiatrists asked that the next Government commit to a new health infrastructure plan for mental health, with one aim of improving the therapeutic environment of mental health and learning disability and autism in-patient settings, but it also hopes for real investment and the expansion of psychological therapies in early intervention and in public mental health.
The impact of negative press about the NHS and about social care has an impact on the morale and mental health of staff and the confidence of patients. This affects staff retention. A recent survey of 3,154 doctors by the General Medical Council found that 13% of respondents said they were very likely to move abroad to practise medicine in the next 12 months. A further one in three said it is very likely that they will move abroad at some time. This points to four key areas for improving retention: workplace conditions, pay, career structures and the perceived ability of our healthcare system to meet patient care needs.
Healthcare is a different and more complex service than when the NHS was founded in 1948. Individualised medicine is here to stay. More treatments are available, some very sophisticated and expensive. There is more bureaucracy, and we live in a more litigious world. The demands and expectations of the public have increased.
I read with joy an NHS pamphlet from 1948 which outlined to the public what they could expect from the NHS and, importantly, what the NHS could expect from them. I will quote a few gems from it. In my first quote, do notice mention of mental health:
“You will … be entitled to all forms of treatment in general and special hospitals, whether as an in-patient or as an out-patient. These include, for instance, maternity care, sanatorium treatment, care of mental health, and all surgical operations”.
About dental care, it says:
“You need no application form. Just call, by appointment, on the dentist of your choice when you need him … All necessary fillings and dentures will be supplied without fee, but if you want anything specially expensive … you will pay the … cost yourself”.
On maternity services, it says:
“It will be the doctor’s responsibility, with a midwife, to give all proper care and (if he considers it necessary or is called in by the midwife) to be present at the confinement”.
How wonderful it sounds. Perhaps we need an NHS pamphlet for 2024, to relaunch a new contract between the public and the NHS about what can be expected on both sides. I suggest that, as well as maternity care, we should have palliative care added to the 2024 pamphlet.
Central to solving the problems facing the NHS will be transforming social care from a safety net for people in vulnerable circumstances to a relational system that enables people to flourish. The endless gatekeeping, signposting and managing demand within the NHS all contribute to the increased demand for and greater complexity of social care. The bureaucracy affects unpaid family carers too, as I know only too well. Kate Garraway recently said about her experience of being a carer:
“If I have any regrets, it’s every single minute that I didn’t spend holding his hand because I had to go and write an email, make a phone call, fight the system that should be there to catch you when you fall but feels when you’re going through it like it’s there to catch you out”.
We need long-term thinking, long-term funding and more consistency, so that everyone—staff and patients—knows what to expect.
Care needs to move away from glamorous, expensive, interventionist hospital care and spend more in the community. If this does not happen, more expensive hospitals will need to be built to manage people’s acute needs that could have been better prevented or better managed.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I should first congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel on securing this critical debate and raising such challenging questions. Unlike many of today’s speakers, I am not a healthcare expert, but as an entrepreneur, employer and adviser to SMEs over the past 30 years, I have developed a particular interest in the health and productivity of our workforce, so I will start with the dismal subject of economics, as the long-term sustainability of the NHS hangs on the state of our public finances.
I sit on the Economic Affairs Committee, as does the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. Our current inquiry is also on the subject of sustainability, not of the NHS but of our national debt, which, at £2.7 trillion, has grown eightfold in just over 20 years. On current trajectories, neither the financing of our national debt nor our National Health Service can be considered sustainable.
Ever since the financial crisis 15 years ago, the UK has suffered from a low-growth, deficit economy. We consume more than we produce. That is an economic and health issue, the growing obesity burden being just one sign and inactivity another. Our tax revenues cannot keep up with our expenditure on public services, so we routinely resort to borrowing—an additional £100 billion or so added to the debt pile each year, to the point where last year’s interest payments on debt, at £120 billion, were only 30% less than our entire NHS budget.
Demographically, we have double trouble—an ageing population and falling birth rates. Our workforce has ceased to grow, in spite of immigration. The proportion of dependants is escalating. Without gains in productivity there is no real economic growth and no increase in our tax base, on which NHS funding entirely depends. This week’s data from the ONS makes for grim reading. The number of long-term sick off work has hit a record high of 2.8 million—an increase of 700,000 in just three years.
With an ageing and growing population, the demand on NHS services continues to outstrip our economic growth. Unless health tech or AI comes to our rescue, the next Administration faces the prospect of raising taxes further and borrowing more. What can be done to break this cycle? We must prioritise healthcare for both the long and short-term sick who have the potential to join or rejoin the workforce.
Following Covid, we now have a mental health pandemic. It is the biggest single factor behind the escalation in economic inactivity, yet the NHS is just not resourced to cope with this surge. There are many other conditions and disabilities that come high up on the list of causes of economic inactivity where waiting lists are growing or treatment is inadequate. These include musculoskeletal conditions, which have risen by 30% over the last three years—a reflection, perhaps, of an increasingly sedentary lifestyle.
Neurological disorders, which affect 11 million of us in this country, including me, are very high on the list and deserve far greater focus and resourcing. Shamefully, the UK has the lowest proportion of neurologists across Europe and the second-highest mortality rates. Indeed, the Economist estimates that in this field the consequential wastage of healthcare resource by non-specialist care, plus the social and economic burdens, are costing the UK £96 billion per annum. Against this figure, can the Minister say how much of the current NHS budget is devoted to treating neuro? I cannot find any reliable estimate of this figure.
Thanks to the Migraine Trust, I can share the data for just one of the most common treatable neurological disorders. The NHS devotes some £200 million to the treatment of migraine—a condition that alone costs £5 billion in lost working days. That is one example of a serious mismatch. We must make a much greater effort to align the NHS with the economy, for sustainability is a two-way street.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and an honour to have been able to listen to this debate. I am happy to come in at this late stage with some additional thoughts. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for initiating the debate, and all the other speakers. In particular, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath.
Putting your name down to speak in this sort of debate means getting a large number of briefing notes. I cannot claim to have read them all. Perhaps the Minister should commit himself to reading all the briefing notes and acknowledge the contribution they have made to our debate. A consolidated version of the notes would be a useful document.
Given the volume of material, there was obviously bound to be much that was missed from our discussions. I will focus my remarks on good mental health. I urge noble Lords to read the briefing notes from both the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Mental Health Foundation. In the time available, I can touch on only some of the points arising from their submissions, but I think they are important and should be read.
I want to make three points. First, there is a considerable cost of poor mental health. I emphasise that measures are available that can tackle those problems. Providing healthcare is not just about the financial return, but when we can spend relatively limited amounts and get huge benefit, we clearly need to take that into account. Secondly, the focus in this area has to be on prevention. The value of measures aimed at prevention is considerable and will be effective across the whole health service. Thirdly, I mention the importance of undertaking more research in the area of mental health.
I take the opportunity to stress again the importance of getting a mental health Act through the House. Presumably, we will now wait for the next Session. An incoming Labour Government, if we have one, are committed to doing that. The problem is that the problems assessed by Sir Simon Wessely six years ago are still there. The Act is a symbol of the intention to deal with the problems he identified.
What measures could we adopt? What measures do we need to think through? They are all set out in the submissions and there is not enough time to go through them all. Poor mental health among the workforce has been touched on already. According to the research we have been provided with, that is where £1 of expenditure provides £13.62 in improvements. This bears directly on the overall health of our economy. Individual health is very much the health of the economy as a whole. The £118 billion that poor mental health is costing us—that is 5% of GDP—is an obvious and clear target for work across the important area of poor mental health.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for this timely debate. My colleagues and I at the Bromley by Bow Centre have been at the cutting edge of innovation in primary healthcare for 35 years. We entered this space by accident following the tragic death of a local resident, Jean Vialls, in an East End housing estate in May 1991. Jean’s death led to a senior-level inquiry at a London hospital, which picked apart the lives of an East End family in very challenging circumstances who had been badly let down by the NHS and its siloed culture. The inquiry also challenged the NHS on its lack of attention to detail, its management systems and its culture, which had forgotten who the customer was. Sound familiar.
We were told at the time that lessons would be learned but, 35 years on, I can assure noble Lords that few lessons have actually been learned by the NHS. Indeed, my GP colleagues tell me that getting up stream and creating more integrated responses to health needs gets harder to do, not easier. In the course of this well-documented and tragic encounter, we began to realise that in poor communities at least 70% of the determinants of health are social and not biomedical; they have nothing to do with doctors. The NHS business model was absolutely the wrong way around and there was a desperate need to get up stream into the prevention agenda.
Our practical response, as an increasingly entrepreneurial culture took root in Bromley, was to build the first working model of an integrated primary healthcare centre that moved beyond just health and social care and embraced housing, employment, business, the arts and education, and so on. We have created 97 businesses with local people over the years. We started to join the dots. Even with the support of the then Prince of Wales, now the King, this work was done against a prevailing culture in the NHS that talked about innovation but rarely grasped the nettle. Today, the Bromley by Bow Centre is responsible for 55,000 patients on four sites, and has been taken national through the Well North programme, which I lead—here I declare my interest. The centre today hosts 2,000 visitors each year, from across the world. There has been all this work and learning, but so little in practice has actually changed. One hospital medical director we work with described the NHS as a blancmange when it comes to innovation: it wobbles when innovative ideas and practice are first introduced but always returns to shape and form. This is not a sustainable culture.
What needs to be done? Here are seven brief steers, based on many years of practice. First, we must stop treating the NHS like a religion and be honest about its condition: it is ill and broken. Business as usual is not an option. It needs radical surgery over a 10 to 20-year period.
Secondly, we need cross-party agreement to stop the constant meddling of countless politicians and endless restructuring. I was involved in the 2012 Olympics programme for 19 years, from day one. Our focus was on creating a real legacy in east London from this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Early on we focused on gaining cross-party support for a 25-year programme—go and have a look at the results.
Thirdly, we must take seriously Dr David Haslam’s concern that if we carry on with the present NHS business model, it will absorb 100% of GDP by 2070. It is not sustainable; we are creating a dependency culture.
Fourthly, we must create a learning-by-doing culture, and move away from so many expensive, outdated reports that few read.
Fifthly, the modern world is about people and relationships, not processes, and so we must nurture them at all levels of the NHS.
Sixthly, technology is not the answer to everything but it is a fantastically useful tool. We must start small, interfacing the technology with people and their practice, and use it to grow organic cultures that work. Stop trying to land big solutions from above.
Seventhly, we have always found, right across the country, individuals and localised groupings that were able to deliver this more joined-up, entrepreneurial approach. At the moment, this is true, for example, in Bradford, York, Rotherham and east London, among others. However, they are not in general supported and encouraged, and thus the approach does not become established more broadly. As has recently been observed, the NHS has more pilots than British Airways—why not get behind these good people, long-term, and build a culture based on innovation, integration and entrepreneurship.
My question to the Minister, and to the Opposition if they were to come into government, is this: given the present spending trajectory and business model, what percentage of the UK’s GDP does the Government estimate that the NHS will soak up by 2070, and what are they doing about this challenge? Who in the department is thinking about this problem?
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I normally do not put my name down for specialist debates such as this one, because I do not possess the necessary expertise. That is certainly true for this debate, although during the past two hours I have learned a lot. However, there are two reasons why I wish to address your Lordships.
The first is to recall the foundation in 1948 of the National Health Service, one of the two great social reforms of the Labour Government of 1945 to 1951—the other being legal aid, which, alas, has now almost withered away altogether. I was only 10 years old in 1948 when the National Health Service was introduced. I remember it very well.
The second reason why I wish to speak is that I believe we should understand the current challenges of the National Health Service and praise it for its successes. That has certainly, to some extent, come out in this debate. It is touching to remember that the National Health Service was designed in its origin to save money for the economy, almost to the point of being financially self-sufficient.
Where are we now in the debate? I will summarise, if I may, as a speaker at the very tail-end of the speeches, where I think we are. Since 1948, we have had the benefit of the provision of more and more wonderful techniques that have helped us remain in health. The problem has been that, for this, we have needed more and more expertise and more and more persons to operate those techniques. The result is that there are more and more specialists among doctors and among all those who give their support to doctors. For example, there are nurses who are highly skilled and highly trained in oncology, supporting the doctor oncologist. Similarly, there are radiographers supporting the doctor radiologists in the great range of MRI scanning and so forth that is now available. The result is that lots of things are being done, and have been done, much to our benefit.
I will speak of my personal experience of heart treatment. Fifty years ago there was no open heart surgery and no use of stents. My father died when he was 60. I have the same heart condition, and I had a large bypass operation 30 years ago and am standing now before your Lordships.
We should recognise that lots of people in the National Health Service are working very hard and doing well. I cite one example of that, on the Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust website. I happen to be a patient of that trust, and the website includes what it calls MyChart, which is easily accessible and provides an awful lot of very important information that you need as a patient, such as when your next appointment date is.
I end my short address to your Lordships in this way. I believe that we should give praise to the National Health Service, and I invite the Minister to do just that when he stands up to speak. An all-party alliance must be planned to decide the future of the National Health Service, a point that has been very well made in this debate.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I join others in thanking and congratulating my noble friend Lord Patel on introducing this topical debate, and in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, on her very moving maiden speech.
As the last to come to the crease before the closing speeches, I shall be very brief, and just make a few observations. I come to this debate not as a medical expert, though like my noble friend I suffer from peripheral neuropathy, but for the past 20 years I have been a company doctor, fixing companies large and small, though not on all occasions helping them to become more efficient and profitable. My first observation on the NHS is the apparent failure of effective leadership. I know many GPs, specialists and junior doctors, and one junior doctor I spoke to yesterday commented that he had been on strike not just because of the money but because he and others felt disfranchised.
We live in an exciting time of digital transformation and artificial intelligence, and we are seeing huge advances in quantum computing. By analysing vast amounts of medical data, including electronic health records and genetic information, we can uncover patterns, predict outcomes and improve diagnosis and treatment. Ultimately, however, the focus must be on effective, adaptable and accountable leadership. There is a danger that many in the medical fraternity are too focused on following protocols rather than guidelines and get bogged down in red tape.
I recently read the book, 2030: The Future of Medicine by Professor Richard Barker, a specialist in longevity research. I mention as an aside that it is my noble friend Lady D’Souza’s 80th birthday today—happy birthday. At 80 in your Lordships’ House, she is but a youngster. The observations that Professor Barker made when he wrote this book in February 2011 pertain as much today as they did then. In essence, he called attention to the need to re-architect the NHS and provide more effective time management to NHS GPs. Many GPs complain that they spend far too much time on administration and far too little time using their medical skills to diagnose and treat acute conditions. In this regard, a lot of elderly patients are not getting the treatments that they need and deserve. One of his observations was the need to focus on preventative medicine. We have seen huge advances in oncology and cardiology, but a lot more can and should be done on preventive medicine, including more focus on tackling obesity, on gut health and on lowering cholesterol.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, spoke very eloquently on the profound impact of genomics on personalised medicine. With the ability to sequence entire genomes rapidly and affordably, we are entering an era where treatments can be tailored to an individual’s genetic make-up, leading to far more effective, targeted therapies.
Time precludes me from debating the need for more effective procurement within the NHS. A huge amount could and should be done to save costs through shared services. I agree with my noble friend Lord Kakkar that the long-term sustainability of the NHS is a joint effort and requires commitment from all stakeholders—the Government, healthcare professionals, patients and the public sector. Will the Minister, in winding up, advise us as to what measures have been taken to conduct a global best-practice study on the long-term sustainability of public healthcare? I agree with the excellent suggestion of my noble friend Lord Warner of assimilating the Singapore healthcare system.
In conclusion, there are a lot of positive developments in the NHS and people should be congratulated and appreciated for their hard work, but my call is a simple one: we need to focus on effective and adaptable leadership, on effective procurement and on patient care; and to continue to focus on prevention. More funding in the NHS does not necessarily solve the problem. We need to get smarter.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for this opportunity and for the reminder of the time of the coalition Government, which I think we might accurately describe as the last sustained period of strong and stable government that we had in this country. It is a moment to remember the work done by my friend Norman Lamb, who I think was recognised as an excellent Minister for mental health and care. Essentially, the good bits were ours and the bad bits were theirs, including the pointless NHS reforms, and that is all we really need to reflect on with regard to the coalition Government.
I have enjoyed hearing a wide range of interesting contributions, including those from my noble friends Lord Scriven and Lady Tyler. I was also very moved by the excellent maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath. I share with her having two children born in St Thomas’s Hospital, although, unlike her, I did not have to do the hard work: I was a mere spectator.
I will not cover the issues to which others have applied their much greater expertise but focus on the role of information technology, on which I have some expertise and which has become universally recognised, including in this debate, as a key enabler of the productivity increases that we need in order to make the NHS sustainable. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, called for areas where we could have cross-party work; I think this area is particularly conducive to that. I and most geeks do not really care who is in government. We have the phrase, “Code wins arguments”. Unfortunately, elections do not work that way but, in the world of code, if you design a better product that runs more quickly, that is the one you should implement. There is a large community of people who believe in the NHS and can apply those technical skills but do not care who is in government. I ask the Minister whether we could make immediate progress in that area with a non-partisan approach.
I want to talk not about whizzy, cutting-edge technology, which we often go into, but the foundational elements where some of the biggest gains could quickly be realised, because there is a large amount of low-hanging fruit. I will raise five areas with the Minister—essentially, layers that together would form a platform for improved services.
First, we need a comprehensive catalogue of the collection, storage and use of data across our social care and healthcare systems. That does not exist today. The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, referred to this; we do not have a comprehensive catalogue so there are enormous inefficiencies built into the system. There is a natural tendency when building technology to look at the shiny front end and at apps, but that is useful only when you have the back end set up properly. For the NHS and care, that is frequently not the case. It is the boring bit, but it is essential that we walk through and audit all the many systems that we use and document our data. Openness here can really build trust. If people out there can see who has what data and what they are using it for, that will generate trust. When people see it as a black box, trust dissolves and they start to withdraw their consent. An open database is essential.
Along with that, we need openness around the processes and tools used to work with that data. These days, a lot of the code can be open. You can make it reusable. We could reasonably aspire to a position where a new entrant into the market could say to a service such as ChatGPT, “Here’s the data model, some example code and the processes—build me a system”. That is where we will get increased competition in areas such as GP systems, which have come to the fore these days. There are two major suppliers and people ask why there are not more. We could make it a lot easier for people to come in and compete not only on cost but, importantly, with innovative features. We do that by making sure that the data model, the processes and the code base are open.
Once you have that foundation sorted out, the third area is thinking about the content and messaging. There is a very current debate about the fact that online platforms such as TikTok are really good at getting people to engage with them. We see that as devious and dangerous behaviour, but that is what we need in the NHS. When running a screening programme, you want the kind of skills that get people to click on it and sign up for the appointment. We saw some of that with the encouragement for Covid vaccinations, but we get a hell of a lot of other communication from the NHS that is not of that quality. If you are going to set up a screening programme, it is a real waste not to have the kind of skills you need. Software engineers—my profession—are not the people to write this stuff, but a lot of the stuff we get looks like it was written by them. There are really good people who know how to get people to engage, which is what the health service needs. As a general maxim, the systems we use to engage with our healthcare should be at least as good as the ones we use to share cat videos—and I think healthcare ranks a little higher in importance. We can all see that the gap is enormous at the moment.
The fourth area is around ownership. Committees do not own things; named people own things. In the tech sector, when you want something delivered, you say to somebody “Here’s your target—you need to deliver this product”. Often, working in a massively matrixed organisation, you need to get lots of other people who do not work for you to deliver the product, but you need to know who the person delivering the product is and not allow it just to be put into a committee where everyone can pass the parcel.
It requires persuasion, support and, crucially, a service culture. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that “people hate NHS England”. That is a real problem if NHS England is signing up and buying services, such as the federated data platform, and it has to roll them out to a massive variety of organisations—some of them are brilliant; in some, there are two IT support people who are busy trying to help people change their passwords—and you come along and say, “Can you implement this system?” Well, they can, if someone helps them to do it. We need somebody, somewhere, to have that kind of service culture—somebody who owns it and has the tools to say, “I need to get that trust to implement the system, and the way I am going to do it is not just by sending out a directive. I am going to go and hold hands, and help them, and find out what the barriers are. I don’t care what they are—I am going to address them”.
The fifth element has come up in discussion today: integration with other systems. I sometimes feel there is a nervousness about talking about stuff that is outside the NHS. Increasingly, that is where people are; it has been said in the debate today that people might be consulting an online GP service. We have negative phrases such as “worried well”. I think it is quite nice to be a bit more worried about your blood sugar level or diet, or about lumps and bumps where we should not have them. There is a range of things we should be worrying about, and we have opportunities to get tests done, but there is very little integration between all that and the core NHS. That is something we could fix; again, it is one way to make it sustainable. In many cases, we—or our workplaces—are paying for health check-ups. If the system is right, once we have collected the data, let us get it integrated. We have systems such as Patients Know Best, which are trying to do this. These have been paid for, but they are not universally rolled out and in use.
To pull all that together into an example, let us think of something really boring and old fashioned, like blood pressure checks, which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, rightly raised as a key way of stroke prevention. If you have a standard data model for how to deal with blood pressure checks, or if you had standard code for how it is collected—on a phone or in a private clinic—and put into your record, and if you had an owner of a blood pressure screening programme whose job is to get 80% of the target group screened once a year, we could say, “We do not care how you do it, just be creative and figure out what is the right way. Is it text messages? We don’t care, as long as you get that 80% data”. If it was integrated, that person’s job would be to hustle, hassle and help people, and to work with all providers of mobile phones and workplace networks to get it done. That is the kind of thing that could make a difference.
I hope it is helpful to the Minister to describe a model that could be applied more generically across a lot of the challenge areas that the NHS faces. At the moment, a lot of people know what “good” looks like and what they want, but the structure militates against it because responsibility is too widely distributed, and there are too many people doing individual things in silos. At the moment, the only model we have to overcome that is a directive from NHS England. That is not what you need; you need detailed grunt work on the ground to get us from where we are today to where we want to be, which, as a patient or an NHS staff member, is using systems at least as good as those we use to share cat videos.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on securing this debate and for introducing it with his characteristic authority, insight and care, with which we are so familiar in your Lordships’ House.
I am delighted that my noble friend Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath chose this debate in which to make her excellent maiden speech. How proud her mother and father would have been today, and what a difference she made to the life of her late sister, and, indeed, to the National Health Service; and what a difference I know she will make to your Lordships’ House.
To give some context to the need for long-term sustainability, over the last 14 years, as we have heard, the health service has acquired the undesirable distinction of having the longest waiting lists, the lowest patient satisfaction and the worst strikes in its history. The noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, not only described the harsh realities and inequalities of the current systems but asked what all parties would do about correcting it. I am flattered to be invited to give some flavour of how an incoming Labour Government—if there is to be such a thing—would approach the challenges ahead.
On that point, I am glad that my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Reid and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, recognised the positive impact on the health of the nation of the last Labour Government, in which I had the honour of serving as a Public Health Minister. That allows me to say to noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord St John, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Finlay, that, when it comes to prevention and a focus on the broader improvement of health, I am totally signed up.
My noble friends Lord Hacking and Lord Parekh have brought a welcome analysis to today’s debate. I agree with my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Turnberg and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that bullying, burnout and pressure on the workforce is no way to retain or get the best out of people—we need only talk to people in other sectors to remind us of that.
This change will require a change in culture on so many levels. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, spoke of the fundamental need for shared vision, hope and energy. It struck me that they are exactly what is missing at present in health and social care. As we have heard today and so many times before, social care is inextricably linked to the health service. I remind any incoming Government, including a Labour one, that there are a number of first-rate and considered Lords reports, including on social care, primary and community care, and long-term sustainability. Therefore, any Government would be extremely well advised to delve into them. Wes Streeting, shadow Secretary of State, has been very clear about the measures that need to be taken on social care, emphasising the need for long-term planning, thinking and funding.
The right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, and my noble friends Lord Turnberg, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Warwick were absolutely right to speak about the invisibility of unpaid carers and the poor treatment of employed care staff. That is not sustainable—and neither are the record levels of sickness and long-term conditions that affect the workforce, which my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, spoke about so clearly.
I do not consider myself a technological expert, but rather a technological convert, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Allan, will be very pleased to hear. So I have looked to countries such as Israel, which I believe to be at the cutting edge, which is where the UK needs to be. At the emergency department of the Sourasky Medical Center, people register digitally, identify themselves through facial recognition and measure their own blood pressure, temperature and heart rate in self-triage booths. Patients are given a barcode and a number is sent to their phone, which they can track on a screen. The most serious cases are seen within minutes, and virtually no one waits more than an hour. Last month, this Tel Aviv hospital became the first in the world to integrate an AI chatbot into its triage process.
What is the driving force behind that? This Israeli hospital is designing healthcare around the needs of the patient, which my noble friend Lord Carter and many other noble Lords called for. Sadly, that is very much in contrast with Britain, where our NHS reels from crisis to crisis, while the political debate circles around funding, staffing and pay. The way that we bank, shop, travel and work has been digitised in the past decade, yet the NHS remains largely outdated. There are multiple IT systems in the NHS and no requirement for them to be interoperable.
That means that systems cannot talk to each other, sometimes even within the same hospital, let alone between institutions or between primary and secondary care. There are at least 21 different types of electronic patient records in hospitals and 34 apps to book an appointment. No company would be able to survive with productivity like this, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said. Let me ask the Minister: how has the Government allowed the NHS to develop like this?
NHS England’s digital lead, Joe Harrison, estimates that every pound spent on technology generates between £3.50 and £4 in savings. Such an approach makes sound financial sense, as well as good health sense. While the case for reform is overwhelming, too often the innovators are thwarted by a fragmented system or vested interests. What is being done to overcome this?
We know that an estimated 13.5 million hours of doctors’ time is wasted every year due to inefficient IT. Fixing that would be the equivalent of 8,000 new doctors joining the NHS. That is the difference between the huge staff shortages that we see and filling almost every vacancy for a doctor. With our country’s population ageing, the health of the public worsening and chronic disease rising, the sustainability of the NHS is crying out for change.
I recently went to the National Theatre’s production of “Nye”, as I know many other noble Lords have done. When he created the NHS in the 1940s, Nye Bevan had absolutely no idea of the scientific revolution ahead. Regrettably, if we dropped Nye Bevan into the NHS today, he would see the modern-day pressures of an NHS that is overly hospital-based and gets to patients too late, at greater cost and with worse outcomes.
If Labour does get into government, we will arm the NHS with the modern technology it needs, doubling the number of scanners, and putting AI into every NHS hospital, so that patients are diagnosed earlier. We will get rid of the unnecessary bureaucracy whereby innovators have to tout their technology to each individual NHS trust; we would stop the need to sign separate agreements with each of them. We will streamline the route in for innovators and put the entire NHS in partnership with the technology and life sciences sector.
Following the pandemic, more than 32 million of us carry the NHS app in our pockets. That provides the potential to transform how the NHS interacts with patients, promotes good health and increases people’s control over their own healthcare. We would make the NHS app not just something to assist the NHS in healthcare but a key component in delivering care—both preventive and curative—and empowering patients.
Finally, what do the health and care leaders want? They know that investing in primary and community care results in a lower demand in hospital emergency care. For every pound invested in the NHS, £4 comes back to the economy. The greatest economic returns come from investing in primary and community care, where we see a £14 economic return for every pound invested. If Labour is to be in government, this is the step change that we will make.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for initiating this debate today. I am very happy to start off by answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, by praising the NHS. The very ethos of the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, brought up today is that, as critical friends, we know that we need to look at the challenges that the NHS is facing if it is going to be sustainable for the next 75 years.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey. I enjoyed her journey and I shared some of her difficulties in finding her way around this building. I think I sum up the views of the whole House by saying that we are delighted that she has found her way to be with us here today and, generally, in the House of Lords.
I also thank all noble Lords for the constructive way in which this debate has taken place. Again, I praise the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for the way he framed this whole debate to bring that about. There were a lot of very thoughtful contributions, and in many ways we built on the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, called about six or nine months ago—this debate was very much in keeping with that. I particularly enjoyed the passion that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, brought to it all. I thought that at this stage I probably should not declare an interest in Costa Coffee—which I do not have, by the way. There were very many thoughtful contributions which I hope I will be able to build on, but I single out those by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner.
I want to avoid this being a political debate. Maybe contrary to some of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we are seeing similar challenges across all four NHSs—across all four nations. I am afraid to say that maybe the worst-performing of those, from the records that many noble Lords will remember, whether we are looking at waiting lists or a number of other records, was Wales. These are challenges that we are all facing at this point. However, I want to be united in this debate in looking at the positive way forward.
I recognise that many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Warner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, brought up the overcentralised nature of the NHS. However, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that this is due to direction from Ministers. The whole point of trying to set up the ICBs, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is to reverse that and put more power at a local level. These are early days in the life of ICBs but we definitely see them as the way forward.
I hope to answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, on trying to make this into a long-term conversation. I freely accept that probably at this part of the political cycle we can have only so much of a conversation. However, on my part, whichever role I may or may not be in post election, I undertake to take part with whoever is in power in what I hope will be a constructive conversation. It needs to be the sort of environment where, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, says, code wins the argument, and people are coming from all around and can have those sorts of constructive conversations. I think that will include a new contract between the NHS and the people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, says.
I will start by echoing some of the financial realities that the noble Lords, Lord Bethell, Lord Mawson and Lord St John, brought up. The reality of the situation is that we spend about 10% of our GDP on the NHS right now. It is going up as a proportion year after year, and it will go only one way. At the same time, no one is proposing major injections of cash. I think we all recognise the financial situation; the proposals that Labour made, for instance, amount to less than 1% of the NHS budget. Therefore, I think that what we can all unite on right now is that this is an argument not about pumping in lots more money but about finding other ways to try to make the NHS more sustainable, in many ways using, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, says, a “tough love” approach where that is appropriate.
I want to talk about the things we are doing in terms of the infrastructure and capacity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, mentioned. When I talk about infrastructure and capacity I am talking about the labour supply, the productivity plan and the capital estate, and I then want to combine that with the new way we need to engage, whether it is around technology, prevention or primary community care, which to my mind are the ways in which we will create a sustainable NHS going forward.
Starting with the labour supply, I completely agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that staff are at the heart of every successful organisation. That begins with making sure that we have the right number of staff, which is what the long-term workforce plan is all about—trying to make sure that we have the proper recruitment, training and long-term resources.
However, more important than any of that are the points about retention and the right culture, made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Finlay, respectively, so that people feel that they are valued and are in a caring and supportive environment rather than the bullying environment we have seen all too often. In answer to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, I say that the Messenger report is vital.
The role of management is fundamental. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord St John, I can say that when I first came into this, I did a lot of work trying to look at hospital performance. I did all sorts of analysis, looking at demographics in a local area and the relative funding. No matter what I did, there was always at least 50% unanswered in the multiple regression analysis and so on. The conclusion I came to, which is probably not earth-shattering, was that that 50% performance is all about the management, leadership and culture that drives it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, a lot of that is allowing people to work at the top of their profession. If you allow them to do that, that is when they can make the new developments and innovations. That means using technology and AI to help reduce administration, which I will come to later when I talk about the productivity plan. It will also mean some uncomfortable conversations, using other staff to do some more of the administrative parts. Again, I totally support, welcome and appreciate the moves that the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Scriven, are making in the use of things such as physician associates, which is about trying to take away a lot of that burden so that doctors really can practise at the top of their profession.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about productivity, that needs to be and is being put into a detailed plan that we can all review. We will have the opportunity to do so around July. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said, we absolutely identify that we need to replace the inefficient IT estate, among other things. It is doing a lot of the basics in PCs, wifi and all the things mentioned by Joe Harrison, whom I know well; I work with him every week. It is about systems, EPR and arming the staff and clinicians with the basic equipment. You can start small, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said. As well as electronic patient records and the FDP, those are the things from which we will get productivity improvements. When I talk about figures such as the £35 billion, I am talking about increased output, not savings. I am talking about how we can get increased treatments and output—and definitely by using the things mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Carter: payment by results and the right incentive systems; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, the use of the independent sector to supply, where relevant.
Of course, vital to all this is the capital estate. That is why the new hospital plan is a vital part of this. The work shows that if you put the right digital instruments in place and the infrastructure into hospitals, you get 10% more productivity. In answer to some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I say that if you put the right real estate in as well, the combination gives you 20% more productivity. That is not just time output but reductions in the length of stays. We all know that the sooner you can get people home, they are more likely to go on and live successfully in their environment.
Regarding the points around adult social care and the training and qualifications of the staff, which were made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, I totally agree. That is what we are trying to do. We have for the first time introduced a qualification for adult social care staff and training. We have put 18,000 different adult social care providers into a system where they can put up training and get easy management of payments for it all. More needs to be done long term for a fundamental funding model; that goes to the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Cavendish. That will involve a covenant of care but, honestly, we need to do more work on long-term funding solutions.
I cannot say enough about prevention. My noble friend Lord Bethell said to me, “Very simple, your speech today: prevention, prevention, prevention”. There are a few more things but I will definitely add a few “preventions”. The long-term workforce plan and productivity plan are designed towards that. The screening programme that we are doing is because Chris Whitty’s biggest concern is that simple things such as blood pressure which were missed during Covid will now lead to excess deaths in heart disease. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentions, those simple blood pressure measures and mid-life MoTs are fundamental to what we are trying to do. I will take a leaf from the book of the noble Lord, Lord Allan, because it is right: we need the champions in that space.
I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on the importance of dentistry and early check-ups being needed for the prevention agenda. Our new plan regarding school checks and water fluoridation is all to help with that. I see a future world, of which I will talk more later on, where you have a much more targeted screening programme. In addition to our mid-life MoTs, which are blanket programmes, AI needs to be used to help target screenings so that we can really help people in prevention.
I agree on the ever-increasing use and funding of acute hospitals, which none of us has solved, as raised by many noble Lords. There is a need to rebalance this towards primary and community care. I look forward to the report of the committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on the integration of it all and what we can learn from its points. Things such as Pharmacy First are good ways ahead. We have seen 98% of pharmacies sign up and already there have been 125,000 consultations. With the dental plan, we have had 500 new surgeries and a 50% increase in the numbers taking adult NHS patients. However, we need the new model of care mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Crisp, care that is away from the acute hospital and in the community. I cannot speak more highly of the Bromley by Bow Centre, which I visited. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, should be very proud of everything that I saw there. Of all the visits that I have done in almost two years in this job, it was one of the ones that I enjoyed the most and was most impressed by. That is the model we should take going forward.
That centre is doing exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, mentioned, in looking at the whole health of the person and seeing how it can really care for them in the community. Of course, that requires community nursing. My mother was a community nurse, so I realise that. It needs to be backed by technology. I am proud to say that I have been responsible for the app for the last 18 months and we have gone from 10% of people having their medical records to over 90%. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said, we now have 33 million people using the app for digital prescriptions, medical records and appointments, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, had an example of just the other day.
We do need to broaden things out, so more people realise all the features that are on the app, but we really do see the app as the front door of access to the NHS. It will deal with future therapies, whether musculoskeletal, as many noble Lords have mentioned, or mental health. That gives opportunity for it all. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, the app does allow people to take control and to take power away, sometimes, from the experts, giving them control and putting the power in their own fingertips.
Data and AI are fundamental to this, to enable the sort of precision medicines my noble friend Lady Blackwood mentioned. I thank her, and Genomics England for all the work it is doing to lead on this. It is an institution we should rightly be proud of. That is the future of medicine, but it is all underpinned by the data. Funnily enough, I have kicked off cataloguing of that, because it is fundamental.
On adult care, we have increased digitisation from 20% to 60% quite quickly. Having the data at the heart of this will allow competition and innovation to take place. But we need to make sure that that conversation happens in the right way, so that we bring the public with us on that journey.
I hope that gives a vision of the things we are trying to do to put the infrastructure in place—the supply, workforce, technology, IT and capital—accompanying that with new ways of working, whether it is a focus on prevention, more input into primary and community care, or using AI, technology and genomics to lead the way forward. I think we all agree that that is the only way we will get a sustainable health service going forward.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and all noble Lords who have contributed for the spirit of the debate and its thoughtfulness. I give special thanks again to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, for choosing this debate for her maiden speech, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for joining us on her 80th birthday. As ever, I apologise to those whose contributions I have not managed to cover completely, and I promise to write giving a thorough wrap-up.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the new rules do not allow me to speak at length, so I am constrained. I truly am constrained, because I would have loved to dissect some of the speeches made by some of my friends. I wish that the hospital, wherever it was, had treated the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, better, because her speech might have been different. When I put in a bid for this debate, I did not imagine that I would get the talent pool we got today, or the brilliant speeches that have been made. Top of the list, of course, is the maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath; we look forward to hearing her over and over again.
I had intended that this would not dissolve into a political debate, and I am glad that it did not. I am glad that my challenge to all three Benches paid off. By the way, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, that it was this House that won the vote to put mental health at equal esteem; it was not the other House, although the Minister, Norman Lamb, did help. It was an amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that won, although I had to call it because the noble Baroness was not here at the time.
I thank all noble Lords again; I am grateful that they all joined in this debate. It contained lots of ideas, but the key thing that came out was the need to make community and primary care stronger. The second thing was the solution to social care: it is funding, whichever way we go. The other thing was data. By the way, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, was speaking, I asked ChatGPT: “How can data help healthcare?” It produced immediately a 700-word, six-point response; I might send it to the noble Lord.
Children and Young People: Local Authority Care
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Laming
That this House takes note of the continuing increase in the number of children and young people being committed into the care of the local authorities.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased that we have the opportunity for this timely debate on such an important subject, and I am most grateful to colleagues around the House who will contribute to it. Furthermore, we all know that the Minister has a keen interest in this subject. I hope it will help if, at the outset, I set out some points on which I feel sure we can all agree.
First, it is clearly a matter of great importance whenever the state decides to take over the parenting of someone else’s child or children. To remove a child from the care of its parents is not an action to be undertaken lightly. In each case, the decision must be soundly based on a careful assessment and with clear evidence as to why this most serious action is justified.
Secondly, it therefore follows that children must never be taken into care for what might be called trivial reasons; this action must be taken only after other possibilities have been carefully considered.
Thirdly, for these reasons, in the vast majority of cases the problems of the family and the threat to the safety and well-being of the child have been identified at a much earlier stage by one or other of the key front-line services. It is very likely that the child will have been thought at an earlier stage to be at risk and in need of special attention. Sadly, this information is not always shared. As a result, the opportunity for early intervention is often lost, resulting in a crisis and, inevitably, the child having to be taken into care.
Fourthly, once the child has been taken into care, the local authority has a legal and moral duty to be a good parent. That means that every subsequent decision and action taken should be seen to be in the best interests of the child. The law is clear that the well-being, safety and proper development of each child is of paramount importance.
It is sad to say, but the record of the state as a substitute parent all too often falls well short of an acceptable standard. This is partly because, over the last decade, many local authorities thought it a good idea to outsource their services. In a nutshell, this meant that they placed the provision of these much-needed local services in the hands of private companies and, in some cases, hedge funds. The 2022 report by the Competition and Markets Authority makes for sorry reading. The House magazine summed it up well when it stated that the report
“highlighted a highly fragmented, complex market, that means individual councils find it hard to plan for and therefore provide their own residential and foster care, leaving them at the mercy of private providers”.
One consequence of that is that, in some cases, the financial charges for the care of an individual child can be nothing short of breathtaking. In addition, because of these changes, in many cases children are being placed huge distances away from their home area, their wider family, their school, their friends and even their siblings. Even worse, many are being placed in unregistered accommodation.
The increase in the number of children being admitted into the care of local authorities must be a matter of great concern to us all. In brief, in 2010 there were 64,460 children in care in England; by 2015, that number had increased to 69,460; by 2023, it had grown to 83,840, and it is still growing today. I am sure we can all agree that we should question why that is so. What is happening in our society that is resulting in so many more children being placed in local authority care? There will be many contributing factors to be considered and I am sure the Minister will refer to some of them, but surely the first and most obvious reason is that over the past decade there has been, year on year in real terms, a marked reduction in the funding of local government services. That has resulted in the cutback of many preventive family and child support services.
Despite the recent allocation of additional funding to local authorities, for which I pay tribute to the Minister, the reality is that, while these recent increases in finance are welcome, the funding of essential services by local authorities has not yet got back in real terms to where it was in 2010. Yet, during that same period, there have been huge increases in demand for family support and child protection services. Indeed, there is a real danger, as we sit here today, that the situation could become much worse. According to the Local Government Information Unit,
“Over half of councils face bankruptcy within next parliament”
unless local government funding is reformed. To add emphasis to that point, the chair of the Local Government Association states that more than eight in 10 local authorities are expecting financial hardship to increase locally in the next 12 months. That is why in many local authorities the non-statutory services that are essential in the support of families and young people have been dramatically reduced, along with financial support to some outstanding charities operating in this field.
So the essential steps of early referrals, joint assessments and agreed action plans across the key services that enabled many families to overcome whatever difficulties they encountered are, in many parts of the country, no longer available. As a result, all too often, helpful early intervention in the family is delayed until the crisis has happened, and as a result there is no alternative to the child being taken into care.
The MacAlister review, commissioned by the Government, made clear that the social services care system is
“increasingly skewed to crisis intervention, with outcomes for children that continue to be unacceptably poor and costs that continue to rise”.
Thank goodness that in this country we have some remarkable foster carers who generously invite into their families a hitherto unknown child with special needs, as well as some outstanding staff in residential units.
I pay tribute to the Minister for all she is doing to address matters such as kinship care and the development of local hubs. The guidance issued by her department states:
“Local organisations and agencies should have in place effective ways to identify emerging problems and potential unmet needs of individual children and families. Local authorities should work with organisations and agencies to develop joined-up early help services … through a Family Hub model”.
I agree with that, but we must not delude ourselves. Services for children and families are far from where we would wish them to be.
Let me put this in a wider context, because it needs to be emphasised. It is not as if this country has been faced with a huge increase in the number of children being born. On the contrary, since 2010 the fertility rate in Britain has been falling below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. It now stands as low as 1.4 children per woman. The stark reality is that, while the birth rate has been going down, in contrast, the number of children taken into care has been going up markedly. It is surely time for us all to pause and undertake a careful, honest and well-informed assessment of the stark reality of the position of services for children and families and to decide on whatever way ahead can be achieved.
I end with a sobering thought. While there are almost 84,000 children in care in England, I am advised that, today, there are only 73,000 soldiers in the whole of the British Army. The reality is that it would be hard to squeeze all the children in care into Wembley Stadium. We are now on track to record 100,000 children in care in England. Surely this is unacceptable, and it must cause great concern to the whole country. Should not these figures give us all reason to think again? Children are our future. Each child is precious. Surely we can do better; surely we must do better for each of these children. We can do better for them, and I hope we will. I beg to move.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to contribute to a debate opened so powerfully and movingly by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, one of our country’s leading experts on social care—from whom, incidentally, I have received much personal kind encouragement about aspects of my work throughout my time in your Lordships’ House.
I have just one purpose in contributing to this important debate. It is to commend in the strongest terms the work being done to enable more children in care to find places in our nation’s boarding schools—schools which provide for so wide a range of achievements, including in sport, music and other arts subjects. I declare my interest as president of the Independent Schools Association, one of a number of organisations in the independent sector whose members include schools with boarders.
It is important to remember that there are number of fine boarding schools in the state sector of education. As I have often pointed out in your Lordships’ House, this is a time of ever-increasing collaboration between schools in the two sectors. Huge encouragement is to be drawn from the enthusiasm with which, to a greater extent than ever before, they are working together to their mutual benefit, and our country’s gain.
Experience shows that some children in care thrive in boarding schools, loving the wide range of opportunities that they provide. It is equally clear that other children would not profit from a boarding education. Local authorities need to identify those children who would benefit, and to make suitable provision for them. In carrying out this aspect of their work, in recent years, they have had growing encouragement and support from this Government, offered not in any spirit of dictation, but out of a desire to ensure that advice and guidance are available for local authorities to draw on when they wish.
A highly regarded charity, backed by the Government, stands ready to assist local authorities in the discharge of their duty. It is called the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation. In its own words, the foundation works,
“with Local Authorities across England and Wales to identify children who are looked-after or identified as being ‘in-need’ who might benefit from the opportunities of a boarding school education, to broker placements in schools best placed to meet their academic, social and pastoral needs, and prepare and support them to thrive throughout their bursary placements”.
Is this not a service that everyone, whatever their political views, should welcome and encourage?
In the last four years, the foundation’s work has enabled more than 200 children in care to secure fully funded places in independent and state boarding schools. This has been achieved as a result of the foundation’s involvement with more than 50 local authorities and more than 200 boarding schools which have committed themselves to giving priority to children in care when filling up bursary places. These are important developments which should be noted by all those concerned to ensure that the varying needs of children in care are properly addressed.
Last year, the foundation got Nottingham University’s education department to provide an independent assessment of how children for whom boarding places had been provided were doing. The university’s exercise showed that such children were four times more likely to achieve good GCSE grades in English and Maths than other vulnerable children. They were five times more likely to study successfully for A-levels and to go on to university. Interviews conducted with the young people themselves showed that,
“in their view, such opportunities can be life changing”.
As for the cost, the Nottingham researchers estimated that:
“savings to the public purse from sending 210 children in the study to boarding school were in the region of £4.47m”.
Can there possibly be any argument against expanding these cost-effective, life-changing opportunities for children in care?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for this timely debate—to use the cliché, The sad truth about our children’s care system is that it is always timely because the crisis just keeps going and getting worse.
The basic statistics, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Laming, referred to earlier, make very grim reading. Some 84,000 children are now in care—up 20% in a decade. Also, in the last decade there has been a tripling of the percentage of over-16-year-olds in care and a tripling of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The system is under increased pressure, particularly since the financial crisis, and these pressures are worsening month by month. The LGA has estimated a shortfall of £4 billion in our local government care system. As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, pointed out, there has been a shift in spend away from early intervention, which has reduced by nearly 50% since 2010, towards late intervention, which has increased by nearly 50% in the same period. The result is a big shortage in local authority-funded placements. Sixteen secure homes have shut since 2002.
The real crisis, though, comes from how local authorities—purely through constraint and pressure—have been forced to respond in different ways. First, there has been a huge increase in private sector residential care, which is now 85% of all homes. Why is this important? It is important because this is when local authorities lose control of the type, location and cost of provision. It is when private equity involvement increases, often with up to 20% margins for the largest companies. This sometimes leads to dangerously high levels of debt, the risk of which is borne ultimately by the local authorities and the very children whom they are supposed to be protecting.
Secondly, hundreds of vulnerable children are now being sent to unregulated homes because of a chronic shortage of places. There has been a 277% rise in the number of children placed in unregulated children’s homes since the pandemic. Just think of that; the most vulnerable children of all are in illegal placements.
Thirdly, there has been a tripling of children living in supported accommodation without any care at all. NGOs such as the Family Rights Group worry that the Government’s new regulatory approach will unintentionally confirm this as the new status quo. There is also the greater use of placements that involve distance and separation from family. Over one-third of children in the system are separated from their siblings. The average distance from family is now 18 miles, and over 20% of children live over 20 miles from their families.
We also have the inadequate use of kinship care, although I applaud the Government and officials for taking steps towards rectifying this in recent months and years. Groups such as Become and Kinship, as many noble Lords will know, have championed this issue ferociously. At the moment, however, only 15% of all children in care are in kinship care. The care system has not traditionally explored these options early enough, nor offered enough help to those family and friends who might provide that kind of care.
On top of this, there are labour shortage issues, with a 20% vacancy rate in social worker posts, a very high turnover in children’s homes and a declining number of fostering households.
It is a bleak picture, but we should acknowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming has said, that the Government have taken some steps forward. Commissioning the MacAlister review was one, along with the development of local family hubs and the provision of more funding. Michael Gove and the Chancellor recently made some announcements on the children’s care estate. Of the percentage of funding that MacAlister envisages, something like 10% to 12% has been put in place so far.
Some of the things Government should do are not really about extra funding, although they will involve some extra funding. Take kinship care as an example. The organisation Kinship estimates that, for every 1,000 children looked after in well-supported kinship care rather than local authority care, the state saves £40 million and increases their lifetime earnings by £20 million. We also need stronger enforcement of the existing obligation for local authorities to have a kinship care policy. More than one-third do not have one, even though they are required to. We need more proactive strategic planning involving families—a shift to state support rather than simply increasing child protection inquiries, over 70% of which do not result in further action. We also need much better regulation of children’s homes to stop the debt problem and the leakage into the unregulated sector.
We need considerably more money, and I have a small suggestion of a down payment. Some £600 million per year comes from the carried interest loophole in the private equity sector. Many of the companies within that run these children’s homes. That would be a very small down payment to an increase in funding for this much-neglected sector.
This House and the other House have to make sure that we keep this as a priority. It is a sector that does not have the strong voices, sharp elbows or the champions that other children’s and health issues have. It gives us more responsibility to keep that voice strong.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on securing this critically important debate and introducing it so expertly.
Pressure on children’s social care is at an all-time high. As we have already heard, there are almost 84,000 children in the care system. In my view we are facing a perfect storm, with escalating numbers of young people coming into a system that has become increasingly focused on delivering late intervention services, in particular high-cost residential care placements. Councils are unable to invest in early intervention services that can prevent families reaching crisis point and children having to enter care in the first place.
The figures are stark. On average, the cost of a residential placement is four times that of a foster placement. In the last 10 years, spending on early intervention has almost halved, while spending on late intervention has risen by almost one-half.
We know that more children are entering care with complex or multiple needs. There has been an increase in the number of older teenagers entering care. School age children in care are more likely to have special educational needs and mental health problems. Children in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods are over 10 times more likely to be in care or on a protection plan than those in the least deprived 10%.
I think we can all agree that children in care need stability to heal and thrive, yet for too many their experience of care is characterised by instability: being moved from home to home or school to school, being separated from siblings, being moved far away from their support networks, or facing a revolving door of social workers and other professionals.
Over the past decade, as we have heard, there has been a significant change in the way that care placements, particularly residential care placements, are provided. As of last year, private providers operated over 85% of all children’s homes. The Competition and Markets Authority has reported how this changing market has led to what it calls a power imbalance between private sector providers and local authority commissioners, reducing local authorities’ control over the type of provision that is developed, where it is located, and the cost. Little wonder that there are increasing concerns about the role of private equity companies in providing residential care, excessive profit levels among the largest providers and the rising sums that councils are having to spend on residential care.
A recent report by the investigative journalist Justine Smith in The House magazine, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, provided truly alarming figures, including a 25% hike in prices in just two years, at the same time as 23% profit margins were taken by the biggest operators. The Competition and Markets Authority report also highlighted that the level of debt carried by some of the largest private providers presents a real risk to local authorities and the wider care system. A real concern is that studies have shown that for-profit children’s homes are too often rated of lower quality than other provision types.
We need to introduce a more effective children’s social care commissioning system as a matter of urgency to help reduce the reliance on private sector firms that are carrying large amounts of debt. I can put it no better than the words of Josh MacAlister, chair of the independent review of children’s social care, who said:
“When sovereign wealth funds are investing in your country’s children’s homes, you know there is something very wrong”.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Laming and Lord Wood, I am concerned about the use of unregulated care homes, which is the subject of another recent Observer investigation. It seems to me that something is going very wrong. I would be grateful if the Minister told me what the Government are doing about this.
Sadly, I do not have enough time to talk, as I would have liked, about the Government’s strategy for reforming children’s social care. As I have said before, it is a very much a step in the right direction but does not go far or fast enough to address the scale of the challenge. I would therefore like to finish by asking the Minister a couple of questions. First, the Government’s Spring Budget provided some welcome additional money for extra children’s home placements. It said that the Government were going to develop proposals to combat profiteering in the sector and look at new ways of unlocking investment in children’s homes. Could the Minister please spell out what these proposals are and how quickly they are likely to come into effect? Finally, could she also give a timetable for when the Government plan to publish a children’s social care Bill, which would provide a vehicle to bring forward many of the reforms of children’s social care that this Government committed to in their Stable Homes, Built on Love strategy?
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, like others, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for his introduction to this debate, which we all found as powerful as it was accurate.
My contribution is as a family lawyer who has been involved in public law care proceedings for much of my professional life, latterly as a judge in the family court, and as someone who has had to make care orders. In some cases, the outcome is sadly obvious and the process relatively easy, but in many cases the decisions required of the person making them are agonising, particularly when they may involve irrevocable changes for parents and children.
The increase in the number of children subject to care orders is not the result of any changes in the law. Most decisions are governed by the fundamental needs of each child for safety, security, stability and permanence. The courts have to consider all viable options and, particularly since the Human Rights Act, rigorous analysis is expected. Fortunately, this is one of the few areas where parents have automatic entitlement to legal aid, and vitally, the child is independently represented.
The system of children’s social care should, of course, offer support to families well before any crisis is reached and before the courts become involved. The reductions in financial and human resources, not least the curtailment of Sure Start, have meant that it is now often only a crisis that activates the system. Earlier and effective engagement with parents, overcoming their mistrust and gaining the involvement of the wider family in family group conferences are crucial in setting out the expectations of parents and avoiding the need for care proceedings. They must, in the same way, enable exploration of the prospects for kinship care. A recent initiative by the Family Rights Group called “Reimagining pre-proceedings” emphasises the structure and value of preventive work, which can and should be done to head off care proceedings and stabilise the family. That sort of work should be the norm, not the exception, serving to reduce high levels of late intervention.
The system depends on the retention of trained social workers who, as Josh MacAlister wrote in his 2021 report, have to make complex and challenging decisions every day. They require the skills and confidence to provide informed and robust assessments. Parents and children, as well as the courts, need continuity in the allocation of social workers. When, as too often happens, a stressed social worker leaves or moves on, progress can be halted; a familiar face vanishes, making a difficult case more difficult. If that happens after proceedings have started, there will be added pressure on the Cafcass children’s guardian to try to steer the proceedings forward in the right direction.
Not all cases are susceptible to pre-proceedings work. The other demanding category of cases concerns applications for care orders in respect of newborn babies whose mothers have avoided any antenatal care. They slip under the radar, yet 47% of newborns subject to care proceedings are born to mothers who have themselves been subject to such orders. The local authority becomes aware of those mothers only when they arrive in hospital to give birth, when it may have to make urgent applications for an emergency protection or interim care order. Very often that involves mothers who have used drugs during pregnancy; there is nothing more distressing than seeing and hearing a newborn baby who is withdrawing from drugs. If there is no reliable support in the wider family, the local authority has to struggle to find suitable foster care or specialist placements at short notice, then struggles to avoid changes of placement. The costly resort to private providers has been mentioned.
As the President of the Family Division has said, judges are being forced to perform functions that are properly the role of the state. I have stressed the importance of pre-proceedings work, and I wish briefly to point to other work that could and should be done, building on initiatives that deserve more than patchy support. First, more is required to ensure and underpin wide operation of family drugs and alcohol courts. They can divert parents away from conflict with social workers, towards the help and support they need to have a realistic chance of recovering and retaining their children.
Finally, much more is needed to support parents, particularly mothers, after a child has been removed. The saddest statistic is that at least one in four women will return to court having had a previous child removed. Too often they have reacted to the removal with an ill-considered decision to have another baby, with all too often the same consequences. They are truly wretched cases to deal with. Therefore, I certainly hope that the Government can endorse the intensive and expert work being done by the charity Pause to prevent this cycle of removals.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for securing this timely debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his remarks just now, with which I strongly agree. Yesterday afternoon I attended the launch of the Child of the North APPG’s report, Children in Care in the North of England, and heard the compelling testimony of two young women, Rebekah and Kirsty, whose lives have been impacted by experiences in the care system.
The number of children entering local authority care is increasing nationally, but the north of England persistently records the highest rates of children in care. Local authorities bear the financial burden, with their budgets increasingly directed towards often unregulated private residential care providers, as other noble Lords have referred to, rather than long-term investment supporting families before they reach crisis point; a child in trouble can also be a family in trouble. We have a cycle in which cuts lead to reduced preventive services, resulting in more children entering care and budgets further spent on crisis intervention. As the Child of the North APPG heard yesterday from Amy Van Zyl, CEO of the Newcastle-based charity REFORM, there is a critical need for liberated methods of tackling systemic issues rather than overregulation, which can result in silo working, and a full recognition that deep-rooted issues of poverty are a major factor in the alarming statistics behind which are the lives of real people.
I want to highlight the use of family group conferences, which are mediated meetings involving parents and wider family members to help determine how best to support their children. This model originated in New Zealand, a country with which I am familiar, in response to the disproportionate number of Māori and Pasifika children being removed into state care. They empower families to make their own decisions for their children, placing children’s voices at the centre. A study published by Foundations last year confirmed that family group conferences reduce entry into care. However, unlike in New Zealand, UK local authorities are not obliged to offer them. Will the Government extend their preventive services so that every family, where there are concerns about the care of their child, is offered a family group conference?
The north-east also has the highest proportion of kinship care households in England, with one in 50 children living in the care of a relative or family friend. I welcome the Government’s publication of the national kinship care strategy, which marks a leap forward in recognising the invaluable contributions of kinship carers. However, the strategy does not go far enough to provide them with the financial, practical and emotional support they need. Some 12% of kinship carers are concerned that they cannot continue caring for their children in the next year if their circumstances do not improve, with most citing financial pressures as the reason.
The Government’s strategy announced a pilot scheme through which certain kinship carers will receive a financial allowance. With kinship care having clear benefits over other care arrangements, when will the sacrifices of kinship carers be recognised through the rollout of funding, equal to that of foster families, in all local authorities?
I finish by quoting the words of a care leaver featured in the Child of the North APPG’s report:
“The point of being in care is to be cared for”.
I question whether our current system can truly deliver this and urge the Government to consider a vision for long-term, sustainable solutions to this chronic situation.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, no one is better qualified to lead a debate on children in care than the noble Lord, Lord Laming, whom I first met 40 years ago when I was a junior Minister and he was already a colossus in the world of local authority social services. Since then, he has been instrumental in developing national policy on childcare and holding Governments to account.
I begin with a word of tribute to the statutory workforce and the voluntary workforce looking after children. As we have heard, they operate in very challenging circumstances and quite often they enable a child who has had a very difficult start in life to have a happy outcome. I want to focus my remarks on the role that adoption, fostering and kinship care can play in meeting the challenges we have been talking about. I declare a minor interest in that some time ago my wife and I did some respite fostering. I am grateful to Carol Homden of Coram for bringing me up to date.
I welcome some of the initiatives that this Government have introduced, such as the extra pupil premium, the adoption support fund and, recently, the kinship care strategy. In passing, I note that it shows what a Minister, Edward Timpson, can achieve if left in the same place for five years, ably supported by my noble friend on the Front Bench. But the country faces a demographic challenge. As we have heard, the numbers of children coming into care continue to grow and, within that population, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, there are more complex problems because the children who come into care are older.
On the supply side, the people who traditionally fostered and adopted are ageing, and they are not being replaced. The number of children in care who have been adopted has fallen from 3,590 in 2019 to 2,960 last year, and between 2015 and 2022 more fostering households deregistered than were replaced. The traditional families who adopted and fostered are increasingly having to look after elderly parents, and quite a few have grown-up children still living in their home because they have been unable to move on. This trend is reflected in the latest Ofsted figures, which reveal that in the year ending March last year there were 125,000 initial inquiries from potential foster carers, a drop of 9% on the previous year. This was confirmed by Ofsted, which said:
“As the number of children in care continues to grow, matching them with the right carers becomes increasingly difficult. This makes it more likely that very vulnerable children will face placement breakdowns and further disruption to their lives”.
A recent fall of 11% in local authority foster care households has meant, as we have heard, that councils are increasingly turning to expensive agencies, putting further pressure on their budgets. At the same time, they are losing the experience of the foster parents leaving the market. Part 1 of the Children and Families Act was meant to
“speed up the adoption process and enable more children to be placed in stable, loving homes with less delay and disruption”.
This was a worthy ambition, not least since adoption is the most stable form of placement, but adoption has fallen. We see the consequences of not getting this right. Some 25% of the prison population are former care leavers and 25% of those sleeping rough have been in care. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wood, and others, children in care are moved too often, further away from home and away from their siblings.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that as a country we can do better. For example, we saw the response to the Homes for Ukraine campaign when a further crisis confronted this country. We need to encourage more people to adopt, to foster and to enter kinship care. That means looking at the low conversion rate of inquiries to acceptance; only 6% of the initial 125,000 foster care inquiries resulted in successful applications to become a carer. The journey needs to be better advertised, more user friendly and quicker.
We also need to look at the financial offer to the groups I have mentioned, as we heard from the right reverend Prelate, financed by savings on expensive residential care. Should there be such a black and white distinction between adoption and fostering, which discourages many from moving from fostering to adoption? Can we make better use of existing foster parents to recruit new ones? Can we broaden and diversify the fostering population? Crucially, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, can we resource children’s services so that they can recruit and retain qualified staff to supervise the whole process? I hope this debate can build on what has been done and lead to better outcomes for children.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on securing this important debate. He and I are kindred spirits in feeling compelled to highlight the urgent social care crisis facing children and young people in this country, and to set out overdue solutions that the Government must take to ensure that children grow up feeling safe, happy, healthy, loved and hopeful about their futures. That is what the charity Barnardo’s strives to achieve; I declare an interest as its vice-president.
The pressures on children’s social care are at an all-time high. There are now more children than ever in the care system—as we have heard, over 80,000. The growing number of children entering care is concerning, not least because children who grow up in care continue to experience a range of poor outcomes compared with their peers. They are more likely to end up homeless, in prison, or have mental health issues. The impact of having more children placed into the care of local authorities has long-term consequences for society, which will come back to haunt us if nothing is done urgently.
Over recent months and years, we have seen the resources of councils that have to care for children increasingly stretched, with many local authorities at financial breaking point, affecting their ability to meet the needs of children and families. Recent evidence from the Local Government Association found that nearly one in five councils is concerned about bankruptcy in the next two years. This means that the system has become increasingly focused on delivering acute and late intervention services, rather than early intervention services that help prevent families reaching crisis point.
Barnardo’s and other leading charities recently commissioned research on this very subject. In their report The Well-Worn Path, they found that early intervention services had been reduced by 45% in the last 12 years. The report also found that increased spending on children’s residential care, particularly private sector provision, is putting considerable strain on local authorities. Although spending on children’s social care increased by £800 million last year, £4 in every £5 of that increase is going on late intervention services rather than early help. Evidence has shown that if the Government increase spending on early intervention services, it would not only improve outcomes for families but be more cost effective long term. It is a false economy to cut early intervention services.
There is also the moral case: the Government should provide early help to families in need so that more children can remain living safely with their birth families. In turn, local authorities can focus on providing the highest possible level of care for those who enter the care system. Sadly, I know from my work with Barnardo’s on its Double Discrimination report that black children are more likely to be in care compared with their peers. They need our help and consideration more than ever, before they end up on a conveyor belt of crime and mental health issues.
We have seen some changes, including the extension of the children’s homes estate announced in the Spring Budget, but a children’s social care Bill was noticeably missing from the King’s Speech in November. I know the Government commissioned the independent review of children’s social care, which the children’s charity sector largely endorsed, especially its legislative changes. But although the Government are going to run “families first” pathfinders, looking at improved early help in 12 areas, most of the country will see no change until 2026. Children and families cannot wait that long; the crisis is on their doorstep right now.
We must keep children and families together to reduce the number of children placed into the care of local authorities. I ask the Minister, who has shown real commitment to this issue: will the Government commit to investing in early intervention and transform children’s social care by adopting all the recommendations set out in the independent review of children’s social care, and to having a children’s Cabinet-level Minister to bring cross-governmental policies together to benefit our children’s well-being?
All children, especially those in care, need to be nurtured and loved unconditionally if they are to grow up to be well-adjusted adults contributing to society, and positive role models to their children. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for bringing this important debate forward and for the very compelling case that he set out in his introduction. I am also grateful for the immensely valuable contributions made by other Members.
It is surely one of the primary tests of a civil society that, where it is necessary for a child or young person to be brought into care, the very best outcomes are made possible through the quality and consistency of that care, whatever financial constraints arise in the economic cycle. So many outcomes later in life are directly related to childhood experience. That is why it should be an all-party commitment that money for children’s services should be ring-fenced, including those that enable vital early help and intervention, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and other noble Lords expressed so well.
We cannot risk children’s social care becoming merely a blue-light emergency service only able to respond in a crisis. The current financial context is only getting worse, with the costs of placements for children in care now seen as one of the biggest financial risks across many upper-tier local authorities. Nottinghamshire County Council, a well-run and fiscally prudent local authority, expects to look after no more and no fewer children in the next year. Its looked-after numbers have been relatively stable for the past four or five years. However, the cost of looking after its 950 children will rise by around £7 million this year, with the average cost of a placement for each child now at £132,000 per annum compared to £119,000 a year ago. Local authorities need to know what plans the Government have to ensure that children continue to receive the right support at the right time.
There are two areas that I will bring to your Lordships’ attention: early intervention and support for foster carers. At this point, I also declare an interest as having been a foster carer for over 12 years. First, reduced local authority funding is already having a disproportionate impact on services that provide vital early intervention. The Stable Homes, Built on Love review and strategy recognised the huge value of offering help earlier, especially the value of support based in local communities, which often work with key agencies. One such community partner that has been working successfully in this area is Safe Families, a Christian faith-based charity that works with more than 35 local authorities across the country, including Nottingham. It is focused on providing community-based support networks that help to prevent needs from escalating and children needing to go into local authority care. However, in eight of the 35 authorities, Safe Families has had funding reduced or cut, because the local authorities simply do not have the finance to continue funding the service, even though they recognise the immense value of that work. Compelled to cut funding to all but statutory services, not only are we failing families but we will see an increase in costs as the numbers of children going into care continue to rise now and in the years to come.
Secondly, funding constraints lead to less support for foster carers at a time when there is an ever-growing crisis in recruiting and retaining them. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for highlighting just how serious that issue has become. Over the last five years, there has been an 8% decrease in the number of approved foster carers in England. Yet the independent review in 2022 recommends that over 9,000 new foster carers be recruited within three years. More concerning still is the number of carers leaving the service each year. According to figures published by Ofsted in November, during the last financial year there was a net loss of 1,050 fostering households, which we simply cannot afford. A bold national focus and campaign on recruiting new foster carers needs to be placed alongside a far more robust retention strategy.
In my work as a foster carer, I have met many dedicated carers whose contribution to the well-being of some of the most vulnerable children is inspirational. The difference they make needs to be celebrated and properly rewarded. In summary, I ask the Government to review what further steps can be taken without delay to ensure that there is a sustainable, equitable funding settlement for all local authorities, and to dedicate investment in early help services and multiagency support that is ring-fenced in order to reduce the number of children who need to be brought into care.
Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said that the state had a poor record as a substitute parent and often fell short. Every contribution that we have heard today has agreed with that. They agreed with the principle that, if possible, families should be kept together, and that is the statutory responsibility on local authorities. Too often, however, as we have heard, intervention comes too late and other things mitigate against that.
The independent review by Josh MacAlister, who was CE at Frontline when I was the chair of Frontline—I am currently the patron of Frontline—is really visionary. I congratulate the Government on putting some of that review on its pathfinder areas, but I feel that the radical reset that that report asks for is the fundamental answer to this question. It would enable social workers to work alongside a series of other professionals. It would enable us to get family help together much earlier. It also recognises the vital role that many kinship carers and guardians play. I ask the Government to accelerate their rollout of that programme because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wood, and others have said, to do otherwise really is a false economy. This is money you get back when you invest it early.
My other point is about the family drug and alcohol courts. These are a really impressive experiment that act as an alternative to conventional care proceedings. Where they have been tried, they have had quite extraordinary results. There was a recent evaluation that found, for example, that half the children in FDAC proceedings have been reunited with their primary carer, compared with only 12.5% in standard proceedings. Some 33% of parents have ceased to misuse drugs and alcohol versus only 8% in standard care proceedings, and only 7% of the FDAC cases have used external expert witnesses— some noble Lords will know that I have had a long-standing beef about that—compared with 90% in conventional proceedings. It is really a very impressive record.
What that project needs now is some commitment from the Government to provide a fairly small amount of ring-fenced funding. I have just heard that one project in Cardiff that was enthusiastically supported has had to be withdrawn because of lack of funding. I would appreciate a response from the Minister on that point because, as others have said—the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made the point very well—what we do today influences the outcomes for these children for the rest of their lives.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for securing such an important debate and for his insight based on a huge amount of experience and expertise in this subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, there is no person better placed to lead this debate. As my noble friend Lord Wood said, this debate is timely because, regrettably, it is always timely.
I recently had the privilege and pleasure of hosting an event with the charity Become, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. They brought with them a group of young people who spoke clearly of their experience in the care system and the need for change. As has come through strongly in all the speeches, there is no greater responsibility of any government at whatever level than to ensure that looked-after children get what they need to be happy, feel loved and thrive; and that these most vulnerable young people—now numbering, shockingly, around 84,000—are actually looked after and cared for.
As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said, it is the responsibility of a local authority to be a good parent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, clearly children who are care-experienced can end up with a life-long adverse impact. They are disproportionately more likely to have special educational needs; they are disproportionately more likely to be represented in prison populations and disproportionately more likely to suffer from poor mental health and low employment rates. There is an intergenerational legacy of poor outcomes.
I want to make it clear that I recognise that Ministers have repeatedly made heartfelt commitments to dealing with the issues facing children in social care. I genuinely do not doubt the Minister’s concern to ensure that children and young people get the care and support that they need and have a right to. However, the fact remains that they are not currently getting this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, we are facing a perfect storm. That is despite the Conservative Party’s clear manifesto commitment, the findings of the excellent independent review led by Josh MacAlister, which the Government commissioned, and the government strategy that is being rolled out.
There is still too little funding in the system to support the aspirations of the strategy. There are too few people—too few social workers, foster carers, and adoptive parents. That is not to say that we do not have phenomenal people working in this field or that every privately run care home is careless with those children in its care. However, the system is flawed. Children and young people are paying the price, with too many moved too far, in some cases up to 500 miles away; as my noble friend Lord Wood said, they are moved an average of 18 miles away from home. Too few children and young people are supported by foster parents or kinship carers, and too few are getting the consistency of care they need from social services or social workers. The model of provision is simply broken, and unless the Government provide the radical reset which the independent review they commissioned called for, the problems the review identified, both current and future, will not be addressed.
One of the key points made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was that leaving intervention to a crisis point is too late. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, said, we should not allow children’s social care to become solely a blue-light emergency service.
Countless noble Lords raised the fact that rising costs of children’s social care placements and the pressures on local government funding mean that funding has been diverted away from early intervention and into services for children already in care.
A number of noble Lords gave some tragic examples of how a failure to intervene and support families can play out. With local government funding already at breaking point, how do the Government expect local authorities to deal with the crisis in children’s social care and invest in early interventions, and how soon will the DfE roll out the pilots intended to support early interventions, including family hubs?
The noble Lord, Lord Young, highlighted the continued significance of adoption in the context of falling adoption levels, and the government strategy has some welcome commitments on foster care, recruitment and retention, and support for kinship carers. The right reverend Prelate spoke passionately about foster care from his own experience, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, highlighted the fact that more foster carers are deregistering than registering, describing some of the reasons for this and the loss of experienced foster families that this causes.
My noble friend Lord Wood highlighted the benefits of kinship carers, in particular the cost savings to the state and the earnings benefit to children and young people later on in life. What is the Government’s assessment of efforts to provide greater support to kinship carers, and has their number increased in practice?
The Local Government Association highlighted in its briefing for this debate that the current vacancy rates of children and family social workers leaving during the year, and sickness absences, are the highest in the DfE’s data series. There are thousands of vacancies, and social care is reliant on agency workers. What impact has the Government’s strategy had so far on recruitment and retention of social workers? Does the DfE indeed have a children’s social care workforce strategy?
Children and young people who are care-experienced come disproportionately from the most disadvantaged and deprived backgrounds. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, black children are also disproportionately represented in the care system. Once in care, around three-quarters of all girls are fostered compared to just over half of boys. What is the Government’s assessment of the long-term impact of this inequality?
I commend the comments from a number of noble Lords who highlighted the broken nature of the market model. The Competition and Markets Authority social care market survey was raised by several speakers, including the fact that resources are therefore diverted away from prevention to cope with rising costs. As my noble friend Lord Wood said, 85% of children’s homes are currently in the private sector. The Competition and Markets Authority also raised concerns about the level of debt carried by some private providers—that point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. What is the Government’s assessment of the viability of the sector, do they have contingency plans for market failure, and what conversations have the Minister or the department had with Ofsted about the failure to prosecute illegal and unregulated care homes in England, as highlighted by the recent Observer newspaper article?
This subject is worthy of a much longer debate. As I have been going through my speech, I have been crossing bits out because I do not have time to say everything I would like to. What is needed is not another debate but action. Good intentions and heartfelt words on a Thursday afternoon are not enough. Too many children and young people are being failed, and unless the radical reset called for in the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, becomes a reality, the situation will not be resolved. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for securing this important debate. As your Lordships know, when one comes into this place, people tell you about the extraordinary experts who sit in the House of Lords, and I do not think anyone epitomises that expertise in relation to children more than the noble Lord, Lord Laming, which he manages to combine with greater humility than anyone.
In preparing for this debate, I was lucky yesterday afternoon to be able to talk to our Children and Young People’s Advisory Board, made up of children and young people with care experience, and our Care Experience Forum, made up of colleagues within the department who have experience of the care system, to hear first hand about what matters to them. I hope the House will bear with me while I reflect their thoughts. Of course, they do not talk in the language of system change, which all of us can agree is needed; they talked about what mattered to them personally, about the human elements.
They were such simple but powerful things, including the value of great communication. All too often they talked about the fact that they did not know what was happening to them or their siblings, they did not feel that the approach looked at the family in the round—whether that was through a family group conference or the work that FDAC does in a more rounded way—and they did not feel that they were listened to. That was from those who were in the care system but, possibly most troubling, I also heard about a remarkable young woman who had not been taken into care and was desperately unsafe in her family. Then, there is a feeling that it all stops when you get to 16. Similarly, they talked about stability, which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, picked up; the numerous social workers and the need—why is it so much to ask?—for a reliable adult whom they can trust. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, also reflected on that turnover of staff.
They talked about the need for greater wraparound support for kinship arrangements. One young woman talked about her and her two siblings going into kinship care with her aunt, who was a single parent with three children of her own. Perhaps unsurprisingly, that was not sustainable, but she felt that with more support it might have been. I hope very much that our work through the Children’s Social Care: Stable Homes, Built on Love strategy shows our commitment to laying the foundations to address those very human issues as well as all the structural change that needs to happen to make that a reality.
Our strategy recognises that the number of looked-after children has increased by 23% over the last 10 years and, as a number of your Lordships noted, now totals 83,840. This rise is due to two key factors—the number of asylum-seeking children entering the system and children spending more time in care. Since 2019, if one takes unaccompanied asylum-seeking children out of the picture, the figure has gone down for non- unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, from 27,950 children going into the care system in 2019 to 25,910. None of us knows what a right number would be, but I am trying to put some of this in perspective. This is reflected in the number of children coming into the system aged 16 or over having risen sharply by 40% since 2019 to almost 9,000.
Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, talked about the issues of children living over 20 miles from home. I thought that figure might have gone up but surprisingly, it has remained relatively stable. It was 20% for children in 2019 and 21% in 2023. However, I am not questioning for a second that we want children as close to home and to their connections as possible.
Almost all your Lordships spoke about the importance of early intervention. We know that families need support before crisis point. We know that early intervention can change the lives of families and help them to overcome challenges before they reach crisis point. We have already invested in this area. We are testing how the multidisciplinary family help teams can provide targeted support through the “families first for children” pathfinders. Overall, we have announced over £1 billion for programmes to improve early help services from birth to adulthood, including through the family hubs.
The tension that we face is whether we can go faster, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, also challenged in that regard. We are genuinely trying to strike a balance, checking that we get the implementation right before we scale up more rapidly. I accept that other noble Lords may have different views on that, but there are too many examples of individual pilots that have been very successful in this area and then, when they get scaled, the impact is diluted. Therefore, we need to be sure that we are building on solid foundations and understand how to deliver at scale. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, asked whether I would commit to all the recommendations in the independent review. She will have seen the Government’s response setting out what we accept wholly or in part.
A number of your Lordships rightly focused on kinship care. We believe that where children cannot live with their birth parents full-time, it is best for them to live with people whom they already know, trust and love. That is why we are championing kinship care arrangements through our first kinship care strategy and the launch of a financial allowance pilot in up to eight local authorities. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle asked about financial support for kinship carers. Of course kinship carers are incredibly important. We talked about just over 83,000 children in the care system, and the data is not as up to date; we have estimates for 2021 of 121,000 children living in kinship care. That figure alone is greater than all other forms of care put together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, asked about family group conferencing. We are implementing a family network pilot to trial family group decision-making in kinship care settings.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham picked up the issue of adoption. Adoption remains the best stable, permanent option for some children, particularly younger children, and can provide them with a loving and stable family for life. Adoption orders have increased slightly this year, for the second year running, but there has been a decline in recent years of children under five coming into care, and we know that most children who are adopted are under five. However, the main focus of our adoption strategy is to improve the speed with which children are matched with families. The number of children waiting to be matched with a new family has fallen from 2,800 in June 2019 to 2,210 in June 2023.
I turn to fostering, which was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, my noble friend Lord Young and many of your Lordships. Over two-thirds of children who are in formal care are in foster care. The numbers of children in foster care again are roughly stable—55,760 in 2019 and 57,020 in 2023. We are investing £36 million to deliver a foster care recruitment and retention programme, and we are working with more than 60% of local authorities to do this. My noble friend Lord Young questioned the effectiveness of this. Our first regional recruitment support hub—Foster with North East—went live in September last year, and the second in the east Midlands in March. We have eight more regions going live this month, so it is a little early to report back on progress.
My noble friend Lord Lexden talked about the important work of the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation. We fully support its work and value it greatly.
Many of your Lordships, led by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, spoke about the importance of children’s home reform. We are committed to resolving the issues which your Lordships raised. The Government are allocating over £400 million to local authorities for children’s homes, increasing both open and secure facilities. The noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, raised the issue of unregulated children’s homes; of course, it is not acceptable that unregistered provision is being used. Running an unregistered children’s home is obviously an offence and Ofsted has the powers to prosecute those involved.
We heard from your Lordships about the huge financial pressures on local authorities as a result of the use of private children’s homes. Your Lordships also referred to the review of the Competition and Markets Authority, which we have accepted; we are implementing all the recommendations to reshape the system.
Obviously, one of the impacts of shortages in that area is the placement of children far from home, so we are introducing a new regional model of regional care co-operatives. We are designing two pathfinders this year with health and justice partners, which will be supported by £5 million of funding. We will announce the successful areas later this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, asked about funding for the workforce and whether we have a workforce strategy. We do, of course, and we have committed £50 million annually to that. The noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Benjamin, asked when we would introduce legislation. In our reform of social care, our focus in these first two years is very much on addressing the most urgent issues.
I close by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for initiating this debate, all your Lordships for contributing, and all those who support locally, nationally, within charities, within local authorities and in the department for their support, so that we can help deliver the change that children and young people who are or have been in care deserve and so that they can thrive.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I hope all noble Lords agree that this has been a terrific debate. I am most grateful to every contributor because of what I have learned: every contribution shared new information and expertise with me. It means that there is a whole new agenda developing, which needs to be addressed, along with a continuing range of issues. I am grateful to the Minister, and I very much hope that, together, we can take this debate forward for the interests of children in our society.